Ted's excellent North Korean adventure

Fresh from a trip to North Korea, Ted Turner was interviewed on CNN by Wolf Blitzer a few weeks ago (hat tip: Megan McCormack). It was - especially in light of their recent (attempted?) nuclear test - quite an extraordinary performance. Let's get right to Ted:

"But I had a great time. I am absolutely convinced that the North Koreans are absolutely sincere. There's really no reason -- no reason for them to cheat or do anything to violate this very forward agreement. I mean, I think we can put the North Korea and East Asia problems behind us and concentrate on Iran and Iraq, where, where we still have some ongoing difficulties."

So far not a lot of surprises. Probably about what you've come to expect from the guy. You can disagree with him on the substance (which I certainly do), but no showstoppers so far. Continuing, what does Ted think of the North Korean leader?

"Well, I didn't get, I didn't get to meet him, but he didn't look, in the pictures that I've seen of him on CNN, he didn't look too much different than most other people."

Well, that makes me feel better. What cutting edge, insightful analysis. Glad he seems to think that, if you don't see horns or something coming out of the guy's head on TV, everything is hunky-dory. Still, at this point I generally just think that Ted's an idiot, as opposed to evil.

But wait, it was just a matter of time. What about the issues of starvation and economic desperation? Ted's on it:

"Well, hey, listen. I saw a lot of people over there. They were thin and they were riding bicycles instead of driving in cars."

Disgusting. Millions of people starve to death, millions continue to suffer from malnutrition - never mind the other human rights abuses - and Ted Turner offers quips about people being "thin." I am literally at a loss for words. Maybe he thinks keeping people thin is a smart move for when guards "spear" them to drag them back across the border (hat tip Austin Bay). (By the way, that article link is not for the squeamish, but turning a blind eye to the actions it describes is also not for the humane.)

Well, maybe Ted (or you) doesn't care about human rights, or the domestic situation in North Korea. What about the threat they pose to the US or regional peace?

"And North Korea never posed any significant threat to the United States. I mean, the whole economy of North Korea's only $30 billion a year. It's less than the city of Detroit. It's a small place, and we do not have to worry about them attacking us."

Is that right? Here is what their "unofficial spokesman" said just the other day:

"Kim is unique in that he is the first to equip Korea with sufficient military capability to take the war all the way to the continental US. Under his leadership the DPRK has become a nuclear-weapons state with intercontinental means of delivery. . . Unlike all the previous wars Korea fought, a next war will be better called the American War or the DPRK-US War because the main theater will be the continental US, with major cities transformed into towering infernos."

Hyperbole aside, I guess we aren't supposed to listen to what people actually say. Back to Ted - what does he think we should do? Is North Korea really a threat?

Turner: "Let's give 'em a break. Give 'em a break And besides, even if they do -- even if they do threaten us again, the threat is non-existent to the United States. They can't threaten us. I mean, it's like a flea attacking an elephant." [typo corrected]

Blitzer: "What about those ground to ground missiles that they have, and the CIA-"

Turner: "They can't reach us."

Blitzer: "Well, they can reach Japan. They can reach South Korea. They can reach a lot of our allies-"

Turner: "They can't reach the USA, and we can pound them into, into oblivion in 24 hours."

Blitzer: "But, you don't want to get, you don't want to get to that. There are some estimates, by the way, that could reach Alaska."

Turner: "Well, what, the Aleutian Islands? There's nothing up there but a few sea lions."

This is Ted Turner's world. Nuclear threat against our troops overseas? Acceptable. Nuclear threat against our allies South Korea and Japan (whom we are obligated by treaty to defend)? Acceptable. Nuclear threat to the US itself? Acceptable, since it's only some islands in Alaska (wait till his environmentalist friends hear about this). Of course, you have to trust that we know exactly how far those missiles can go, and that North Korea doesn't develop (or already have) the means to deliver them further, and that there is no possibility of them passing them along to another hostile group or regime. Come to think of it, such knowledge probably wouldn't cause Turner to shift his world view at all. I mean, he seems unconcerned with a nuclear threat to Tokyo; why should San Francisco get him up in arms?

Has Turner been denounced on the Left? If not, when did the Left come to this? When did it become OK to ignore the starvation of a people by callously noting that they looked "thin"? When did it become OK to not worry about nuclear weapons held by a mad regime when they can only hit your soldiers, allies, and outlying territory? Is Ted Turner simply psychotic? What depravity.

It is said that youth is wasted on the young. If this interview is to be believed, freedom may be wasted on Ted Turner.