NKorean Nukes: Yet another failure of the Bush Administration blamed on Clinton

[jAZ]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008988.php

(July 10, 2006 -- 02:49 PM EST // link)
I'd been waiting for the day when Tony Snow would slip into full wing-nut claptrap overdrive. And today I think we've got it.

Here's what Snow said today when he got backed into a corner about the dismal failure of the administration's Korea policy ...

I understand what the Clinton administration wanted to do. They wanted to talk reason to the government of Pyongyang, and they engaged in bilateral conversations. And Bill Richardson went with flowers and chocolates, and he went with light water nuclear reactors, and he went with promises of heavy oil and a basketball signed by Michael Jordan, and many other inducements for the dear leader to try to agree not to develop nuclear weapons, and it failed.
You know Snow felt deeply under the gun here, because this claptrap comes from deep in the 'winger brain stem.

Let's review a few salient, uncontested facts.

Back in 1994, the US came close to war over its nuclear activities and particularly the reactor complex at Yongbyon. War was averted with the so-called 'Agreed Framework' in which North Korea suspended its production of plutonium (and put the facility under international inspections) in exchange for assistance building light water nuclear reactors (the kind that don't help you make bombs) and fuel oil for energy generation.

There are all sorts of details to what was going to be in exchange for what, who exactly would be doing the giving, and lots of other details you can see here. But that is the essence of it. And it shut down the North Koreans' plutonium reprocessing activities for close to a decade.

The agreement began to come apart in 1998 when the North Koreans did an unnannounced test firing of one of their missiles, which went over Japan and crashed into the Pacific. There was also, by the end of the Clinton administration, evidence that the North Koreans were attempting to enrich uranium, something not explicitly covered in the Agreed Framework, but certainly a violation of the spirit of the agreement.

There's a fairly detailed explanation of the US reaction and the efforts to arrive at a new agreement during the late Clinton administration. It's a Times , oped written by two of the policy makers at the time, Bill Perry and Ashton Carter.

The Bush administration came to office convinced that this entire process was one of appeasement and set in motion a series of events that led to a complete breakdown of the initial agreement. In response, the North Koreans started reprocessing plutonium again.

Now, most agree, the North Koreans probably have enough for several nuclear warheads.

Now, the premise of the Bush administration's North Korea policy was that North Korea was a bad acting state that had to be dealt with through force, not negotiation. That didn't necessarily mean going to war. The goal was to intimidate the North Koreans into better behavior if possible and resort to force if necessary.

Yet, when the North Koreans called the White House's bluff and starting reprocessing plutonium, the White House's response was ... well, nothing.

That was three years ago.

Rather than talk softly and carry a big stick it was a policy of talk tough and do nothing.

The bomb making plutonium keeps coming off the conveyor belt. And the White House policy is to say they won't negotiate and also ask the Chinese to get the North Koreans to behave.

The remaining conceit of the Bush administration is that the Clintonites met with the North Koreans in bilateral talks while they insist on multilateral talks.

That's the policy, which is to say, they have no policy. The salient fact is that under Clinton plutonium reprocessing stopped and under Bush it restarted. The Bushies angle was that you don't coddle bad actors like the North Koreans. You deal with them in the language they understand: force. But the NKs called their bluff, they weren't prepared to use force. So they decided to forget about the whole thing.

That's the record. That's the policy. A total failure.

Tony Snow knows it. That's why he went into overdrive. The truth hurts.

[patteeu]

recxjAZ is back. I guess his loony sources got back from vacation or something.

"Salient, uncontested facts?" Let's start with the first one: "Back in 1994, the US came close to war over its nuclear activities and particularly the reactor complex at Yongbyon."

I say :BS: The Clinton scandals weren't intense enough in 1994 to provoke him to create a distraction and unlike his "courageous" deployments to Bosnia and Haiti, North Korea might have been able to fight back.

[dirk digler]

To be fair it is NK that has the problem not the US. Both Clinton and Bush have tried almost anything to peacefully resolve this and it has failed. At some point we have to stop playing nice and kick their ass.

[Bootlegged]

it's JUST jAZ!


http://www.durfee.net/will/images/Jack7.jpg


Insert theme music.

[Cochise]

What do you know, the 28,938th consecutive problem addressed in a jAZ thread that is all Bush's fault! What a coincidence!

[jspchief]

The goal was to intimidate the North Koreans into better behavior if possible and resort to force if necessary.

Yet, when the North Koreans called the White House's bluff and starting reprocessing plutonium, the White House's response was ... well, nothing.


Another example of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Had he taken military action, I'm sure this thread would have been about how he was playing cowboy instead letting diplomacy run it's course.

[Baby Lee]

So . . . Jordan BBs didn't get it done, and they knew it wasn't getting done at least 2 years before Clinton left office. But Clinton is a statesman for "trying something that's outlined somewhere else, look it up, it was pretty detailed." And Bush is a failure for trying something different, when that 'something some guys outlined that Clinton tried really hard to do' didn't work.

[jAZ]

Another example of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Had he taken military action, I'm sure this thread would have been about how he was playing cowboy instead letting diplomacy run it's course.
I've been saying for 4 years now that North Korea and Iran were the real threats in the region. Everyone knew that at the time. The only difference is that the neocons had a fixation on Saddam and Iraq and their mytical domino theory.

So instead of using the threat of *real* military force against North Korea, we decided to take on a pretend threat.

The point is that bombing nuclear production fascilities in North Korea would have had FAR, FAR, FAR more support among all stripes of Americans like myself... because it was actually justified... than was the case with Iraq.

[jAZ]

So . . . Jordan BBs didn't get it done, and they knew it wasn't getting done at least 2 years before Clinton left office. But Clinton is a statesman for "trying something that's outlined somewhere else, look it up, it was pretty detailed." And Bush is a failure for trying something different, when that 'something some guys outlined that Clinton tried really hard to do' didn't work.
Man your reading comprehension skills suck ass.

Clinton tried diplomacy and it worked for about 5 years. When Bush took over he stopped trying anything (or started trying his "let's go overthrow Saddam let and let the real threats fester").

There is just no escaping that North Korea first became a nuclear power and then expended their nuclear program when Bush stepped away from the diplomatic table and decided that Saddam and his fictional "weapons" was the biggest threat facing our nation.

[jAZ]

What do you know, the 28,938th consecutive problem addressed in a jAZ thread that is all Bush's fault! What a coincidence!
It's pretty amazing how badly one person's failure to exercise good judgement can radiate throughout the world when that person is the most powerful person in the world.

His failure to lead and understand complex situations (and his willingness to permit a bunch of elitist, textbook academics-types dictate foreign policy decisions based on wide-eyed academic theory... while ignoring the input of people with actual war-time experience like Colin Powell, etc) has caused nearly a trillion of dollars in damage, hundreds of throusands of lost lives, and will have lingering negative affects worldwide for decades and decades to come.

Again, it's amazing how much damage one misplaced person can do to this world.

[jAZ]

To be fair it is NK that has the problem not the US. Both Clinton and Bush have tried almost anything to peacefully resolve this and it has failed. At some point we have to stop playing nice and kick their ass.
It's too late for that now. Bush let them get the bomb while dicking around with an impotent Saddam.

[Baby Lee]

There is just no escaping that North Korea first became a nuclear power and then expended their nuclear program when Bush stepped away from the diplomatic table and decided that Saddam and his fictional "weapons" was the biggest threat facing our nation.
The agreement began to come apart in 1998 when the North Koreans did an unnannounced test firing of one of their missiles, which went over Japan and crashed into the Pacific. There was also, by the end of the Clinton administration, evidence that the North Koreans were attempting to enrich uranium, something not explicitly covered in the Agreed Framework, but certainly a violation of the spirit of the agreement.
The amazing Houdini!!!

[jAZ]

The amazing Houdini!!!
Man your reading comprehension skills suck ass.

[HC_Chief]

Man your reading comprehension skills suck ass.

lol

What a fuqtard. You're the official "leftist Marc Bulger" of the board jAZ. Congrats! :thumb:

[Baby Lee]

Man your reading comprehension skills suck ass.
"Nu'uh" is not a winning analysis.

I am humbled by your ability to announce certainty to the utter contrary of available evidence.

[Donger]

Man your reading comprehension skills suck ass.

Clinton tried diplomacy and it worked for about 5 years. When Bush took over he stopped trying anything (or started trying his "let's go overthrow Saddam let and let the real threats fester").

There is just no escaping that North Korea first became a nuclear power and then expended their nuclear program when Bush stepped away from the diplomatic table and decided that Saddam and his fictional "weapons" was the biggest threat facing our nation.

Actually, unless something new has popped up, there is no absolute evidence that North Korea has nuclear weapons.

[jAZ]

"Nu'uh" is not a winning analysis.

I am humbled by your ability to announce certainty to the utter contrary of available evidence.
Neither is misreading two different quotes and pretending they say the same thing.

Try again (for the 2nd time) and this time read what's written and not what you wished were written.

Then once you've caught up with the rest of the class we can revist the issue.

[Baby Lee]

Neither is misreading two different quotes and pretending they say the same thing.

Try again (for the 2nd time) and this time read what's written and not what you wished were written.

Then once you've caught up with the rest of the class we can revist the issue.
OIC - evidence of the development of NK nukes under Clinton should be dismissed unless there is rock solid, irrefutable proof, and development of NK nukes under Bush should just be assumed, no matter the evidence.

Gotcha.

Face it, you are expressing certainty on a proposition [no NK nuclear capability until Bush changed tactics], and the ONLY evidence out there actually suggests that NK nuclear capability preceded Bush, probably by years, perhaps for a nearly a decade.

BTW - your condescension is a 'tell' of the weakness of your position. As such, I welcome it.

[mlyonsd]

Only a liberal can look at an incident, say, getting his lunch money stolen and come to the conclusion he had taught the bully a lesson.

Funny stuff.

[dirk digler]

It's too late for that now. Bush let them get the bomb while dicking around with an impotent Saddam.

It is never too late to kick some ass.

[Baby Lee]

Only a liberal can look at an incident, say, getting his lunch money stolen and come to the conclusion he had taught the bully a lesson.

Funny stuff.
Or have his lunch money stolen by a bully, but complain that nothing was missing until the lunch lady asked him to pay for his kibble.

[jAZ]

OIC - evidence of the development of NK nukes under Clinton should be dismissed unless there is rock solid, irrefutable proof, and development of NK nukes under Bush should just be assumed, no matter the evidence.

Gotcha.

Face it, you are expressing certainty on a proposition [no NK nuclear capability until Bush changed tactics], and the ONLY evidence out there actually suggests that NK nuclear capability preceded Bush, probably by years, perhaps for a nearly a decade.

BTW - your condescension is a 'tell' of the weakness of your position. As such, I welcome it.
Jesus Christ, do you know what the difference is between "joining" the nuclear club (obtaining the bomb) and "aspiring or working to join" the club is?

Seriously.

Step back and stop pretending I've said one thing when we both know I've said something else.

[Baby Lee]

Jesus Christ, do you know what the difference is between "joining" the nuclear club (obtaining the bomb) and "aspiring or working to join" the club is?

Seriously.

Step back and stop pretending I've said one thing when we both know I've said something else.
Yeah, it's the difference between NK and Iraq when Bush took office. :p

Seriously, post some evidence that NK was not a 'member' 01/01/01, or retract.

[KC Dan]

It's too late for that now. Bush let them get the bomb while dicking around with an impotent Saddam.
See, I have seen some intelligent posts from you in the past but I can't let this one go by without commenting. If you really feel that "Bush let them get the bomb", then you truly are kool-aide filled. It wouldn't matter if Mickey Mouse, Clinton, Bush, or Roosevelt were in office, NK got the bomb themselves while cheating on every promise they have ever made. What you Bush bashers fail to acknowledge is that NK did this all by themselves and there was nothing short of military action by the US or any other nation that could have stopped NK from getting the bomb. If you attribute them getting the bomb to any president, you are foolhardy and quite and idiot.

[Donger]

It's too late for that now. Bush let them get the bomb while dicking around with an impotent Saddam.

What do you mean "get the bomb?" Are you just talking about the North Koreans having weapons-grade material or an actual, working physics package?

[Baby Lee]

What do you mean "get the bomb?" Are you just talking about the North Koreans having weapons-grade material or an actual, working physics package?
Basically, as always, he's talking about Bush being a complete and utter failure in each and every way. Details to be hashed out later, when us rubes get it through our thick skulls.
It's just that each day takes renewed creativity.

[Donger]

Basically, as always, he's talking about Bush being a complete and utter failure in each and every way. Details to be hashed out later, when us rubes get it through our thick skulls.
It's just that each day takes renewed creativity.

Oh. Well, I'd think that jAZ would at least figure out that there's no conclusive evidence that North Korea actually has working weapons before posting such a thread.

It'd be intellectually dishonest, or perhaps just ignorant, otherwise.

[Adept Havelock]

What do you mean "get the bomb?" Are you just talking about the North Koreans having weapons-grade material or an actual, working physics package?

I'm really not sure, nor do I see what difference it would make (except to jAZ, trying to spin the fact that NK got the bomb on his Golden-Boy's watch). Once they had the material, designing a low-yield device isn't difficult. What is the work of a genius the first time, is the work of a competent engineer the second, or something like that.

[jAZ]

Yeah, it's the difference between NK and Iraq when Bush took office. :p

Seriously, post some evidence that NK was not a 'member' 01/01/01, or retract.
Please, please, please tell me that you aren't this ignorant of our very recent history?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_nuclear_weapons_program

In October 2002 the United States confronted North Korea with the claim that North Korea was developing gas centrifuge technology to enrich uranium for "nuclear weapons", and threatened to terminate the Agreed Framework. According to the U.S., North Korea confirmed its uranium program; according to North Korea, it replied that it is entitled to have an uranium enrichment program for it's development of the nuclear powerplant. North Korea also asked the U.S. to agree to a non-aggression pact. [7] [8]
...
The United States stated on February 26, 2003 that North Korea had reactivated a reactor at its main nuclear complex.


http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ja03alvarez

Today's crisis
Nearly eight years after our first visit, the situation was abruptly transformed. Last October the United States confronted North Korea with the fact that it knew the North was secretly developing gas centrifuge technology to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. The confrontation escalated over the next six months as the United States took the first step to terminate the Agreed Framework in November, suspending fuel oil shipments. North Korea responded the following month by announcing it would restart plutonium production and again announcing its withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Clinton policy of engagement was rejected by the new administration (which also sucker-punched South Korean President Kim Dae Jung and his "sunshine policy" at the same time). The administration insisted that bilateral talks with North Korea were out of the question because the United States would not give in to "nuclear blackmail." And until it agreed to meet with China and North Korea in late April, the administration was sticking to its guns, insisting that it was up to North Korea's neighbors to exert pressure on North Korea to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

In February 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement--that the United States would continue to pursue the Agreed Framework--was publicly rejected by the president. By January 2002, Bush named North Korea a charter member of the "axis of evil." And only after 20 months of delay did the administration send its first official delegation to Pyongyang for formal talks in October of last year.

At that meeting, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly announced that the United States knew about North Korea's "secret" uranium enrichment program, and issued an ultimatum: North Korea had to cease its quest for uranium enrichment technology, or the United States would terminate the Agreed Framework.

Taken by surprise by Kelly's ultimatum, Vice Foreign Minister Kang Sok-Ju ended the meeting. The next morning, Kang responded by claiming that North Korea possesses "more powerful" weapons and insisting that the United States agree to sign a non-aggression pact. Since then the situation has worsened.

It had already been publicly known at least since 1999 that the North Koreans were developing gas centrifuges with Pakistani help--the story had appeared in the Western press, but made the front page only in the Washington Times. Nonetheless, the Bush administration chose to drag its feet for more than 20 months, and then to hold the Agreed Framework hostage by forcing an "all or nothing" confrontation, which has blown up into a major and unexpected crisis.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/jan-june05/nuclear_2-10.html

The North Korean government announced for the first time Thursday that it possesses nuclear weapons and would pull out of six-party talks aimed at shutting down its program. Two regional experts discuss the Bush administration's response to this development and its ongoing policy toward North Korea.

[Donger]

I'm really not sure, nor do I see what difference it would make (except to jAZ, trying to spin the fact that NK got the bomb on his Golden-Boy's watch). Once they had the material, designing a low-yield device isn't difficult. What is the work of a genius the first time, is the work of a competent engineer the second, or something like that.

Granted getting the WG uranium or plutonium is the hardest part, but I disagree that putting it all together and having the f*cker fission is easy.

Until we get our hands on one or they do a test, stating that the North Koreans 'have the bomb' is quite simply incorrect.

[jAZ]

Oh. Well, I'd think that jAZ would at least figure out that there's no conclusive evidence that North Korea actually has working weapons before posting such a thread.

It'd be intellectually dishonest, or perhaps just ignorant, otherwise.
You'll surely be able to provide lots of documented doubts among the media and or intel community.

I find it funny that the same people who have recently used the "NK has nukes so we couldn't attack them like Iraq" are the same folks forced to reverse course when the realization hits that Bush put Iraq before NK allowing them to get the bomb they they used as justification for not attacking them like Iraq.

Has everyone been able to keep up with the circular logic that's put in place to defend each and every action taken (no matter how failed and easily predicted it was).

[Donger]

You'll surely be able to provide lots of documented doubts among the media and or intel community.

I find it funny that the same people who have recently used the "NK has nukes so we couldn't attack them like Iraq" are the same folks forced to reverse course when the realization hits that Bush put Iraq before NK allowing them to get the bomb they they used as justification for not attacking them like Iraq.

Has everyone been able to keep up with the circular logic that's put in place to defend each and every action taken (no matter how failed and easily predicted it was).

So, I take that to mean that you were under the impression that North Korea does have at least one nuclear weapon when you said, "Bush let them get the bomb"?

If so, I'm pleased to educate you.

[HC_Chief]

You'll surely be able to provide lots of documented doubts among the media and or intel community.

ROFL

Typical jAZ... post outrageous crap espoused by some leftist blogger, then scream SOURCES!!!!!! when someone <i>dares</i> refute the leftist bloggers' editorial.

BTW, still waiting on those indictments, buddy :thumb:

[Adept Havelock]

Granted getting the WG uranium or plutonium is the hardest part, but I disagree that putting it all together and having the f*cker fission is easy.

Until we get our hands on one or they do a test, stating that the North Koreans 'have the bomb' is quite simply incorrect.


I don't think it's "tin-can-telephone" easy, but I don't think the engineering needed is much of a reach for a nation that can produce the fissionable materials.

It's largely a matter of getting the soccer ball (I assume they'd stick with the simplest methods) to implode properly. That's a heck of a lot easier now than it was in the 40's. If that's too difficult, it's not exactly a small package, but the cannon-slug approach we considered back in the early 40's is also effective. I think that's what Kurchatov and the Soviets used for the Mike IV shot several decades ago.

That said, you are correct that there has been no public proof of NK nuclear capability. Still, I don't believe the conjecture is much of a reach.

[Donger]

Bush put Iraq before NK allowing them to get the bomb they they used as justification for not attacking them like Iraq.

Err, jAZ. I'm trying to help you here.

There is NO direct evidence that North Korea possesses nuclear weapons. Okay?

[Baby Lee]

Please, please, please tell me that you aren't this ignorant of our very recent history?
North Korea has been suspected of, and denied having, a nuclear development operation since 1993. That they may have finally admitted to it in 2002, and affirmatively stated it in 2005 is not evidence that they did not have the operation until the Bush admin.

[Baby Lee]

I find it funny that the same people who have recently used the "NK has nukes so we couldn't attack them like Iraq" are the same folks forced to reverse course when the realization hits that Bush put Iraq before NK allowing them to get the bomb they they used as justification for not attacking them like Iraq.
That IS NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN the argument I've made. I've maintained all along, MoF before Bush was even on the national scene, that NK gets treated different because chances are pretty strong they already have the nukes.
If you mean I've argued that "NK has nukes so we couldn't attack them like Iraq" recently, with recently meaning over nearly the past DECADE, then yes, I guess you got me.

[Donger]

I don't think it's "tin-can-telephone" easy, but I don't think the engineering needed is much of a reach for a nation that can produce the fissionable materials.

It's largely a matter of getting the soccer ball (I assume they'd stick with the simplest methods) to implode properly. If that's too difficult, it's not exactly a small package, but the cannon-slug approach we considered back in the early 40's is also effective. I think that's what Kurchatov and the Soviets used for the Mike IV shot several decades ago.

That said, you are correct that there has been no public proof of NK nuclear capability. Still, I don't believe the conjecture is much of a reach.

'Little Boy' used the cannon arrangement for CM.

But, agreed, it's certainly doable, but until they do a test, color me unimpressed.

[Donger]

North Korea has been suspected of, and denied having, a nuclear development operation since 1993. That they may have finally admitted to it in 2002, and affirmatively stated it in 2005 is not evidence that they did not have the operation until the Bush admin.

IIRC, we suspected that the NKs had enriched enough plotunium for a single weapon back in 1994.

[Adept Havelock]

'Little Boy' used the cannon arrangement for CM.

But, agreed, it's certainly doable, but until they do a test, color me unimpressed.

:clap:
Thank you, Donger! I know someone had used it, but I couldn't recall who had used that model, and took a SWAG. I figured the Brute-Force approach seemed inelegant enough to appeal to the Soviets. :shrug:

IIRC, we suspected that the NKs had enriched enough plotunium for a single weapon back in 1994.

BTW- Is "plotunium" near Unobtanium on the periodic table? :p

[Baby Lee]

IIRC, we suspected that the NKs had enriched enough plotunium for a single weapon back in 1994.
And Georgie didn't take a single moment from the campaign trail in Texas to stop them.

BTW - per CNN timeline, first allegations leveled were in 93.

[mlyonsd]

And Georgie didn't take a single moment from the campaign trail in Texas to stop them.

BTW - per CNN timeline, first allegations leveled were in 93.

Maybe if W would have commandeered an old F-102 and personally taken it upon himself to bomb the NK's suspected nuke sites he might today be President.

Oh, wait.

[morphius]

We can't do anything with NK until China gets on our side. Nobody wants to get in a war with China, and since the Chinese have been supporting NK for a long time, I don't expect anything to happen until they do.

Of course I'm now really confused, are we supposed to wait for all of the UN, bribed or not, to agree with us or are we supposed to go it alone?

[Adept Havelock]

Maybe if W would have commandeered an old F-102 and personally taken it upon himself to bomb the NK's suspected nuke sites he might today be President.

Oh, wait.

That's right mlyonsd, IIRC the F-102 was an interceptor, with no ground attack capability. He couldn't possibly have attacked NK's suspected nuke sites. :p


Besides, W. didn't get to fly one of those until they were obsolete.

[Donger]

:clap:
Thank you, Donger! I know someone had used it, but I couldn't recall who had used that model, and took a SWAG. I figured the Brute-Force approach seemed inelegant enough to appeal to the Soviets. :shrug:



BTW- Is "plotunium" near Unobtanium on the periodic table? :p

ROFL

That's plutonium with really, REALLY fast neutrons! So fast the letters get mixed up.

[Adept Havelock]

ROFL

That's plutonium with really, REALLY fast neutrons! So fast the letters get mixed up.

ROFL


Oh yeah, those Neuboys are really fast. Almost as fast as those other two street gangs the Elected Ones and the Positives. You'd think they would move to a neighborhood that's not block after block of nothing. ;)

[KC Dan]

We can't do anything with NK until China gets on our side. Nobody wants to get in a war with China, and since the Chinese have been supporting NK for a long time, I don't expect anything to happen until they do.

Of course I'm now really confused, are we supposed to wait for all of the UN, bribed or not, to agree with us or are we supposed to go it alone?
Therin lies jaz's delimma...On the one hand, we must bring the world community into the fold but....in this one instance, we should go it alone. The damned if you do logic certainly applies here whether he wants to admit it or not. Blind hatred has clouded some vision I think.

[morphius]

It's pretty amazing how badly one person's failure to exercise good judgement can radiate throughout the world when that person is the most powerful person in the world.


Says the genious who has no problem with starting a war with NK with the obvious next step of a war with China trying to protect her Ally.

Good luck with that line of thought.

[Donger]

IMO, perhaps our 'coolest' nuke:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29

[mlyonsd]

Clinton was elected President and the public entrusted him to use his judgement in all US affairs.

He chose the diplomatic route with NK. Fair enough, even though they had already broken some agreements why not give them another chance.

NK proved they couldn't be trusted by breaking the agreement Clinton made with them while he was still in office.

Rob me once, shame on you, rob me twice, shame on me.

If anything the Clintonian approach, however noble one might think it, failed. I won't say it's his fault, just that the incident proved NK would act only in what they thought was their best interests. F'the rest of the world.

I don't care who the next President was, but if they went down the same path as Clinton they would be dumb asses. Not because Clinton was a dumb ass, but because Clinton proved the dangling carrot method was futile.

As for Marshall, it would be nice to see the entire exchange between Snow and the press corp to really understand what went on. That kind of journalism lands Marshall squarley in Ann Coulter wannabee status, without the tits.

My view of current NK events lead me to believe that when Clinton signed the open trade agreement with China hopefully he made it clear to them that it came with certain obligations.

Like keeping every F'ing dingbat dictator in Asia under control.

The ball is squarely in China's court. Since we have given them a license to rape our job market the one thing we should be able to count on is them keeping a punk nation like NK in check.

If not, well, then it's time to stop exporting everything to them and start shutting down our markets. All of our friends from Mexico would love to fill reopened factories here anyway.

[HC_Chief]

Clinton was elected President and the public entrusted him to use his judgement in all US affairs.

He chose the diplomatic route with NK. Fair enough, even though they had already broken some agreements why not give them another chance.

NK proved they couldn't be trusted by breaking the agreement Clinton made with them while he was still in office.

Rob me once, shame on you, rob me twice, shame on me.

If anything the Clintonian approach, however noble one might think it, failed. I won't say it's his fault, just that the incident proved NK would act only in what they thought was their best interests. F'the rest of the world.

I don't care who the next President was, but if they went down the same path as Clinton they would be dumb asses. Not because Clinton was a dumb ass, but because Clinton proved the dangling carrot method was futile.

As for Marshall, it would be nice to see the entire exchange between Snow and the press corp to really understand what went on. That kind of journalism lands Marshall squarley in Ann Coulter wannabee status, without the tits.

My view of current NK events lead me to believe that when Clinton signed the open trade agreement with China hopefully he made it clear to them that it came with certain obligations.

Like keeping every F'ing dingbat dictator in Asia under control.

The ball is squarely in China's court. Since we have given them a license to rape our job market the one thing we should be able to count on is them keeping a punk nation like NK in check.

If not, well, then it's time to stop exporting everything to them and start shutting down our markets. All of our friends from Mexico would love to fill reopened factories here anyway.

:clap:

[jAZ]

This thread is the freakin twilight zone of Republican spin.

We have complete triangulation of the issue of North Korean Nukes, the Iraq War, Bush's ability to allow one nation (two with Iran) to develop and expand their nuclear program while targeting and taking out another dictator on his "access of evil" who was never actually a direct threat to our nation.

It's a riot. Seriously.

To have Donger and/or Baby Lee arguing that we don't know if NK actually even *has* nukes (as a defense of Bush's actions) while at the same time arguing that if he does have them it's probably because of Clinton... all while ignoring that Bush deliberately abandoned the one policy that actually worked in favor of a policy of bogus threats followed up by military distraction at the expense of backing up the bluster and allow NK to call our bluff.

This thread is an pure example of cognitive dissonance and a truly beautiful sight of to behold.

[dirk digler]

Clinton was elected President and the public entrusted him to use his judgement in all US affairs.

He chose the diplomatic route with NK. Fair enough, even though they had already broken some agreements why not give them another chance.

NK proved they couldn't be trusted by breaking the agreement Clinton made with them while he was still in office.

Rob me once, shame on you, rob me twice, shame on me.

If anything the Clintonian approach, however noble one might think it, failed. I won't say it's his fault, just that the incident proved NK would act only in what they thought was their best interests. F'the rest of the world.

I don't care who the next President was, but if they went down the same path as Clinton they would be dumb asses. Not because Clinton was a dumb ass, but because Clinton proved the dangling carrot method was futile.

As for Marshall, it would be nice to see the entire exchange between Snow and the press corp to really understand what went on. That kind of journalism lands Marshall squarley in Ann Coulter wannabee status, without the tits.

My view of current NK events lead me to believe that when Clinton signed the open trade agreement with China hopefully he made it clear to them that it came with certain obligations.

Like keeping every F'ing dingbat dictator in Asia under control.

The ball is squarely in China's court. Since we have given them a license to rape our job market the one thing we should be able to count on is them keeping a punk nation like NK in check.

If not, well, then it's time to stop exporting everything to them and start shutting down our markets. All of our friends from Mexico would love to fill reopened factories here anyway.

Very good post mlyonsd. I take back all those bad things I said about you. :)

[mlyonsd]

This thread is the freakin twilight zone of Republican spin.

We have complete triangulation of the issue of North Korean Nukes, the Iraq War, Bush's ability to allow one nation (two with Iran) to develop and expand their nuclear program while targeting and taking out another dictator on his "access of evil" who was never actually a direct threat to our nation.

It's a riot. Seriously.

To have Donger and/or Baby Lee arguing that we don't know if NK actually even *has* nukes (as a defense of Bush's actions) while at the same time arguing that if he does have them it's probably because of Clinton... all while ignoring that Bush deliberately abandoned the one policy that actually worked in favor of a policy of bogus threats followed up by military distraction at the expense of backing up the bluster and allow NK to call our bluff.

This thread is an pure example of cognitive dissonance and a truly beautiful sight of to behold.

There it is. Every thread that is started has one pivotal moment when it is decided that part or at least some people agree with the premise of the thread.

If that doesn't happen more times than not the thread starter must make a choice.

1) Acknowledge those that disagree have valid points.
2) Stand back, point their finger as if everyone but them is a dumb ass.

Where are you at right now jAZ?

[dirk digler]

This thread is the freakin twilight zone of Republican spin.

We have complete triangulation of the issue of North Korean Nukes, the Iraq War, Bush's ability to allow one nation (two with Iran) to develop and expand their nuclear program while targeting and taking out another dictator on his "access of evil" who was never actually a direct threat to our nation.



My biggest complaint was that Bush attacked the wrong Axis of Evil nation. I said before the Iraq War and I have said it since NK was and still is the biggest threat to the US.

Everything that Bush said about Iraq applies to NK or worse. They actually have weapons of mass destruction and they have the desire to make more and use them. The only thing I am not sure of is if Kim Jong murder his own people or at least not of the scale of Saddam.

[mlyonsd]

My biggest complaint was that Bush attacked the wrong Axis of Evil nation. I said before the Iraq War and I have said it since NK was and still is the biggest threat to the US.

Everything that Bush said about Iraq applies to NK or worse. They actually have weapons of mass destruction and they have the desire to make more and use them. The only thing I am not sure of is if Kim Jong murder his own people or at least not of the scale of Saddam.

The only threat NK poses to us right now is if they give their nuclear material to a terrorist group.

Which is exactly what we were afraid of in 2003 with Iraq. Expecially since it was perceived at the time that AQ and Iraq had some kind of relationship. Which, in the end looks like they might very well have.

[jAZ]

There it is. Every thread that is started has one pivotal moment when it is decided that part or at least some people agree with the premise of the thread.

If that doesn't happen more times than not the thread starter must make a choice.

1) Acknowledge those that disagree have valid points.
2) Stand back, point their finger as if everyone but them is a dumb ass.

Where are you at right now jAZ?
That moment was in reply to my opening post. Everyone since has chosen to ignore the "valid points" in my post and instead have chosen to try to take every side of an issue.

I've done nothing but refuse to allow this go on without pointing it out.

[morphius]

Clinton's plan did seem pretty much pure genious...

Under the final terms of the Agreed Framework approved in October of 1994, Clinton agreed to provide the "Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea" (DPRK) with two light water nuclear reactors and a massive allotment of oil. The U.S. agreed to ship 500,000 metric tons of oil annually in response to the North's pretense that the energy-starved backwater had developed the nuclear facility to generate power. These shipments have cost taxpayers more than $800 million to date - a bargain compared with the $6 billion spent on constructing the nuclear reactors, which now empower North Korea to produce 100 nuclear bombs each year.

All these measures failed to quell the North's atom-lust.

In August 1998, North Korea lobbed a Taepo Dong 1 missile over Japan. Four months later, officials refused U.S. inspectors access to a suspected underground nuclear reactor at Kumchang-ni. President Clinton then sweetened the deal by rewarding Kim Jong Il's half-year-long stall tactics with 1.1 million tons of food worth nearly $200 million.

Greatness!

[jAZ]

My biggest complaint was that Bush attacked the wrong Axis of Evil nation. I said before the Iraq War and I have said it since NK was and still is the biggest threat to the US.

Everything that Bush said about Iraq applies to NK or worse. They actually have weapons of mass destruction and they have the desire to make more and use them. The only thing I am not sure of is if Kim Jong murder his own people or at least not of the scale of Saddam.
I'm sure this will make you feel a little dirty, but we agree. I've been saying this since the beginning as well.

[dirk digler]

The only threat NK poses to us right now is if they give their nuclear material to a terrorist group.

Which is exactly what we were afraid of in 2003 with Iraq. Expecially since it was perceived at the time that AQ and Iraq had some kind of relationship. Which, in the end looks like they might very well have.

I don't have any knowledge of this but NK is just the kind of country to sell their nuke/miltary secrets. They are a very, very poor country and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they have sold some secrets to other countries or terrorists.

What about the 40,000 US Troops stationed on NK borders? A well placed nuke or missle is a very real threat.

[dirk digler]

I'm sure this will make you feel a little dirty, but we agree. I've been saying this since the beginning as well.

I don't feel dirty I am just happy someone actually agrees with me. :)

[mlyonsd]

That moment was in reply to my opening post. Everyone since has chosen to ignore the "valid points" in my post and instead have chosen to try to take every side of an issue.

I've done nothing but refuse to allow this go on without pointing it out.

Ok, I'll say it. I don't see any valid points in the original thread starter.

First, Marshall partially quotes Snow without the entire exchange for the reader to enterpret.

Second, none of Marshall's points seem valid to me. It would appear he wants the Bush administration to buckle to black mail.

Should Congress set up a spending bill just for NK? I don't and I'd bet not many Americans other than Marshall would think so either.

[mlyonsd]

I don't have any knowledge of this but NK is just the kind of country to sell their nuke/miltary secrets. They are a very, very poor country and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they have sold some secrets to other countries or terrorists.

What about the 40,000 US Troops stationed on NK borders? A well placed nuke or missle is a very real threat.

Exactly. Which is why I agree with Pat Buchanan in that we should consider pulling all of our troops from the peninsula. South Korea has a large enough economy now they can fund their own army to deal with NK.

But to your point about NK selling nuke secrets....they haven't lived up to any agreement to this point, why should we give up more treasure knowing they will viloate future ones? Would you really feel comfortable with such an agreement?

In my view its time to make China live up to their super power obligations.

[Donger]

This thread is the freakin twilight zone of Republican spin.

We have complete triangulation of the issue of North Korean Nukes, the Iraq War, Bush's ability to allow one nation (two with Iran) to develop and expand their nuclear program while targeting and taking out another dictator on his "access of evil" who was never actually a direct threat to our nation.

It's a riot. Seriously.

To have Donger and/or Baby Lee arguing that we don't know if NK actually even *has* nukes (as a defense of Bush's actions) while at the same time arguing that if he does have them it's probably because of Clinton... all while ignoring that Bush deliberately abandoned the one policy that actually worked in favor of a policy of bogus threats followed up by military distraction at the expense of backing up the bluster and allow NK to call our bluff.

This thread is an pure example of cognitive dissonance and a truly beautiful sight of to behold.

I'm not arguing that we don't know if NK actually even *has* nukes as a defense of Bush's actions.

I'm just pointing out that that's a fact. We don't know that they have nuclear weapons.

You have said repeatedly in this thread they've 'got the bomb.' We don't know that. Therefore, you are wrong; either intentionally or through ignorance.

You're welcome, BTW. Always happy to educate a liberal.

[jAZ]

Ok, I'll say it. I don't see any valid points in the original thread starter.

First, Marshall partially quotes Snow without the entire exchange for the reader to enterpret.
He provides a link to the transcript but it's inline and doesn't come through when I paste it.
Second, none of Marshall's points seem valid to me. It would appear he wants the Bush administration to buckle to black mail.
Huh?
Should Congress set up a spending bill just for NK? I don't and I'd bet not many Americans other than Marshall would think so either.
We did it for Iraq who was zero threat to Americans.

[Baby Lee]

This thread is the freakin twilight zone of Republican spin.

We have complete triangulation of the issue of North Korean Nukes, the Iraq War, Bush's ability to allow one nation (two with Iran) to develop and expand their nuclear program while targeting and taking out another dictator on his "access of evil" who was never actually a direct threat to our nation.

It's a riot. Seriously.

To have Donger and/or Baby Lee arguing that we don't know if NK actually even *has* nukes (as a defense of Bush's actions) while at the same time arguing that if he does have them it's probably because of Clinton... all while ignoring that Bush deliberately abandoned the one policy that actually worked in favor of a policy of bogus threats followed up by military distraction at the expense of backing up the bluster and allow NK to call our bluff.

This thread is an pure example of cognitive dissonance and a truly beautiful sight of to behold.
Spin?
You're the one positing;

NK definitely DID NOT have nukes when Clinton was in power
NK definitely DOES have nukes now that Bush is in power
Clinton's appeasement "actually worked" even though there's a laundry list of suspected violations, confirmed violations, and outright nose thumbing.

And you have been asked repeatedly for evidence to support your certainty, and evidently requesting so onerous a task is 'just another RWNJ spin tactic.'

You are veering from partisan pleader to outright madman on this one jAZ.

[patteeu]

You'll surely be able to provide lots of documented doubts among the media and or intel community.

I find it funny that the same people who have recently used the "NK has nukes so we couldn't attack them like Iraq" are the same folks forced to reverse course when the realization hits that Bush put Iraq before NK allowing them to get the bomb they they used as justification for not attacking them like Iraq.

Has everyone been able to keep up with the circular logic that's put in place to defend each and every action taken (no matter how failed and easily predicted it was).

NK didn't need nukes to deter an attack from us. It was enough that they had a boatload of hardened artillery within range of Seoul and 30,000+ US GI's. Nukes would make the prospect that much less appealing, but those who suggest that Iraq was the low hanging fruit in the axis of evil are still right whether NK had nukes or not.

[keg in kc]

Bush can't "fail", the man doesn't make mistakes.

Didn't you get the memo?

[dirk digler]

Nukes would make the prospect that much less appealing, but those who suggest that Iraq was the low hanging fruit in the axis of evil are still right whether NK had nukes or not.

Just to clarify are you saying we took the easy road with invading Iraq instead of NK or Iran?

[patteeu]

Just to clarify are you saying we took the easy road with invading Iraq instead of NK or Iran?

I'm saying that I believe that was part of the calculation, yes. Other factors that I think were involved were:

* Iraq is more centrally located in the Middle East "swamp"

* We already had a recognized international law cover for taking on Iraq based on their failure to comply with post-Gulf War demands and their targeting of our no-fly-zone aircraft.

* There was some belief that there was potential for reform in Iran from within.

* Iraq was at least as big a roadblock to any settlement between Israel and the palestinians as either of the other two AoE countries.

There are probably others as well, but thats a few off the top of my head.

[dirk digler]

I'm saying that I believe that was part of the calculation, yes. Other factors that I think were involved were:

* Iraq is more centrally located in the Middle East "swamp"

* We already had a recognized international law cover for taking on Iraq based on their failure to comply with post-Gulf War demands and their targeting of our no-fly-zone aircraft.

* There was some belief that there was potential for reform in Iran from within.

* Iraq was at least as big a roadblock to any settlement between Israel and the palestinians as either of the other two AoE countries.

There are probably others as well, but thats a few off the top of my head.

thanks patteeu

[Baby Lee]

Bush can't "fail", the man doesn't make mistakes.

Didn't you get the memo?
Did I miss where someone was making this argument?

[Amnorix]

Exactly. Which is why I agree with Pat Buchanan in that we should consider pulling all of our troops from the peninsula. South Korea has a large enough economy now they can fund their own army to deal with NK.

But to your point about NK selling nuke secrets....they haven't lived up to any agreement to this point, why should we give up more treasure knowing they will viloate future ones? Would you really feel comfortable with such an agreement?

In my view its time to make China live up to their super power obligations.

A few points.

1. The US military presence is symbolic. And a pullout would also be symbolic -- in sending the WRONG signal.

2. China isn't interested in being a Super Power for peace, love and worldwide capitalism. They're none too likely to block NK from running down the peninsula if we pull out.

3. Korea has a location that is strategically out of whack with her size. She's a dagger pointed at Japan's heart. Or a dagger pointing into Asia. American strategic thinking on this crystallized on this matter in the late 40s and early 50s, when we sent thousands to die.

Communism is largely gone, but Korea's strategic positioning relative to Japan/Asia remains.

[Loki]

What do you know, the 28,938th consecutive problem addressed in a jAZ thread that is all Bush's fault! What a coincidence!

and all along i thought it was a common theme on his part. golly gee willakers... who would have thought it was just a simple little coincidence??!! :shrug:

[Loki]

Another example of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Had he taken military action, I'm sure this thread would have been about how he was playing cowboy instead letting diplomacy run it's course.

no kidding... there's no pleasing some people.

[Loki]

Oh. Well, I'd think that jAZ would at least figure out that there's no conclusive evidence that North Korea actually has working weapons before posting such a thread.

It'd be intellectually dishonest, or perhaps just ignorant, otherwise.

lol... intellectually dishonest...

touche.

[Loki]

Clinton was elected President and the public entrusted him to use his judgement in all US affairs.

He chose the diplomatic route with NK. Fair enough, even though they had already broken some agreements why not give them another chance.

NK proved they couldn't be trusted by breaking the agreement Clinton made with them while he was still in office.

Rob me once, shame on you, rob me twice, shame on me.

If anything the Clintonian approach, however noble one might think it, failed. I won't say it's his fault, just that the incident proved NK would act only in what they thought was their best interests. F'the rest of the world.

I don't care who the next President was, but if they went down the same path as Clinton they would be dumb asses. Not because Clinton was a dumb ass, but because Clinton proved the dangling carrot method was futile.

As for Marshall, it would be nice to see the entire exchange between Snow and the press corp to really understand what went on. That kind of journalism lands Marshall squarley in Ann Coulter wannabee status, without the tits.

My view of current NK events lead me to believe that when Clinton signed the open trade agreement with China hopefully he made it clear to them that it came with certain obligations.

Like keeping every F'ing dingbat dictator in Asia under control.

The ball is squarely in China's court. Since we have given them a license to rape our job market the one thing we should be able to count on is them keeping a punk nation like NK in check.

If not, well, then it's time to stop exporting everything to them and start shutting down our markets. All of our friends from Mexico would love to fill reopened factories here anyway.

nice.

[jAZ]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009024.php

(July 13, 2006 -- 12:20 AM EDT // link)
Is our North Korea policy a fraud? Or a joke? Or is it a fraud and a joke? Or maybe just a joke and a fraud? The possibilities, I suppose, are endless. But let me explain what I mean. And perhaps folks at America Abroad and others outposts in the blogosphere can help me out or set me straight.

If you look at our policy toward the North Koreans since they called the president's bluff almost four years ago now, it is basically that we will urge and rely upon the Chinese to pressure the North Koreans into acceptable behavior.

Yes, it's dressed up as diplomacy and multilateral talks and this and that. But that's the essence of it.

Yet what incentive do the Chinese have to help us in this matter?

There are some who believe in a malevolent, revisionist China, for whom North Korea, with her missiles and nuclear weapons, plays the role of a stalking horse. In this view, China will never rein in the North Koreans because they are in fact working together to pursue a policy of aggression toward the US and its allies in East Asia.

I don't believe that. But I don't think you need to believe that to question the basic premise of our policy.

Simply looking at China in textbook geopolitical terms, as an aspiring regional or even global power, not set on war but eager to advance its interests on the world stage, I just don't think it adds up.

China's big fear with North Korea is either that there will be some sort of crisis or collapse of the government that will send refugees streaming across the border or that the North Koreans will spark some sort of war that will at a minimum be a major headache and quite possibly knock the stability and prosperity of the region off the rails for years.

Clearly, those two possibilities need to be avoided. But the status quo of some missile sales and continued nuclear programs probably is a good shot at avoiding both. Really putting the screws to the North Koreans risks option one and possibly option two.

Now, what does China get out of the current slow-motion crisis? One thing is a nearly constant muffled begging from Washington that confirms China's role as a major power and provides the Chinese with a major lever in any bilateral dispute with the US. Actually solving the Korean crisis ends all that. So again, I think the status quo is better for China, in terms of buffing her role as a major player on the world stage.

Also note that the PRC internally has a troubled and ambivalent relationship with Chinese nationalism. The government stokes it, but is also clearly in some ways threatened by it. Transparently doing the bidding of the United States doesn't help in this regard. Nor does it necessarily help overseas. Nor does it make sense when you consider that China's real policy agenda is opposition to US 'hegemonism' or the perpetuation of a unipolar world in which the US dictates affairs in every region without any other countries acting as counterweights if not peers or competitors. On various levels the North Korea issue is an thorn, if not a running wound, in the side of what the Chinese term US 'hegemonism'.

In the not too distant past, we had trade and economic cards to play with the Chinese. They needed access to our markets, international organizations, and so forth. But a lot of that access has already been granted. And the massive debt we're building up with the Chinese gives them the lever not us. In any serious crisis with the PRC, I think our debt would become a serious issue much more quickly than our naval power.

The contrary argument to what I've said above is that China doesn't just want to be a regional or global power. She aspires to the prestige of being a respected player in international affairs, not a frightening renegade like Late Wilhelmine Germany, but a peer of Europe and the United States in the councils of the globe. But that seems to suggest the policy the Chinese are now pursuing, countering our UN proposal for stiff sanctions against the North Koreans with a resolution (also backed by Russia) which "deplores" North Korea's recent actions but includes no sanctions or non-voluntary policies.

In other words, China has an interest in preventing the situation from spinning out of control, either through North Korean belligerence or US-Japanese reaction. But in other respects, I think her interests are best served by stringing the issue along. Solving it costs her a lot and gains her little.

All of which suggests that our policy of begging the Chinese to solve our problem with the North Koreans makes no sense and is in fact a joke since it assumes Chinese interests in helping us that do not in fact exist.

-- Josh Marshall

[Mr. Kotter]

This "talking points" source of yours is really a douchenozzle.....reminds me of a male, Ann Coulter. :shake:

Hey, maybe they are twins? :hmmm:

[jAZ]

This "talking points" source of yours is really a douchenozzle.....reminds me of a male, Ann Coulter. :shake:

Hey, maybe they are twins? :hmmm:
I'm too lazy to put the intellectual time and energy into debating issues on a conscientious and thoughtful level, UNLESS it's one of my "hot buttons." So, please, consider my adolescent musings for what they are worth. No slight was not intended; I'm merely being an ass--as usual. But I find it cheap entertainment.

[Donger]

for whom North Korea, with her missiles and nuclear weapons

There are those pesky nuclear weapons are again.

You know, you'd think that the left would be more cautious in making such claims, considering there's no conclusive evidence that they have one, let alone multiple, nuclear weapons.

I wonder why they are not.

[Mr. Kotter]

What part of "....UNLESS it one of my 'hot buttons'" didn't you understand?

Context, Justin. Context.

[morphius]

I don't see how anyone can think paying the bad guys and awarding them with nuclear power is ever a good idea. Everyone knows as soon as you have nuclear power, your next step is to build the bomb, because once you have that, you suddenly matter more. Of course the fact that the NK leader passes himself off as a god, shouldn't have shown us that giving him the power to make nukes was a bad idea, I don't know what is.

They may or may not have the bomb, but Clinton giving them nuclear power plants sure did make the next step a whole lot easier for them.

Tell me that there was anyone here that didn't think that as soon as Iran started working to build some nuclear power plants, that you didn't know that Iran would immediatly try to take the next step and build a bomb?