RODS FROM GOD: The rods are currently just a concept--and have been since the early 1980s--but, if the myriad technical and political hurdles to deployment could be overcome, the system could represent a tremendous leap forward in the military's ability to destroy underground, hardened facilities of the type that have allowed Iran and other rogue states to violate the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty with impunity.
HOW DO THE RODS WORK: The system would likely be comprised of tandem satellites, one serving as a communications platform, the other carrying an indeterminate number of tungsten rods, each up to 20 feet in length and 1 foot in diameter. These rods, which could be dropped on a target with as little as 15 minutes notice, would enter the Earth's atmosphere at a speed of 36,000 feet per second--about as fast as a meteor. Upon impact, the rod would be capable of producing all the effects of an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon, without any of the radioactive fallout.
No muss, no fuss.
Let me guess, your family owns several tungsten mines.
actually we need a big parking lot for our Haliburton factory in Iraq.
This is the part from the article that scares the crap out of me:
"A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was ???absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb??? if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do ???what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,??? and ???that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.??? [/b]"
Because I really believe that he can think this way deep down. It's the messianism - it causes people to do crazy things. He may also be looking at his falling numbers and think "what do I have to lose?"
Also, I am willing to believe that Iran is reaching out to try and work things out diplomatically. I wouldn't trust the administration saying they are not, if for no other reason than Bush's ability to repeatedly and publicly lie about the fact that Hussein would not let weapons inspectors in during the lead up to war, when everyone knows that he did.
How can Bush get away with such a blatant untruth?
What it really may come down to this time is whether Congress has the balls to stand up to his craziness and demand better options.
RODS FROM GOD: The rods are currently just a concept--and have been since the early 1980s--but, if the myriad technical and political hurdles to deployment could be overcome, the system could represent a tremendous leap forward in the military's ability to destroy underground, hardened facilities of the type that have allowed Iran and other rogue states to violate the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty with impunity.
HOW DO THE RODS WORK: The system would likely be comprised of tandem satellites, one serving as a communications platform, the other carrying an indeterminate number of tungsten rods, each up to 20 feet in length and 1 foot in diameter. These rods, which could be dropped on a target with as little as 15 minutes notice, would enter the Earth's atmosphere at a speed of 36,000 feet per second--about as fast as a meteor. Upon impact, the rod would be capable of producing all the effects of an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon, without any of the radioactive fallout.
No muss, no fuss.
Let me guess, your family owns several tungsten mines.
I mean, preemptive tactical nuclear strikes? Fuck...remember when the U.S. fought against[/b] nuclear apocalypse?
Ooohh-ooohhh... I know this one. Was that Hiroshima? No, no, wait, must have been Nagasaki.
Why wasn't America threatening to invade India when they went nuclear? Or Pakistan? Or fuckin' Israel? Hardly surprising Iran feel there are double standards on proliferation.
Oh, and whoever asked if Bush is a rightwing fundamentalist, now THAT[/b] was funny.
I expected sarcasm. Sarcasm is often the method employed when you want to attack someones position on an issue but have no real confidence in your own. Its obvious no one wants to substantiate the right wing fundamentalist claim because theyre conscious theyll look ridiculous in doing so.
I mean, preemptive tactical nuclear strikes? Fuck...remember when the U.S. fought against[/b] nuclear apocalypse?
Ooohh-ooohhh... I know this one. Was that Hiroshima? No, no, wait, must have been Nagasaki.
Ah, touche.
Why wasn't America threatening to invade India when they went nuclear? Or Pakistan? Or fuckin' Israel? Hardly surprising Iran feel there are double standards on proliferation.
Well, the lesson a lot of nations are learning is if you don't have a serious deterrent, such as a nuke, the U.S. will roll right over you.
I expected sarcasm. Sarcasm is often the method employed when you want to attack someones position on an issue but have no real confidence in your own. Its obvious no one wants to substantiate the right wing fundamentalist claim because theyre conscious theyll look ridiculous in doing so.
Would you care to substantiate your position that Bush isn't a right-wing fundie? After all, it's commonly accepted knowledge that he is, and you're here scoffing at the notion without saying A) why you scoff at the notion, and B) what Bush is if not a right-wing fundie.
do you really believe bush is a right wing fundamentalist?
Yes, I do.
Some of these are, as you can imagine, very anti-Bush, but they do cite some things that he has said and/or done which might answer the question further for you.
Sarcasm is often the method employed when you want to attack someones position on an issue but have no real confidence in your own
I hope to fuck that right-wing fundamentalist arsehole Bush uses sarcasm against Iran... something tells me everybody would be quite, quite safe.
Bush's politics alone suggest a slight lean towards the right of Nixon, Reagan and Bush snr. There are plenty of nice soundbites that sum up the equation Bush=extremoRightWingNutJob, and the first one that springs to mind is "You're either with us or against us". What choice does that leave Switzerland?
do you really believe bush is a right wing fundamentalist?
Yes, I do.
Some of these are, as you can imagine, very anti-Bush, but they do cite some things that he has said and/or done which might answer the question further for you.
just as anti-semites use the term zionist to cloak their prejudice there are those on the left that use the term 'christian fundamentalist' when what they really mean is simply 'christian'. The most any of those articles do is provide examples which prove bush is a christian. From then on they rely on the readers paranoia and prejudice to offer credence to their totally unsubstantiated claims.
Look at the christian aggression article for example. It doesnt even cite bush directly instead utilising excerpts from the book ???The Faith of George W. Bush???. Here is an excerpt from the article which quote the book:
'More than any other presidency in recent years, George W. Bush's presidency is faith based'. ???He has often said???, Mansfield approvingly mentions, ???that faith saved his life, nurtured his family, established his political career and helped form the destiny of the nation'. Bush, so Mansfield claims, ???incorporates his faith and belief in God into every detail of life [???] The President relies upon his faith to direct his actions and goals'. --- ???In no previous administration???, he says, ???has the White House hosted so many weekly Bible Studies and prayer meetings and never have religious leaders been more gratefully welcomed'.
now with this astonishing revelation that a christian persons judgement and decision making is influenced by his belief in christianity here is the very next paragraph from the article:
Bush???s Christian commitment that Mansfield so fervently endorses is not the world-renouncing faith of a Christian hermit, overwhelmed with Christ-like love and passionate concern for the poor and the needy. Rather, it is a vengeful, hate-driven creed rooted in the notion of the triumphalist Church that desperately seeks to subjugate the entire world and expand the borders of Christendom till the ends of the earth.
where the fuck did that come from? does the excerpt from the book preceding that, or any other excerpt in the article for that matter, support the above statement in anyway?
check out this example of the article quoting the book:
Bush???s hopes for a post-war Iraq, Mansfield piously proclaims, ???are safety, family, benevolent political leaders, good schools, sports, friends and love???. ???All men should live this way, he believes. It is what he wants America to be and for America to model in the world'.
seems noble enough but remember, this guy is a christian. Check the articles commentary on the quote:
This nauseating defence of American terrorism, the killings of thousands of people in Iraq and elsewhere by American troops, is thus blessed as a grand civilising mission to be thrust down the throats of unwilling non-white and non-Christian people, no matter what the cost in human terms.
what?!?!
this article does nothing but cynically exploit the lefts laughably irrational fear of religion. When bush starts overthrowing democratically elected governments to install christian replacements and arresting dudes for reading the diamond sutra then you can start claiming that hes a christian fundamentalist. Pointing out that he believes in god aint gonna do it
do you really believe bush is a right wing fundamentalist?
Yes, I do.
Some of these are, as you can imagine, very anti-Bush, but they do cite some things that he has said and/or done which might answer the question further for you.
just as anti-semites use the term zionist to cloak their prejudice there are those on the left that use the term 'christian fundamentalist' when what they really mean is simply 'christian'. The most any of those articles do is provide examples which prove bush is a christian. From then on they rely on the readers paranoia and prejudice to offer credence to their totally unsubstantiated claims.
Look at the christian aggression article for example. It doesnt even cite bush directly instead utilising excerpts from the book ???The Faith of George W. Bush???. Here is an excerpt from the article which quote the book:
'More than any other presidency in recent years, George W. Bush's presidency is faith based'. ???He has often said???, Mansfield approvingly mentions, ???that faith saved his life, nurtured his family, established his political career and helped form the destiny of the nation'. Bush, so Mansfield claims, ???incorporates his faith and belief in God into every detail of life [???] The President relies upon his faith to direct his actions and goals'. --- ???In no previous administration???, he says, ???has the White House hosted so many weekly Bible Studies and prayer meetings and never have religious leaders been more gratefully welcomed'.
now with this astonishing revelation that a christian persons judgement and decision making is influenced by his belief in christianity here is the very next paragraph from the article:
Bush???s Christian commitment that Mansfield so fervently endorses is not the world-renouncing faith of a Christian hermit, overwhelmed with Christ-like love and passionate concern for the poor and the needy. Rather, it is a vengeful, hate-driven creed rooted in the notion of the triumphalist Church that desperately seeks to subjugate the entire world and expand the borders of Christendom till the ends of the earth.
where the fuck did that come from? does the excerpt from the book preceding that, or any other excerpt in the article for that matter, support the above statement in anyway?
check out this example of the article quoting the book:
Bush???s hopes for a post-war Iraq, Mansfield piously proclaims, ???are safety, family, benevolent political leaders, good schools, sports, friends and love???. ???All men should live this way, he believes. It is what he wants America to be and for America to model in the world'.
seems noble enough but remember, this guy is a christian. Check the articles commentary on the quote:
This nauseating defence of American terrorism, the killings of thousands of people in Iraq and elsewhere by American troops, is thus blessed as a grand civilising mission to be thrust down the throats of unwilling non-white and non-Christian people, no matter what the cost in human terms.
what?!?!
this article does nothing but cynically exploit the lefts laughably irrational fear of religion. When bush starts overthrowing democratically elected governments to install christian replacements and arresting dudes for reading the diamond sutra then you can start claiming that hes a christian fundamentalist. Pointing out that he believes in god aint gonna do it
If Iran had nukes, then Israel would no longer have their "Samson" option. Neither side would use them and we could stay the fuck out of there--which is my goal.
We have WAY more than we can handle with just our domestic issues.
do you really believe bush is a right wing fundamentalist?
Yes, I do.
Some of these are, as you can imagine, very anti-Bush, but they do cite some things that he has said and/or done which might answer the question further for you.
just as anti-semites use the term zionist to cloak their prejudice there are those on the left that use the term 'christian fundamentalist' when what they really mean is simply 'christian'. The most any of those articles do is provide examples which prove bush is a christian. From then on they rely on the readers paranoia and prejudice to offer credence to their totally unsubstantiated claims.
Look at the christian aggression article for example. It doesnt even cite bush directly instead utilising excerpts from the book ???The Faith of George W. Bush???. Here is an excerpt from the article which quote the book:
'More than any other presidency in recent years, George W. Bush's presidency is faith based'. ???He has often said???, Mansfield approvingly mentions, ???that faith saved his life, nurtured his family, established his political career and helped form the destiny of the nation'. Bush, so Mansfield claims, ???incorporates his faith and belief in God into every detail of life [???] The President relies upon his faith to direct his actions and goals'. --- ???In no previous administration???, he says, ???has the White House hosted so many weekly Bible Studies and prayer meetings and never have religious leaders been more gratefully welcomed'.
now with this astonishing revelation that a christian persons judgement and decision making is influenced by his belief in christianity here is the very next paragraph from the article:
Bush???s Christian commitment that Mansfield so fervently endorses is not the world-renouncing faith of a Christian hermit, overwhelmed with Christ-like love and passionate concern for the poor and the needy. Rather, it is a vengeful, hate-driven creed rooted in the notion of the triumphalist Church that desperately seeks to subjugate the entire world and expand the borders of Christendom till the ends of the earth.
where the fuck did that come from? does the excerpt from the book preceding that, or any other excerpt in the article for that matter, support the above statement in anyway?
check out this example of the article quoting the book:
Bush???s hopes for a post-war Iraq, Mansfield piously proclaims, ???are safety, family, benevolent political leaders, good schools, sports, friends and love???. ???All men should live this way, he believes. It is what he wants America to be and for America to model in the world'.
seems noble enough but remember, this guy is a christian. Check the articles commentary on the quote:
This nauseating defence of American terrorism, the killings of thousands of people in Iraq and elsewhere by American troops, is thus blessed as a grand civilising mission to be thrust down the throats of unwilling non-white and non-Christian people, no matter what the cost in human terms.
what?!?!
this article does nothing but cynically exploit the lefts laughably irrational fear of religion. When bush starts overthrowing democratically elected governments to install christian replacements and arresting dudes for reading the diamond sutra then you can start claiming that hes a christian fundamentalist. Pointing out that he believes in god aint gonna do it
LAMEST ALIAS EVAR.
i'm still in the dark - who is the real (internet) dolo?
those on the left that use the term 'christian fundamentalist' when what they really mean is simply 'christian'. The most any of those articles do is provide examples which prove bush is a christian. From then on they rely on the readers paranoia and prejudice to offer credence to their totally unsubstantiated claims.
I can't agree with this as I know Christians who do not agree with Bush's interpertations or actions and cringe that he uses Christianity and/or God to justify his policies and stances. As practicing Christians, they refer to him as a fundamentalist - they obviously see Christianity differently than you do, than Bush does, and so on.
I think this frustration applies to anyone who practices a religion in a peaceful manner and then is judged and labeled according the most zealous/extreme/myopic of its practiioners.
those on the left that use the term 'christian fundamentalist' when what they really mean is simply 'christian'. The most any of those articles do is provide examples which prove bush is a christian. From then on they rely on the readers paranoia and prejudice to offer credence to their totally unsubstantiated claims.
I can't agree with this as I know Christians who do not agree with Bush's interpertations or actions and cringe that he uses Christianity and/or God to justify his policies and stances. As practicing Christians, they refer to him as a fundamentalist - they obviously see Christianity differently than you do, than Bush does, and so on.
I think this frustration applies to anyone who practices a religion in a peaceful manner and then is judged and labeled according the most zealous/extreme/myopic of its practiioners.
I've often thought that GWB isn't really as religiously radical as 1) He is painted by left-wingers; 2) He paints himself to those he openly panders to. The POTUS has to live his persona for the sake of his constituents; it's like Lifestyle Evangelism, pol style. I mean: Nixon was a Quaker.
Brain droppings:
The parts that concern me more about GWB are the poorly-chosen words that belie his poorly-planned long-term goals and the Nation's murky, poorly-assembled opposition to him. Look past wafer-thin red herrings like Jesus, abortion and gay marriage; it's the open Manifest-destiny-speak; the blatant "Empire Not Empire" language. It's the very literal admissions "I want to appoint my close friend to the United States Supreme Court" here and "It is our duty to spread Democracy to the world" there. This is the leprous skin on the U.S. foreign affairs skeleton, and the Faith issue is not even a t-shirt on these bones; it's more like a Day-Glo friendship bracelet or obtuse fanny pack. We know this: every empire is focused on sustaining itself as The One Heavy Power for as long as possible; it's just that our nation has done it so sloppily. The President seems to be openly daring all comers to powerfully and successfully oppose him on any salient public point. The sound-nibble rhetoric that our President uses to bolster his Hot Points is comedic, third-rate Orwell - but the willingness of our country to simply swallow or spit and look up with mere facial expressions is ultimately the sadder of the two events. GWB's basically unchallenged: the Democrats are powerless and centrist (and quietly praying for Super Obama Jesus 2012), and the GOP isn't close enough to the 2008 election to vocally oppose each other (if they will). And don't get me started about the widespread political complacency in this country; it's like listening to Rage Against the Machine on our iPods is the best we can do. Again, to a point: the USA's lethargic reaction to GWB's goopy drivel is indicative of a drunken administration being sucked off by a zombified USA.
I'm glad that the monkey that covers the elephant's mouth has taken the last several years off, because it's a touch harder to be frightened by your opponent when he's so transparent. Thank God for the (slight snicker) liberal media. Sure, this is bad: the Bush administration is publicly faltering and becoming Legacy-conscious at the same time. But really: even though lame duck + Legacy might = potential trouble, look at all our TonkaSpeak re: North Korea. It's just talk, WWE style. There is no way in hell (Hell) that we will bomb Iran when GWB is president; he'd be historically hailed (rightly so) as the POTUS who waged and fought 3 losing, pointless wars simultantously while ramping up the defecit and doing nothing about Social Security (remember that?). It's bad enough to be forever known the POTUS who fought 2 losing, pointless wars simultantously while ramping up the defecit and doing nothing about Social Security.
I mean: we can't even install a puppet government successfully, for god's (God's) sake.
Comments
actually we need a big parking lot for our Haliburton factory in Iraq.
Yeah man,
I hope those "War Pigs" won't lead us all into an "Electric Funeral"...
"A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was ???absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb??? if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do ???what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,??? and ???that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.??? [/b]"
Because I really believe that he can think this way deep down.
It's the messianism - it causes people to do crazy things.
He may also be looking at his falling numbers and think "what do I have to lose?"
Also, I am willing to believe that Iran is reaching out to try and work things out diplomatically. I wouldn't trust the administration saying they are not, if for no other reason than Bush's ability to repeatedly and publicly lie about the fact that Hussein would not let weapons inspectors in during the lead up to war, when everyone knows that he did.
How can Bush get away with such a blatant untruth?
What it really may come down to this time is whether Congress has the balls to stand up to his craziness and demand better options.
Did I miss something?
Is this another front for a Soulstrut regular?!
"I need tungsten to live. Tuuungsteeeeeen!"
Ali Akbar Khan is Indian. Not sure what a war with Iran will do for the the value of his records...
Saving a country by bombing it...really nice!
Ooohh-ooohhh... I know this one. Was that Hiroshima? No, no, wait, must have been Nagasaki.
Why wasn't America threatening to invade India when they went nuclear? Or Pakistan? Or fuckin' Israel?
Hardly surprising Iran feel there are double standards on proliferation.
Oh, and whoever asked if Bush is a rightwing fundamentalist, now THAT[/b] was funny.
Ah, touche.
Well, the lesson a lot of nations are learning is if you don't have a serious deterrent, such as a nuke, the U.S. will roll right over you.
Would you care to substantiate your position that Bush isn't a right-wing fundie? After all, it's commonly accepted knowledge that he is, and you're here scoffing at the notion without saying A) why you scoff at the notion, and B) what Bush is if not a right-wing fundie.
Seymour!
Yes, I do.
Some of these are, as you can imagine, very anti-Bush, but they do cite some things that he has said and/or done which might answer the question further for you.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/georgewbush.htm
http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=ARTICLES&id=1141382634
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0509/S00292.htm
http://www.bushwatch.com/evangelist.htm
http://hnn.us/articles/9265.html
Now your fucking with Sy. Oh, hell no. Dude, you need to take a shower, bra. Cause ya lyrical ass is stinking.
I hope to fuck that right-wing fundamentalist arsehole Bush uses sarcasm against Iran... something tells me everybody would be quite, quite safe.
Bush's politics alone suggest a slight lean towards the right of Nixon, Reagan and Bush snr. There are plenty of nice soundbites that sum up the equation Bush=extremoRightWingNutJob, and the first one that springs to mind is "You're either with us or against us". What choice does that leave Switzerland?
just as anti-semites use the term zionist to cloak their prejudice there are those on the left that use the term 'christian fundamentalist' when what they really mean is simply 'christian'. The most any of those articles do is provide examples which prove bush is a christian. From then on they rely on the readers paranoia and prejudice to offer credence to their totally unsubstantiated claims.
Look at the christian aggression article for example. It doesnt even cite bush directly instead utilising excerpts from the book ???The Faith of George W. Bush???. Here is an excerpt from the article which quote the book:
'More than any other presidency in recent years, George W. Bush's presidency is faith based'. ???He has often said???, Mansfield approvingly mentions, ???that faith saved his life, nurtured his family, established his political career and helped form the destiny of the nation'. Bush, so Mansfield claims, ???incorporates his faith and belief in God into every detail of life [???] The President relies upon his faith to direct his actions and goals'. --- ???In no previous administration???, he says, ???has the White House hosted so many weekly Bible Studies and prayer meetings and never have religious leaders been more gratefully welcomed'.
now with this astonishing revelation that a christian persons judgement and decision making is influenced by his belief in christianity here is the very next paragraph from the article:
Bush???s Christian commitment that Mansfield so fervently endorses is not the world-renouncing faith of a Christian hermit, overwhelmed with Christ-like love and passionate concern for the poor and the needy. Rather, it is a vengeful, hate-driven creed rooted in the notion of the triumphalist Church that desperately seeks to subjugate the entire world and expand the borders of Christendom till the ends of the earth.
where the fuck did that come from? does the excerpt from the book preceding that, or any other excerpt in the article for that matter, support the above statement in anyway?
check out this example of the article quoting the book:
Bush???s hopes for a post-war Iraq, Mansfield piously proclaims, ???are safety, family, benevolent political leaders, good schools, sports, friends and love???. ???All men should live this way, he believes. It is what he wants America to be and for America to model in the world'.
seems noble enough but remember, this guy is a christian. Check the articles commentary on the quote:
This nauseating defence of American terrorism, the killings of thousands of people in Iraq and elsewhere by American troops, is thus blessed as a grand civilising mission to be thrust down the throats of unwilling non-white and non-Christian people, no matter what the cost in human terms.
what?!?!
this article does nothing but cynically exploit the lefts laughably irrational fear of religion. When bush starts overthrowing democratically elected governments to install christian replacements and arresting dudes for reading the diamond sutra then you can start claiming that hes a christian fundamentalist. Pointing out that he believes in god aint gonna do it
LAMEST ALIAS EVAR.
We have WAY more than we can handle with just our domestic issues.
i'm still in the dark - who is the real (internet) dolo?
I can't agree with this as I know Christians who do not agree with Bush's interpertations or actions and cringe that he uses Christianity and/or God to justify his policies and stances. As practicing Christians, they refer to him as a fundamentalist - they obviously see Christianity differently than you do, than Bush does, and so on.
I think this frustration applies to anyone who practices a religion in a peaceful manner and then is judged and labeled according the most zealous/extreme/myopic of its practiioners.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041106R.shtml
dave
I've often thought that GWB isn't really as religiously radical as 1) He is painted by left-wingers; 2) He paints himself to those he openly panders to. The POTUS has to live his persona for the sake of his constituents; it's like Lifestyle Evangelism, pol style. I mean: Nixon was a Quaker.
Brain droppings:
The parts that concern me more about GWB are the poorly-chosen words that belie his poorly-planned long-term goals and the Nation's murky, poorly-assembled opposition to him. Look past wafer-thin red herrings like Jesus, abortion and gay marriage; it's the open Manifest-destiny-speak; the blatant "Empire Not Empire" language. It's the very literal admissions "I want to appoint my close friend to the United States Supreme Court" here and "It is our duty to spread Democracy to the world" there. This is the leprous skin on the U.S. foreign affairs skeleton, and the Faith issue is not even a t-shirt on these bones; it's more like a Day-Glo friendship bracelet or obtuse fanny pack.
We know this: every empire is focused on sustaining itself as The One Heavy Power for as long as possible; it's just that our nation has done it so sloppily. The President seems to be openly daring all comers to powerfully and successfully oppose him on any salient public point. The sound-nibble rhetoric that our President uses to bolster his Hot Points is comedic, third-rate Orwell - but the willingness of our country to simply swallow or spit and look up with mere facial expressions is ultimately the sadder of the two events. GWB's basically unchallenged: the Democrats are powerless and centrist (and quietly praying for Super Obama Jesus 2012), and the GOP isn't close enough to the 2008 election to vocally oppose each other (if they will). And don't get me started about the widespread political complacency in this country; it's like listening to Rage Against the Machine on our iPods is the best we can do. Again, to a point: the USA's lethargic reaction to GWB's goopy drivel is indicative of a drunken administration being sucked off by a zombified USA.
I'm glad that the monkey that covers the elephant's mouth has taken the last several years off, because it's a touch harder to be frightened by your opponent when he's so transparent. Thank God for the (slight snicker) liberal media. Sure, this is bad: the Bush administration is publicly faltering and becoming Legacy-conscious at the same time. But really: even though lame duck + Legacy might = potential trouble, look at all our TonkaSpeak re: North Korea. It's just talk, WWE style. There is no way in hell (Hell) that we will bomb Iran when GWB is president; he'd be historically hailed (rightly so) as the POTUS who waged and fought 3 losing, pointless wars simultantously while ramping up the defecit and doing nothing about Social Security (remember that?). It's bad enough to be forever known the POTUS who fought 2 losing, pointless wars simultantously while ramping up the defecit and doing nothing about Social Security.
I mean: we can't even install a puppet government successfully, for god's (God's) sake.