Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The NoKo Blame Game shifts into high gear: Spin and reality
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Apparently, as with just about every other issue that comes to the fore now, the Democrats and Republicans response to the North Korean bomb is to point fingers of blame at each other.

John McCain, in a guest blog at Captain's Quarters (way to go Cap'n Ed) says:
I would remind Senator Hillary Clinton and other Democrats critical of Bush Administration policies that the framework agreement her husband’s administration negotiated was a failure. The Koreans received millions in energy assistance. They diverted millions in food assistance to their military. And what did they do? They secretly enriched uranium.

Prior to the agreement, every single time the Clinton Administration warned the Koreans not to do something — not to kick out the IAEA inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from their reactor — they did it. And they were rewarded every single time by the Clinton Administration with further talks. We had a carrots and no sticks policy that only encouraged bad behavior. When one carrot didn’t work, we offered another.
Jimmy Carter, otoh, says it's all the Bush Administration's fault, and in reality, it was all sweetness and light within the Agreed Framework and it wasn't until 2002 when Bush and the boys abrogated said Framework that NoKo began in earnest to pursue nuclear weapons again:
Responding to an invitation from President Kim Il-sung of North Korea, and with the approval of President Bill Clinton, I went to Pyongyang and negotiated an agreement under which North Korea would cease its nuclear program at Yongbyon and permit inspectors from the atomic agency to return to the site to assure that the spent fuel was not reprocessed. It was also agreed that direct talks would be held between the two Koreas.

The spent fuel (estimated to be adequate for a half-dozen bombs) continued to be monitored, and extensive bilateral discussions were held. The United States assured the North Koreans that there would be no military threat to them, that it would supply fuel oil to replace the lost nuclear power and that it would help build two modern atomic power plants, with their fuel rods and operation to be monitored by international inspectors. The summit talks resulted in South Korean President Kim Dae-jung earning the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize for his successful efforts to ease tensions on the peninsula.

But beginning in 2002, the United States branded North Korea as part of an axis of evil, threatened military action, ended the shipments of fuel oil and the construction of nuclear power plants and refused to consider further bilateral talks. In their discussions with me at this time, North Korean spokesmen seemed convinced that the American positions posed a serious danger to their country and to its political regime.

Responding in its ill-advised but predictable way, Pyongyang withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, expelled atomic energy agency inspectors, resumed processing fuel rods and began developing nuclear explosive devices.
Some facts. In December of 2002, NoKo responded to a letter from the IAEA (November 2002) asking about an unauthorized and secret uranium enrichment program. The IAEA noted the following:
The Director General has received a reply dated 2 December from the Foreign Minister of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) to Mr. ElBaradei’s letter of 29 November conveying the resolution adopted by the IAEA Board of Governors on 29 November.

The DPRK rejects the resolution in familiar terms, attributing the nuclear crisis in the Korean Peninsula to a hostile policy towards it (the DPRK).

The letter does not respond directly to the resolution’s request that the DPRK clarify reports of its having an undeclared uranium enrichment programme, nor does it respond to the Director General’s invitation of 18 October for high-level talks in Vienna or the DPRK.
This is critical to understanding the situation. Contrary to the Carter assertion, the rejection of the IAEA inspectors began in December of 2002. In typical NoKo fashion, they ignored the claim and used as an excuse (and as the IAEA points out the rejection is phrased "in familiar terms") a "hostile policy toward" NoKo.

In fact, a secret uranium enrichment program had been brought to the attention of the IAEA. Such a program was in violation of the Agreed Framework. In a speech in Tokyo on Dec. 10th 2002, the head of the IAEA, Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said the following needed to be resolved by NoKo:
The resolution urged the DPRK: (1) to provide all relevant information to the Agency concerning the reported uranium enrichment programme and other relevant nuclear fuel cycle facilities; (2) to accept the proposal for dialogue at a senior level to provide clarification on this matter; and (3) to come into full and prompt compliance with its safeguards agreement.
Of course NoKo rejected the resolution.

On the 13th of December 2002, Mr.El Baradei again responded to the NoKo letter of intent to unilaterally vacate the Agreed Framework publicly:
He points out that the IAEA received and has responded to a letter from the DPRK on its decision to lift the freeze on its nuclear facilities. He urged North Korean authorities "to exercise restraint in a tense situation" and called for full cooperation. He underscored points made in a statement issued by the IAEA 12 December. "It's essential that our safeguards measures stay in place," he said.
On the 21st of December, North Korea told the IAEA to remove all seals and cameras from its nuclear facilites. Again, it should be noted that it has still refused to address the secret enriching program. The IAEA said in a statement:
The DPRK's letter requests that the IAEA remove seals and monitoring cameras on all of its nuclear facilities. The Director General said, "it is essential that the containment and surveillance measures which are currently in place continue to be maintained, and that the DPRK not take any steps unilaterally to remove or impede the functioning of such seals or cameras. Any such action," he added, "would not be in compliance with the requirements of the IAEA-DPRK Safeguards Agreement."

Dr. ElBaradei also asked the DPRK to agree to an urgent meeting of technical experts to discuss the practical arrangements involved in moving from the "freeze" to normal safeguards operations, and particularly how the IAEA will fulfil its verification requirements under the IAEA-DPRK Safeguards Agreement.
So how did this come to be? Was it provocation by the Bush administration? Was it Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech?

Well, not really. According to a Congressional Briefing prepared by Larry A. Niksch, the US had, through intelligence channels, detected a secret uranium enrichment program in violation of the Agreed Framework and confronted NoKo with the evidence. Confronted with obviously indisputable evidence, they admitted to the program:
The Bush Administration disclosed on October 16, 2002, that North Korea had revealed to U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kellyin Pyongyang that it was conducting a secret nuclear weapons program based on the process of uranium enrichment. North Korea admitted the program in response to U.S. evidence presented by Kelly.

The program is based on the process of uranium enrichment, in contrast to North Korea’s pre-1995 nuclear program based on plutonium reprocessing. North Korea began a secret uranium enrichment program after 1995 reportedly with the assistance of Pakistan. North Korea provided Pakistan with intermediate range ballistic missiles in the late1990s. The Central Intelligence Agency issued a statement in December 2002 that North Korea likely could produce an atomic bomb through uranium enrichment in 2004.
That's October of 2002. In November the IAEA sends the letter demanding "all relevant information to the Agency concerning the reported uranium enrichment programme and other relevant nuclear fuel cycle facilities...". In December, NoKo responds ignoring the demand and instead "in familiar terms" cobbles up a "new" threat to NoKo as an excuse to kick out the IAEA inspectors, remove the seals and cameras in its nuclear facilities and pursue nuclear weapons in the open.

On Dec 21st NoKo cut all the seals and disconnected the cameras at its Nyongbyong reactor site as a prelude to restarting it.

On the 26th of December, Mr. El Baradei issued a statement which labeled the NoKo decision as "nuclear brinksmanship".
"The reprocessing facility at Nyongbyong is irrelevant to the DPRK ability to produce electricity. The DPRK has no current legitimate peaceful use for plutonium, given the status of its nuclear fuel cycle. Moving towards restarting its nuclear facilities without appropriate safeguards, and towards producing plutonium raises serious non-proliferation concerns and is tantamount to nuclear brinkmanship".
On Dec. 31st, 2002, IAEA inspectors left NoKo as demanded by the NoKo government.

So it appears that, despite a desire on the part of some to rewrite history (it is midterm election time), the scenario which led to the resumption of NoKo's pursuit of nuclear weapons has to do with it being caught red-handed in the middle of violating the Agreed Framework and pursuing them clandestinely anyway.

The excuse for doing so was, a "hostile policy" toward NoKo, something the IAEA called "familiar terms". It is the standard NoKo defense when caught doing anything it shouldn't be doing. And, apparently, this enrichment program had been going on for quite some time with the assistance of Pakistan (that would obviously have been prior to 9/11/01).

Keep all of this in mind then when you hear the charges and counter-charges fly concerning who did what to whom and who's policy was a "failure". I leave it up to you to draw conclusions, but given the above litany, you should have little difficulty doing so.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
President Bush’s policies towards NoKo, has made this issue a WORLD problem.

When was the last time you heard China speaking forcefully, in agreement with the US??

Multi-lateralism at its finest. If actions follow these words, of course.

We should also state right now, if we are attacked by nuclear weapons from NoKo, we will target the regime and security apparatus of NoKo with all available force.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://
McQ,

This is a good post. You lay out the facts well. I, too, am somewhat put off by all the buck-passing going on right now. Both sides want to act like no mistakes were made on their watch and that’s ridiculous.

That said, I think it’s pretty hard to avoid the conclusion that we’ve really dropped the ball on this one. Our strategy toward NoKo for the last 4 years has been to do nothing. That’s not a strategy. The Clinton policy had many problems, but at least it resulted in the halting of NoKo’s plutonium production, which had been going on before Clinton took office. Uranium enrichment is much harder. When we stopped engaging NoKo in 2002, they resumed Plutonium production. Their test the other day—whether successful or not—was almost certainly of a plutonium bomb.

I hope this serves as a wake up call to the Bush administration. Just because the Noko regime is crazy, evil, and untrustworthy, doesn’t mean we can afford to sit on our asses and do nothing. Sometimes you have to talk to your enemies, even the total nutjobs.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
McQ,

Good post and spot on.

AL,

My impression is that we have been talking to them, at least about a framework to negotiate, they just don’t want to talk with us except on terms we will not accept.

This whole finger pointing thing thing is pretty stupid. I have no problem with what Clinton tried to do. It might have worked. The take away shouldn’t be that Clinton’s policy was a sign of bad policy fundamentals, but that in this case it didn’t work. We don’t need to blame Clinton, North Korea is the problem, but we do need to accept that the policy was a failure. Lesson learned, in bi-lateral negotiations all the leverage is with North Korea.

That seems to be Bush’s take as well. Keith makes a good point, with China showing movement we might finally have the leverage to move discussions forward. We did nothing, or more accurately accomplished little, because there really was little that was constructive we could do. That is often the case in foreign policy and many people refuse to accept that. "If only this or that had been done or my guy or that guy were running things everything would be better." The problem often is that every option chosen has a potential negative outcome and we rarely have the information to even really weigh the factors.

Ironically this situation has been pretty simple, we have little we can do unless China steps up to the plate. Hopefully they will. From there it might get complicated again.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
I don’t think that the blame can be laid at anybody except North Korea, China and Pakistan. Now, what is in it for the three nations:

North Korea:

1. The Gargoyle’s regime feels safe from a US-led invasion
2. They can use the bomb for removing economic sanctions against them (I know that it sounds paradoxical, but we cannot have economic sanctions in place, N. Korea would then threaten to proliferate nukes to rougue entities)

China:

1. Nuclear armed N. Korea would force Japan to begin arming themselves with Nukes which means that Japan would probably not need the US umbrella. It would involve loosening our grip on SE Asia, paving the way for China to takeover of Taiwan

Pakistan:

1. Pakistan supplied U Enrichment technology to N. Korea in exchange for N. Korea’s missile. But, We don’t know if the bomb that the koreans exloded was based on Plutonium or Uranium...

Keith,

China always talks the talk...They have ’condemned’ the blast and called for ’punitive’ actions..but they have NOT called for N. Korea to rollback their nuclear program. Contrast their reaction to when India tested in 1998. They immediately called on India to disarm their nukes...Beware of China...
 
Written By: Ivan
URL: http://
Everyone who thinks that talking to the North Koreans will get them to give up their nuclear program, please raise your hand.

Everyone who thinks that anything less than force will prevent North Koreans from using any nukes they do acquire as at least implicit blackmail against their neighbors and the US, please also raise your hand.

All right, those with their hands in the air, please explain what made you come to this conclusion, because it’s absolutely baffling to me that someone could actually, seriously believe that.

Nothing less than force will get them to give it up, because they no longer believe we’re serious about our threats. Kim doesn’t care if one or two or five of their neighbors cut back aid, because they know China will do whatever it takes to keep him barely afloat. They may not like having nukes there, but they’d like the collapse of the NoKo government even less. I can explain why later today or tomorrow if anyone doubts this.

And now that the stakes are so high, if NoKo really has the bomb, nobody’s going to use force. We’re too involved elsewhere in the world, and even if we weren’t, the risks of extraordinarily high casualties from a serious attack on Kim are just too high. "You break it, you buy it" is one more reason we can’t do it: if we go after Kim and succeed, we have to rebuild one of the most wretched places on earth and try to mitigate the damage from the mass exodus of that territory. Just *try* telling Japan and China and even South Korea (and others) that the refugees are *their* problem.

What are we going to do? We’re going to sit back and accept a state of vulnerability until we obtain the capabilities to defend ourselves from his delivery systems. We’re going to shore up relations with the Japanese even more now, we’re going to try as hard as we can to get the Japanese not to build up their own nukes or offensive capabilities (because of the destabilizing effects on the entire region that we *know* for certain that would have), and both parties are going to kick into high gear their missile defense efforts (in which we have been partners) with much greater haste. And we’re going to pray that nobody is stupid enough to facilitate the sale of weapons from NoKo to other unsavory parties.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
The Clinton policy had many problems, but at least it resulted in the halting of NoKo’s plutonium production
Not true and the links prove that. The treaty was signed and immediately violated.

Lets not forget Carter backstabbing Clinton during the negociations. In his book, The Two Koreas, Don Oberdorfer’s makes the point that the State Department had asked Carter not to go in 1991, 1992, and 1993 because "his trip would complicate the Korean problem rather than help resolve it." The Republic of Korea expressed similar reservations. When Carter called Clinton and insisted he was going in 1994, Clinton "interposed no objection to the trip as long as Carter clearly stated that he was acting as a private citizen rather than as an official U.S. envoy." Oberdorfer goes on to describe the frustration of Clinton, Gore et al watching Carter make policy announcements on CNN that the Clinton administration more or less had no choice but to endorse after the fact.

Carter interposed himself then as he is now. Lacking the common sense to recognize his clear legacy as a failed stateman and purveyor of belief rater than reality. Not surprisely, he has much in common with those on his side.

 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
So far the evidence points to NoKo’s explosion being based on something like TNT and that’s about all.
Fissile materials were probably involved, but they didn’t ’fiss’.
As to their press announcements - Does anyone seriously think that after blowing the trumpets, and banging the gongs about their oncoming test that Dear Leader’s government was going to say,
"Where’s the Kaboom? There’s supposed to be an earth shattering kaboom! Someone has stolen the Illudium PEW-37 explosive space modulator!"


The fault is irrelevant at this point, what’s useful is learning from the error of thinking Dear Leader is sane and only wants peace when we next sit down to ’negotiate’ with them or with others concerning what to do with North Korea NOW. I can tell you who I blame, but what good will it do now?

Personally I think we should tell them to stuff the idea of any further negotiation until they overthrow Dear Leader and put someone sane in charge.
Just be point blank about it.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
One wonders, as time goes on and the Clinton administration fades into the distance (remember, Clinton hasn’t been president for almost 6 years), how long the right will continue to blame Clinton for every single foreign policy problem that we are currently grappling with. Bush’s failure to kill or capture OBL? Well, that’s Clinton’s fault. Clinton had the chance to kill him before 9/11/01 and he failed, and no one can be held responsible for what happened after 9/11. The Iraq war is going badly? Well, of course, that’s Clinton’s fault too; after all, he didn’t declare war on Iraq and take out Saddam a long time ago. North Korea developing nukes? Of course, that’s Clinton’s fault. After all, Bush really hasn’t been in office long enough to come up with a solution to the problem, so you really can’t blame him.

Now, is the Bush administration the first administration to blame its predecessor for its inability to solve foreign policy problems? Hardly. But one would be hard pressed to come up with another administration that was still playing this game on practically every single foreign policy issue almost six years after the previous administration had left office.

But then the GOP is the party of personal responsibility, so it is hardly surprising.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
MK

Probably as long as the Left continues to blame every "resolved" foreign policy mess that Clinton left on Bush’s door on Bush, and to try to contrast Bush’s "failed" foreign policy with Clinton’s great "successes."
 
Written By: Sean
URL: http://www.myelectionanalysis.com
Potentially, a good first step...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101000490.html
China on Tuesday expressed a rare willingness to support U.N. sanctions against its ally North Korea, but it said any punitive action would have to be narrowly targeted at the country’s ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs.

The United States and Japan continued to press the U.N. Security Council to support far stronger economic and trade measures that would permit international inspections of all North Korean cargo to search for weapons and to strangle Pyongyang’s ability to finance its nuclear program.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://
is the Bush administration the first administration to blame its predecessor for its inability to solve foreign policy problems?
Been busy and away from the news...

Some quotes from the Bush administration backing this please...
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://
Yeah, we know MK, it really IS Bush’s fault because he called them a bad name.
We get it.
Clinton was powerless to do anything, um, I mean, they had everything under control with North Korea before that.

The basketball delivery was a brilliant diplomatic move.
Bush probably also should have done his best to prevent the release of the movie Team America. I bet that REALLY spurred the Koreans on to obtain nuclear capacity.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Why did you even bother with all of this? It should be a new net law on par with Godwins law- whenever Jimmy Carter says something he’s just automatically assumed to be lying or wrong.

Would’ve saved you lots of typing time :)
 
Written By: Shark
URL: http://
Probably as long as the Left continues to blame every "resolved" foreign policy mess that Clinton left on Bush’s door on Bush, and to try to contrast Bush’s "failed" foreign policy with Clinton’s great "successes."
So the right will continue to blame Clinton as long as there continue to be foreign policy messes that exist during the Bush administration.

Thanks for making my point.
Some quotes from the Bush administration backing this please...
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice strongly disputed a claim by former President Bill Clinton that he left a comprehensive plan to fight al Qaeda when his term ended.

In a heated interview aired on "Fox News Sunday," the former president accused the Bush administration of doing far less that he did to stop al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden after the September 11 attacks.

Clinton said he had "battle plans" drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale search for bin Laden.

But Rice, who was national security advisor at the time of the September 11 attacks, strongly disagreed with Clinton’s version of events during an interview on Monday with the New York Post.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice said in a transcript of her comments released by the State Department.

"For instance, big pieces were missing, like an approach to Pakistan that might work, because without Pakistan you weren’t going to get Afghanistan," Rice said.
You see, it isn’t Bush’s fault that he didn’t come up with a plan, it’s Clinton’s fault for not leaving them with one.

When little Scottie was confronted last year about Bush misusing pre-war intelligence on Iraq, Scottie of course took full responsibility for whatever mistakes were made:
"If Democrats want to talk about the threat that Saddam Hussein posed and the intelligence, they might want to start with looking at the previous administration and their own statements that they’ve made," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
Or not.


 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
I leave it up to you to draw conclusions, but given the above litany, you should have little difficulty doing so.

The Agreed Framework Program halted the plutonium production for 8 years.
Plutonium production restarted in 2002.

The consensus is that last week’s bomb was a plutonium bomb.

Now, personally, I think the nuclear test itself is a straw man and reacting to it - with either concessions *or* the coercive measures being discussed - plays into Kim’s hands. The policy only failed if Kim conducting a nuke test equals failure. He’s had the capability for decades - which should be considered the real failure .

However, if you decide that a nuke test is the failure, use occam’s razor. Whose presidency did the nuke test occur under? Suggestions that the current president - any current president - is blameless for any US policy failure - especially one that occurs well into his second term - involves some serious denial.

That doesn’t mean the Agreed Framework was a solution to the larger problem of Kim-Jong Il, generally, but the system he used to build these bombs was under wraps until Clinton left office.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
That doesn’t mean the Agreed Framework was a solution to the larger problem of Kim-Jong Il, generally, but the system he used to build these bombs was under wraps until Clinton left office.
But we don’t know that they actually stopped.

All we know is that someone noticed that they had been violating the so called "Agreed Framework" and called them on it. How long the violation had been going on is a matter of debate. At first they admitted, then denied, then brazenly dared us to "do something about it". Since then the admin has been having "multilateral" regional talks on the matter. Up till now neither China or others have been willing to do anything. Now they do. If they had stepped up beforehand then things may have been different.

 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
There is an excellent document from the brookings institute that covers this.

a key passage:
Following the accord, a process of diplomacy and engagement began on the peninsula, involving summits between the leaders of the two Koreas, South Korean tourist visits into North Korea, and some reunions for families separated since the Korean War. After a North Korean long-range missile test over Japanese territory in 1998, Pyongyang adopted a moratorium on future testing, which remains in place (though it is scheduled to end in 2003).

This engagement process slowed by 2000. North Korea stalled on its promises to continue the series of summits and family exchanges. It provoked military clashes at sea. And meanwhile, though not known at the time to U.S. and allied intelligence, it had initiated a secret uranium enrichment program to add to its nuclear stockpile.
Note the last statement where in 2000, it had already initiated the enrichment program. Whether Gore or Bush was in office now, the same situation would be playing out.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
MK, do you even read the quotes you post?
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice strongly disputed a claim by former President Bill Clinton that he left a comprehensive plan to fight al Qaeda when his term ended.

...

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice said in a transcript of her comments released by the State Department.

...
All this is, is Rice calling Clinton a liar in diplo-speak. Not quite the same thing as blaming the previous administration.

Your second quote also doesn’t convey what you think it does. I won’t bother to bring up all the quotes from Clinton administration and prominent Democrats who were saying the same things Bush said with the same intelligence sources because it’s already been hashed out too many times. That they were all wrong after the fact and that Democrats are trying to make those statements go down the memory hole is another matter.
 
Written By: Bill W.
URL: http://
The consensus is that last week’s bomb was a plutonium bomb
The consensus so far is there was no nuclear explosion.
Plutonium production restarted in 2002.
Hmmm, and you believe that’s the case do you?
That they didn’t start enriching it again until 2002?

Man...are you easy.

Since it has to be made in a nuclear reactor, it means there has to be a reactor to make it in. Which isn’t a trivial construction project.
Given they can’t put it on the surface where we can see it, that inidicates they have to be doing it somewhere below ground. Non-trivial, even if you are willing to radiate all your plant workers on a daily basis because you don’t put all the necessary protections in.

Then one has to acquire the Uranium for the process to create the Plutonium.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/plutonium.htm
A useful rule of thumb for gauging the proliferation potential of any given reactor is that 1 megawatt-day (thermal energy release, not electricity output) of operation produces 1 gram of plutonium in any reactor using 20-percent or lower enriched uranium; consequently, a 100 MW(t) reactor produces 100 grams of plutonium per day and could produce roughly enough plutonium for one weapon every 2 months. Light-water power reactors make fewer plutonium nuclei per uranium fission than graphite-moderated production reactors.
Unless of course they’re getting it from somewhere else, in which case we wouldn’t have discovered they were involved in enrichment, would we?

You don’t think all of this logistically requires a bit more than something out of a Mickey Rooney movie where Dear Leaders says "Hey gang! Let’s build a nuke facility and make a bomb!"?

This stuff doesn’t come in a big box marked ’some assembly required’. And bear in mind, they’re trying to do it quietly and secretly, so now things take even longer because they have to go through all kinds of hoops to cover up what they’re doing. If they’d started in 2002, we wouldn’t have detected it until later, because they’d have been putting the tinker toys together for quite some time, again, assuming they’re interested in preserving the lives of their nuke work force, and the viability of using the production plant on a long term basis.

(and don’t patronize me and tell me that’s an interesting link this time....)
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Okay, everybody agrees: "It’s China’s fault."

Talk about the blame game. I’m as frustrated as anyone that China is so reluctant to confront the bad guys, but it would be foolhardy to blindly dismiss their concerns.

Though regrettable, China’s concerns are very real, and China’s concerns could well end up being our concerns if North Korea were to implode.
Aside from the resultant masses of migrants loosed on the area, it’s not easy to predict what South Korea would do. If it seized the opportunity to try to reunite the two Koreas, US influence would creep right up to China’s borders. That would make them jittery about the Taiwan question, and so on and so on.

China likes having North korea as a buffer; we have to accept that, like it or not.
Actually, I think the late arrival of China and Russia into the sanctions game could work out well, it the final Security Council decision is unanimous. It will demonstrate the drip, drip effect of losing protectors.
—-
Condi said it best: It’s North Korea’s fault.

 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
All this is, is Rice calling Clinton a liar in diplo-speak. Not quite the same thing as blaming the previous administration
The only reason she would care about whether or not Clinton left a plan is if she were attempting to shift the blame to him. After all, if it were Bush’s job to come up with a plan, whether or not Clinton left a plan would be immaterial and the point would not need to be addressed.

On a related note, Clinton had to deal with Saddam throughout his 8 years in office. But I don’t once recall him blaming Bush 41 for leaving Saddam in power at the end of Gulf War I. Indeed, I’m having a hard time recalling any instance when Clinton attempted to shift blame for a foreign policy problem to Bush 41. But when it comes to Bush 43 and his wingnut supporters, shifting blame to Clinton is almost instinctal.

Oh, and by the way, this Foley scandal is the Dems fault too - just in case you were wondering. From Media Matters:
Like Savage, numerous other conservative media figures have in recent days suggested that Democrats had somehow orchestrated the Foley scandal, this despite ABC News investigative reporter Brian Ross’s disclosure that his sources for the Foley story — to the extent they had partisan affiliations — were Republicans. For instance, on the October 3 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh asserted that "these emails were planted by a liberal" as part of a "planned, orchestrated release" by the Democrats and the media. In an appearance on the show, Hastert seemed to agree with Limbaugh’s theory, stating that his Democratic colleagues "put this thing forward to try to block" the Republican agenda. Later in the show, Limbaugh went a step further, arguing that the Democrats might have coordinated with the underage pages to document Foley’s alleged behavior. He said, "[W]hat I’m suggesting here is that a lot of people knew of Foley’s proclivities and arranged to amass evidence of it for" political reasons. Limbaugh described a hypothetical scenario in which Democrats might have approached a former page and requested that he "titillate" Foley. "How do you get a kid to do this?" he asked. "You threaten ’em or you pay ’em."

In another example, Fox News host Sean Hannity strongly suggested that Democrats are behind the Foley scandal. As the weblog Think Progress noted, on the October 2 edition of Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes, Hannity repeatedly questioned the proximity of ABC’s release of the alleged Foley communications to the midterm elections. "I want to know why these instant messages were held back until now," Hannity said. "Who knew about them? Why did they hold them back? Did they do it for political reasons? In other words, were they held back to maximize the political impact before an election?"
It’s not just North Korea. Nothing is ever the GOP’s fault.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Your quotes still don’t back up your claims MK. Conservative commentators saying it’s the Democrats behind the Foley scandal is not the same as this administration blaming the previous administration for failures. You’re shifting the goal posts.

And Rice would care about whether or not Clinton left a plan if Clinton makes claims saying there was a plan in place that the Bush administration could use and there was no such thing. Clinton’s claim was to allow him to look like his administration had been trying to do something and that the Bush administration wasn’t. It may be true that the Bush administration had no plan...Rice’s comment almost implicitly states that actually.
The only reason she would care about whether or not Clinton left a plan is if she were attempting to shift the blame to him.
What’s happening here is Clinton is trying to shift the blame away from anything he had to do with the situation and lay it squarely at the feet of the Bush administration. What that’s called is blaming a subsequent administration for your failures. Man, that Bill Clinton, he’s good.

 
Written By: Bill W.
URL: http://
Well, it’s all part of the VRWC, so, a statement by anyone from the right, is the same as a statement by President Bush or the person is a sock-pocket for Karl Rove.

Frankly, having the Chinese worried about what NoKo is doing is a good thing.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://
It’s not just North Korea. Nothing is ever the GOP’s fault.
Ugghhh - take a look at just a FEW of the posts around here MK and yopu’ll see plenty of blame laid at the feet of the GOP.
The only reason she would care about whether or not Clinton left a plan is if she were attempting to shift the blame to him
As pointed out ALREADY to you MK - "Condoleezza Rice strongly disputed a claim by former President Bill Clinton" She was specifically answering a claim made by Clinton. Apparently that’s off limits for you.

But I don’t once recall him blaming Bush 41 for leaving Saddam in power at the end of Gulf War I
I’ll go out on a limb here, but I recall that Bush 1 and company wanted to roll all the way into Baghdad. The UN and ’international pressure’ were the reason we stopped and left Saddam in power. Kind of tough to blame him and ’support’ the UN at the same time.

As for your rant on the Foley case, I like how you leave out any statements made by people like Hannity that completely throw Foley under the bus. I heard Hannity the day the story broke and his question was ’if someone had these IM’s and kept them under wraps until they were politically expedient, then I want to know who and why’.

>sigh...

 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
"The only reason she would care about whether or not Clinton left a plan is if she were attempting to shift the blame to him. After all, if it were Bush’s job to come up with a plan, whether or not Clinton left a plan would be immaterial and the point would not need to be addressed."

The only reason she cared is that Clinton had fired off at the mouth about how much better he was than the current Administration. That’s called defending yourself where I come from. It’s the same thing with NoKo as with 9-11 — Dems try to call it a failure of the Administration’s policy, conservatives try to point out that the policies that the Dems criticize the Reps for not adopting haven’t worked in the past and are part of the reason we are having the problems in the first place, and then Dems scream about conservatives "politicizing" or "passing the blame." It really does get tiring.
 
Written By: Sean
URL: http://www.myelectionanalysis.com
Your quotes still don’t back up your claims MK. Conservative commentators saying it’s the Democrats behind the Foley scandal is not the same as this administration blaming the previous administration for failures. You’re shifting the goal posts.
Wrong, on several levels. First, Hastert is not a commentator. He is the House speaker, third in line to the presidency.

Second, it is another example of wingers trying to shift the blame for something that is entirely their fault. It was wingers who knew about Foley and did nothing. And it was wingers who exposed the fact that wingers knew about Foley and did nothing. The Dems had zero to do with it.
What’s happening here is Clinton is trying to shift the blame away from anything he had to do with the situation and lay it squarely at the feet of the Bush administration. What that’s called is blaming a subsequent administration for your failures.
He’s trying to what? Blame a future administration for what he failed to accomplish? Now, I know you know that’s not true.

No, actually, what Clinton was doing was responding to wingers who were trying to blame him. And that’s the very point I was trying to make. It’s not Bush’s fault we haven’t caught OBL within the last five years. According to wingers, it’s Clinton’s. At least Clinton had the guts to say he failed. The gutless wonder who currently occupies the Whitehouse doesn’t have the stones to admit he failed.
As pointed out ALREADY to you MK - "Condoleezza Rice strongly disputed a claim by former President Bill Clinton" She was specifically answering a claim made by Clinton. Apparently that’s off limits for you.
Yes, but you ignore the obivous point. Clinton made his claim only because wingers were first in blaming him. Clinton was responding to those who were blaming him. If Clinton had started the finger pointing - again, if Clinton had started the finger pointing you might have a point. But Clinton didn’t start it - the right wing did.

I defy you to find a quote or a source that says Clinton started the finger pointing. I repeat: Clinton did not start the finger pointing.

Why is this so f*ck*ng hard for you to understand?????
I’ll go out on a limb here, but I recall that Bush 1 and company wanted to roll all the way into Baghdad. The UN and ’international pressure’ were the reason we stopped and left Saddam in power.
Uh, no. Does the name Brent Scowcroft mean anything to you? From his book - co-authored by Bush 41.
While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.
Now, Clinton could have gotten blamed Bush 41 - when he was on the doorstep - for not invading Iraq and passing the buck to him. But he didn’t. Clinton didn’t suffer from "Bush 43" disease. He contained Saddam. Reduced him to the toothless tiger that we found when we invaded Iraq. But of course our current predicament in Iraq is all his fault.

It never ends with wingers. It just never ends.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
The problem with the Dems isn’t that Clinton tried and failed with North Korea, but that they INSIST that more talking with North Korea could succeed and that it’s Bush’s fault it hasn’t.

That is ludicrous. North Korea did not negotiate with Clinton in good faith. This shows that they really want a bomb more than aid and a light water reactor, and that this time we have to be far more careful and include more pressure in our talks.

The Dems seem to think that if we just offer concession after concession, the NoKos will finally agree to something. What if they really just want the bomb? No amount of concessions will help.

Also, if the NoKos truly want to do a deal, they should be the ones offering concessions based on the fact that they need the aid, and that their previous actions make them the one’s who need to work on their credibility.

Bluntly put, the cheater has to work harder to regain trust and make a relationship work than those who were cheated on.

Final point: Seoul is within artillery range of NoKo...that means Clinton and Bush have very few hard options except a blockage, which Bush has been doing.

So, the claim that Bush is blowing it is stupid, and reveals once again the Dems are not serious on national security...
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Now, a side question:

During the collapse of North Korea, if it were possible to get the Michael Jordan basketball out...would that be worth a ton of money or what?

Maybe we will see the day when the NoKos really need aid, when it’s for sale on E-Bay, shipping from Pyongyang not included!

Also, you know, when the Dems say that calling them the Axis of Evil is counter-productive, how productive is it to give Kim Jong-Il the basketball?

Yes, it’s cute, but it might very well be taken as an insult by a powerful leader we were negotiating with.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
MK doesn’t seem to have an argument with respect to the topic at hand, consequently he has to change the subject.

Looker had good points on why the NK nukes did come about magically in 2002 (unless Santa was early that year, and Dear Leader was a good boy):
Since it has to be made in a nuclear reactor, it means there has to be a reactor to make it in. Which isn’t a trivial construction project.
Given they can’t put it on the surface where we can see it, that inidicates they have to be doing it somewhere below ground. Non-trivial, even if you are willing to radiate all your plant workers on a daily basis because you don’t put all the necessary protections in.

Then one has to acquire the Uranium for the process to create the Plutonium.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/plutonium.htm
Harun gets it as well:
The problem with the Dems isn’t that Clinton tried and failed with North Korea, but that they INSIST that more talking with North Korea could succeed and that it’s Bush’s fault it hasn’t.
The reason they insist on talking is:

1) That’s what their guy did (it failed, but whatever).

2) They don’t have any other plan.

FWIW: Carter and Albright were the morons that brokered the failed plan. At most, it was only indirectly Clinton’s fault. And of course, Bush didn’t come up with an effective response, but the NK effort was likely well under way before he took office, so it isn’t clear what he could have done.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I’ll admit that I missed Hastert’s name in that long quote. However, from that same quote:
In an appearance on the show, Hastert seemed to agree with Limbaugh’s theory, stating that his Democratic colleagues "put this thing forward to try to block" the Republican agenda.
I’m not sure how you’re parsing that, but I don’t see how that says what Foley did was the Democrat’s fault. He’s questioning the timing and whether that when and how this information was released was a Democrat ploy. And this whole tangent is irrelevant to an argument on a current administration blaming a previous one.
He’s trying to what? Blame a future administration for what he failed to accomplish?
You aren’t that obtuse. Clinton, by claiming that he provided a plan to the Bush administration, can point to their failure to execute his plan as evidence that he hadn’t completely failed. The only problem with that is that there was no plan. At least, Rice is willing to come out in public and say there was no plan.
what Clinton was doing was responding to wingers who were trying to blame him.
What Clinton was responding to was the barrage of questions asking why he didn’t do more to catch OBL when he had the chance. That’s a tough question to be asked, and something I’m sure Clinton is horrifed to hear because it reminds people that his administration wasn’t all puppies, sunflowers, and sparkles.

I’ll go out on a limb here. I don’t blame Clinton for not catching OBL. It’s true that he had many more chances to do so than Bush has had. However, the political climate at the time was far, far different and there was no will in the American public to go terrorist hunting on the scale that would have been necessary to wipe out al Qaeda prior to 9/11.

And you still don’t have a quote of this administration putting the blame on the previous one.
 
Written By: Bill W
URL: http://
Bluntly put, the cheater has to work harder to regain trust and make a relationship work than those who were cheated

This is also bluntly put. The loon in North Korea doesn’t really seem to give a rat’s *ss about earning the "trust" of G. W. Bush, nor does Ahmadinejad in Iran. They’re both building nukes and G.W. is sitting around slack-jawed without a clue what to do about it. What Clinton did, or would do, doesn’t mean jack. After all, Bush is the president now for going on six years.
 
Written By: Pug
URL: http://
Yeah, I guess engaging NoKos neighbors to help deal with the situation, is "doing nothing."

Heck, I thought the Democrats were the let’s not be rash, let’s talk this thing to death, and then seek international help, and finally go to the UN, party in this country.

Hmmm, we really don’t know that NoKo has nukes, or has tested a nuke.

We do know that China, Russia, and some other countries are now getting serious about doing something about NoKo...

So, who’s a failure?

Other them the dear leader, Kim...

The "end game" is not yet played on this situation, but the grade is already set in stone for some.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
When we stopped engaging NoKo in 2002, they resumed Plutonium production.
Make of this what you will but per the New York Times:
But starting around 1997, the North Koreans took steps to start a second, secret nuclear program, one based on enriching uranium. South Korean and American intelligence agencies did not find conclusive evidence of that program until the summer of 2002, and that fall the Bush administration confronted the North Koreans with its evidence.
 
Written By: err
URL: http://
So, the claim that Bush is blowing it is stupid, and reveals once again the Dems are not serious on national security...
Bush is doing nothing. Repeat: Bush is doing nothing. Rice mutters about 6 party talks, or something.

That’s it. That’s the policy on North Korea.

For some weird reason, wingnuts worship Bush on North Korea precisely because he is ignoring the problem. He doesn’t bomb them, he doesn’t talk to them, he doesn’t do anything.

To wingnuts, doing absolutely nothing about a foreign policy problem is a sign of strength. Strange.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Indeed, I’m having a hard time recalling any instance when Clinton attempted to shift blame for a foreign policy problem to Bush 41.
If he had blamed Somalia on President Bush (41), I would have agreed with it.

I had mentioned this in an e-mail to Jerry Pournelle, which he had posted on his web log:
Mr. Krauthammer neglected to point out President Bush’s (41) foray into Somalia. The realism behind such a move had escaped me at the time. It still does.

The evil side of me, however, has always wondered if that was done to provide a sure-fire foreign policy failure for the following Clinton administration. I don’t have words to express how angry that would make me if that suspicion was true.
President Bush (41) was a spook. You can’t really trust them.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
I’m not sure how you’re parsing that, but I don’t see how that says what Foley did was the Democrat’s fault. He’s questioning the timing and whether that when and how this information was released was a Democrat ploy. And this whole tangent is irrelevant to an argument on a current administration blaming a previous one.
Hastert is lying and saying the blame for the timing of the release is on the Democrats. Brian Ross broke this story. He said his sources were from the GOP. I repeat: the reporter who broke this story sad the story is from the GOP. Hastert has to know this (I assume he is not stupid) but he suggests otherwise.

That makes him a liar about who is to blame for this scandal being brought to light. (Of course, it’s even more curious that Hastert would complain about the timing but not the accuracy of the story.)

Furthermore, it is entirely relevant to this discussion. Hastert works hand in glove with Bush. Shifting blame to the Democrats is currency among these people, whether it be to the current minority in one branch of government or to the former occupant of the other.
You aren’t that obtuse. Clinton, by claiming that he provided a plan to the Bush administration, can point to their failure to execute his plan as evidence that he hadn’t completely failed. The only problem with that is that there was no plan. At least, Rice is willing to come out in public and say there was no plan
The main topic of this discussion is about shifting blame. I will repeat: Clinton was responding to criticism, not initiating it. The wingnut strategy is to shift blame first. To be the first. That way, if the person you are attempting to shift blame to actualy responds, the wingnut can say that the attacked has now become the attacker. Classis Rovian politics. And you eat it up with a spoon.

I WILL SAY THIS ONE MORE TIME: WINGNUTS BLAMED CLINTON ON IRAQ AND BIN LADEN BEFORE CLINTON EVER SAID A WORD ABOUT EITHER SUBJECT WITH REGARD TO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. CLINTON WAS RESPONDING TO THE ATTEMPTS TO SHIFT BLAME. WINGERS ATTEMPTED TO SHIFT BLAME FIRST. BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY DO. WHEN CLINTON RESPONDED, WINGERS WHINED: "LOOK, THE LEFT SHIFTS BLAME TOO."

It kind of reminds me of the burglar who gets shot by the homeowner after he breaks in and later sues the homeowner for shooting him. But then wingers love to be victims, even when on the offense.

Again, I ask the obvious question: Why is this so f*ck*ng hard ot understand?:????????????????????
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
尖锐湿疣排铅尖锐湿疣成人用品尖锐湿疣治疗中国癌症网肺癌胃癌肝癌肾癌食道癌子宫颈癌乳腺癌卵巢癌直肠癌结肠癌皮肤癌甲状腺癌胰腺癌前列腺癌膀胱癌骨癌鼻咽癌脑瘤

癌症乳腺癌肺癌胃癌食管癌肿瘤直肠癌结肠癌肝癌宫颈癌脑瘤甲状腺肿瘤胆囊癌胆管癌前列腺癌白血病鼻咽癌肾癌恶性淋巴瘤皮肤癌喉癌舌癌胰腺癌膀胱癌
 
Written By: fidhui
URL: http://
To wingnuts, doing absolutely nothing about a foreign policy problem is a sign of strength. Strange.
To moon bats, not agreeing with Hugo Chavez’s claim that Bush is the devil is tantamount to worshipping Bush.

Strange indeed!
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
So MK, I take it that you want to bomb NKorea? You think there should be less dialog and more action, bombing or invasion or something? Why are you advocating this for NKorea and not for Iran? Or do I have you wrong on Iran too? I must say, it’s very aggressive, unilateral and neo-conish of you MK.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
There goes mkultra again ... Argument by assertion and conflation and desperately trying to change the subject.

    WINGNUTS BLAMED CLINTON ON IRAQ AND BIN LADEN BEFORE CLINTON EVER SAID A WORD ABOUT EITHER SUBJECT WITH REGARD TO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. CLINTON WAS RESPONDING TO THE ATTEMPTS TO SHIFT BLAME. WINGERS ATTEMPTED TO SHIFT BLAME FIRST. BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY DO. WHEN CLINTON RESPONDED, WINGERS WHINED: "LOOK, THE LEFT SHIFTS BLAME TOO."


In one word; bullsh*t. In all CAPS, no less. MK is really getting desperate, isn’t he?

PS: As far as I know, Brian Ross claims that the e-mails (not the IMs) came from a GOP source that he refuses to name. Personally, I think he might be lying.

And even if his source truly was a Republican, the e-mails were simply not enough to launch an investigation into Foley’s life that could have ruined him even if he was innocent of anything.

The question is; where did the IMs, dating all the way from 2003, come from? Who had them? And for how long?

What type of "Republican" would keep them for that long, not give them to the top GOP leaders in the House but would instead shop them to ABC one month to the mid-terms?

There’s no need to question the accuracy. But there is a need to question the timing.
 
Written By: Martin A. Knight
URL: http://
Ivan,
I don’t think that the blame can be laid at anybody except North Korea, China and Pakistan.
You mean you’re blaming the people who actually enabled and conducted the offending activity? Well, that’s a novel approach!

But the truth is, it’s my fault. I failed to stop Lil’ Kim from pursuing a nuclear weapons progam. Well, me and Mr. Usman Ndgeokani of Burkina Faso, West Africa. And mkultra. The three of us did virtually all of the non-stoppage.

The Buck Stops Here.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
This is standard for MK -
He/she suddenly gets very aggressive when it’s obvious Bush’s answer is not going to relate to setting off explosives and firing projectiles in the short term.

How he/she doesn’t realize that his/her normal ’peace and conversation uber alles’ approach is so glaringly different than this aggressive war-hawk approach never ceases to amaze me. It has been seen before and is
illustrative of the fact that MK will happily shift views to whatever ones will be most appropriate in making continued attacks on administration policies.

I’m imagining the alternate universe, where we invade North Korea as MK seems to desire, and discover that their nuke was a NoKo version of a daisy cutter, we discover they have no WMD’s, despite our intelligence information. Haliburton is awarded the reconstruction projects for North Korea, Dick Cheney is immediately implicated in getting the contract for them. Bush is widely maligned on the world stage and by the Democrats for making much ado about nothing in North Korea and the Dems want to withdraw despite the fact that there are NoKo fanatics in caves launching attacks on the new unified Korea (north and south of the DMZ).
MK is happily yelling quagmire and demanding impeachment for Bush’s LIES about North Korea.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Make of this what you will but per the New York Times:
"But starting around 1997, the North Koreans took steps to start a second, secret nuclear program, one based on enriching uranium. South Korean and American intelligence agencies did not find conclusive evidence of that program until the summer of 2002, and that fall the Bush administration confronted the North Koreans with its evidence."
Obvioyusly, the NYT is a lap dog of Bush.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
The problem with the Dems isn’t that Clinton tried and failed with North Korea, but that they INSIST that more talking with North Korea could succeed and that it’s Bush’s fault it hasn’t.
I think this summarizes the whole blame game argument nicely. As miserable of a president, ex-president, and all around person as I regard Jimmy Carter, from what I know now I can almost let him off the hook for trying to come up with an agreement with NoKo in 1994. But after being shown what deceitful little villains the Norks are, to say that the answer is sitting to come up with more agreements just shows what a tragic state of denial this poisonous old coot lives in. It’s the classic case of "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." I truly wish the Dems could figure this rather basic stuff out so I could have a credible alternative in elections.
 
Written By: Dudley Smith
URL: http://
Murdoc suggests that, with all the arguing over who let Kim Jong-Il go nuclear, only ABC-TV can settle the question with a mini-series, “Path to the North Korean Bomb.”

This should then be followed up with an interview of Bill Clinton by Chris Wallace of FoxNews.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Hi, nice site!
loss pill weightpenis pillechinaceabirth control pillrenovaenlargement penis pillprevacidafter morning pillidentification pillvaniqa
penis enlargement pill brazilian diet pill
[URL=http://loss-pill-weight.pillsz.com]loss pill weight[/URL][URL=http://vaniqa.pillsz.com]vaniqa[/URL][URL=http://enlargement-penis-pill.pillsz.com]enlargement penis pill[/URL][URL=http://after-morning-pill.pillsz.com]after morning pill[/URL][URL=http://identification-pill.pillsz.com]identification pill[/URL][URL=http://penis-pill.pillsz.com]penis pill[/URL][URL=http://prevacid.pillsz.com]prevacid[/URL][URL=http://birth-control-pill.pillsz.com]birth control pill[/URL][URL=http://echinacea.pillsz.com]echinacea[/URL][URL=http://renova.pillsz.com]renova[/URL]
 
Written By: Reply
URL: http://birth-control-pill.pillsz.com
Hi, vety nice site!
cosmetic kay maryskin care productskin careliposuction costcosmetic dentistrycosmetic dentistbest skin careliposuctioncosmetic plastic surgerycosmetic mac
prescription weight loss pill ru 486 abortion pill
[URL=http://liposuction-cost.pillsz.com]liposuction cost[/URL][URL=http://cosmetic-dentistry.pillsz.com]cosmetic dentistry[/URL][URL=http://skin-care-product.pillsz.com]skin care product[/URL][URL=http://skin-care.pillsz.com]skin care[/URL][URL=http://best-skin-care.pillsz.com]best skin care[/URL][URL=http://cosmetic-dentist.pillsz.com]cosmetic dentist[/URL][URL=http://cosmetic-plastic-surgery.pillsz.com]cosmetic plastic surgery[/URL][URL=http://cosmetic-kay-mary.pillsz.com]cosmetic kay mary[/URL][URL=http://liposuction.pillsz.com]liposuction[/URL][URL=http://cosmetic-mac.pillsz.com]cosmetic mac[/URL]
 
Written By: Anna
URL: http://skin-care-product.pillsz.com
Hi,you have super nice site!
vehicle insurance
medical insurance california car insurance
[URL=http://long-term-care-insurance.vserpi.com]long term care insurance[/URL]
 
Written By: Antony
URL: http://home-insurance-quote.vserpi.com
Hi, nice site!
eph200 loss pill weight
sex pill marilyn monroe sleeping pill pill organizer
[url=http://weight-loss-pill.pillsz.com]diet loss natural pill weight[/url]
 
Written By: Reply
URL: http://weight-loss-pill.pillsz.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider