Monday, October 09, 2006

Analysis: Tough Talk From Bush Team Didn't Stop North Korea

"In 1993, North Korea announced it would pull out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, leaving it free to divert nuclear material from its energy reactors to make a nuclear weapon and setting off a round of crisis diplomacy led by the Clinton administration. The result was the so-called agreed framework, which – in return for supplies of fuel oil to North Korea – froze most aspects of Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program for the rest of the decade.

The agreed framework was in effect consigned to history when the Bush administration came to power in 2001. The new administration argued that although the road to a plutonium-based nuclear bomb had been frozen, the North Koreans were cheating by attempting to develop a uranium-based bomb that was not explicitly addressed by the agreement.

That five years later, North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon will be widely interpreted as a sign of the failure of the tougher approach favored by the Bush team."

-- Financial Times analysis, Oct. 9

26 Comments:

Anonymous rwork said...

His simplistic lanquage just does'nt work. He said,On Opec holding up oil supplies, "I will tell them to open the spigots." On NK test firing a Nuclear test, "They better hope they don't." It is all cowboy talk with nothing to back it up. He attacked Iraq, basically a defenseless nation because he new they had nothing and he wanted to finish the job his daddy did'nt do.

11:07 AM  
Anonymous MellowMan said...

President Bush has had his hands tied by the ACLU and the Supreem Court.

What do you want him to do?

4:20 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

President Bush has had his hands tied by the ACLU and the Supreem Court.

What do you want him to do?


BWAAAHHH!!! LOL

Now that's probably the most incoherent thing I've read in a while. Bush can't conduct foreign policy because of the ACLU! It's all too much, I can't help it.

WAAAH! I'M ONLY PRESIDENT AND ME CANT DO ANYTHING! WAAH.

Babies. Always somebody else's fault in this world. Idiot.

4:35 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

And rwork calls Bush simplistic? :rolleyes:

David R. Mark said...
"That five years later, North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon will be widely interpreted as a sign of the failure of the tougher approach favored by the Bush team."


Well, it goes without saying, that those who interpret these events that way are all the usual suspects, i.e. diehard Bush haters/critics. It's pretty much predictable that they will say this. Perhaps President Bush should have asked Madeline Albright to go over to North Korea to negotiate another deal with Kim Jong Il, 'cause that worked out so well.

If anyone is interested, there's an excellent timeline of North Korea's actions that led up to this whole mess on PBS.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kim/etc/cron.html

And let's not forget that on NBC's "Meet the Press", Madeline Albright admitted that North Korea had duped the Clinton administration, and that Kim Jong Il had actually begun to acquire nuclear weapons back on their watch.

MR. RUSSERT: But didn't North Korea develop a nuclear bomb on Bill Clinton's watch?

MS. ALBRIGHT: No, what they were doing, as it turns out, they were cheating.


So, imagine that. A brutal Communist dictator had the gall to dupe us. We made a deal, and they betrayed us. Clinton and Albright were naive enough to actually trust this brutal dictator with the facilities to make nuclear weapons, and never thought that he would actually use them to develop nuclear bombs.

If this doesn't epitomize the humongous flaw in liberal thinking that scares us so badly, I really don't know what does.

4:39 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

So, imagine that. A brutal Communist dictator had the gall to dupe us. We made a deal, and they betrayed us. Clinton and Albright were naive enough to actually trust this brutal dictator with the facilities to make nuclear weapons, and never thought that he would actually use them to develop nuclear bombs.

Except again, it was uranium they were cheating with, not plutonium, which is the more dangerous substance that they were worried about. That part of the agreement held, at least. It wasn't perfect, but it was something. Until of course, Bush decided he didn't want to negotiate or even talk to an enemy (because you only talk to friends, of course), and talked bout how he "loathed" Kim Jong Il. So of course, they've got nothing to lose, so they unfreeze the plutonium rods and kick out the inspectors. Clinton told them in 1994 if they did this, they'd go to war, and the dictator stopped doing it. Bush? He did nothing.

So while this wasn't the greatest foreign policy success for Clinton in the world it's an absolute disaster for Bush. But why would he take any responsibility? He takes responsibility for nothing. Just blame, blame, blame blame blame somebody else. What, who me? Some responsible person he is.

4:46 PM  
Anonymous Widget said...

Dave Gullible I wish you would make up your mind.

Last week, President Bush was a bully and too agressive.

This week he's too soft on N Korea.

Personally I believe we should dust of the bombers and drop a few.

I do hope you'll return to your old Chicken-hawking Peacenik self, soon. Right now you are strange and scary. Smile.

4:47 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

So Trinity, what are you suggesting as an alternative?
AS JABBS POINTED OUT, BUSH'S "TALK TOUGH" NORTH KOREAN POLICY HAS NOT WORKED EITHER.

4:48 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"WAAAH! I'M ONLY PRESIDENT AND ME CANT DO ANYTHING! WAAH."


I seem to remember Clinton saying exactly that just a few weeks ago when he appeared on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. rofl

Waaah! I really wanted to take out OBL, but the FBI and the CIA wouldn't certify it for me!

Oh please. Give me a break.

4:50 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

I seem to also remember Clinton admitting he didn't do enough becauase he didn't get him. Bush, of course, has never admitted to anything.

Also, you can't ignore that there's a mild leap of logic between saying the FBI/CIA are balking at plans to take out a terrorist and saying the ACLU(!?!) is somehow tying Bush's hands in talking to North Korea(!!?!). One is plausible, even if it is an excuse, as you point out. The other is completely illogical.

4:52 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

I do hope you'll return to your old Chicken-hawking Peacenik self, soon.

You don't even know what a chickenhawk is, do you?

4:54 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"So Trinity, what are you suggesting as an alternative?
AS JABBS POINTED OUT, BUSH'S "TALK TOUGH" NORTH KOREAN POLICY HAS NOT WORKED EITHER."


As I alluded to before, twot. I'll leave that to the grownups to figure out. One thing I don't think they'll do is blink, as Iran is watching this very closely.

What also is quite obvious, is that U.N. letters and Resolutions mean diddley squat.

5:06 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

no one is talking about UN letters and resolutions. that's just another straw man to knock down.

how about this: Bush (yes, Bush) and Condi (yes, Condi) actually get on the horn and try to meet with North Korea. If necessary, have China and Japan and South Korea at the table.

But for pete's sake, be proactive about this. The tough talk hasn't worked. Bush is simply being ignored by North Korea. And that's not going to change with more tough talk.

As that CIA guy said -- JABBS had an article a couple of months ago -- sometimes you have to talk to bad guys. It's not a sign of weakness to try diplomacy, it can be a sign of strength.

5:14 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"I seem to also remember Clinton admitting he didn't do enough becauase he didn't get him. Bush, of course, has never admitted to anything."


Dave, one day some of you guys are going to have to accept the truth, instead of the spin from the Clinton Administration.

Here's a quote from Michael Scheuer on the subject, and if anyone should know what he is talking about, it's him, the guy in charge of the anti-AlQaeda operations.

Between January 1996 and June 1999, I was in charge of running operations against Al Qaeda from Washington. I speak with firsthand experience (and for several score of CIA officers) when I state categorically that during this time senior White House officials repeatedly refused to act on sound intelligence that provided multiple chances to eliminate Osama bin Laden — either by capture or by U.S. military attack.

-- Michael Sheuer, 22-year veteran of the CIA who recently resigned


http://www.wanttoknow.info/eliminatebinladen

Scheuer has also stated on the record that in all fairness, President Bush never had the same type of opportunities to get OBL that Clinton had.

5:17 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

c'mon trintiy, doesn't that sound like an excuse from bush?

what about outsourcing the capturing of osama to the afgahnis? what about closing the CIA unit designed to find osama? What about the quotes from Bush, in 2002, 2004 -- and via Fred Barnes -- 2006, in which bush makes it clear that capturing osama is not essential to the war on terror? or are these facts inconvenient?

quoting one former CIA agent is nice. how come when liberals quote various former cia agents, they are dismissed out of hand -- if they are critical of the way bush has handled the war on terror?

5:54 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

One thing I don't think they'll do is blink, as Iran is watching this very closely.

Too late. Already did blink. In 2002 they could have threatened to go to war. Didn't do that. Did nothing. Blinked.

Bluster, backed up by inaction.

6:27 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"c'mon trintiy, doesn't that sound like an excuse from bush?


How can it be an excuse from Bush, rob, when it wasn't said by him? I heard Scheuer say that when he was on a tv discussion panel recently. He was livid at some of the spin that was going on, and really exploded. Maybe I could find the transcript if you are interested.

what about outsourcing the capturing of osama to the afgahnis?

If you want to learn more about the actual facts of all that, you should probably read Scheuer's book, "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror", as well as "Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander" by Gary Berntsen.

I haven't gotten these two books yet, but they are definitely on my book "wish" list. I've got a stack of other books I haven't gotten through yet, but I will.

I did hear these two men give several interviews, however, and they have a lot of intimate knowledge of this subject.

"quoting one former CIA agent is nice. how come when liberals quote various former cia agents, they are dismissed out of hand -- if they are critical of the way bush has handled the war on terror?"

I believe Michael Scheuer's book came out right before the 2004 election, and if I remember correctly, his book was also critical of President Bush.

6:42 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"Too late. Already did blink. In 2002 they could have threatened to go to war. Didn't do that. Did nothing."


Go to war with whom, Dave G.? North Korea?

6:45 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Yeah. When they started to produce the plutonium again. They could have threatened it - which is what Clinton did in 1994 - and Kim shut down that processing.

But they were too focused on Iraq, the weakest of the 3 "axis of evil" countries.

6:59 PM  
Anonymous Widget said...

Dave Gee Whiz,

You ask me if I know what a chicken-hawk is.

Look in the Mirror. There you are, Dave the Gull-Chicken-Hawk Kid.

You are ready to condemn President Bush because he didnt bomb N Korea before breakfast.

You are full of what others should do but too chicken to sign up and go yourself.

7:40 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity said "As I alluded to before, twot. I'll leave that to the grownups to figure out. One thing I don't think they'll do is blink, as Iran is watching this very closely."
All day long in your posts you've been referencing a concept of "grown ups" in the Bush Administration verses the apparent adolescent liberals and Democrats.
I suppose it is "grown up" to ignore your own generals, your own intelligence, and your own advisors on the situation in Iraq and how to proceed. I suppose it is "grown up" to distort the truth to the American people because that truth does not exist inside your bubble. I suppose it is "grown up" to persist in lies and fantasy about the reality in Iraq after your rosy predictions turn out to be completely wrong. (Oh, I forgot you cracked Cheney was a "decent" fellow and you weren't going to discuss him anymore today).
What is your idea of grown up, Trinity?

7:51 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Widget, you're an idiot. Plain and simple.

Better trolls, please.

7:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Libs say. “We need to get the international community together on this. We cant go it alone.”

Libs say, “We need to have one on one talks.”

Amazing how they know how to cover all bases.

Harry Reid is blaming North Koreas test on Bush. Hey Harry how about blaming the North Koreans.

Hillary Clinton is blaming Bush also. Hillary should shut her mouth when it comes to North Korea. I guess she forgot the technology given by her husband.

I see this heading down the road of a blame game. That will get us no where but blown up. Fix the problem elected officials. Enough time has been wasted.

9:08 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

As I said in the above JABBS post about Cheney, Bush will never again be able to state with any credibility that the U.S. foreign policy under his administration is to preemptively stop a threat to the U.S. using military action before the threat can occur.
Well you sure didn't apply that policy in North Korea, Mr. President.

We instead wasted valuable military resources on Iraq, a country with no WMDs instead of the country that REALLY WAS A WMD THREAT.
Here's another thing the Bushie Republicans will no longer be able to state with any credibility:
We represent the party that can best protect the U.S. from terrorism.

10:36 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

A brief accounting of the results of the tactics taken on the "Axis of Evil."

--Iraq. Least threatening country out of the three. Invaded on false pretenses, bad intelligence and without a plan to secure the country. Bad idea, badly executed, badly managed, no oversight. Currently in chaos.

--Iran. Building nuclear weapons. We've alienated the moderates and strengthened the hard-liners. Removing Hussein gets rid of the main counterweight to Iran increasing their power in the region, which was not in our interest. Army bogged down in Iraq and cannot respond in Iran as a result. Iran exerting more influence in Iraq.

--North Korea. Now has obtained nukes. Didn't talk to them for 6 years, now proposing sanctions. Hard to put the genie back in the bottle.

Oh, and Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose.

Heckuva job, Chimpy.

11:05 AM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

I guess she forgot the technology given by her husband.

>>

I don't remember Clinton ever working for a technology company. And of course, the House was controlled by Republicans during the years we're talking about. So any funding would have needed GOP support.

However, can you explain the technology the North Koreans received in the 1990s from a U.S. company that had Rumsfeld on its board of directors?

1:13 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

actually, the "technology" I presume the others are talking about are the light-water reactors. But those reactors were never built anyway. So that's another nonsense fantasy in the minds of the wingnuts.

2:19 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares