Thank jeebus Condoleeza wasn't in charge of the diplomatic efforts.

So, Bush has had success in North Korea . . . once he returned to Clinton's policy there. Interesting.

"So, wait... I'm confused. Does this support or oppose the "Bush is an incompetent moron who is incapable of doing anything right" meme?"

See Jon's response right above yours.

Apparently, when Bush copies someone's competent behavior, he gets worthwhile results. When he goes with his incompetent moron gut, he buys a money pit in the Middle East.

Somewhat off topic, but only by one continent, I just finished watching an interesting show about China's various diplomatic/trade/loan efforts in tying up the various mineral resources in Africa. Gee, if we weren't spending all our money on invasions and lining the pockets of the military industrial complex, we might have the resources to get a hedge going for the future too. Unfortunately, by the time someone in the government figures out how to think long-term and uses the diplomatic skills required to get us there, China will have sewn everything up.

wasn't clinton's policy bilateral?

isn't it much different to have China and SKorea participate in the diplomacy? don't they have bigger sticks than the US?

Talking with our enemies - what a concept. It's too bad that Bush gets any credit whatsoever for this progress, since he really had so little to do with it.

Kinda like the fall of the Berlin Wall and Ronald Reagan....

It's Bush's fault.

" . . . . convince George Bush to muzzle the Cheneyite dead-enders and let him engage in serious *appeasment*."

Fixed it.

appeasers!

No J.C. It is the blind hog occasionally finds an acorn principle.

Whoa, wait a minute. You mean the President's refusal to deal with North Korea until they stepped back in line actually worked?

Well that is interesting.

Kinda lucky isn't he? Same dumb luck that has kept us from having a domestic terrorist attack since 9/11.

"Orwell" wrote (while his namesake once more rolled over in his grave): Same dumb luck that has kept us from having a domestic terrorist attack since 9/11.

Liar.

Whoa, wait a minute. You mean the President's refusal to deal with North Korea until they stepped back in line actually worked?

No, he means that N. Korea's refusal to deal with Bush until he stepped back in line actually worked.

There was speculation all along that North Korea was using its nuke program for economic leverage. Now they are reaping the maximum possible benefit from a clearly failed president, desperate for a legacy. But I ask, what has changed about North Korea? Are they not as dangerous as before? Are they not postured still to strike South Korea and American interests? It sure looks like the only change came in our "negotiating with the enemy" Bush Administration position. Looking at this diplomatic "success," why shouldn't Cuba build a cooling tower or two?
Concessions were made. Brinksmanship was rewarded.
We live in Bizzarro World under Bush. Fox Noise is trumpeting this like we just won the Cold War again.

Even with crazies in the white house I'm pretty sure North Korea feels pretty safe from attack at the moment.

A lame duck president with an over-extended military grasping for a legacy. The timing is most consistent with the US backing down. Maybe they got a non-aggression treaty or a billion bushels of corn.

But -- but-- I thought you weren't supposed to talk to adversaries until they had already given you what you wanted. I'm waiting for McCain to blast this example of irresponsible naivete.

So are the Chinese appeasers now? It's all so confusing...

This progress started in earnest after North Korea's failed nuclear test in 2006, and I'm still a little mystified about exactly why that triggered it.

Maybe the Norks decided that the dud nuclear bomb made their nuke program worth more as a bargaining chip than a deterrent?

Notice how the wingnut / neocon fearmongering -- going all the way back to Iraq, if not before -- depends on casting the enemy du jour as not just evil, but crazy ("Mad Mullahs!"). Of course, to the neocons and their idiot fellow travelers, simply placing their own perceived self-interest above American interests seems to be evidence of insanity.

And in a way this perception is evidence of insanity, but not in our rivals, if you get my drift.

Same dumb luck that has kept us from having a domestic terrorist attack since 9/11.

"As all Americans know, recent weeks have brought a second wave of terrorist attacks upon our country.� -- President Bush

J.C.: Yeah. Right. We are lifting trade sanctions and declaring victory. They get to disband a program that wasn't viable. They get that coveted "cred." Diplomatic status. The whole bundle. And they still have exportable knowledge. Big win. For them. We still have dolts in charge, but a new starving trading partner. At a time when there are food riots in Milwaukee. . ..

"North Korea's failed nuclear test in 2006" ?!?!

IIRC that attempted bomb had a yield of 1 kiloton. Now by the standards of nuclear bombs that is a dud, but I sure wouldn't want one of those to blow up in my back yard. I mean a kilo of TNT makes a very large explosion a million kilos would be the kind of thing that we would accept a whole lot to prevent it from blowing up in downtown seoul (or hey why not smuggle it in to New York).

I mean if that's a failure, I sure don't want to deal with a success.

Anyway aside from the single world "failed" I have no objections to your post.

That refusal (to give DPRK cred by engaging in direct bilateral talks) was something Bush was hit on mercilessly by the left, but appears to have been the right decision after all.

Thank you for linking to a post in the conservative Wall Street Journal, by Condoleezza Rice no less, showing that diplomacy is effective in dealing with our enemies.

That's something the "left" hits on all the time as well, and is routinely derided for by the "right." If only we had a nickel for every time that we got one right.

Also: why do developments in this area have any necessary relationship to Bush or America? There are other countries in the world. Like, say, Japan -- who's been engaging in...what?

Bilateral talks with North Korea for a year.

A lot of people seem to be ignoring the history of North Korea. Even money says this is an attempt to establish a position to negotiate with the next president. Kim is likely practicing rug pulling as we speak.

hm. The US's gravest security threat is getting removed, no terrorist attacks in five-odd years.

These are large successes on the national security front, and they've been viciously attacked and derided by you guys at every step.

Orwell - 2008: It's Bush's fault.

Orwell 1992 - 2007: It's Clinton's fault.

a,

The nuclear program was restarted and resulted in a successful nuclear weapons test during Bush's tenure. This is ~ 7 years overdue. The "US's gravest security threat" never needed to exist.

This means we're going in. Saddam's voluminous listing of weapons and weapons programs was all lies, lies, lies, and presaged invasion. You expect the North Koreans to tell the truth about their nuclear weapons programs?

"muzzle the Cheneyite dead-enders and let him engage in serious diplomacy."
YES! Exactly! If someone would have asked the Iraqi farmers what THEY needed, instead of the oil companies, perhaps serious diplomacy would have taken place with Saddam Hussein , and Iran, etc etc etc.
Muzzle ALL of the fanatics. Terrorism has always only been a threat to the status quo of the rich. Since the economy is now a bigger threat due to their policies of protecting the status quo, perhaps it's time to do more serious diplomacy, starting with the Central Planning of Iowa caucus agriculture policies. Buy less, buy local, support your neighbor's garden, and perhaps we can all spend a little more time at home with our families, instead of shipping them off to wars for oil to fight wars.
The economy is NOT our country.

Gee, if we weren't spending all our money on invasions and lining the pockets of the military industrial complex, we might have the resources to get a hedge going for the future too. Unfortunately, by the time someone in the government figures out how to think long-term and uses the diplomatic skills required to get us there, China will have sewn everything up. Posted by: Everyman

Not likely. First, we still have some morals and are likely to gain more once Obama is elected. The Chinese still have none (see Darfur). So they will succeed where we fail. That being said, Africa is an unmitigated political and social mess. Getting anything out of the country that you can't fit into your pocket will remain sporadic and problematic for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the mineral market, like oil, is international. Very few countries have monopolies on any materials.

So with two of the three axis of evil now wiped out does this mean that we now live in a one dimensional world?

So basically, after 8 years, we're back where Clinton left us except the Koreans have enriched plutonium and probably a bomb of some sort.

George Bush has accomplished a miracle.