POLITICALPYRO CONTRIBUTORS

We here at the Politicalpyro Contributors Blog love to have fun with the news and on occasion our tongue and cheek pokes make sense.

Our most recent installment was when Hillary Clinton was commenting on our relationship with rouge nations, especially our relationship with N.Korea.

Below is our post from July 20, 2009 on Hillary Clinton’s comments…

N.Korea… As Easy As Dealing With My Husband

Its funny too watch Hillary at times cause I always have in the back of my mind… I wonder if she treats Bill this way.

Take a Look At This > Clinton Likens North Korea To “Unruly Teenagers”

Notables Quotes:

1:39 ~ Well what we’ve seen is this zaa constant daa demand for attention… and daa (thinking about Bill) Well maybe it the mother in me or ahh the experience I’ve had with small children (thinking about Bill, again) and unruly teenagers or people who are demanding attention (Bill standing in his underwear, asking what IS ~ IS) Ahhm, don’t give it to them. They don’t deserve it. They arerrr… acting out in a way to send a message (Thinking about Bill and his use of Cigars) that is not a message that we are interested in receiving.

And now we have this from todays news…

August 4, 2009, 9:03 am
Bill Clinton Leaves North Korea With Two Freed American Journalists

A photograph released by North Korea’s official Korean Central News Agency shows
North Korean leader Kim Jong-il posing with former President Bill Clinton and his
delegation in Pyongyang on Tuesday.

If attention and star power are indeed what North Korea is after, these images ought to do the trick. This report from The Associated Press shows photographs and video provided by North Korean state television of former President Bill Clinton stepping off a plane in Pyongyang on Tuesday and later meeting the country’s leader, Kim Jong-il:

According to this video report by the BBC, the video of Mr. Clinton’s arrival in Pyongyang was featured in a news bulletin on North Korean state television on Tuesday evening, just after a report on the improving quality of biscuits at a local factory. The report on Mr. Clinton’s arrival on the North Korean television news program is posted on The Guardian’s Web site. For a better look at the greeting, readers can also study more raw video of the arrival, captured by North Korean cameras and posted on the BBC’s Web site.

They also quoted a statement from Mr. Gibbs, President Obama’s spokesman, who said: “While this solely private mission to secure the release of two Americans is on the ground, we will have no comment.” Mr. Gibbs added: “We do not want to jeopardize the success of former President Clinton’s mission.”

Wrap Up>>>

Now… One of two things happened here. Hillary read my post and a light bulb went off in her head or Bill really went to N.Korea to beg them to give back the nuclear technologies he gave them back on his watch. Which ever the case may be it still begs the question… What in the hell is Bill Clinton really doing in N.Korea?

Take the Poll:

Death of a Doctrine
Obama Discovers Engagement’s Limits

By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, July 29, 2009

The Obama administration lacks a foreign policy ideology as a matter of ideology. Speaking recently at the Council on Foreign Relations, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserted, “Rigid ideologies and old formulas don’t apply.” The torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans — tempered by pragmatism, proud of its ad hockery and willing to consider everything on a case-by-case basis.

But even lacking an ideology, the administration does have a doctrine. The defining principle of President Obama’s foreign policy is engagement with America’s adversaries. Much of the president’s public diplomacy has been designed to clear a path for such talks — expressing respect for legitimate grievances, apologizing for past wrongs and offering dialogue without preconditions.

Six months on, how fares the Obama doctrine? Concerning North Korea and Iran, the doctrine is on its deathbed.

North Korea responded to administration outreach by testing a nuclear weapon, firing missiles toward U.S. allies, resuming plutonium reprocessing and threatening the United States with a “fire shower of nuclear retaliation.” During congressional testimony, Clinton admitted, “At this point [it] seems implausible, if not impossible, the North Koreans will return to the six-party talks and begin to disable their nuclear capacity again.”

The Iranian regime’s reaction to engagement was to cut the ribbon on a nuclear enrichment facility, add centrifuges, conduct a fraudulent election, and kill and imprison a variety of political opponents. Regarding administration overtures, Clinton recently told the BBC, “We haven’t had any response. We’ve certainly reached out and made it clear that’s what we’d be willing to do . . . but I don’t think they have any capacity to make that kind of decision right now.”

The problem is not engagement itself — which was, after all, attempted in various forms by the previous administration. The difficulty is that the Obama foreign policy team has often argued that the reason for tension and conflict with nations such as North Korea and Iran is a lack of adequate American engagement — which is absurd, and which has raised absurdly high expectations.

During the 2008 campaign, for example, Obama adviser P.J. Crowley (now State Department spokesman) argued, “Hard-liners on both sides have dominated that relationship and made it very difficult for the United States and Iran to come together and have a serious conversation.” But can the lack of a serious conversation with Iran — or with North Korea — now credibly be blamed on the previous administration? Obama’s diplomatic hand has been extended for a while now. Fists remain clenched. This is not because some magical diplomatic words remain unspoken. It is because of the nature of oppressive regimes themselves.

Such regimes are often internally preoccupied. Precisely because they lack genuine legitimacy, they spend large amounts of time and effort maintaining their fragile authority, consolidating power and managing undemocratic transitions. North Korea confronts a succession crisis. Iran deals with growing dissent and clerical division. Both tend to make calculations based on internal power struggles, not some rational calculation of their external image and interests. They are so inwardly focused that they do not have, as Clinton said, “any capacity” to respond to engagement. It is questionable in these cases whether we currently have any serious negotiating partners at all.

And the inherent instability of oppressive regimes also leads them to tighten control by invoking threats from abroad — particularly from the United States. Because anti-Americanism is a central commitment of North Korean and Iranian ideologies, any softening of this resentment requires a kind of voluntary regime change. Pyongyang and Tehran would need to find a new source of legitimacy — a new prop for their power — other than hatred for America. Not easy or likely.

The Obama administration’s public campaign of engaging enemies is headed toward an entirely unintended consequence. Eventually it will raise expectations for action. As the extended hand is slapped again and again, the goals of North Korea and Iran will be fully revealed and the cost to American credibility will rise. Already the administration has given Iran a September deadline to respond to the offer of talks and has threatened “crippling action” if Iran achieves nuclear capabilities. Congress is preparing sanctions on Iranian refined petroleum, which would escalate tensions significantly.

This is the paradox of the Obama doctrine. By attempting to engage North Korea and Iran so visibly, Obama is dramatically exposing the limits of engagement — and building the case for confrontation.

Pyro Says:

It is all warm an fuzzy to be a narcissist’s… But when dealing with megalomaniacs, tyrants and just plain dictator thugs… Warm and fuzzy just don’t work.

It took me a few minutes to get through this piece. Its nicely put together and does not miss anything.

Here is the Link: Barack Obama: The Naked Emperor

I am getting sick and tired of news outlets coupling Bush with Clinton on the North Korean problem.

George W. Bush wanted to turn North Korea into a parking lot, but the United Nations and the rest of the Bush haters tied ‘W’s’ hands so that this Clinton problem would become part of the Bush legacy.

If your memory is failing on this matter, then take a look at these NEWS links below:

Profile: Jim Jung il

Rolling Blunder

It’s Time to Disengage with Kim Jong Il

Clinton was the ‘Great Appeaser’, and Barack is the ‘Great Apologist’. What America needs from Barack Obama right now is not an apology or a pointing of fingers. North Korea is now more dangerous than any other threat that America faces. It is time for action not more words from a Clinton.

And if you missed this on O’Reilly, take a look:

Jon Voight Slams President Obama On The “Factor”

And this From a Few Days Ago>>>

Bringing An End To This False Prophet Obama! Jon Voight

Links:

PRAVDA: American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed