The Clinton Legacy: North Korea's Bomb

[fossten]

The Clinton Legacy: North Korea's Bomb

Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com

Monday, Oct. 9, 2006


North Korea's first detonation of a nuclear weapon may have taken place during the watch of George W. Bush — but it was under the Clinton administration's watch that the communist regime began gathering necessary materials and constructing the bomb.

As Western powers race to confirm that North Korea did in fact explode a nuclear device in Gilju, a remote region in the Hamgyong province, some see it as a culmination of weak U.S. action during the 1990s that led to this fateful day.

Fateful Beginnings

After entering into an agreement with the United States in 1994, the Clinton administration ignored evidence the North Koreans were violating the agreement and continuing to build a nuclear weapon. "In July of 2002, documentary evidence was found in the form of purchase orders for the materials necessary to enrich uranium," NewsMax's James Hirsen previously reported.

"In October 2002, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly met with his North Korean counterpart for scheduled talks. Kelly confronted North Korea with the tangible evidence of its duplicity. After a day of outright denial, North Korea abruptly reversed its position and defiantly acknowledged a secret nuclear program."

Timeline of a Nuclear Bomb

A review of recent history shows that that the Clinton administration gave up a clear and perhaps last best chance to nip the North Korean bomb in the bud:

1985: North Korea signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

1989: The Central Intelligence Agency discovers the North Koreans are building a reprocessing facility — a reactor capable of converting fuel rods into weapons-grade plutonium. The fuel rods were extracted 10 years before from that nation's Yongbyon reactor.

The rods represent a shortcut to enriched plutonium and an atomic bomb.

Spring, 1994: A year into President Clinton's first term, North Korea prepares to remove the Yongbyon fuel rods from their storage site. North Korea expels international weapons inspectors and withdraws from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Clinton asks the United Nations Security Council to consider sanctions. North Korean spokesmen proclaim such sanctions would cause war.

The Pentagon draws up plans to send 50,000 troops to South Korea — along with 400 war planes, 50 ships, Apache helicopters, Bradley fighting vehicles, and Patriot missiles. An advance force of 250 soldiers is sent in to set up headquarters for the expanded force.

Clinton balks and sets up a diplomatic back-channel to end the crisis — former President Jimmy Carter. Exceeding instructions, Carter negotiates the outlines of a treaty and announces the terms live on CNN.

Oct. 21, 1994: The United States and North Korea sign a formal accord based on those outlines, called the Agreed Framework. Under its terms:

North Korea promises to renew its commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, lock up the fuel rods, and let inspectors back in to monitor the facility.

The United States agrees — with financial backing from South Korea and Japan — that it will provide two light-water nuclear reactors for electricity, send a large supply of fuel oil, and that it will not invade North Korea.

Upon delivery of the first light-water reactor, inspections of suspected North Korean nuclear sites were supposed to start. After the second reactor arrived, North Korea was supposed to ship its fuel rods out of the country.

The two countries also agreed to lower trade barriers and install ambassadors in each other's capitals — with the United States providing full assurances that it would never use nuclear weapons against North Korea.

(None of the above came to pass. Congress did not make the financial commitment — neither did South Korea. The light-water reactors were never funded. The enumerated steps toward normalization were never taken.)

Jan. 2002: In President Bush's State of the Union Address, he famously labels North Korea, Iran, and Iraq as an "axis of evil."

Oct., 2002: Officials from the U.S. State Department fly to Pyongyang, where that government admits it had acquired centrifuges for processing highly enriched uranium, which could be used for building nuclear weapons.

It is now clear to all parties that the promised reactors are never going to be built. Normalization of relations fizzles.

The CIA learns that North Korea may have been acquiring centrifuges for enriching uranium since the late 1990s — probably from Pakistan.

Oct. 20, 2002: Bush announces that the United States is formally withdrawing from the Carter-brokered 1994 agreement.

The United States halts oil supplies to North Korea and urges other countries to cut off all economic relations with Pyongyang.

Dec., 2002: North Korea expels the international weapons inspectors, restarts the nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, and unlocks the container holding the fuel rods.

Jan. 10, 2003: North Korea withdraws from the Non-Proliferation Treaty — noting, however, that there would be a change of position if the U.S. resumed its obligations under the Agreed Framework and signed a non-aggression pledge.

March, 2003: President Bush orders several B-1 and B-52 bombers to the U.S. Air Force base in Guam — within range of North Korea.

April, 2003: North Korea's deputy foreign minister announces that his country now has "deterrent" nuclear weapons.

May, 2003: Bush orders the Guam-based aircraft back to their home bases.

October, 2003: The North Koreans announce they have reprocessed all 8,000 of their fuel rods and solved the technical problems of converting the plutonium into nuclear bombs.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

(None of the above came to pass. Congress did not make the financial commitment — neither did South Korea. The light-water reactors were never funded. The enumerated steps toward normalization were never taken.)

And the REPUBLICAN-controlled Congress's excuse is..............??? Undermining Clinton's attempts to address NK's ambitions?

Typical RWW, blame Clinton for every one of BuSh's shortcomings. WHEN the hell are you people going to stand up like a man and take ANY responsibility??

 

[MAC1]

The bottom line is that no matter what Clinton or Bush did or did not do, Jong-Il was bent on pursuit of nuclear technology and the bomb. He is a two-bit petty dictator who wants attention and recognition at any cost. Today, for example, he threatened to fire a nuclear missile in an attempt to bully the United States and anyone who would dare consider sanctioning North Korea as a result of its alleged nuclear test.

I would say, however, that the U.S. should not have given Jong-Il any nuclear technology or means to attain same. Nevertheless, even if the the U.S. refused to provide nuclear technology it doesn’t necessarily mean he wouldn’t have obtained it from another source.

From all indications, it's doubtful that Jong-Il tested a nuclear bomb; rather, he's most likely looking for attention--Again.

 

[fossten]

And the REPUBLICAN-controlled Congress's excuse is..............??? Undermining Clinton's attempts to address NK's ambitions?

Typical RWW, blame Clinton for every one of BuSh's shortcomings. WHEN the hell are you people going to stand up like a man and take ANY responsibility??

Blah blah blah blanket statement with no substance. Exactly which, Johnny, are Bush's shortcomings in the North Korea issue? Hmmm? I thought Clinton sewed all that up and there would be lasting peace and nonproliferation thanks to Albright.

Far be it from Johnny to let a few pesky facts get in the way of invective. :lol:

 

[fossten]

Sen. McCain Blasts Clinton 'Failure' on North Korea

Republican Sen. John McCain on Tuesday accused former President Clinton, the husband of his potential 2008 White House rival, of failing to act in the 1990s to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons.

"I would remind Senator (Hillary) Clinton and other Democrats critical of the Bush administration's policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure," McCain said at a news conference after a campaign appearance for Republican Senate candidate Mike Bouchard.

"The Koreans received millions and millions in energy assistance. They've diverted millions of dollars of food assistance to their military," he said.

Democrats have argued President Clinton presented his successor with a framework for dealing with North Korea and the Republican fumbled the opportunity. In October 2000, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright made a groundbreaking visit to Pyongyang to explore a missile deal with Chairman Kim Jong Il. There was even talk of a visit by President Clinton.

The initial breakthrough occurred in October 1994 when U.S. negotiators persuaded North Korea to freeze its nuclear program, with onsite monitoring by U.N. inspectors. In exchange, the United States, with input from South Korea and Japan, promised major steps to ease North Korea's acute energy shortage.

[snip]

While I don't generally like McCain, when he's right he's right...

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Exactly which, Johnny, are Bush's shortcomings in the North Korea issue?

Doing absolutely nothing since he put them on the "Axis if Evil" list except for his relentless search for his manhood using tweezers while you hold the magnifying glass.

Grow a pair little boy.

 

[TheDude]

On the bright side, the WMD's have finally been found. We just happened to attack and overthrow the wrong country and dictator.

 

[MAC1]

Doing absolutely nothing since he put them on the "Axis if Evil" list except for his relentless search for his manhood using tweezers while you hold the magnifying glass.

Just don't try this in the sun.

 

[97silverlsc]

FLASHBACK: Rumsfeld Sat On Board Of Company That Sold Nuclear Reactors To North Korea
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/10/rumsfeld-abb/
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell lauded what is known as the Agreed Framework that the Clinton Administration signed with North Korea. “Lots of nuclear weapons were not made because of the Agreed Framework and the work of President Clinton and his team,” Powell said. Now, conservatives are faulting President Clinton for selling light water reactors to North Korea under the agreement, but in doing so, they overlook Donald Rumsfeld’s role in the deal.

Rumsfeld was the only American to sit on the board of a company which six years ago sold two light water reactors to North Korea. The Guardian reported in May 2003:

Rumsfeld was a non-executive director of ABB, a European engineering giant based in Zurich, when it won a $200m contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors. The current defense secretary sat on the board from 1990 to 2001, earning $190,000 a year.

Rumsfeld has never acknowledged that he knew the company was competing for the nuclear contract. In response to questions about his role in the reactor deal, former Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke told Newsweek in February 2003 that “there was no vote on this” and that her boss “does not recall it being brought before the board at any time.” But an investigation by Fortune magazine revealed that Rumsfeld probably did know:

ABB spokesman Bjoern Edlund told Fortune magazine at the time that “board members were informed about this project.” … “This was a major thing for ABB,” the former director [who sat on the board with Rumsfeld] said, “and extensive political lobbying was done.” The director recalls being told that Rumsfeld was asked “to lobby in Washington” on ABB’s behalf. … Although he couldn’t provide details, Goran Lundberg, who ran ABB’s power-generation business until 1995, says he’s “pretty sure that at some point Don was involved,” since it was not unusual to seek help from board members “when we needed contacts with the U.S. government.”

Rumsfeld has since refused media requests to talk about his role in the light water reactor deal and has instead criticized it.

 

[MAC1]

Could President Clinton or Congress have stopped ABB from selling reactors to North Korea if they wanted to? I mean, if the buck stops at the top, then the top would be the White House, correct? If I'm not mistaken, don't the democrats often bemoan this point.

 

[MonsterMark]

Rumsfeld was a non-executive director of ABB,

Which means he couldn't have done dick about it anyway.:leghumper

 

[Calabrio]

On the bright side, the WMD's have finally been found. We just happened to attack and overthrow the wrong country and dictator.

No. Iraq and Korea are different situations. Iraq was a state sponsor of terror, a safe harbor for terrorist, they undeniably had ambitions to develop nuclear weapons as well as further developing chemical and biological weapons. Hussein had attempted to asassinate an American ex-President. They routinely fired upon our military jets. And they were engaged in a near genocide of the Kurds and the marsh people in the South.

The wrong country wasn't over throw. It's just not the only one that needs attention now following nearly a decade of bad foreign policy through the 90s.

 

[MonsterMark]

Madeline Albright

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashma.htm

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Which means he couldn't have done dick about it anyway.:leghumper

:bsflag:

The two faces of Rumsfeld

2000: director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea
2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change

Randeep Ramesh
Friday May 9, 2003
The Guardian

Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, sat on the board of a company which three years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea - a country he now regards as part of the "axis of evil" and which has been targeted for regime change by Washington because of its efforts to build nuclear weapons.

Mr Rumsfeld was a non-executive director of ABB, a European engineering giant based in Zurich, when it won a $200m (£125m) contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors. The current defence secretary sat on the board from 1990 to 2001, earning $190,000 a year. He left to join the Bush administration.

The reactor deal was part of President Bill Clinton's policy of persuading the North Korean regime to positively engage with the west.
The sale of the nuclear technology was a high-profile contract. ABB's then chief executive, Goran Lindahl, visited North Korea in November 1999 to announce ABB's "wide-ranging, long-term cooperation agreement" with the communist government.

The company also opened an office in the country's capital, Pyongyang, and the deal was signed a year later in 2000. Despite this, Mr Rumsfeld's office said that the de fence secretary did not "recall it being brought before the board at any time".

In a statement to the American magazine Newsweek, his spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said that there "was no vote on this". A spokesman for ABB told the Guardian yesterday that "board members were informed about the project which would deliver systems and equipment for light water reactors".

Just months after Mr Rumsfeld took office, President George Bush ended the policy of engagement and negotiation pursued by Mr Clinton, saying he did not trust North Korea, and pulled the plug on diplomacy. Pyongyang warned that it would respond by building nuclear missiles. A review of American policy was announced and the bilateral confidence building steps, key to Mr Clinton's policy of detente, halted.

By January 2002, the Bush administration had placed North Korea in the "axis of evil" alongside Iraq and Iran. If there was any doubt about how the White House felt about North Korea this was dispelled by Mr Bush, who told the Washington Post last year: "I loathe [North Korea's leader] Kim Jong-il."

The success of campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq have enhanced the status of Mr Rumsfeld in Washington. Two years after leaving ABB, Mr Rumsfeld now considers North Korea a "terrorist regime _ teetering on the verge of collapse" and which is on the verge of becoming a proliferator of nuclear weapons. During a bout of diplomatic activity over Christmas he warned that the US could fight two wars at once - a reference to the forthcoming conflict with Iraq. After Baghdad fell, Mr Rumsfeld said Pyongyang should draw the "appropriate lesson".

Critics of the administration's bellicose language on North Korea say that the problem was not that Mr Rumsfeld supported the Clinton-inspired diplomacy and the ABB deal but that he did not "speak up against it". "One could draw the conclusion that economic and personal interests took precedent over non-proliferation," said Steve LaMontagne, an analyst with the Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington.

Many members of the Bush administration are on record as opposing Mr Clinton's plans, saying that weapons-grade nuclear material could be extracted from the type of light water reactors that ABB sold. Mr Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, and the state department's number two diplomat, Richard Armitage, both opposed the deal as did the Republican presidential candidate, Bob Dole, whose campaign Mr Rumsfeld ran and where he also acted as defence adviser.

One unnamed ABB board director told Fortune magazine that Mr Rumsfeld was involved in lobbying his hawkish friends on behalf of ABB.

The Clinton package sought to defuse tensions on the Ko rean peninsula by offering supplies of oil and new light water nuclear reactors in return for access by inspectors to Pyongyang's atomic facilities and a dismantling of its heavy water reactors which produce weapons grade plutonium. Light water reactors are known as "proliferation-resistant" but, in the words of one expert, they are not "proliferation-proof".

The type of reactors involved in the ABB deal produce plutonium which needs refining before it can be weaponised. One US congressman and critic of the North Korean regime described the reactors as "nuclear bomb factories".

North Korea expelled the inspectors last year and withdrew from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in January at about the same time that the Bush administration authorised $3.5m to keep ABB's reactor project going.

North Korea is thought to have offered to scrap its nuclear facilities and missile pro gramme and to allow international nuclear inspectors into the country. But Pyongyang demanded that security guarantees and aid from the US must come first.

Mr Bush now insists that he will only negotiate a new deal with Pyongyang after the nuclear programme is scrapped. Washington believes that offering inducements would reward Pyongyang's "blackmail" and encourage other "rogue" states to develop weapons of mass destruction.

No matter how the RWWs try to displace the blame for today's NK situation onto Clinton, they cannot wash their hands of responsibility. I'm still waiting for an answer to the question of why the REPUBLICAN-controlled congress refused to make the financial comittment that ended up undermining Clinton's efforts. Typically, they criticize a "failed policy" which they themselves are responsible for it's failure. One can only conclude that the GOP is so desperate to control the power in Washington that they'll sell the American people's soul to the devil and sacrafice our own security. Then when they turn 180 degrees and claim that they are "strong on defense and security", the RWW fools of this country are so gullible to actually believe their BS.

 

[Calabrio]

As stated, the Clinton "diplomacy" was a failure!!
Why would you want us to continue doing what had been clearly demonstrated as a failure?

 

[fossten]

McCain on N. Korea: 'I Don't Need Lessons From John Kerry On Politicizing Issues'

Posted by Mark Finkelstein on October 11, 2006 - 08:17.

A phalanx of Democrats, led by Hillary Clinton, claims the Bush administration is to blame for the N. Korean nuclear test. John McCain responds, pointing out that it was the Clinton administration's failed "agreed framework" that let Kim Jong Il merrily go about his bomb-and-missile-making ways.

So how does Hannah Storm of CBS' Early Show frame the state of play?

"Sen. John Kerry said that you must be trying to burnish your credentials for the nomination process, he's referring of course to your presidential aspirations. I mean, what do you say to those who say that you're [her voice breaking into a horrifed squeak] politicizing this issue?"

McCain had had enough: "I say that the attacks were made on President Bush, I responded to those attacks on this administration and [his nose wrinkling in disgust] I don't think I need any lessons from my friend John Kerry on politicizing an issue."

Bada-bing.

 

[fossten]

I'm still waiting for an answer to the question of why the REPUBLICAN-controlled congress refused to make the financial comittment that ended up undermining Clinton's efforts. [/COLOR]

I'll answer that silly 'why' question when you answer these 'why' questions:

Why did the Democrats in Congress:

1. Lie about their stance on Iraq in the 90's?
2. Filibuster Bolton's nomination?
3. Hide their involvement in the Foley scandal?
4. Protect Clinton in the Lewinsky scandal while trying to burn the Republicans in the Foley scandal?
5. Vote for Gerry Studds to be a committee chairman 5 times in a row AFTER he was exposed as a child-molester?
6. Honor Senator Robert (KKK) Byrd while attacking Trent Lott?
7. Proudly vote down Social Security reform and then turn around and use it as a campaign issue?
8. Proudly vote to 'kill' the PATRIOT Act?
9. Malign Alito as an extremist but called Ginsburg mainstream?
10. Vote down ANWR and new refineries but complain about dependence on Middle Eastern oil?
11. Claim to be for the little guy and then attack Wal-Mart who caters to the little guy?
12. Blame Bush and 'big oil' for the rise in gas prices but then blame supply and demand for the decline in gas prices?

I could go on and on.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

As stated, the Clinton "diplomacy" was a failure!!
Why would you want us to continue doing what had been clearly demonstrated as a failure?

It was a failure because the GOP sabotaged it.

If you are going to be critical of Clinton for his diplomacy, then you have to be critical of Rumsfeld for his involvement (or lack thereof) in keeping those reactors from NK. Otherwise you've been exposed as a hypocrite.

 

[TheDude]

No. Iraq and Korea are different situations. Iraq was a state sponsor of terror, a safe harbor for terrorist, they undeniably had ambitions to develop nuclear weapons as well as further developing chemical and biological weapons. Hussein had attempted to asassinate an American ex-President. They routinely fired upon our military jets. And they were engaged in a near genocide of the Kurds and the marsh people in the South.

The wrong country wasn't over throw. It's just not the only one that needs attention now following nearly a decade of bad foreign policy through the 90s.

Fair enough, but speaking of failed foreign policy, Bush isn't hitting home runs with his foreign policy. Kim Jong-Il went ahead and built a nuke as seen so far and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is giving us the middle finger.

Now I ask you, if we went into Iraq because we thought Saddam had WMD's and he was ignoring the sanctions placed on him, what do we do about N. Korea who in fact has WMD's, not just any WMD mind you, but a nuke and threatens to retaliate if sanctions are placed on them?

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

I'll answer that silly 'why' question when you answer these 'why' questions:

Why did the Democrats in Congress:

1. Lie about their stance on Iraq in the 90's?
2. Filibuster Bolton's nomination?
3. Hide their involvement in the Foley scandal?
4. Protect Clinton in the Lewinsky scandal while trying to burn the Republicans in the Foley scandal?
5. Vote for Gerry Studds to be a committee chairman 5 times in a row AFTER he was exposed as a child-molester?
6. Honor Senator Robert (KKK) Byrd while attacking Trent Lott?
7. Proudly vote down Social Security reform and then turn around and use it as a campaign issue?
8. Proudly vote to 'kill' the PATRIOT Act?
9. Malign Alito as an extremist but called Ginsburg mainstream?
10. Vote down ANWR and new refineries but complain about dependence on Middle Eastern oil?
11. Claim to be for the little guy and then attack Wal-Mart who caters to the little guy?
12. Blame Bush and 'big oil' for the rise in gas prices but then blame supply and demand for the decline in gas prices?

I could go on and on.

Try sticking to the topic and answer the question. Or have you ran out of ammo?

(queue foot-stomping and name calling)

 

[fossten]

Try sticking to the topic and answer the question. Or have you ran out of ammo?

(queue foot-stomping and name calling)

Your question is idiotic. You want an answer, do the research yourself, big whiny baby. There probably was pork in it.

NEXT!

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Try sticking to the topic and answer the question. Or have you ran out of ammo?

(queue foot-stomping and name calling)

And folks, there you have it, in black and white:

Your question is idiotic. You want an answer, do the research yourself, big whiny baby.

*owned*

There probably was pork in it.

So you don't have an answer. That's what I thought.

and.... *owned*

 

[Calabrio]

Fair enough, but speaking of failed foreign policy, Bush isn't hitting home runs with his foreign policy. Kim Jong-Il went ahead and built a nuke as seen so far and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is giving us the middle finger.

yup.

If you want an image, think of a guy who out in the woods and doesn't extinguish his small campfire. After he leaves, the forest burns down. As the fire spreads through out the world, that guy is sitting in his home.

That's Clinton. That was the Clinton foreign policy. The world is going to be on fire and Clinton failed to stomp that fire out when it was small. But when the ranger drove by as Clinton was leaving office, he didn't see the trickle of smoke coming from the woods.

Now I ask you, if we went into Iraq because we thought Saddam had WMD's and he was ignoring the sanctions placed on him, what do we do about N. Korea who in fact has WMD's, not just any WMD mind you, but a nuke and threatens to retaliate if sanctions are placed on them?

It's a huge problem isn't it? There are no easy answers.

Let me ask you this, would it have been better to wait until Saddam had an advanced nuclear weapons program before we ousted him?

The opportunity to prevent N. Korea from doing this was lost in the 90s. Right now, perhaps the Chinese can apply pressure to keep North Korea in line, but the reality is... the nuclear genie is completely out of the bottle.

This didn't happen yesterday. It started in the 70s, and it began to fully emerge during the 90s, it's only becoming recognized now. Now we deal with the consequences.

Hopefully the rest of the world will recognize this threat before it's too late. If they don't, hopefully we have some allies left who are strong enough to fight it too.

 

[TheDude]

A question about the "two light water nuclear reactors" that N. Korea acquired during the Clinton presidency... Those cannot be used to create nuclear weapons right? So why the 'Clinton gave N. Korea the ability to make nukes!" outcry?

 

[Calabrio]

A question about the "two light water nuclear reactors" that N. Korea acquired during the Clinton presidency... Those cannot be used to create nuclear weapons right? So why the 'Clinton gave N. Korea the ability to make nukes!" outcry?

It did provide N. Korea with uranium.
It also provided the N. Korean regime hundreds of millions of dollars worth of aid.
And it did nothing to enforce the terms of the ridiculous Jimmy Carter agreement.