Kit Bond urges action against North Korea
Bond
U.S. Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., says the United States should call North Korea’s bluff and stop the cargo ship off China’s coast that is suspected of carrying arms in violation of a recent United Nations resolution.
“I believe we should either board it or force it into a port and inspect that ship,” Bond said today while in St. Louis for an unrelated event.
A U.S. Navy destroyer has been following the North Korean-flagged freighter, the Kang Nam 1, as it steams south past Taiwan. U.S. intelligence suspects that it is carrying artillery or missiles to Myanmar, another reclusive dictatorship in Southeast Asia.
The U.N. has voted to prohibit North Korean arms shipments as punishment for North Korea’s nuclear-warhead test on May 25. But earlier today, a U.S. State Department official in South Korea said the U.S. will not use force to stop the ship.
Bond said North Korea’s recent bluster about attacking the U.S. with nuclear weapons is hollow and, in part, a result of Western efforts to placate the North Korean government. Bond was bi-partisan in his criticism of American policy, blaming former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush for seeking agreements with North Korea.
“This is what we have got to show for it,” Bond said, referring to recent pronouncements from Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea. “I think they want to bully the free world into giving more aid… We need to continue with pressure.”
In recent days, the North Korean government has threatened a “fire shower of nuclear retaliation” if the U.S. were to stop the freighter. Bond said he considered North Korean dictator Kim Jong II to be unstable, but said, “At least some people in North Korean know that it would be annihilation for them” to attack the U.S.
Bond was asked about the freighter during an appearance at the Jewel Box in Forest Park to receive an award from Heat-Up St. Louis, a charity that helps low-income people with utility bills.
“Do you have a cogent idea or is this more “all hat” posturing?”
Bwaaaa-ha-ha! This from a guy that used to root for Ho Chi Minh.
===
It is time someone tried to get thru Obama’s thick socialist skull. Senator Bond is “Right On”. Even tho he is not my Senator, I have always admired him for his common sense approach. I will hate to see him leave the senate and I hope he succeeds in getting dumbhead Obama’s attention prior to departure!
Kit missed Obama’s Cairo speech in which he said no one nation has the right to prevent another nation from having a nuke.
If N Korea is selling a nuke to al-Qaeda, according to the Obama doctrine, we have no right to stop them.
Bobz -
As usual your perjorative is false. As much as you believe you are Rush or Sean or Bill, you are sadly deluded. Perhaps one of these days you will evince some semblance of informed issue oriented discussion.
Senator Bond and others run around making “talk tough” statements, but they have as yet to actually suggest a valid (or any) course of action.
Oh Bond, Another Chicken-Hawk who didn’t waste his time in service to his country.
“Perhaps one of these days you will evince some semblance of informed issue oriented discussion”
You mean like this gem: “Senator Bond are you volunteering to lead a strike force of SEALS aboard the North Korean vessel“ ??
(you need a hyphen between issue + oriented)
===
Bobz -
It is Senator Bond who wants “tough action”, however her is not specific as to what he means. I chose a deliberately hyperbolic question to emphasize his lack of specificity.
It is one thing when your party is out of office in the executive and legislative branches to “talk tough”, however, at some point you have to come up with what you think should be done. Of course when the Democrats were out of power in these branches a short 6 years ago, the Republican said the same thing.
Your choice first thing out of the gate was a personal perjorative quite apart from the issue, but that seems to be your nature. I do not fault it anymore than I would a field mouse screeching at a hawk then ducking back into its’ hole.
I am issue oriented — ie I am oriented toward issues. I do not need no stinkin’ hyphen.
RH: “Bond … wants “tough action”, however h[e] is not specific as to what he means”
Yet Sen. Bond said:
“I believe we should either board it or force it into a port and inspect that ship”
That sounds specific to me.
You’ve previously acknowledged that you campaigned against a free South Vietnam nation (and by extension Cambodian, too.) Pretty certain you proclaimed your pride in doing so.
Re: “…informed issue oriented discussion” What type of discussion…? An issue-oriented discussion. That makes it a hyphenated adjective of discussion.
Btw, you’re hardly issue oriented; you’re merely another namby-pamby, why-can’t-we-all-get-along, it’s-all-George Bush’s-fault, knee-jerk progressive that throws around a good number of pejoratives yourself.
(go ahead, find the misplaced hyphen)
===