We have spent more than a decade trying to convince the North Koreans to give up their nuclear program, giving them billions in food aid and humanitarian assistance and engaging in multi-party talks, direct negotiations, pretty much any way they wanted to talk, we tried. We even gave them fuel oil to help get them through the cold winters.
What have we gotten in return?
Not a damn thing. They continued their clandestine program after promising to stop, even kicking out international inspectors. They threaten their neighbors, which include three of our largest trading partners (Japan, South Korea and China). They help other rogue states with their nuclear programs, further endangering the World (several N. Korean technicians were rumored to have been killed during Israel's strike on Syria's nuclear plant last year).
They are cheats, liars and scoundrels. So . . . why do we keep thinking that if only we could give them what they want, they will stop all this nonsense? Clinton did it. Bush did it. Now it looks like Obama will follow the failed policies of the last three administrations. This Chamberlain-esque foreign policy is not working. John Bolton was right. The soft approach doesn't work with these people. We need to harden our approach to North Korea.
The long term problem is that if they are allowed to continue to test ballistic missiles and develop more powerful nukes, eventually, they will pose a direct threat to the U.S. At which point, it will be too late to do anything meaningful about it without risking a nuclear missile being shot at our West Coast. We can not deter someone who has nothing to lose. Deterrence worked with the Soviets because they thought about their country, and survival, in conventional terms.
So, here's my plan: coordinated Chinese/American/Japanese naval and air blockade, coupled with economic blockade, until such time that they either start a war, in which case China and the U.S. will finish it quickly, or they give in and give up power (we may need to agree to let the leaders live in exile . . . Guantanamo Beach Resort, perhaps?) so that the North can be incorporated into the South and the dynamic on the Korean penninsula totally changes. War is the most likely outcome of a blockade, let's not kid ourselves. But better now than after they perfect a ballistic missile capable of reaching LA.
If China won't join, let's negotiate at least a standstill with them. China doesn't want American troops on their border. We may need to temporarily have U.S. troops in North Korean territory, but just until the hostilities end. After that, we won't move them any further North than Seoul and eventually (on a set timetable) out of the country altogether as the main justification for having them there would be gone (this could be the card China wants to see played).
There is no other path forward. We can not trust the North Koreans. They continue to lie, cheat and steal. We can choose to continue to play the delay game, but this works in their favor, not ours. As we wait patiently for change, they continue to export nuclear and missile technology and thumb their noses at the UN and USA. If we keep this up, eventually, they will develop a three stage missile that can reach the West Coast. Or, they will sell a nuke to a nonstate actor, which would challenge the deterrence scheme that has assured no wartime use of nuclear arms since 1945.
The time to act is now. Wouldn't it be ironic if President Obama did what Bush was unwilling to do with respect to North Korea?
Woldy
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
Political Update
1. Ed Liddy is Quitting.
Big surprise after the reception he received on Capitol Hill a few weeks ago. Those Congressmen, strutting, posing and wagging their fingers for the cameras, treated this accomplished businessman as if he created the problems at AIG. To the contrary. Ed Liddy graciously accepted the position of CEO of AIG at the request of the Treasury Department well after the bailouts started. Not only that, but this principled man said he would take the job, but on the condition that he be paid $1 per year to do it. And, by all accounts, he was doing a fabulous job winding down the costly positions and selling assets.
Remember, we taxpayers own 85% of AIG. And, we want the best people to help us run this company or we'll never get paid back the $180 BILLION we have extended to them (or any part of it). So, will someone please help explain how we are going to attract talented business leaders to come to this company when they saw Ed Liddy (at $1 a year) get that kind of treatment?
What planet are these people in Washington living on?
2. Trial Lawyers LOVE Obama.
They absolutely adore him. Trial lawyers will be building their next set of mansions, paying college tuition and buying new Rolls Royces for years to come because of our young President's decisions in his first few months in office. Let's take this week's news that, by executive order, President Obama directed the Federal Government to undo possibly the most constructive thing the Bush Administration did. Which was, to try to coordinate product liability issues at the Federal level, rather than force companies to attempt to follow 50 different sets of state rules.
The Bush Administration, for all its faults, did understand business needs better than Obama has so far shown. And, why is it important to understand business needs when it is the "little guy" who really needs protecting? Because in this case, you need to look a little deeper to see who really benefits from this sweeping change of the law. It ain't the little guy. It is the trial lawyers who have been stymied by this, and other regulatory changes over the past 10 years. The trial lawyers stand to benefit immensely because it is now OPEN SEASON on companies who make products for the U.S. economy. Instead of one set of rules, now there are 51 (50 states plus one federal). And, these rules are in constant motion. This has a debilitating impact on companies' ability to plan. And, if you can't plan your business, you don't spend money expanding it. Because your return on investment is cloudy, at best. So, you don't buy machinery or hire people. It really isn't any more complicated than that.
Why does all this matter? It only matters if you think that growing the economy and creating jobs is important. If you don't, then it doesn't matter. And, I don't buy for a second that this is a tradeoff between a system that wasn't working before (prove it) and now we will have regulatory nirvana by having 51 sets of rules. There was no identifiable problem, except from the viewpoint of trial lawyers, who really did not like the cap on their compensation.
Woldy
Big surprise after the reception he received on Capitol Hill a few weeks ago. Those Congressmen, strutting, posing and wagging their fingers for the cameras, treated this accomplished businessman as if he created the problems at AIG. To the contrary. Ed Liddy graciously accepted the position of CEO of AIG at the request of the Treasury Department well after the bailouts started. Not only that, but this principled man said he would take the job, but on the condition that he be paid $1 per year to do it. And, by all accounts, he was doing a fabulous job winding down the costly positions and selling assets.
Remember, we taxpayers own 85% of AIG. And, we want the best people to help us run this company or we'll never get paid back the $180 BILLION we have extended to them (or any part of it). So, will someone please help explain how we are going to attract talented business leaders to come to this company when they saw Ed Liddy (at $1 a year) get that kind of treatment?
What planet are these people in Washington living on?
2. Trial Lawyers LOVE Obama.
They absolutely adore him. Trial lawyers will be building their next set of mansions, paying college tuition and buying new Rolls Royces for years to come because of our young President's decisions in his first few months in office. Let's take this week's news that, by executive order, President Obama directed the Federal Government to undo possibly the most constructive thing the Bush Administration did. Which was, to try to coordinate product liability issues at the Federal level, rather than force companies to attempt to follow 50 different sets of state rules.
The Bush Administration, for all its faults, did understand business needs better than Obama has so far shown. And, why is it important to understand business needs when it is the "little guy" who really needs protecting? Because in this case, you need to look a little deeper to see who really benefits from this sweeping change of the law. It ain't the little guy. It is the trial lawyers who have been stymied by this, and other regulatory changes over the past 10 years. The trial lawyers stand to benefit immensely because it is now OPEN SEASON on companies who make products for the U.S. economy. Instead of one set of rules, now there are 51 (50 states plus one federal). And, these rules are in constant motion. This has a debilitating impact on companies' ability to plan. And, if you can't plan your business, you don't spend money expanding it. Because your return on investment is cloudy, at best. So, you don't buy machinery or hire people. It really isn't any more complicated than that.
Why does all this matter? It only matters if you think that growing the economy and creating jobs is important. If you don't, then it doesn't matter. And, I don't buy for a second that this is a tradeoff between a system that wasn't working before (prove it) and now we will have regulatory nirvana by having 51 sets of rules. There was no identifiable problem, except from the viewpoint of trial lawyers, who really did not like the cap on their compensation.
Woldy
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Pelosi Should Resign
House Speaker Pelosi has been over her head in this job since she took it. Her stamnmering performance this week has just highlighted how unprepared she is for national leadership. Time to go, Nancy. Your Party needs someone else in that position. Someone who could reasonably stand third in line for the Presidency. You are not that person.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Uh-oh . . . Dems Knew About Waterboarding
Trouble with demanding access to information is that once you get access to information, you can't stand up and deny it . . . or can you?
Nancy Pelosi says she was never told about waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques. Part of what is fueling her outrage is that this was all done behind their Congressional backs (the other part is politics, of course, to stick it to the Bush Administration). Well, it seems as though there is some disagreement on this subject. The CIA claims they went to Capital Hill over 40 times to brief Congressional leadership, including, as far back as 2002, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi.
Hmmmm. . . seems we are in a bit of a pickle. It will be interesting to see if the Honorable Nancy chooses the Reagan Defense . . . "you know, I just don't recall what was said in that particular briefing . . . there are so many briefings . . . " Or, maybe the Twinkie Defense will work better.
The other thing to watch for is the memo detailing the terrorist attacks that were averted as a result of information obtained during harsh interrogation techniques. This particular memo will feature fun facts such as the number of Americans who are alive today because of this "tainted" information, what cities and landmarks were targeted, how it was going to happen, and who was going to do it. When the heat gets turned up on this issue, as it inevitably will, just after the indictments are handed down . . . watch for this memo to leak. There will be predictable outrage that the very people who kept us safe during the heat of the battle (when outcome is most uncertain) are now (sic) being tried for doing what it took to keep us safe.
Talk about unexploded ordinance.
Congressional Democrats, and their allies, are setting themselves up for a huge fall. Some may actually realize what they are doing, but the momentum has taken over. The release of the "torture memos" started the ball rolling and now there are multiple investigations on the Hill. The process is hard to stop. Even when Congress knows the right answer, they just can't seem to find a way to undo what they did. The outlines of what will happen are crystal clear.
Woldy
Nancy Pelosi says she was never told about waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques. Part of what is fueling her outrage is that this was all done behind their Congressional backs (the other part is politics, of course, to stick it to the Bush Administration). Well, it seems as though there is some disagreement on this subject. The CIA claims they went to Capital Hill over 40 times to brief Congressional leadership, including, as far back as 2002, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi.
Hmmmm. . . seems we are in a bit of a pickle. It will be interesting to see if the Honorable Nancy chooses the Reagan Defense . . . "you know, I just don't recall what was said in that particular briefing . . . there are so many briefings . . . " Or, maybe the Twinkie Defense will work better.
The other thing to watch for is the memo detailing the terrorist attacks that were averted as a result of information obtained during harsh interrogation techniques. This particular memo will feature fun facts such as the number of Americans who are alive today because of this "tainted" information, what cities and landmarks were targeted, how it was going to happen, and who was going to do it. When the heat gets turned up on this issue, as it inevitably will, just after the indictments are handed down . . . watch for this memo to leak. There will be predictable outrage that the very people who kept us safe during the heat of the battle (when outcome is most uncertain) are now (sic) being tried for doing what it took to keep us safe.
Talk about unexploded ordinance.
Congressional Democrats, and their allies, are setting themselves up for a huge fall. Some may actually realize what they are doing, but the momentum has taken over. The release of the "torture memos" started the ball rolling and now there are multiple investigations on the Hill. The process is hard to stop. Even when Congress knows the right answer, they just can't seem to find a way to undo what they did. The outlines of what will happen are crystal clear.
Woldy
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Swine Flu-a-palooza!
I was in Los Cabos, Mexico last week and experienced first-hand the hysteria that is Swine Flu. First, an observation. There was nobody in Los Cabos. The place was empty when we got there. As we left, the planes arriving from cities in Mexico, were packed. People were streaming out of the big cities.
Second, an editorial about the "pandemic" . . . A grand total (as of this morning's NYT) of 19 confirmed deaths - worldwide - from this flu so far. To put that figure into perspective, about 100 people die every day in the U.S. from various strains of flu - 36,000 Americans each and every year. The President wisely told us to . . . wash our hands, and cough into a hankie. The Vice President counseled us not to use the subway or fly commerically during this "pandemic" (?!?!?). Media outlets have been breathlessly reporting from Mexico City, masks over their faces.
Has the world gone mad, or is it just me? I am sure that Pelosi and Waxman will agree that this is all the fault of the pharmaceutical companies, and other "big business".
NEXT: SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS
President Obama has been given the constitutional opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. On its face, this is a good thing (about time), and the people that are being talked about (including a couple of U of C Law profs I took classes from) are all highly qualified jurists who would do a great job. BUT FOR THE FACT that Obama is talking about the need for a Supreme Court nominee who "understands" the needs of working families and can "empathize" with the average working man, I would feel great about this impending nomination.
I just do not understand what this has to do with being a jurist. As a jurist, you are not a legislator. You are not tasked with empathizing with one side or another. Your task is to determine what is the correct outcome UNDER THE RULE OF LAW, not under the rule of some social litmust test that our President would like to push.
Is this any better than what Bush did?
As a lawyer, and a concerned citizen, I object to the idea that people nominated to be Supreme Court justices need to adhere to a particular social agenda. They have the critical function of providing balance to the other two branches of our Government, not singing in the chorus for them.
The more I see, the more I don't like - and I know I am not alone. I am firmly in the center of the political spectrum and there are a lot of indpendents like me who are feeling increasingly uncomfortable. Wonder what the next 100 days is going to look like.
Woldy
Second, an editorial about the "pandemic" . . . A grand total (as of this morning's NYT) of 19 confirmed deaths - worldwide - from this flu so far. To put that figure into perspective, about 100 people die every day in the U.S. from various strains of flu - 36,000 Americans each and every year. The President wisely told us to . . . wash our hands, and cough into a hankie. The Vice President counseled us not to use the subway or fly commerically during this "pandemic" (?!?!?). Media outlets have been breathlessly reporting from Mexico City, masks over their faces.
Has the world gone mad, or is it just me? I am sure that Pelosi and Waxman will agree that this is all the fault of the pharmaceutical companies, and other "big business".
NEXT: SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS
President Obama has been given the constitutional opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. On its face, this is a good thing (about time), and the people that are being talked about (including a couple of U of C Law profs I took classes from) are all highly qualified jurists who would do a great job. BUT FOR THE FACT that Obama is talking about the need for a Supreme Court nominee who "understands" the needs of working families and can "empathize" with the average working man, I would feel great about this impending nomination.
I just do not understand what this has to do with being a jurist. As a jurist, you are not a legislator. You are not tasked with empathizing with one side or another. Your task is to determine what is the correct outcome UNDER THE RULE OF LAW, not under the rule of some social litmust test that our President would like to push.
Is this any better than what Bush did?
As a lawyer, and a concerned citizen, I object to the idea that people nominated to be Supreme Court justices need to adhere to a particular social agenda. They have the critical function of providing balance to the other two branches of our Government, not singing in the chorus for them.
The more I see, the more I don't like - and I know I am not alone. I am firmly in the center of the political spectrum and there are a lot of indpendents like me who are feeling increasingly uncomfortable. Wonder what the next 100 days is going to look like.
Woldy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)