A Lesson to be relearned
by Rense Johnson, Chairman
Citizens for Term Limits … for a fresh Congress!
May 27, 2009
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” — Winston Churchill, 1939, at beginning of WWII
Now, over Memorial Day, 2009 we learn that North Korea has exploded a buried nuclear device, and sent several missiles flying eastward, one believed to have the capability of reaching our military base in Guam, with extended range from there only a matter of time.
The foregoing was followed by a not so subtle declaration that their truce with us (I had forgotten we had one) was now terminated. Experience has taught Korea’s Kim Jung-Il that this was a perfectly safe move from his standpoint.
So now has come to pass what we foresaw three years ago: that weak presidents are like red meat to America’s enemies. May 25 on Fox News Special Report with Bret Baier we heard Steve Hayes, Senior Writer for the Weekly Standard pronounce the [George W.] Bush administration’s North Korea Policy “an utter failure . . . a disaster.”
Is Barack Obama’s leadership any stronger?
I doubt it. With missiles flying from North Korea and threatened from Iran, Obama wants to cut funding for missile defense – one part of our defense where technological improvement can be relatively inexpensive and yet highly promising compared to its modest cost.
Earlier this year after another missile firing by North Korea, we remembered what we had written in 2006:
Weak American presidents attract international attention
In early July of 2006 North Korea’s tin horn dictator Kim Jong-Il test-fired several missiles from their launching site, one of which was their famous Taepodong-2 missile designed as to be of intercontinental capability.
This was that same Kim Jong-Il, who never kept a promise in his life, and had consistently been able to get his way with such tactics.
The Taepodong-2 failed right after liftoff, but where might it have been aimed?
It was aimed eastward, in our direction. It was an act of war, and President Bush should have treated it as such. He should have immediately bombed (conventionally) that launching site to show the world that America was not to be trifled with.
We remember President Theodore Roosevelt’s dictum: “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”
What did Bush do with all the world watching?
He armed himself with a wet noodle. He did nothing.
Not only was North Korea emboldened, but Iran as well. It was a signal of no guts from the President of the United States.
Why did President Bush and Secretary of State Rice keep talking about “diplomacy,” and offering “incentives” to these people whose only incentives are to destroy all of Western Civilization and America with it.?
Not long ago, on a surprise call-in to C-Span, Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger warned that if the United States and its allies “don’t do something about Iran and its building of nuclear weapons, and North Korea and its building of nuclear weapons, there’s going to come a time about 10 years from now when Americans are going to look back and say, ‘What in the devil were we doing sitting there watching this develop?’” [I wish I had kept the exact date of the call-in, I’m pretty sure that 10 years was optimistic]
By now it should be obvious what does not work: talk, bait, bribes and United Nations resolutions.
Would the bombing of Iranian nuclear centers and North Korean missile capabilities be dangerous? Very. Much more than it would have been in 2006 when Bush had his opportunity. But we are fooling ourselves if we believe that the situation with either of these two Axis of Evil countries is going to magically improve so that we can muddle through.
Churchill was right.
Comments