White House spokesman Tony Snow offered up an analysis of Bill Clinton's policy toward North Korea today

"Tony Snow"..."analysis". Surely this is some kind of joke?

I calculate Bill Clinton as having been out of office now for 1,997 days as of today - but I suspect the GOP will be blaming him for everything bad for the next 2 decades or so.

(Then magically he'll become another JFK/Truman/FDR to the Republicans - in 2032 GOP Spinmeisters will be saying "The Democrat candidate for this year's election should be more like Bill Clinton - the great Democrat who balanced the budget and made government smaller.")

The North Koreans expelled the international inspectors, broke the locks on the fuel rods, loaded them onto a truck, and drove them to a nearby reprocessing facility, to be converted into bomb-grade plutonium.

According to the left's precedent, the Bush administration should have tried to get 17 UN resolutions while the truck was being moved, then permission from France to enforce them, then wait two years to move on it, to give North Korea time to comply.

Once again, after being criticized for being too unilateral in the multilateral Iraq war, Bush is then criticized by the same critics for not being unilateral enough. Amazing.

The administration wasn't interested because the solution to the Korean situation wasn't military, and because the Koreans aren't Muslim.

American Chickenhawk nailed it!!

The administration wasn't interested because the solution to the Korean situation wasn't military, and because the Koreans aren't Muslim.

I thought it was that Korea wasn't swimming on a sea of oil.

I mean, that's what Paul Wolfowitz said the difference was.

And then according to the right's precedent, the Bush administration should have invaded Paraguay.

Funny how easy it is to go back and document what was going on during the Bush I and Clinton administrations. Good policy or not, these guys were at least nominally transparent. Why is it so hard to figure out what the hell the Bush Admin has been up to?

I loved the part in the news briefing where Tony Snow says that pre-emption now includes diplomacy. Of course, no one followed up and pointed how ridiculous that statement is.

Tony Snow:

What you're seeing here -- and we talked about this a little bit this morning -- preemption is not merely a military doctrine, it's also a diplomatic doctrine.

From the Brookings Institution (Polict Brief #113, December, 2002)

Preemption, defined as the anticipatory use of force in the face of an imminent attack, has long been accepted as legitimate and appropriate under international law.

But perhaps some facts are in order here.

We can't type facts up as fast as they spit lies out, unfortunately.

No one could have expected that Kim Jong-il would take his stash of radioactive fuel rods and process them into plutonium.

Dance, Tony you little bitch, dance faster!

Banana Daquiri, beeeyatch!

You Commie-loving losers! If up to you, Al would have to hide under his bed all day long!

"I did not (thump) have (thump) sex (thump) with that woman, Ms Lewinsky."

I loved the part in the news briefing where Tony Snow says that pre-emption now includes diplomacy.

The Bush Administration has now completely redefined preemption into meaninglessness.

First (see, Iraq) they redefined to mean an anticipatory attack even without an imminent threat.

Now they have further redefined to include diplomacy, rather than attacks.

So, apparently, it now means any military or diplomatic response to any nation that is or is not posing an imminent threat.

"I did not (thump) have (thump) sex (thump) with that woman, Ms Lewinsky."

Boy do I miss those days. Clinton could gat a blow job AND contain NK. Bush can't even eat a pretzel without choking, let alone eat one while containing NK.

My question - did the North Koreans begin uranium enrichment before or after the US began reneging on it's end of the agreement?
Or perhaps a better question - would we be in this position if certain elements in the U.S. government hadn't prevented the light water reactors from being completed?

"Hans Brix?! What the fuck is he doing here? You know how fucking busy I am?"

How is preempting a threat through diplomacy "meaningless?"

How is preempting a threat through diplomacy "meaningless?"

Defusing a threat with diplomacy is not meaningless.

Using the word "preemption", which has a specific definition in the context of foreign affairs, to mean a whole bunch of things other than attack in response to imminent threat as a means of stopping the threat renders the word "preemption" increasingly meaningless.

How is preempting a threat through diplomacy "meaningless?"

It's not meaningless. It's appeasment you terrorist -loving sissy. We have to fight them there! Who do you love more, Kim Jong-il or America?

Damn intrusive liberal democrats. They feel so entitled to the truth about Presidential actions with regard to nuclear threats.

Damn intrusive conservative republicans. They feel so entitled to the truth about Democratic Presidential sex acts.

A Presdent jes can't git away with nutin nowadays.

UNFAIR TO CLINTON AND BUSH II.

It's not a matter of who failed but what failed. What failed was bilateral negotiations that left us one option, i.e., if North Korea breaks the deal and enjoys their side of it unilaterally, we have the moral high ground to invade (or not as practicality dictates). So Clinton is not to blame per se and Tony Snow did not blame him; he blamed bilateral talks with no enforcement options.

We need a deal-deal. If you remember (I realize you are Regressive-Democrats and like to ignore history, but . . .) the only reason there is a North Korea is that China wanted North Korea to continue to exist and intervened in our conquest of North Korea in the Korean War (which is still technically on-going). So, we need a deal Russia and China have "quasi-agreed" to also. We need a deal where, should North Korea break it, we can have our way with them without interference. If we don't have a deal like that, what is the point? It will be the same, we give them things to merely stealthfully and perhaps somewhat more slowly develop their continued ICBM-WMD program.

And you Regressive-Democrat surrender-monkeys; we have to employ the military option in North Korea, hopefully with our friends the Japanese newly militarized and ready to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with us; whichever other allies, true allies, like Canada, Australia, and Great Britain, too.

And, Iraq was not a mistake, nor by historical standards is it (and Afghanistan) anything other than a slightly flawed military masterpiece.

TOH

We need a deal where, should North Korea break it, we can have our way with them without interference.

1997 days into the Bush presidency. . . where oh where is the "deal" that lets us have our way with North Korea?

That's so sad. And it makes me glad I have a life.

we have to employ the military option in North Korea, hopefully with our friends the Japanese newly militarized and ready to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with us;

Who knew psych wards had internets?

We need a deal where, should North Korea break it, we can have our way with them without interference.

Yeah idiot, we're sure having our way with Iraq. And who is this "we" white man? Somehow I doubt you're typing this crap from the front lines of any battle.

It's all about the Clenis

When Tony Snow states that the Clinton administration made a 'mistake', it should be read as, we recognize that it was a mistake in retrospect.

At the time (1994), both South Korea and Japan were adament in not wanting a war on the peninsula -- can't blame them for that. The Clinton administration's threat of war was a little hollow because of that, so he struck the best deal he could get. In retrospect it was a mistake because it gave the North Koreans an opportunity to pursue a bomb in secret, but at the time it was what we could do. I don't blame Clinton on this one; if I were president (relax) in those circumstances I would have done the same.

Now in 2002 we find out that the NKors have lied to us. Mr. Kaplan believes that we screwed up 1) by not stopping the transfer of fuel rods to the reprocessing facility, 2) being 'shrill' (his interpretation, of course) in our initial response, and 3) not fixing the problems on our side that Mr. Clinton also didn't fix -- normalization, the light-water reactor, etc.

You could dissect each point, and I disagree with Mr. Kaplan on each one. But he misses the larger point -- the NKors, from day one after the 1994 agreement, planned to renege and build bombs. We know this because of the lead time required. Far from 'initially keeping to its side of the bargain', we now know that they didn't.

Mr. Kaplan also complains that the Bush team didn't pursue negotiations properly. He then notes (correctly) that dealing with the NKors is extremely difficult ('Kim Jong-il is clearly one of the world's battier leaders'). In retrospect, the Clinton team also whiffed, since they signed an agreement that ended up broken. So it's silly to condemn the Bush team for clumsy negotiations unless you also want to condemn the Clinton team for the same (and again, I don't condemn the Clinton team).

We also know now that the 'sunshine policy' pursued by the South has been decidedly one-sided: the Skors have put up significant money, food aid, diplomatic forgiveness, etc., and the NKors have taken that without so much as a thank you. The appeasement policy of the South clearly has failed to modulate behavior.

And that leaves us what to do. We simply cannot go to war with the North unless there is a grave provocation -- doing so would condemn several million SKors to death within a day or two (15,000 artillery tubes trained on Seoul). Bilateral diplomacy hasn't worked. Appeasement by the SKors hasn't worked. The only remaining option is multi-lateral diplomacy combined with diplomatic and economic pressure. Whether that will work is doubtful, but that's what we have.

It requires rather more nuanced thinkinng than one ordinarily sees on the comment board at PA to get this, but perhaps a few of you will.

cmdicely,

Defusing a threat with diplomacy is not meaningless.

The question I asked is "How is preempting a threat through diplomacy "meaningless?""

Using the word "preemption", which has a specific definition in the context of foreign affairs, ...

Really? Where may I find this alleged specific meaning in the context of foreign affairs described? Show it to me.

... to mean a whole bunch of things other than attack in response to imminent threat as a means of stopping the threat

To "preempt" does not mean to "attack in response to imminent threat as a means of stopping the threat" in either foreign policy or in any other context.

And Bill Richardson went with flowers and chocolates.

The Republicans also thought the Iraqis would greet the US soldiers with flowers.

What is this thing they have about flowers?

It's appeasment you terrorist -loving sissy

Oh, stop it, you big ol' drama queen, you.

I loved the part in the news briefing where Tony Snow says that pre-emption now includes diplomacy.

I'm applying this principle to dieting, writing a book on it, and in a year I will have made enough to retire....

There was an indepth discussion of this on Charlie Rose with diplomats that had worked on this for years. Essentially, they said that labeling Korea axis of evil was the impetus for all of this. Nothing was going to work short of a diplomatic apology that will never take place.

What they did not talk about: Bush called Kim Jong on international TV a "pigmy". I saw it; my jaw fell to the ground. We have never replayed it but it has been replayed around the world.

I was an army brat during the occupation times, as children we were lectured about being ambassadors of goodwill for our country. Bush has violated every tenet of diplomacy there is.

No one in our government wants to admit and acknowledge this gross violation of international relations. There are consequences for being so boorish and our country is paying for them.

Where may I find this alleged specific meaning in the context of foreign affairs described? Show it to me.

Um, okay. What do I win?

Further, that "preemption" in international affairs refers to the use of force, and that it has been understood to be legitimate only in the case of an "imminent threat", is recognized in George W. Bush's National Security Strategy, here (and Bush does not argue with this concept of legitimacy, though he calls for a more expansive understanding of imminent threats):

For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.

We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries.

GOP is wrong, pre-emption is of the nature of war, not diplomacy, and has been so recognized for over 2000 years:

nam extra ulciscendi aut propulsandorum hostium causam bellum geri iustum nullum potest"

"Apart from avenging, or pre-empting an enemy, no war is able to be justly waged."

Cicero, De Re Publica, 3.35, as quoted by Isidore of Seville in Etymologies 18.

(It is worth noting that preventing an enemy is excluded thereby...)

Well...

At least Snow didn't try to hide the North Korea failures behind the Iraqi War successes...

We need freakin solutions not politics. Don't these people give a damn about anything? Their livelihood is at stake too. Why, then, are they playing politics and blaming Clinton?

Conservative economic policy has failed. Neoconservative and paleoconservative (isolationism) are failed policies. Why don't they just admit it and get some positive things done.

At the time (1994), both South Korea and Japan were adament in not wanting a war on the peninsula -- can't blame them for that. The Clinton administration's threat of war was a little hollow because of that, so he struck the best deal he could get. In retrospect it was a mistake because it gave the North Koreans an opportunity to pursue a bomb in secret, but at the time it was what we could do. I don't blame Clinton on this one; if I were president (relax) in those circumstances I would have done the same.

North Korea already had an opportunity to persue a bomb in secret, what's more, if we'd built the first LWR, they would have lost the opportunity because that would have led to intrusive inspections.

You could dissect each point, and I disagree with Mr. Kaplan on each one. But he misses the larger point -- the NKors, from day one after the 1994 agreement, planned to renege and build bombs. We know this because of the lead time required. Far from 'initially keeping to its side of the bargain', we now know that they didn't.

What does this even mean? North Korea was willing to move to a point where they couldn't build a bomb at all.

In retrospect, the Clinton team also whiffed, since they signed an agreement that ended up broken.

I suppose Clinton was expected to know that Bush would throw it in the toilet?

It requires rather more nuanced thinkinng than one ordinarily sees on the comment board at PA to get this, but perhaps a few of you will.

The notion that North Korea may want something in return for the Plutonium card that Bush handed them, something better than for Bush to quit saying mean things about Kim, is obviously too nuanced for you.

And, Iraq was not a mistake, nor by historical standards is it (and Afghanistan) anything other than a slightly flawed military masterpiece.

Comment of the thread so far. If only King Pyrrhus had thought of describing all his victories as slightly flawed military masterpieces history would have treated him so much more kindly.

Oh, and Operation Barbarossa was also no doubt a slightly flawed military masterpiece, along with Napoleon's march on Moscow.

Simply beautiful.

TOH - I salute both you! You give hope to generations of armchair Kissingers...

Davis X. Machina: nice quote. I'll remember that one.

Yoduuuh writes about the 'pygmy' comment: No one in our government wants to admit and acknowledge this gross violation of international relations. There are consequences for being so boorish and our country is paying for them.

I see, so we're not supposed to call evil 'evil' when we encounter it?

What you advocate is a finely nuanced appeasement. Applying your own standard to the last few years, and we wouldn't be allowed to call Rwanda 'genocide'.

The North Korean government is evil. It has brutalized its people for decades. The starvation there is entirely its own fault. They have death camps, concentration camps, and 'corrective labor' camps, which all seem to be the same thing. They punish whole families for the 'transgression' of a single person.

On the international front they counterfeit money, sell drugs abroad, rattle their saber whenever they can, and look to share nuke and missile technology with whoever will buy. And there's the little matter of their repeated assassinations of South Korean government officials over the past 20 years or so.

Good lord: if you can't call that by its proper name, then what good are you?

Kim Jong-il is evil. And he's short. I think 'pygmy' is a good insult.

And Boronx: if your approach to foreign policy is for Bush to quit saying mean things to the pygmy, then you're in the same camp as Yoduuuh.

Over five years, the White House has nothing to show for its flip-flop-flop approach to North Korea:

- 2001: no engagement
- 2004: six-party talks only
- 2006: Hill offers direct talks with North Korean counterparts

For more details on Bush five years of ineptitude and failure towards Pyongyang, see:
"Bush’s U-Turn on North Korean Talks."

Lovely spiel, Steve White. You cultivate a nice sense of wounded outrage and righteous indignation.

Problem is, the majority of people in countries polled think the US is a bigger threat to world stability and peace than either North Korea or Iran. In my own country Australia a majority of people have a more favourable opinion of China than the US, and we categorise the US as the biggest threat to world peace.

Funny, hey?

Maybe you should instead write a nice post bemoaning how the rest of the world doesn't understand US moral clarity? I'm sure that would convince many people that the US is currently the repository of all moral goodness in the world.

Obviously Gitmo, the ripping up of international treaties, unprovoked and illegal wars, support for repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia, etc has blinded everyone to this unchallenged and eternal truth.

so we're not supposed to call evil 'evil' when we encounter it?

You may think what you call something is more important than Kim Jong Il getting nukes, but please forgive us mere mortals if our opinion's differ.

You may think that getting North Korea to bargain away it's nuclear weapons is equivalent to writing of Chekoslovakia, but ... that's just insane.

For all of Bush's morally clear language, for all of Clinton's nuanced diplomacy, it was Clinton who blazed a path where North Korea stopped processing Plutonium, and it was Bush who couldn't even stay on it despite his betters holding his hand.

Floopmeister, the people who think the US is a bigger threat than either North Korea or Iran are -- to be charitable -- not well educated on what the latter two countries are doing.

I could less charitable and applaud the progressive agenda for succeeding in its war on the West.

I honestly don't think you speak for all Australians, but the ones who think like you are rather deluded.

My country makes mistakes, no doubt. Not the ones you mention (must I take them one at a time? *) but we do.

But if you're going to equate us to being as bad, or worse than, North Korea, than perhaps you should be welcomed to North Korea. Fortunately, I suspect the majority of your country isn't that nutty.

* -- yes, I must. To wit --

Gitmo is better run than any maximum security prison in your country or mine.

We haven't ripped up an international treaty. We never signed the ICC, never ratified Kyoto, and used the proper legal mechanism for withdrawing from the ABM treaty.

The war in Iraq may be illegal to you but it isn't to us -- our Congress authorized it, and Congress has the final call in our country.

The Saudis will get what's coming to them.

Boronx: Clinton blazed a trail in which the NKors said they'd quit processing plutonium.

Then they admitted they lied.

Boronx: Clinton blazed a trail in which the NKors said they'd quit processing plutonium.

Then they admitted they lied.

You should probably read the article if you still think that's true.

The war in Iraq may be illegal to you but it isn't to us -- our Congress authorized it, and Congress has the final call in our country.

No they didn't. Their authorization was conditional and Bush never met the conditions.

Steve White - I speak for the majority of Australians. I would charitably suggest that if your end was not inserted in your own provincial rear end you would realise that your attitude and mindset is in the minority within the US, let alone outside it.

This poll was conducted by the most respected polling organisation in Australia, and these results are born out in other countries where such a poll has been conducted.

...the people who think the US is a bigger threat than either North Korea or Iran are -- to be charitable -- not well educated on what the latter two countries are doing.

Really? My university is currently in negotation to open a campus in Tehran, and we have a great number of Iranian students studying here. Autralia has strong commercial links with Iran, as does China, Russia, India, the EU... well, pretty much everyone except for the US and Israel.

The current US government is provincial and naive (yes, it's that word again) in it's worldview. I would suggest that you are too.

The war in Iraq may be illegal to you but it isn't to us -- our Congress authorized it, and Congress has the final call in our country.

Good for you.

The Saudis will get what's coming to them.

And this is simply impotent rhetoric.

If you want to bash Clinton, shouldn't it be for allowing Pakistan to get a nuclear weapon? North Korea, it seems to me, is a regional failure, because it involves a lot of parties, with competing national interests.

The current President OTOH is just an idiot who mistakes tough-sounding slogans for sound policy. They only get off their butts around election time (see '02,'04,'06) and when the public turns against them (see Katrina). The rest of their time they spend giving each other handjobs and posting 9/11 collages on RedState.

Steve White says:

I see, so we're not supposed to call evil 'evil' when we encounter it?

No. It's called diplomacy, dumbass.

Shorter Kaplan:

"If we had just paid the North Korean lunatic his Danegeld, he would have been peaceful and cooperative forever."

Law of the Left: "There is no dictator that cannot be dealt with if you just kiss his ass hard enough."

Boronx says:

Bush never met the conditions

Actually, technically he did meet the conditions -- by lying when he certified that Saddam was involved with 9/11.

Can you buy a freaking clue, Kevin?

If you take off the tinfoil hat and actually look at what Tony Snow is saying, he isn't blaming Clinton for anything.

He is saying that negotiating with North Korea's government is pointless, because we tried it already.

I'm still scanning Kevin Drum's post to see if he offered any solution..............

Disputo writes, No. It's called diplomacy, ...

No, your way is called appeasement. Though Klines nails it pretty well with the comment about Danegeld.

And Bush never certified that Saddam was involved with 9/11.

Law of the Left: "There is no dictator that cannot be dealt with if you just kiss his ass hard enough."

You mean like this?

I'd say Steve White might actually be right: Saudi Arabia is definitely getting what's coming to them.

Every damn day.

And a follow-up on that, Disputo:

Would it be 'diplomacy' not to point out the evils of apartheid?

Would it be 'diplomacy' to refrain from criticizing Somoza?

Would it be 'diplomacy' to abstain from criticizing Pinochet?

Goose, gander.

negotiating with North Korea is NOT pointless. It not only checks the N. Koreans weapon prolifieration; it informs the world of what Kim Jon Il's regime is doing which allows for different ways to deal with the threat, (not sure how much of a threat NK is anyway since any usage of Nukes would mean the end of N.K.) whether through sanctions or other diplomatic pressure could be applied.

As W. has said we're going to give diplomacy a try. It's too bad he didn't try it earlier since according to Sec. of State Albright, the deal Clinton made stopped Kim from being able to make up to 50 nuculear bombs instead of the 10 they have now.

Calling Kim "evil" is certainly accurate. Whether it was productive or useful is another question entirely, but that may depend on whether to goal was to humiliate him or negotiate with him. Calling him a "pygmy" is just an inexcusable indulgence by someone who has been entrusted with the responsibilities of a head of state.

I really wish I could convince myself adults were in charge - even wrong headed or stupid adults. I could sleep so much better if I could bring myself to believe it.

No, your way is called appeasement.

Hahahaha. We must invade North Korea now! Graveandgatheringthreat!!! Bush's preemtive diplomacy will strike at the heart of your librul sissy appeasment!! Do you love America or not? Blah blah blah..............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Actually, technically he did meet the conditions -- by lying when he certified that Saddam was involved with 9/11.

I disagree. The condition was that Bush had to find that Saddam was a threat or was in league with terrorists. Bush lying was not a condition.

Bush told Congress he'd satisfied the terms. That's not the same as satisfying them. Given recent history, the burden is now Bush's to prove that his statements to congress were reasonable and were anywhere near the truth. Lord knows he didn't make any effort at the time.

and Bush never certified that Saddam was involved with 9/11.
Posted by: Steve White on July 10, 2006 at 9:54 PM | PERMALINK

You are kidding, right?

Try reading the Iraq War Resolution......

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use
all necessary and appropriate force against those nations,
organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or
persons, in order to prevent any further acts of
international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.

Kevin, once again you are far too kind. How about Tony Snow is a filthy, stinking liar!!!? Why do you always give these scumbag conservative liars deference? Call them out as the prevaricating scum that they are!

It has been said that history is written by the victors, but you are serving as an accessory after the fact. For example, the truth is that conservatives gave North Korea millions to fund their nuclear ambitions in the early 1990’s and the Bush family was part of that treasonous exercise. Similarly, popular conservative mythology teaches that Bill Clinton sold nuclear secrets to the Chinese, but the truth is the technology behind the W-88 nuclear warhead got sold to China during the Reagan Administration. St. Ronnie was too busy messing his diapers and drooling on himself to pay any attention to foreign policy from about 1986 on. Far from being responsible for bringing down Communism, Ronnie was barely able to feed himself and should have been removed from office for medical reasons!

Let the truth be told, Kevin!!!

"If you don't believe that Saddam is a grave and gathering danger and poses a real threat towards the USA, then don't vote for me."

Who said that?

"Life in Iraq was better with Saddam in power"
Stephen Kriz

So, Steve W. what is the Bush administratin policy to keep us safe from the lunatic leadership of North Korea? It's a simple question.

Jay, who fuckin cares? We're talking about North Korea and what a fine job the current Bush administration is doing in dealing with them.

By demanding that the people in the area; China, Japan, Indonesia and S. Korea are at the table. Those area the people that can make the difference.

btw, what do liberals have against multi-lateral talks?

I really wish I could convince myself adults were in charge - even wrong headed or stupid adults. I could sleep so much better if I could bring myself to believe it.

At least you're not in Seoul.

I apologize Mark. I know how easily distracted liberals are. I will stay on topic.

You know the funniest line in Kevin's post was when he said they sent Jimmy Carter to follow up on Clinton's efforts. I haven't laughed like that in years. Thanks Kevin.

Seriously, I really thought Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton peacefully resolved the Israeli/Palestinian conflict years ago. It's a mystery that there remains conflict in that region.

I can't speak for liberals. But exactly when did the Bush administration start to have any talks, with or without others, with North Korea? How will Indosesia make any difference in the talks? What will they offer? It seems like adding a bunch of other parties is a tactic to NOT deal with the North Koreans because the Bush Administration has no idea of what to do. Pleas explain how these others help the process.

rummy dum dum & bushy fuck head

http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html

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

-----------

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/huss-d24.shtml

In December 1983, Rumsfeld (the current secretary of defense who was at the time the CEO of a large pharmaceutical firm, G.D. Searle) visited Iraq as a personal envoy of President Ronald Reagan ... In March 1984, Iraq’s battlefield use of chemical weapons became so obvious that the US government felt obliged to issue a statement condemning it.

-----------

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=HAA20060306&articleId=2067

In 1976, President Gerald R. Ford signed a directive that granted Iran the opportunity to purchase U.S. built reprocessing equipment and facilities designed to extract plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. (for domestic power so more oil could be exported)

When Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency in August 1974, the current Vice President of the United States, Richard B Cheney served on the transition team and later as Deputy Assistant to the President. In November 1975, he was named Assistant to the President and White House Chief of Staff, a position he held throughout the remainder of the Ford Administration.
In August 1974, the current Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld served as Chairman of the transition to the Presidency of Gerald R. Ford.

He then became Chief of Staff of the White House and a member of the President's Cabinet (1974-1975) and was the Ford Administration’s Secretary of Defense from 1975–1977.

-----------

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june04/elbaradei_3-18.html

There's a lot of concern why Iran is developing an enrichment program, ** why do they need nuclear energy? ** They have a lot of gas, they have a lot of oil? There's a lot of skepticism there. But the Iranians have their own answers. I am not in a position to say you are right, you are wrong. What I do is check the facts, verify the uranium program, and so far I haven't seen any concrete proof that what Iran is doing is directly linked to the weapon program, and that's why I am saying we are not in a position to say Iran is developing a weapon program, but at the same time I'm not yet in a position to say everything in Iran is exclusively for peaceful purpose.

-----------

** gee, i don't know you brain-dead sales-monkey, ask the people IN YOUR ADMINISTRATION who sold them the fucking nuke plants in the first place

Conservative economic policy has failed.

Ha ha ha ha ha! The overwhelming trend in economic policy throughout the advanced democracies over the last several decades has been to reduce the role of the state, to increase the role of the market, to privatize previously state-owned industries and corporations, to reduce taxes, to reduce protectionism and other barriers to free trade, to reduce government regulation, and generally to adopt "conservative," increasingly market-oriented economic policies. Communism is dead and socialism is taking its dying breath.

But you old-time lefties still won't let go of your failed "dream," will you.

By demanding that the people in the area; China, Japan, Indonesia and S. Korea are at the table. Those area the people that can make the difference.

How long has the Bush administration been calling for multilateral talks and what has this accomplished? What has been accomplished is that NK has been building bombs while Bush's supporters have strutted and blustered about how much tougher we are now on the North Koreans. You guys certainly have mastered the art of speaking stickly while carrying a big soft.

Typical for this administration, they make excuses and blame others for their dismal policies. They are to blame for their own failed diplomacy. Everywhere around the world, American priorities are in tatters. Clearly this is the worst possible administration for these challenging times. (If you think about, there never really has been a time in American history where we could afford such dullards in any event. I am not comfortable sending these people off in a time machine either direction. Enough to make Shirley Jackson scream.)

The silly and childish denunciation of all things Clinton was pure testosteronee-driven lunacy. To whom do they turn now that their tantrums have had profound consequences? They have killed thousands, incidentally, and in their mindless denial of scientific progress may yet kill us all. I think we should eat the 23% die-hard American Hawkers first during the hungry times ahead. Their meat is more marblized. Just saying.

Floopmeister, the people who think the US is a bigger threat than either North Korea or Iran are -- to be charitable -- not well educated on what the latter two countries are doing.

Funny that someone who believes what they hear on Fox would accuse another of not being well educated on world events.

We haven't ripped up an international treaty.

**cough**Geneva Conventions**cough**

Jay, Let's see. Carter, peacemaker, laughter, blah, blah, blah, Every heard of the Camp David Accords?

As for Clinton: The first Intifada went from 1987 to August 1993 (Oslo accords). Not bad for 7 months in office, getting Rabin and Arafat to shake hands. What was Bush doing in late August 2001? Dismissing a CIA briefer after the briefer had "covered his ass"?

The second Intifada started during the 2000 election and has continued up to the most recent escallation. Looks to me like Clinton did a decent job and only lost control late in the lame duck period. Arafat and Sharon were difficult characters.

What's Bush's excuse for sitting on his ass the past five and a half years? "The roadmap for peace"? If that's his idea of successful multilateral peace talks I don't think I favor them for North Korea. In the abstract I don't have problems with multilateral talks. However power has to be exerted and everyone can't have a veto.

That said I think Bush could screw up any diplomatic scenario. He made a "peace deal" in southern Sudan and the last I heard the jihadists in Khartoum are still in power, the main rebel leader is dead, and some third party group of mercenaries are running around committing massacres.

Jay, after saying you'll "stay on topic" your next post leads back into a post on Clinton's policy in the Middle East. Then you disappear. It makes me think you don't have an answer to the question: when did the Bush Adminidtration begin any kind of talks with North Korea? And how does involving Indonesia and other parties offer any help in resolving the crisis of North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons? What is Bush's policy? Jay? Jay? Are you there? Try not to mention Clinton-he's no longer president-I want to know what Bush will do to keep us safer from North Korean nukes?

cmdicely,

Um, okay. What do I win?

Nothing, unless you can explain why anyone should believe the Brookings Institute gets to define "preemption" for everyone else. The concept of preemptive diplomacy clearly predates the Bush Administration, and even if it did not, you don't get to decide the meaning of the administration's foreign policy doctrines.

**cough**Geneva Conventions**cough**

Wow, the U.S. has withdrawn from the Geneva Conventions? Why haven't the media reported this? Oh wait, I forgot. They're controlled by the GOP.

Wow, the U.S. has withdrawn from the Geneva Conventions? Why haven't the media reported this?

Sorry, he's confused. With you guys renaming everything he missed the memo. As of today, "Diplomacy" is "Preemptive Diplomacy" and the "Geneva Conventions" will be called the "Terrorist Testicle Protection Program".

I would like to further discuss the calling Sung-Il a "pygmy". This is just stupid and inflammatory language. It serves no purpose and only pisses off someone who isn't particularly stable to begin with.

Steve White, certainly one can criticize. One can note deeds which do harm or kill people with great disapproval. But it's possible to do this in diplomatic ways. Calling someone a "pygmy" hardly lives up to that standard.

Bottom line in this situation: Clinton's solution was not perfect, but Bush's handling has thus far been a disaster. You cons can argue this until you're blue in the face (actually, more like red in the face), but it doesn't change the facts on the ground.

Incidentally, rarely are there perfect solutions in international relations. Compromise so that everyone in a dispute comes away with something is better than war. All war does is lay the groundwork for the next generation's war.

The exception thus far is WWII, and that's because the Germans and the Japanese were the very clear aggressors and many of their own people came to realize this, and because of the Marshall Plan and magnanimity in victory.

Sorry, he's confused.

So are you.

Again please accept my apology Mark, I thought my answer was pretty clear. We tried bi-lateral talks, and made concessions and gave away technology all under Clinton, which apparently didn't work considering were still having this problem. By Kevin's own admission, it takes time to develop a weapons grade program. Did you ever think that lil Kim was just buying (and technology) time? How come it is that if an issue isn't black and white, the liberals get confused?

It is totally clear and has been to all watching for sometime that the failure of N.K. policy can totally be laid at the feet of the current administration who have gone out of their way via-Bolton and others to sabotage and destroy every vestage of peaceful relations that Clinton/Gore has created.

We are at this juncture precisely because the Bush administration fought tooth and nail to get things this screwed up. The is a policy failure of epic proportion that needs to be laid right at the feet of Team Cheney.

BTW, why did they want this? A cynic might say that they needed to create a market on the pacific rim for the wet-dream missle shield technologies outlined as a strategic necessity in the famous PNAC paper. What distablizing a region and creating an enemy to justify a weapons program? Why yes Virginia. And that's just the surface play, talk to the Clinton NK people and you'll get the other levels of machinations the Bush people tried to drum up.

B, I am really glad you brought up the Darfur. Exactly how involved in world's conflicts should the UN be? You demand that they had the say in Iraq, but suddenly their inaction in Africa now rests on our shoulders to do something about?

Let's see how effective the UN really is?

patience, please list the exact countries that have had irreparable harm done to their relations with the US in the past five years.

Multilateral talks are the only way to get through to the lil fascist and ultimately China will be the country that convinces them to stop.

Jay, you didn't answer my question. You told me that Clinton's policy didn't work. You did not tell me the Bush policy that would. It's not about black or white or liberal or conservative. It's about straight answers-which neither you or the Bush administration seem capable of giving when asked what is the plan for protecting us from North Koreans nukes. If Kim is buying time what is Bush's response? we don't want him to have time because in time come more nuclear bombs on his side so again please answer the question, what is the Bush plan to deal with this crisis? Thanks.

floop

Problem is, the majority of people in countries polled think the US is a bigger threat to world stability and peace than either North Korea or Iran. In my own country Australia a majority of people have a more favourable opinion of China than the US, and we categorise the US as the biggest threat to world peace.

I think that's a much bigger problem for those other countries than it is for the United States. You need us more than we need you. And with respect to Australia specifically, the alleged public antipathy towards America did not stop the conservative coalition headed by Prime Minister John Howard, who supported the Bush Adminstration's decision to invade Iraq, from winning the 2004 national election.

Jay, actually I brought up southern Sudan. Darfur is in the west.

In southern Sudan the SPLA signed a peace deal with the government last summer. The State Department helped broker them, but I don't think they were technically "multilateral".

Mark, there is no good solution to protect us from North Korean nuclear weapons, short of what we did in Iraq. Bet Saddam is not developing weapons right now.

Kevin, how do you know what the North Koreans are doing at anytime? How can you, or anyone else, say the North Koreans ever stopped developing nuclear weapons?

We don't even know what are own government is developing at this moment with the monsterous black-ops budget.

I think that's a much bigger problem for those other countries than it is for the United States. You need us more than we need you.

Yeah, because the US is the largest debtor country in the world. We've got to get back all the money you owe everyone, I guess.

Still, the US needs the rest of the world, if nothing else, to affirm the US' image of itself. The only way to occupy the moral high ground is if others put you there, GOP. It's like Machiavelli put it - you can either be loved or feared, but not both.

This US administration has chosen to be feared, yet the self image of being loved is apparently too hard for conservatives to dislodge. Doesn't it get difficult to convince yourself you're The Leader of the Free World (TM) when you are increasingly unloved and no longer respected? This has happened primarily because of the Iraq War and the disdainful and provincial attitude of this administration.

With this thought in mind, may I remind you that none of you wingnuts has been able to admit the unpopularity of the US. Generally you either deny it, or rationalise it (it's all 'alleged', or the fault of everyone else not 'understanding you') but usually you don't let the uncomfortable truth penetrate your little bubble at all.

And with respect to Australia specifically, the alleged public antipathy towards America did not stop the conservative coalition headed by Prime Minister John Howard, who supported the Bush Adminstration's decision to invade Iraq, from winning the 2004 national election.

You obviously don't know much about Australia, GOP. Howard won the election based entirely upon national issues - the Iraq war has never been popular with Australians. Howard won based upon the economy and keeping interest rates down.

And they've risen, BTW.

The overwhelming trend in economic policy throughout the advanced democracies over the last several decades has been. . . to adopt "conservative," increasingly market-oriented economic policies.

These are not "conservative" economic policies. They are "liberal" economic policies, hence the term "neoliberal". (The type of policy favored by most of the posters here is best characterized as "leftist", not liberal.)

Conservative economic policy, on the other hand, appears to consist of favoring existing business interests and enriching one's friends. Under Bush and the current GOP congress, it's also incorporated massive pork and occasional protectionism. Conservatives only favor the free market when it makes their campaign donors richer; please don't delude yourself otherwise. One need look no further than the Iowa caucuses (perhaps the single most anti-democratic feature of American politics after K Street) to see what conservatives really think of the free market.

(For what it's worth, I favor a liberalized economy like you described, but I don't consider this at all conservative. What the modern GOP has done is best described as "corrupt", or more charitably, "mercantilist." And as many pundits have pointed out, most conservatives turn against the free market as soon as it results in something they don't like, such as gay partner benefits or pretty much anything out of the ruthlessly market-driven entertainment industry.)

Just for the record, I'm pointing out Kevin Drum didn't offer any solutions in his lame post.

Drum is just pouting because he thinks somebody criticized Bill Clinton.

..Just for the record...

That would be the broken record, no?

Still, the US needs the rest of the world, if nothing else, to affirm the US' image of itself. The only way to occupy the moral high ground is if others put you there, GOP. It's like Machiavelli put it - you can either be loved or feared, but not both.

Sadly, it's even worse than that. Machiavelli wrote that "a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated."

Or, that is to say, the best advantage is gained by being (i) feared and loved; the next is (ii) to be feared and not hated; and the worst of all is (iii) to be hated and feared.

Machiavelli didn't, however, even address the situation of being (iv) hated and not feared, (possibly because a prince in that condition is too pathetic to even give advice to), a situation which the Bush regime seems to have put the US into these days. People hate us, but they don't fear us anymore, our army bogged down in Iraq, our treasury in hock to our Communist Chinese paymasters, so both Iran and North Korea proceed on their merry nuclear way.

These are not "conservative" economic policies. They are "liberal" economic policies, hence the term "neoliberal".

Sssshhh. Next you'll be telling him the USA is traditionally described as a liberal democracy...

Stefan - thanks for the proper quote.

The even greater irony is that Mac was writing to give what he saw as practical advice to Princes, and that is the one thing that Bush apparently doesn't need and/or won't accept.

floop,

Yeah, because the US is the largest debtor country in the world.

So what? It also has by far the largest economy, so this isn't terribly surprising.

Still, the US needs the rest of the world, if nothing else, to affirm the US' image of itself. The only way to occupy the moral high ground is if others put you there, GOP. It's like Machiavelli put it - you can either be loved or feared, but not both.

I suspect the self-image of Australians, for example, is far more dependent on what countries think of them than the self-image of Americans is. You've just identified yet another way in which other countries, including your own, are needier than the U.S. And I think your loved/feared dichotomy is hopelessly simplistic. America has always been both admired and resented, loved and loathed. It comes with the territory. The point is that you need us more than we need you. And you know it. The things you have in common with the U.S., and the things you rely on the U.S. to provide you with, are ultimately far more important to you than any disagreement over Iraq, or over any one U.S. presidential administration. That's why your complaint here amounts to pouting, a temper tantrum. You might jump and down a bit over Iraq now, or Vietnam in the 1960s, or Reagan's missile deployments in the 1980s, or whatever else it may be at any given time, but we both know you're not going anywhere. You don't have anywhere else to go.

You obviously don't know much about Australia, GOP. Howard won the election based entirely upon national issues - the Iraq war has never been popular with Australians.

Well, I must admit, Australian politics is not exactly a major interest of mine, but I think you're grossly misrepresenting the state of Australian public opinion, and the idea that Iraq played no role whatsoever in the outcome of your most recent general election is laughable.

Nat,

These are not "conservative" economic policies. They are "liberal" economic policies, hence the term "neoliberal". (The type of policy favored by most of the posters here is best characterized as "leftist", not liberal.)

They're "liberal" only in the sense of classical liberalism, which in today's political lexicon is more commonly associated with libertarianism. But, hey, if you contemporary liberals want to associate yourselves with free markets, free trade, privatization, deregulation, low taxes and other classically liberal economic policies, terrific.

Conservative economic policy, on the other hand, appears to consist of favoring existing business interests and enriching one's friends.

Oh, stuff and nonsense.

Again, if you're against protection and tariffs and for free trade and globalization, if you're against "pork" and for a lean, mean, low-taxing, low-spending federal government, you're not much of a liberal.

floop,

By the way, since you mention the U.S. public debt, as you can see from this chart, U.S. public debt as a percentage of GDP is not unusual. In fact, it's lower than both the average for all OECD countries, and the average for the Euro area nations.

So what? It also has by far the largest economy, so this isn't terribly surprising.

Apart from the EU, of course. The EU, however, is not in hock to it's strategic competitors, as the US is.

You've just identified yet another way in which other countries, including your own, are needier than the U.S.

Oh ,please. That's such a lame 'argument'. How well do you think the US military would do without the Pine Gap installation in central Australia?

That's why your complaint here amounts to pouting, a temper tantrum. You might jump and down a bit over Iraq now, or Vietnam in the 1960s, or Reagan's missile deployments in the 1980s, or whatever else it may be at any given time, but we both know you're not going anywhere. You don't have anywhere else to go.

We do - it's called China and India. They'll be far more important to Australia than the US economically in the future. We are riding economically on a resource (mining/minerals) boom, and it's not the US buying it. What would you need mineral resources for when you've gutted and outsourced your manufacturing base? We are doing very nicely out of the rise of India and China.

That's why our conservative government has already made a point of stating, on the record, that Australia will not be getting involved in any way in the Taiwan dispute. We know who the up-and-coming kid on the block is.

Note, this is not a liberal government stating this policy - it's the most conservative government in the last 50 years in Asutralia, and they've already rushed to reassure China that we won't be lining up with the US in that fight...

And as for cultural connections, we've been building very nice ones with India for quite some time now - cricket, shared political systems, membership of the Commonwealth, etc. I'm sure we'll be getting a few friendship visits from the three carriers that India is currently building for force projection in the India and Pacific islands.

India is viewed far more positively in Australia than the US, BTW.

Well, I must admit, Australian politics is not exactly a major interest of mine, but I think you're grossly misrepresenting the state of Australian public opinion, and the idea that Iraq played no role whatsoever in the outcome of your most recent general election is laughable.

Lordy, lordy. I'm grossly misrepresenting the state of Australian public opinion, am I? What would I know, living here, hey? At least you pdemonstrated how little you know!

This wouldn't be an example of that denial I was talking about upthread, would it?

BTW, Iraq is not in the news here, GOP. It was a non-event in the last election, mainly because Australians might be worried about Islamic terrorism but we don't see ourselves as being at war.

Iraq is an American war, GOP. We might have a few troops there, but only one has died (and that was suicide), and over the last few years it's become accepted that it's another of those US misteps that happen now and then. People shrug and raise their eyebrows, and change the subject.

If more troops die, then there'll be a call to pull them out. At the moment though, it's hardly in the news, and even less in the public mind.

Shocking, I know...

;)

Check this out GOP - it might give you an example of the way the US is viewed by an increasing number of Australians...

floop

Apart from the EU, of course.

The EU is not a country, it's a loose confederation of diverse and argumentative countries without a common language, common culture, or common heritage. The newest additions to the EU are even less conducive to European unity than the previous ones, because they have even less in common. And the fertility rates in most major EU nations are below replacement level, which does not bode well for the future strength and vitality of Europe.

But you appear to be factually wrong anyway, at least on the basis of a purchasing power parity comparison for 2005. The U.S. PPP GDP, at $12.36 trillion, exceeds that of the EU, at $12.18 trillion.

The EU, however, is not in hock to it's strategic competitors, as the US is.

As I mentioned in my last post, according to the OECD, the U.S. public debt as a percentage of GDP is lower than that of the Euro area nations. So you're wrong about this too. Do facts actually mean anything to you, or do you just think you can just make them up?

Oh ,please. That's such a lame 'argument'.

You're hilarious. You're the one who brought up this "self-image" business, and when it backfires on you you declare it's "lame."

How well do you think the US military would do without the Pine Gap installation in central Australia?

About 99% as well as it does with it, probably.

We do - it's called China and India.

Ha ha ha ha ha! Right. Because, as we all know, in all the ways that matter to a modern industrialized democracy like Australia--politically, socially, culturally, economically, historically--China and India are plausible substitutes for the United States.

Honestly, what planet are you living on?

They'll be far more important to Australia than the US economically in the future.

That seems very unlikely. And the idea that Australians are going to abandon the cultural and social and political values they share with the U.S. in favor of Indian or Chinese ones is even more laughable. Do let me know when the next generation of Australian actors and musicians turn their backs on Hollywood and New York in favor of Bollywood and Beijing.

floop,

Lordy, lordy. I'm grossly misrepresenting the state of Australian public opinion, am I?

I think so, yes.

BTW, Iraq is not in the news here, GOP. It was a non-event in the last election, mainly because Australians might be worried about Islamic terrorism but we don't see ourselves as being at war.

Well, good grief, make your mind up. How can Iraq be both so important to Australians that it has seriously damaged the reputation of the U.S. in Australia, and at the same time so unimportant that it was completely irrelevant to the last election? You can't have it both ways, you know.