The Clinton Legacy: North Korea's Bomb

Calabrio said:
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.

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.

Sorry, but I do not buy the "The opportunity to prevent N. Korea from doing this was lost in the 90s.", it would stand to reason that the Bush Cabinet knew about N. Korea in at least 2001, just as they knew or thought they knew about Iraq. So why not do a single thing about N. Korea for 5+ years and bet the whole farm on Iraq?

Personally, relying on the Chinese to handle N. Korea sounds like a terrible idea, we’re essentially subcontracting our safety to a country that cannot guarantee our well being first.
 
95DevilleNS said:
Sorry, but I do not buy the "The opportunity to prevent N. Korea from doing this was lost in the 90s.", it would stand to reason that the Bush Cabinet knew about N. Korea in at least 2001, just as they knew or thought they knew about Iraq. So why not do a single thing about N. Korea for 5+ years and bet the whole farm on Iraq?
First of all, EVERYONE was aware of North Korea in 2001.
And they've been working on the situation in N. Korea all along. This didn't just suddenly pop up on the radar. Perhaps you've just taken note, but the administration has been concerned about N. Korea all along.

Remember when he called N. Korea part of the axis of evil, and liberal democrats through a fit?

By 2001, it was too late to prevent this from happening, short of military strikes. And that wouldn't go over well with the Chinese. The unintended consequences of that could have been worse than the alternative.

Personally, relying on the Chinese to handle N. Korea sounds like a terrible idea, we’re essentially subcontracting our safety to a country that cannot guarantee our well being first.
What would you like done? You're sort of stating the obvious while hoping for the improbable.
 
Calabrio said:
First of all, EVERYONE was aware of North Korea in 2001.
And they've been working on the situation in N. Korea all along. This didn't just suddenly pop up on the radar. Perhaps you've just taken note, but the administration has been concerned about N. Korea all along.

Remember when he called N. Korea part of the axis of evil, and liberal democrats through a fit?

By 2001, it was too late to prevent this from happening, short of military strikes. And that wouldn't go over well with the Chinese. The unintended consequences of that could have been worse than the alternative.


What would you like done? You're sort of stating the obvious while hoping for the improbable.

I do not doubt their concern, I doubt the failed foreign policy in this matter as N. Korea is now a nuclear weapons capable country and it wasn't in 2001.

Well, maybe labeling N. Korea as part of an "Axis of Evil" was a bad idea, would have been better to not show our cards to Kim Jong-Il, we know he's a bastard, why make it public and obviously placing the "evil" label did nothing.

Military strikes would have been the right thing to do in retrospect, if you're claiming they would not have been because of the Chinese how can you be satisfied with relying on the Chinese to protect us and our allies from N. Korea.
 
95DevilleNS said:
I do not doubt their concern, I doubt the failed foreign policy in this matter as N. Korea is now a nuclear weapons capable country and it wasn't in 2001.
No, but it did have a very active and well supplied nuclear program at that point.

They also have reached diplomatic agreements with the N. Koreans, as late as September of last year. It's just that N. Korean doesn't abide by them.

Well, maybe labeling N. Korea as part of an "Axis of Evil" was a bad idea, would have been better to not show our cards to Kim Jong-Il, we know he's a bastard, why make it public and obviously placing the "evil" label did nothing.
N. Korea already was well aware that we were angry over their violation of numerous treaties an agreements, their denia of rights to their citizens, their destablilization of the region.. We have about 40k troops in S. Korea.

The purpose of Bush saying that was to educate the American public. Unfortuantely, liberals took offense and denied it.

Military strikes would have been the right thing to do in retrospect, if you're claiming they would not have been because of the Chinese how can you be satisfied with relying on the Chinese to protect us and our allies from N. Korea.
I'm not "depending" on the Chinese to do anything. They are a communist country that is actively competeing against us. I do not trust them. But they are the ones supporting North Korea, and they are the regional power. They have the influence that will make our job easier.

I'm also saying that military strikes could have had unintended consequences, and in 2001 things were pretty tense with China. If they were to have been launched, they should have been done EARLIER than 2001. More importantly, the issue should have been pursued more aggressively by Clinton, before it ever got to this point.

Jimmy Carter is a fool, and sending him is another example of Clinton going for a quick PR victory, leaving the real problem behind for the next generation.

By the way, would you have supported the Bush adiminstration if they'd launched PREEMPTIVE STRIKES into NORTH KOREA to destroy their potential ability to develop nuclear weapons?
 
op-Ed Contributor
Solving the Korean Stalemate, One Step at a Time
By JIMMY CARTER
Published: October 11, 2006

IN 1994 the North Koreans expelled inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency and were threatening to process spent nuclear fuel into plutonium, giving them the ability to produce nuclear weapons.

With the risk of war on the Korean Peninsula, there was a consensus that the forces of South Korea and the United States could overwhelmingly defeat North Korea. But it was also known that North Korea could quickly launch more than 20,000 shells and missiles into nearby Seoul. The American commander in South Korea, Gen. Gary Luck, estimated that total casualties would far exceed those of the Korean War.

Responding to an invitation from President Kim Il-sung of North Korea, and with the approval of President Bill Clinton, I went to Pyongyang and negotiated an agreement under which North Korea would cease its nuclear program at Yongbyon and permit inspectors from the atomic agency to return to the site to assure that the spent fuel was not reprocessed. It was also agreed that direct talks would be held between the two Koreas.

The spent fuel (estimated to be adequate for a half-dozen bombs) continued to be monitored, and extensive bilateral discussions were held. The United States assured the North Koreans that there would be no military threat to them, that it would supply fuel oil to replace the lost nuclear power and that it would help build two modern atomic power plants, with their fuel rods and operation to be monitored by international inspectors. The summit talks resulted in South Korean President Kim Dae-jung earning the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize for his successful efforts to ease tensions on the peninsula.

But beginning in 2002, the United States branded North Korea as part of an axis of evil, threatened military action, ended the shipments of fuel oil and the construction of nuclear power plants and refused to consider further bilateral talks. In their discussions with me at this time, North Korean spokesmen seemed convinced that the American positions posed a serious danger to their country and to its political regime.

Responding in its ill-advised but predictable way, Pyongyang withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, expelled atomic energy agency inspectors, resumed processing fuel rods and began developing nuclear explosive devices.

Six-nation talks finally concluded in an agreement last September that called for North Korea to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and for the United States and North Korea to respect each other’s sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalize relations. Each side subsequently claimed that the other had violated the agreement. The United States imposed severe financial sanctions and Pyongyang adopted the deeply troubling nuclear option.

The current military situation is similar but worse than it was a decade ago: we can still destroy North Korea’s army, but if we do it is likely to result in many more than a million South Korean and American casualties.

If and when it is confirmed that the recent explosion in North Korea was nuclear, the international community will once again be faced with difficult choices.

One option, the most likely one, is to try to force Pyongyang’s leaders to abandon their nuclear program with military threats and a further tightening of the embargoes, increasing the suffering of its already starving people. Two important facts must be faced: Kim Jong-il and his military leaders have proven themselves almost impervious to outside pressure, and both China and South Korea have shown that they are reluctant to destabilize the regime. This approach is also more likely to stimulate further nuclear weapons activity.

The other option is to make an effort to put into effect the September denuclearization agreement, which the North Koreans still maintain is feasible. The simple framework for a step-by-step agreement exists, with the United States giving a firm and direct statement of no hostile intent, and moving toward normal relations if North Korea forgoes any further nuclear weapons program and remains at peace with its neighbors. Each element would have to be confirmed by mutual actions combined with unimpeded international inspections.

Although a small nuclear test is a far cry from even a crude deliverable bomb, this second option has become even more difficult now, but it is unlikely that the North Koreans will back down unless the United States meets this basic demand. Washington’s pledge of no direct talks could be finessed through secret discussions with a trusted emissary like former Secretary of State Jim Baker, who earlier this week said, “It’s not appeasement to talk to your enemies.”

What must be avoided is to leave a beleaguered nuclear nation convinced that it is permanently excluded from the international community, its existence threatened, its people suffering horrible deprivation and its hard-liners in total control of military and political policy.

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president, is the founder of the Carter Center and the winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.

_________________
There He Goes Again [Steven Hayward]

Jimmy Carter turns up in the pages of the New York Times this morning to pat himself on the back for having "solved" the NorKo nuclear crisis back in 1994. Of course, Carter implies that the whole thing is George W. Bush's fault for having called the Norks bad names ("axis of evil"). It is a classic example of Carter's delusional state of mind.

Just deconstruct this graph, for example:

Responding to an invitation from President Kim Il-sung of North Korea, and with the approval of President Bill Clinton, I went to Pyongyang and negotiated an agreement under which North Korea would cease its nuclear program at Yongbyon and permit inspectors from the atomic agency to return to the site to assure that the spent fuel was not reprocessed. It was also agreed that direct talks would be held between the two Koreas

Where to start. "an invitation from Kim Il Sung." Yes, and why do you suppose he wanted Carter so badly? ". . . with the approval of Bill Clinton. . ." Accuracy demands that it read "with the reluctant approval of Bill Clinton." Carter actually presented Clinton with a fait accompli — Carter told the White House was going to go hold hands with the Norks whether Clinton approved or not. Clinton, by the way, was furious with the outcome, which Carter announced on CNN before he told the White House. Clinton told Warren Christopher that Carter was to be stopped from making any further freelance trips of this kind. "It was also agreed that direct talks be held between the two Koreas." The Norks demanded a multi-million dollar payment from the South Koreans just to show up for the talks. In other words, the Norks turned it into a Jesse Jackson-style shakedown operation.

But remember—Jimmy is our best ex-president ever.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
And folks, there you have it, in black and white:



*owned*



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

and.... *owned*

Actually, now that I think about it, the answer is obvious. Why would the Republican Congress support a weak-ass, petulant President's attempt to GIVE nuclear technology to a belligerent communist nation? They were right not to fund this STUPID MOVE by the WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY.

Now you answer my twelve questions, unless you're a cowardly idiot.
*owned* yourself.
 
95DevilleNS said:
Military strikes would have been the right thing to do in retrospect,

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.
 
Calabrio said:
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.

Well considering the above and considering what we have now, Clinton should have loaded Jimmy Carter up with a mini briefcase nuke and solved it that way.
 
Clinton didn't "balk" at the military option because he was a softy. Many experts warned that an invasion could cost from 50,000 to 100,000 American soldier's lives and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of South Korean civilian's lives once NK started lobbing missiles. North Korea has the fourth-largest army on the planet in case you didn't know, all poised at the border, ready to go. It would have been, and still is, an impossible situation.

Even Bush knows that an invasion would be suicide, both militarily and politically. At least I hope and pray he does.

In addition, most foreign policy experts (mostly on the right) at the time were saying over and over that it was just a matter of time before the NK government would collapse, along the lines of East Germany.

So you can indeed say that Clinton took the easy path, but it could also be said that he took the only path that was prudent.
 
TommyB said:
So you can indeed say that Clinton took the easy path, but it could also be said that he took the only path that was prudent.
I don't think military strikes were a wise decision back then either.
But the deal brokers by Carter was a ridiculous joke and proved to be a horrible failure. Diplomacy would have worked, but it needed to have been done with a stronger hand and a diplomat more like James Baker, not a failure like Jimmy Carter.
 
TommyB said:
Clinton didn't "balk" at the military option because he was a softy. Many experts warned that an invasion could cost from 50,000 to 100,000 American soldier's lives and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of South Korean civilian's lives once NK started lobbing missiles. North Korea has the fourth-largest army on the planet in case you didn't know, all poised at the border, ready to go. It would have been, and still is, an impossible situation.

Even Bush knows that an invasion would be suicide, both militarily and politically. At least I hope and pray he does.

In addition, most foreign policy experts (mostly on the right) at the time were saying over and over that it was just a matter of time before the NK government would collapse, along the lines of East Germany.

So you can indeed say that Clinton took the easy path, but it could also be said that he took the only path that was prudent.

Who are these "many experts?" I'm sick and tired of that general baloney statement. Tell me who they are. The fact is that we virtually destroyed Saddam's entire army before we even went in on the ground, thanks to our superior technology. The North Koreans wouldn't have a chance if it weren't for China.

Moreover, you just undercut your own argument by making the case that he balked because it was too hard to go in to NK. That supports the statement that Clinton was a softy because he was unwilling to take casualties. That theory is further advanced and supported by the fact that he hates the military and was consistently loath to use it during his entire presidency.

About the only time he ever did was when he launched a remote control war over Kosovo, but even then he fell short of actually accomplishing anything because he failed to go in and secure the area. Heck, he even turned tail and ran in Somalia, which was no more threatening or dangerous than downtown Detroit. Don't tell me he isn't a coward.
 
fossten said:
Actually, now that I think about it, the answer is obvious. Why would the Republican Congress support a weak-ass, petulant President's attempt to GIVE nuclear technology to a belligerent communist nation? They were right not to fund this STUPID MOVE by the WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY.

Now you answer my twelve questions, unless you're a cowardly idiot.

Thanks for you're worthless opinion, but you did not answer the question. So in that same spirit, I'll "answer" your stupid, idiotic "questions":

fossten said:
Why did the Democrats in Congress:

1. Lie about their stance on Iraq in the 90's? LIE? What "Lie"??
2. Filibuster Bolton's nomination? Because he's a hotheaded jerk who isn't worthy of representing the US of A on the world's stage.
3. Hide their involvement in the Foley scandal? There has been no proof of any Dem "hiding their involvement".
4. Protect Clinton in the Lewinsky scandal while trying to burn the Republicans in the Foley scandal? Because what goes on between two consenting adults isn't any of your or my friggin buisness, and wasting taxpayer's money on it is stupid.
5. Vote for Gerry Studds to be a committee chairman 5 times in a row AFTER he was exposed as a child-molester? Because they can.
6. Honor Senator Robert (KKK) Byrd while attacking Trent Lott? Because they can.
7. Proudly vote down Social Security reform and then turn around and use it as a campaign issue? Because the "reform" offered by BuSh and the GOP was a crock of crap.
8. Proudly vote to 'kill' the PATRIOT Act? Because the PATRIOT act is a thinly desguised attack on us AMERICAN's civil rights and offers no substance for actually making America safer.
9. Malign Alito as an extremist but called Ginsburg mainstream? Because it's true.
10. Vote down ANWR and new refineries but complain about dependence on Middle Eastern oil? Because drilling in ANWR won't put a dent in our dependance on mid-eastern oil.
11. Claim to be for the little guy and then attack Wal-Mart who caters to the little guy? Because Wal-Mart supports communist nations by importing their goods at the expense of our jobs in exchange for slave-labor abroad.
12. Blame Bush and 'big oil' for the rise in gas prices but then blame supply and demand for the decline in gas prices? Who's "blaming" supply/demand for the decline? It's the GOP strategy since they have OPEC in their pants.
 
Well, everyone, I am glad to say that Johnny has exposed himself (no Clinton pun intended) as an ignorant, anti-American communist sympathizer. Read it for yourself.
 
fossten said:
Well, everyone, I am glad to say that Johnny has exposed himself (no Clinton pun intended) as an ignorant, anti-American communist sympathizer. Read it for yourself.

Dilusional as usual, always trying (but unsucessfully) to label people.

Thanks for admitting your defeat, as all you have left are personal attacks.

Typical. Predictable. Pathetic.
 
Rummy's North Korea Connection What did Donald Rumsfeld know about ABB's deal to build nuclear reactors there? And why won't he talk about it?
(FORTUNE Magazine)
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/05/12/342316/index.htm
By Richard Behar Research Associate Brenda Cherry
May 12, 2003

(FORTUNE Magazine) – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rarely keeps his opinions to himself. He tends not to compromise with his enemies. And he clearly disdains the communist regime in North Korea. So it's surprising that there is no clear public record of his views on the controversial 1994 deal in which the U.S. agreed to provide North Korea with two light-water nuclear reactors in exchange for Pyongyang ending its nuclear weapons program. What's even more surprising about Rumsfeld's silence is that he sat on the board of the company that won a $200 million contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors.

The company is Zurich-based engineering giant ABB, which signed the contract in early 2000, well before Rumsfeld gave up his board seat and joined the Bush administration. Rumsfeld, the only American director on the ABB board from 1990 to early 2001, has never acknowledged that he knew the company was competing for the nuclear contract. Nor could FORTUNE find any public reference to what he thought about the project. In response to questions about his role in the reactor deal, the Defense Secretary's spokeswoman Victoria Clarke told Newsweek in February that "there was no vote on this" and that her boss "does not recall it being brought before the board at any time."

Rumsfeld declined requests by FORTUNE to elaborate on his role. But ABB spokesman Bjorn Edlund has told FORTUNE that "board members were informed about this project." And other ABB officials say there is no way such a large and high-stakes project, involving complex questions of liability, would not have come to the attention of the board. "A written summary would probably have gone to the board before the deal was signed," says Robert Newman, a former president of ABB's U.S. nuclear division who spearheaded the project. "I'm sure they were aware."

FORTUNE contacted 15 ABB board members who served at the time the company was bidding for the Pyongyang contract, and all but one declined to comment. That director, who asked not to be identified, says he's convinced that ABB's chairman at the time, Percy Barnevik, told the board about the reactor project in the mid-1990s. "This was a major thing for ABB," the former director says, "and extensive political lobbying was done."

The director recalls being told that Rumsfeld was asked "to lobby in Washington" on ABB's behalf in the mid-1990s because a rival American company had complained about a foreign-owned firm getting the work. 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." Other former top executives don't recall Rumsfeld's involvement.

Today Rumsfeld, riding high after the Iraq war, is reportedly discussing a plan for "regime change" in North Korea. But his silence about the nuclear reactors raises questions about what he did--or didn't do--as an ABB director. There is no evidence that Rumsfeld, who took a keen interest in the company's nuclear business and attended most board meetings, made his views about the project known to other ABB officials. He certainly never made them public, even though the deal was criticized by many people close to Rumsfeld, who said weapons-grade nuclear material could be extracted from light-water reactors. Paul Wolfowitz, James Lilley, and Richard Armitage, all Rumsfeld allies, are on record opposing the deal. So is former presidential candidate Bob Dole, for whom Rumsfeld served as campaign manager and chief defense advisor. And Henry Sokolski, whose think tank received funding from a foundation on whose board Rumsfeld sat, has been one of the most vocal opponents of the 1994 agreement.

One clue to Rumsfeld's views: a Heritage Foundation speech in March 1998. Although he did not mention the light-water reactors, Rumsfeld said the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea "does not end its nuclear menace; it merely postpones the reckoning, with no assurance that we will know how much bomb-capable material North Korea has." A search of numerous databases found no press references at the time, or throughout the 1990s, noting Rumsfeld was a director of the company building the reactors. And Rumsfeld didn't bring it up either.

ABB, which was already building eight nuclear reactors in South Korea, had an inside track on the $4 billion U.S.-sponsored North Korea project. The firm was told "our participation is essential," recalls Frank Murray, project manager for the reactors. (He plays the same role now at Westinghouse, which was acquired by Britain's BNFL in 1999, a year before it also bought ABB's nuclear power business.) The North Korean reactors are being primarily funded by South Korean and Japanese export-import banks and supervised by KEDO, a consortium based in New York. "It was not a matter of favoritism," says Desaix Anderson, who ran KEDO from 1997 to 2001. "It was just a practical matter."

Even so, ABB tried to keep its involvement hush-hush. In a 1995 letter from ABB to the Department of Energy obtained by FORTUNE, the firm requested authorization to release technology to the North Koreans, then asked that the seemingly innocuous one-page letter be withheld from public disclosure. "Everything was held close to the vest for some reason," says Ronald Kurtz, ABB's U.S. spokesman. "It wasn't as public as contracts of this magnitude typically are."

However discreet ABB tried to be about the project, Kurtz and other company insiders say the board had to have known about it. Newman, the former ABB executive, says a written summary of the risk review would probably have gone to Barnevik. Barnevik didn't return FORTUNE's phone calls, but Newman's Zurich-based boss, Howard Pierce, says Rumsfeld "was on the board--so I can only assume he was aware of it."

By all accounts Rumsfeld was a hands-on director. Dick Slember, who once ran ABB's global nuclear business, says Rumsfeld often called to talk about issues involving nuclear proliferation, and that it was difficult to "get him pointed in the right direction." Pierce, who recalls Rumsfeld visiting China to help ABB get nuclear contracts, says, "Once he got an idea, it was tough to change his mind. You really had to work your ass off to turn him around." Shelby Brewer, a former head of ABB's nuclear business in the U.S., recalls meetings with Rumsfeld at the division's headquarters in Connecticut. "I found him enchanting and brilliant," he says. "He would cut through Europeans' bull:q:q:q:q like a hot knife through butter."

None of them could recall Rumsfeld talking about the North Korea project. But if he was keeping his opinions to himself, others were not. The Republicans attacked the deal from the start, particularly after gaining control of Congress in 1994. "The Agreed Framework was a political orphan within two weeks after its signature," says Stephen Bosworth, KEDO's first executive director and a former U.S. ambassador to South Korea. It's not hard to understand why it was controversial. North Korea is on the list of state sponsors of terrorism and has repeatedly violated the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Robert Gallucci, the assistant secretary of state who spearheaded the 1994 agreement, doesn't disagree, but says, "If we didn't do a deal, either we would have gone to war or they'd have over 100 nuclear weapons."

The problem, say a number of nuclear energy experts, is that it's possible, though difficult, to extract weapons-grade material from light-water reactors. "Reprocessing the stuff is not a big deal," says Victor Gilinsky, who has held senior posts at the Atomic Energy Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "You don't even need special equipment. The KEDO people ignore this. And we're still building the damn things."

Given the Republican outcry over the reactor deal, Rumsfeld's public silence is nearly deafening. "Almost any Republican was complaining about it," says Winston Lord, President Clinton's assistant secretary of state for East Asian/Pacific Affairs. Lord can't remember Rumsfeld speaking out. Nor can Frank Gaffney Jr., whose fervently anti-KEDO Center for Security Policy had ties to Rumsfeld. Gaffney speculates that Rumsfeld might have recused himself from the controversy because of his ABB position.

By 1998 a debate was raging in Washington about the initiative, and the delays were infuriating Pyongyang. Inspectors could no longer verify North Korea's nuclear material inventory. Still, at some point in 1998, ABB received its formal "invitation to bid," says Murray. Where was Rumsfeld? That year he chaired a blue-ribbon panel commissioned by Congress to examine classified data on ballistic missile threats. The commission concluded that North Korea could strike the U.S. within five years. (Weeks after the report was released, it fired a three-stage rocket over Japan.) The Rumsfeld Commission also concluded that North Korea was maintaining a nuclear weapons program--a subtle swipe at the reactor deal, which was supposed to prevent such a program. Rumsfeld's resume in the report did not mention that he was an ABB director.

In his final days in office, Clinton had been preparing a bold deal in which North Korea would give up its missile and nuclear programs in return for aid and normalized relations. But President Bush was skeptical of Pyongyang's intentions and called for a policy review in March 2001. Two months later the DOE, after consulting with Rumsfeld's Pentagon, renewed the authorization to send nuclear technology to North Korea. Groundbreaking ceremonies attended by Westinghouse and North Korean officials were held Sept. 14, 2001--three days after the worst terror attack on U.S. soil.

The Bush administration still hasn't abandoned the project. Representative Edward Markey and other Congressmen have been sending letters to Bush and Rumsfeld, asking them to pull the plug on the reactors, which Markey calls "nuclear bomb factories." Nevertheless, a concrete-pouring ceremony was held last August, and Westinghouse sponsored a training course for the North Koreans that concluded in October--shortly before Pyongyang confessed to having a secret uranium program, kicked inspectors out, and said it would start making plutonium. The Bush administration has suspended further transfers of nuclear technology, but in January it authorized $3.5 million to keep the project going.


Sooner or later, the outspoken Secretary of Defense will have to explain his silence.
 
So, rather than focus on the administration who cozied up with the dictator, you want to focus on a single person, serving on the board of a country, that was legally engaged in trade with another country?

Does it make the front page if you find out the George W. Bush had a money market account that was invested in the same firm too?
 
All I have to say about Phil's article is "big whoop." Nothing but conjecture and speculation. No evidence of anything whatsoever.

Not even a nice try.
 
CLINTON'S LATEST GLOW JOB
October 11, 2006


With the Democrats' full-throated moralizing of late, I'm almost tempted to vote for them — although perhaps "full-throated" is the wrong phrase to use with regard to Democrats and sex scandals. The sudden emergence of the Swift Butt Veterans for Truth demonstrates that the Democrats would prefer to talk about anything other than national security.

Unfortunately for them, the psychotic Kim Jong Il seems to be setting off nukes, raising the embarrassing issue of the Clinton administration's 1994 "peace" deal with North Korea.

At least with former Rep. Mark Foley, you could say the Democrats' hypocritical grandstanding was just politics. But in the case of North Korea, Democrats are resorting to bald-faced lies.

Current New Mexico governor and former Clinton administration official Bill Richardson has been on tour, bragging about the groundbreaking Clinton administration negotiations with North Korea — keeping his fingers crossed that no one has access to news from 1994.

In 1994, the Clinton administration got a call from Jimmy Carter — probably collect — who was with the then-leader of North Korea, saying: "Hey, Kim Il Sung is a total stud, and I've worked out a terrific deal. I'll give you the details later."

Clinton promptly signed the deal, so he could forget about North Korea and get back to cheating on Hillary. Mission accomplished.

Under the terms of the "agreed framework," we gave North Korea all sorts of bribes — more than $5 billion worth of oil, two nuclear reactors and lots of high technology. In return, they took the bribes and kept building nukes. This wasn't difficult, inasmuch as the 1994 deal permitted the North Koreans to evade weapons inspectors for the next five years.

Yes, you read that right: North Korea promised not to develop nukes, and we showed how much we trusted them by agreeing to no weapons inspections for five years.

The famed "allies," whom liberals claim they are so interested in pleasing, went ballistic at this cave-in to North Korea. Japan and South Korea — actual allies, unlike France and Germany — were furious. Even Hans Blix thought we were being patsies.

If you need any more evidence that it was a rotten deal, The New York Times hailed it as "a resounding triumph."

At the time, people like William Safire were screaming from the rooftops that allowing North Korea to escape weapons inspections for five years would "preclude a pre-emptive strike by us if North Korea, in the next U.S. president's administration, breaks its agreement to freeze additional bomb-making."

And then on Oct. 17, 2002 — under a new administration, you'll note — The New York Times reported on the front page, so you couldn't have missed it: "Confronted by new American intelligence, North Korea has admitted that it has been conducting a major clandestine nuclear weapons development program for the past several years."

So when it comes to North Korea, I believe the Democrats might want to maintain a discreet silence, lest anyone ask, "Hey, did you guys do anything with North Korea?"

But by Richardson's lights, the only reason Kim Jong Il is testing nukes is because Bush called him evil. He said, "When you call him axis of evil or a tyrant, you know, he just goes crazy." This is the sort of idiocy you expect to hear from an illiterate like Keith Olbermann, not someone who might know people who read newspapers.

Richardson also blames the war in Iraq, bleating that the poor North Koreans feel "that there's too much attention on the Middle East, on Iraq. So it's a cry for attention." If Kim just wanted our attention, he could have started dating Lindsay Lohan. But Richardson says Kim "psychologically feels he's been dissed, that he's not treated with respect."

Damn that Bush! If only he had ignored the crazy Muslims and dedicated himself into sending flowers (and more nuclear reactors!) to North Korea, we could be actively helping Kim develop his nukes like the Clinton administration did.

As Richardson said, Kim "wants us to negotiate with him directly, as we did in the Clinton administration."

To go on TV and propose negotiating with North Korea like Clinton did without ever mentioning that North Korea cheated on that agreement before the ink was dry would be like denouncing American aggression against Japan in 1942 and neglecting to mention Pearl Harbor. Anyone who is either that stupid or that disingenuous should not be allowed on TV.

When pressed by CNN's Anderson Cooper about the failed deal, Richardson lied, claiming the 1994 deal prevented the North Koreans from building nukes "for eight years" — i.e., right up until the day The New York Times reported the North Koreans had been developing nukes "for the past several years."

Kim is crazier than any leader even South America has been able to produce. In fact, he's so crazy, we might be able to get the Democrats to take action. Someone tell Nancy Pelosi that the "Dear Leader" is an actual pederast. Then we'll at least be able to read his instant messages.

COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111
 
Who Is Responsible for North Korean Situation?
Geoff Metcalf

Monday, Oct. 16, 2006

[American liberty] is premised on the accountability of free men and women for what they have done, not for what they may do.

– Judge Jon Newman, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

We are all responsible for our actions, what we do and don't do – unless you happen to be in politics, where selective memory loss and revisionism are pandemic.

Sen. Hillary Clinton has called criticism of her husband's presidential performance and failure to take adequate action to bridle North Korea from developing nukes "ridiculous."

"Nobody seriously can think that now, six years into the Bush administration, that the responsibility is Bill Clinton's. I think that's ridiculous," Sen. Clinton said Friday. Well, yeah, lady, some people DO believe that Bill Clinton is culpable for the North Korea mess ... but he ain't the Lone Ranger.

Hillary was half right and half hypocrite when she said, "It's part of a pattern by this administration that refuses to take responsibility for anything they do, anything that happens on their watch." Hel-lo?!?! Back atcha, babe.

When it comes to refusal to accept responsibility, the Clinton administration exceeds even the U.S. Grant administration:

China
Iran
North Korea
al-Qaida
Russia
Loral
Monica
Paula
Dolly and company

Not to mention Juanita Broaddrick and all the unnamed victims.

However, the North Korean situation and the ancillary problems – the enabling, the myopia – are not unique to either the Bush or Clinton presidencies. There is a long list of malfeasant co-conspirators to the North Korean kerfuffle. Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Bush 41, Clinton AND Bush 43 are all culpable.

Most pundits and pols seem either to forget or don't know that the U.S. is STILL at war with North Korea. Even North Korea's U.N. Ambassador Pak Gil-yon said, "If the United States increases pressure upon the Democratic People's Republic of Korea persistently, the DPRK will continue to take physical countermeasures, considering it as a declaration of war."

I believe before you can declare a war you have to end the last one. Notwithstanding assorted agreements, truces, extensions et al., the U.S./U.N. war with North Korea never ended!

A cease-fire was established on July 27, 1953.
The 1953 Korean War armistice remains a major example of an armistice which has not yet been followed by a peace treaty. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistice ]
The demilitarized zone remains the most heavily defended border in the world.
Ever since North Korea announced (arguably prematurely) that it had successfully (again, still questionable) tested a nuclear device, the blame game has shifted into overdrive.
Bush and others have blamed the Clinton administration for attempting to head off that country's nuclear ambitions through direct talks with Chairman Kim Jong Il. Sen. John McCain slapped at Hillary for denouncing Bush's policies toward Pyongyang.

"I would remind Senator 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 Tuesday.

Yes, and it was a failure because North Korea LIED. Clinton bargained (however badly) in good faith, but he 'should' have known that Pyongyang would renege on the deal because they always have.

It was classic 'Scorpion and the Frog' stuff ... kinda like Clinton's vow of fidelity. Despite the help and service the frog was providing, the scorpion stung the frog because he was a scorpion.

Hillary told reporters she was mystified over GOP efforts to deflect criticism of Bush. "It's almost hard to believe how unwilling they are to own what happens during their administration," she said.

Gosh-oh-gee-golly! Did she really say "how unwilling they are to own what happens during their administration"? Give the lady points for chutzpah!


The Clinton administration's "willingness" to accept their having enabled the Chicoms, the North Koreans, the Iranians, al-Qaida, and the bogeyman is something I must have missed.

When Victor Chernomyrdin was caught in violation of the Gore-McCain Act (which forbade certain trade with Iran), Victor asked Al "not to tell Congress" ... and he didn't! [ http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1997/970423-iran-wt.htm] I'm still waiting for the mainstream media to report that.

The North Korean situation is a result of the cumulative systemic failed U.S. policy. When the cease-fire was signed in 1953, an actual for real peace agreement could have/should have been mandated. It wasn't, and that failure was never corrected in subsequent administrations.

So, when the GOP rips the Dems and the Democrats rip the Republicans for what they could have/should have done to prevent the disaster we currently face, I say a pox on both your houses.

The solution to the diminutive crazy man leading North Korea has been (and remains) China. I repeat, I repeat, if China had been the least bit interested in chilling North Korea's jets (and nukes), they could have done it in a New York minute (and they still could). (See: Warfare in Space.)

They didn't. They' haven't. And they won't. And the why is not a big secret: because it is not in their strategic best interest to do so.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top