RUSH: Steve Doocy today was talking to our ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. Doocy said, “Yesterday on the way home I heard Rush Limbaugh talking on the radio about how we need a naval blockade so that anything going into or out of North Korea, we know exactly what’s on there. Make sure it’s not something illegal or something that could blow up. Is that a good idea?”
BOLTON: That’s something that’s important not only for their weapons of mass destruction but, you know, they’re counterfeiting America money. They’re engaged in money laundering, they’re engaged in the sale of drugs through diplomatic pouches. They’re doing all kinds of things to get money to support the regime. That’s all the sort of thing we’d like to cut off.
RUSH: Yes! Well, Foley… Foley! (See, it even happens to me.) Doocy. (No offense, Steve. I don’t think you look like Foley nor sound like him.) Doocy: “Yeah, but what about a naval blockade? How likely is that?”
BOLTON: Well, we’re not at that point yet but what we need, really, is further international cooperation with our own proliferation security initiative, which the president created a few years ago of which has been quite successful in reducing the flow of weapons of mass destruction materials. We’d like broader cooperation from China, for example, on that. That’s one of the things we’re seeking here.
RUSH: All right, now, there are a couple of news stories here that are quite interesting. The Chicago Tribune today, an analysis piece by Mark Silva of their Washington bureau, “North Korea Bested US for Years — Washington now paying price for decades of failed tactics, critics say. How did we get here? Thirty-four years of blinking, bending the rules, and groveling, roughly in that order. If somebody wants to pick on President Clinton or President Bush they really don’t understand how rich the target is. It really goes much further.” Folks, when you say “Washington now paying a price for decades of failed tactics,” it wasn’t tactics. It’s diplomacy!
If anything is on display here, it is that diplomacy doesn’t work against people like Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — or any other tyrant dictator thug who has mass murderous ambitions. It just doesn’t work! Why would talking to these people cause them to get rid of what they’re doing just because their enemies want them to? Now, China is a different situation, and we talked about China yesterday on this program. In addition to the naval blockade, there are a number of ways to press China on this. Now, the news today is that the Chinese feel insulted. The Chinese feel disrespected that they weren’t consulted before this test, whatever it was, was detonated, and they’re upset.
Now, the trains are still running between China and North Korea. I can’t imagine why anybody would want to go to either place, but particularly North Korea, but there are trains going back and forth. The relations are still underway, but the Chinese are — it’s being said that the administration of president or premiere Hu Jintao is angry and feeling a little disrespected here because the pot-bellied, dog-eating dictator did not consult him about this. We made the point yesterday on this program that the way to deal with the North Koreans is the Cold War model. North Korea is a satellite country of China’s. Regardless what anybody says, it can’t survive without China — and, you know, China’s out there protesting this point, but it’s worthless.
Everybody knows that North Korea couldn’t get anywhere near a nuclear program without the support of China. Now, you tell that region of the world, “All right.” You remember we put the Pershing missiles in Europe. What is the equivalent? The equivalent is, you go tell China and you tell the North Koreans we’re putting offensive nuclear weapons in Japan, and we’re going to have some economic sanctions against you in China. “It might be harmful to us for a while, but it will be worse on you.” There’s any number of things here that can be done that would not be the same as an actual naval blockade, but they would have somewhat similar impact, but you start telling those nations in that region of the world that we’re going to arm up Japanese with offensive nuclear weapons and you say to them, “We’re not putting up with this. We’re not putting up with this unholy alliance that you have established here.”
There’s no reason Japan shouldn’t have nukes — and South Korea, too! We’ll give some nukes to South Korea. There’s no reason they shouldn’t have this kind of technology, especially if the North does. If the rogue states we worry about, folks. We had the call yesterday from the guy in Pittsburgh, and, “Why shouldn’t they? Why shouldn’t the Iranians have nuclear weapons? They’re just people, too.” The bottom line is, we don’t care about democracies and freedom loving people having nukes. They use them as deterrents. But we do worry about people like Ahmadinejad who promises to use them and Kim Jong Il. That is a problem. If you’re unable to draw distinctions between good guys and bad guys you’re in heap big trouble, and many Americans are in heap big trouble. Seattle Times: “North Korea’s fears of a US invasion likely helped spur the apparent testing of a nuclear warhead Monday, according to a University of Washington professor who has spent much of his career studying the Korean peninsula.
“‘That’s the lesson they learned from the Iraq war, that as part of the Bush administration’s axis of evil they need to be prepared for a US first strike,’ said Clark Sorenson, associate professor at the Henry M. Jackson School,” that would be Scoop Jackson, “of International Studies.” Well, let’s go some more audio sound bites on this because I’ll betcha we can find some other Americans who think it’s Bush’s fault for calling them axis of evil members that cause them to ramp up and do nukes. Yes, it’s all Bush’s fault! How easy, how sophomoric, and how pedantic it is for these Democrats to simply come out and blame Bush. They are being frivolous, folks. The Drive-By Media and Democrats are frivolous in this. They are not being serious. They are looking at this as merely as everything else they look at: a political issue — How can we turn this so it hurts Bush? — rather than the real national security issue that it is. We have a montage here about Bush, whether he’s a cowboy or not. We have Algore, Bill Schneider, Harry Reid, Chris Matthews, David Gregory, Juan Williams, Claire Shipman, and Algore again. This montage features sound bites from 1999 to the present.
ALGORE: You know, this go-it-alone, cowboy type approach…
BILL SCHNEIDER: It’s an attitude they don’t like; they don’t appreciate. It’s the cowboy mentality.
HARRY REID: “Bring ’em on,”cowboy diplomacy.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: You’ve covered diplomatic areas. Is this too much the cowboy for them?
DAVID GREGORY: It may reinforce stereotypes about Bush being a cowboy.
JUAN WILLIAMS: You see him in a cowboy hat on the ranch. He’s a cowboy.
CLAIRE SHIPMAN: It was the end of cowboy diplomacy. The hats and boots are back on.
ALGORE: I think that the kind of a cowboy, go-it-alone attitude.
RUSH: Okay, now, this is all about the liberals bashing Bush for not dealing one on one with North Korea, but when he acts alone he’s a cowboy! When they think he went into Iraq unilateral, that’s cowboy diplomacy, but they want him to act as a cowboy with North Korea. So it’s not that they care what he does, it’s just that whatever he does, they’re going to be critical of it. Yesterday Eric Shawn on the Fox News Channel was on the street, caught up with a North Korean diplomat, who said this about President Bush.
NORKORCOM LACKEY: This policy is hostile to us. We have to counter that.
SHAWN: Why? Why is that?
NORKORCOM LACKEY: I think the Bush administration is a’trigger happy.
RUSH: Right, okay. So just like Al-Qaeda, just like Iran, just like Hugo Chavez, the North Koreans take their cues from the American left. A North Korean diplomat says, “Bush is trigger happy.” Ayman al-Zawahiri, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Ali Baba Sabada Hu, whatever, it doesn’t matter who these people are, they repeat Democrat talking points when talk about George W. Bush! “He’s a cowboy. He’s trigger happy. US policy is hostile to us.” Yeah, well, there’s a reason if it is hostile to you. It deserves to be, you people are a murdering bunch of tyrant communists who slaughter and starve your own people. Now you’re attempting to get a nuclear weapon, and we can’t afford to take a chance what you might do with it. You know, we are also extremely hostile to criminals in this country. Well, some of us are. Liberals like to coddle them. But we in general are hostile to people who want to harm others who aren’t doing anything to them. We are hostile in the nature of national defense, and many of us — Mr. Spokesman, ambassador, whoever — make no mistake and make no apology for it. There are definitely hostilities. In fact, I think, my memory is the world hates us, right now, Mr. Ambassador. Are we talking about nuking everybody?
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.