Thursday, September 15, 2016

The Two Clinton Nuclear Bombs

The two nuclear bombs dropped on Japan were known as “Little Boy” and “Fat Man.” The world today has two new nuclear bombs.

One is named “Fat Bill.” The other is named “Little Hillary.”

The “Bill Clinton” bomb is the one getting the most headlines as North Korea continues testing its nuclear weapons. The Communist dictatorship is on its fifth test already and achieved an explosion almost at the level of “Little Boy” which was dropped on Hiroshima.

North Korea has let it be known that this test has allowed it to produce standardized nuclear warheads “able to be mounted on strategic ballistic rockets” so that it can “produce at will and as many as it wants a variety of smaller, lighter and diversified nuclear warheads of higher strike power.”

Kim doesn’t just want a nuke. He wants a lot of nukes. And at the rate he’s going, he will have them.

And the man to thank for all that is Bill Clinton.

In the fall of ’94, Clinton told the American people that his deal with North Korea would help bring “an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.

“After 16 months of intense and difficult negotiations with North Korea, we have completed an agreement that will make the United States, the Korean Peninsula, and the world safer. Under the agreement, North Korea has agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities,” Bill Clinton assured the country.

He lied.

The North Korean Deal was as worthless as his wife’s Iran deal. North Korea never kept its agreement. Like the Iran Deal, the North Korean Deal was never ratified by the Senate. Named the “Agreed Framework”, it amounted to as little as its name implied. Clinton’s people knew that North Korea had a uranium enrichment program going but chose to look away from its violations of the agreement because it would have been a political embarrassment for their boss and his diplomatic achievement.

The already worthless deal quickly became even more worthless once it was implemented. Like the Iran Deal there were secret deals within the deal, some of which still remain secret, likely because they reveal the scope of the Clinton sellout to the Communist dictatorship.

Inspections were delayed indefinitely. North Korea’s nuclear program had become known when it had previously delayed IAEA inspections for seven years. This time around it refused to resume inspections until we built them a nuclear power plant. Seven years after the deal, the IAEA was still trying to get access. Toward the end, the projected timeline for full inspections had been pushed to 2009.

On January 2003, North Korea announced that “We have no intention of producing nuclear weapons and our nuclear activities at this stage will be confined only to peaceful purposes such as the production of electricity." In April, it announced that it had nuclear weapons.

North Korea’s violations were only made public under Bush. And so Clinton’s people who had given us the worthless deal blamed Bush’s people for scuttling their wonderful agreement.

Clinton’s North Korean Deal shared the same silly premise as the Iran Deal. It was based on the conviction that what North Korea really wanted wasn’t nuclear weapons, but nuclear power. If we just gave North Korea 500,000 metric tons of fuel oil a year and built some lighter nuclear reactors for the Communist dictator, it would lose all interest in building a bomb.

In a surprising twist that no one could have predicted, it turned out that North Korea wasn’t trying to cut electricity costs for its population of terrified starving slaves.

It really did want a bomb.

Bill Clinton sold America the same bill of goods on North Korea that Obama did on Iran. North Korea would have its isolation eased and “our relationship” with it would develop.

He was right about that. Our relationship developed to the point of North Korea threatening us with the nuclear weapons that he promised us it wouldn't have. Bill’s relationship with North Korea developed to the point of a paid speaking gig that was turned down by the ethics office at the State Department.

That’s the first Clinton Bomb. It’s named “Fat Bill.” North Korea has also supplied nuclear technology to Iran. And that’s the other Clinton Bomb.

It’s called “Little Hillary.”

Hillary Clinton has been very eager to claim credit for the Iran Deal. Indeed her boss’ worthless deal with the nuclear terror state closely echoes her husband’s worthless deal with another nuclear terror state.

Even the rhetoric was the same. In Bill’s speech, he claimed that the deal with North Korea “does not rely on trust.” In Obama’s speech, he insisted that, “this deal is not built on trust.”

Except that it did and it does.

Iran got to collect its own samples and turn them over to the IAEA. That’s the definition of trust.

Two new nuclear reactors are being built. Like the North Korean variety, they’re supposed to be strictly light-water. Secret exemptions allow Iran to store unknown amounts of low-enriched uranium that can be purified into highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium and to maintain hot cells that can be used for plutonium separation. And the agreement actually starts to lapse after 11 years, instead of in 15 years, allowing Iran to double its rate of enrichment with a six month breakout time to a nuclear bomb.

On that “conservative” timetable, Iran will go nuclear even faster than North Korea.

Like North Korea, Iran will keep its real weapons program going on the side. It isn’t interested in nuclear power, but in nuclear weapons.

North Korea showed off its real agenda throughout the deal by continuing to develop ballistic missiles. Now it’s finalizing the process of being able to mount nuclear warheads on those missiles.

Like North Korea, Iran is working hard on its ballistic missile program. And Iranian ballistic missiles are based on North Korean ballistic missiles. They have the same purpose. Iran’s most recent test in July made use of the North Korean BM-25 Musudan ballistic missile which can travel 2,500 miles. That’s based on a Russian missile that carried a 1 megaton nuclear warhead.

For the Iran Deal to be credible, we have to trust that Iran doesn’t want a nuclear bomb.

Hillary initiated the pivot to let Iran continue enriching uranium. As her campaign adviser said, “She recognized the difficulty of reaching a solution with zero enrichment.”

As with the rest of her politics, Hillary Clinton has held an infinite number of positions on Iran’s nuclear enrichment. But behind closed doors, this was her true position.

North Korea’s “Fat Bill” bomb and Iran’s “Little Hillary” bomb are interconnected. The two terror states, one red and the other green, one left-wing and the other Islamic, help each other.

Much as Bill helped North Korea and Hillary helped Iran.

The world faces the prospect of two terror states armed with nuclear weapons as the legacy for two politicians named Clinton who sold out their country and ushered in a new age of nuclear terror.

If a North Korean bomb is used in war, it will be Bill’s bomb. And if Iran uses nuclear weapons, it will be Hillary’s hellish explosion.

Stopping the two Clinton bombs may be the biggest national security challenge for a future president.


mindRider said...

The fat Bill bomb of mad Kim gives the unholy couple of N Korea & Iran with it's mad mullah's the leverage to have Iran proceed on the nuclear path as the only real option would be completely destroying the processing plants before Iran has produced it's first nuke. With the blackmail of firing even one nuclear rocket at South Korea or Japan the evil two have blocked that option. So, how now brown cow? Having Iran proceed on the path Obama/little Hillary placed it is NOT an option as it's leaders suffer from the Mahdi syndrome which demands wreaking utter destruction in a "last days"scene upon the world, while Kim might be mad but is not self destructively mad.

Richard Tavor said... usual. Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

That is the problem with many of these "legacy" agreements. We do not really see the cost of this legacy until years later.

There is a direct line from North Korean nuke program to the Iran nuke program, and there will be hell to pay for that bundle of stupidity.

BamaTecAngel said...

Very, very good read.. brings some history back and comparisons seem sound.

Anonymous said...

As deals such as those outlined above are innately dangerous to the U.S. and all other nations, how are these actions not treasonous--and both Bill & Hillary arrested and tried for same? Hillary especially, given that her actions occurred after the NDAA was signed, allowing her to be charged by "aiding and abetting" a known/identified terrorist organization?

Anonymous said...

The Arkansas First Cow trying to sound as sophisticated as her New York friends would:
- Why do we give heed to that basket of deploOOOrables? (Try to say it like the British Royals, holding the ‘o’ longer than needed, just a tad)
Rich, old liberals wagging their tails:
- (Cheering and laughing but feeling a shiver down the spine) Thanks she hasn’t taken issue with us. She is kinda Kim Jong-un¡

Anonymous said...

I remember the agreement with the NORKS - Jimmy Carter shuttle diplomacy. Now we have the same with Iran. Just as former President Carter and M. Albright were part of the deal with NK, President Obama was and is the lead with Iran.

sdharms said...

I differ on one statement: BC and OBaama/Hillary did nnot sell the "American People" a bill of goods. We knew and know they are liars. The PRESS pretended there was concensus and all was accepted by the masses. There is a great pretense among the ruling class. We are getting mad enough tho, to do something --- ... what , I don't know exactly, but for them this will not end well.

Anonymous said...

Best to consider Bill and Hillary were the next generation of "Silvermasters" ...just like Obama is. Ayers was a Communist revolutionary with Castro and Venceramos

You cannot have this many connected to Soviet spies and the information is simply negligible.

Jarrett--Connections to Soviet Spy Alfred Stern, Vernon Jarrett, Dr. bowman and Barbra Bowman as well as FMD

Obama connections to Soviet Agent Frank Marshall Davis

Bill to Soviet Agent Strobe Talbott

Hillary to Soviet agent Soros--yes Soros moved to the Soviets after Hiltler,seeing them as the real power.

Madeline Albright

Empress Trudy said...

One of the hallmarks of modern western society is the existence of agreements that more or less mean something. Countries have argued about treaties for a long time because there is some sense that having a treaty is representative of meaningful state of conditions among nation states.

But treaties have never meant more than each party's willingness to enforce those terms. If there's no downside then a treaty is worthless. But this isn't a new thing. European nations and Russia had treaties with Germany which everyone quietly agreed weren't worth a thing. They were put up for public domestic consumption where the parties who were the signatories saw them as no more than a stalling action to gain time in order to successfully violate them.

We didn't have 'treaties' with the CCCP agreeing not to nuke one another. We all mutually understood that there was no practical need to have a treaty for that. And in fact the very existence OF the Cold War was because there were no treaties and no need for them because no one had or even wanted any way to enforce them.

Shimon Peres once quipped "You don't sign peace treaties with your friends". This is both very right and very wrong. Of course you don't sign peace treaties with your friends. But neither do you worry about you enemy's truthfulness at fulfilling the terms of a treaty you sign wit them either. Again, at best it's a stalling action to buy time.

In this day and age, the post Cold War Era, anyone can sign an agreement with anyone. Apparently the only ones that are enforceable though are the ones we have with ourselves like the UK's membership in the EU. That, seemingly is one of the few that's seen as being very very hard to get out of.

So if all of the warring clans in Syria sign a 'treaty' so what? What does it mean? If Obama signs a treaty with ISIS and al Qaeda, so what? If Israel signs a treaty with Hamas, so what? They are all worthless unless they are enforceable. Likewise, the DPRK is weird little psychotic nation that brilliantly 'sort of' steps up to the precipice of violating the vague terms of an agreement and then going slightly past that. But again, it's not enforceable unless Obama or any President makes it enforceable. And if the terms of the deal don't allude to what could happen when the DPRK breaks the deal, then they will break the deal. They would be crazy not to.

The West is always condemned for being weak on these problems but that's only part of it. We all have a vague sense of what failure looks like. The critical and deeper issue is what success looks like. Where DID Bill Clinton see the 1994 agreement going, 4 or 5 or 10 years down the road. He probably didn't think about it or care. 22 years later is several political lifetimes. If we look at Iran, 22 years after Obama claims victory with his non-treaty treaty no one will remember or care what we said here now. It won't matter. Not unless at every step of the way there's a way to assure compliance. There clearly is not. Not the way we've used for SALT and START.

Anonymous said...

The Bill Clinton-North Korea and Obama/Hillary-Iran negotiations are a litany of theatrics. They show the devious villains brilliantly outwitting our well-intentioned but gullible statespeople with one master stroke after another. Gosh, we try so hard to be fair and make everybody happy, and keep the world safe.

A mediocre con-man sees through this setup easily. When a con is running and you can't figure out who the mark is... It's you. Guess what? Clinton, Clinton, DPRK, Iran are all on the same side. You didn't really think Willary were that stupid, did you?

We've been had.


Anonymous said...

We also can thank Bill Clinton for the attacks on 9/11, in fact for virtually all al Qaeda attacks on US interests in that, following the February 1993 truck bomb attack on the WTC, Clinton did nothing serious to remove OBL from the field.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anon (Bill not remove OBL);
I agree completely. However, if we talk of OBL post 1993, we are playing whack-a-mole. Islam is a 1400 year old plague that now threatens Western Civilization. The Anglosphere, Europe, Russia, and even China can easily defeat Islam by:
1. Eject Muslims.
2. Developing domestic (petro, nuclear) power.
3. Swift, severe retaliation against Islamic Jihad.
4. Spread the Truth about Islam.

Post a Comment