Standing Tough on Nut Jobs

Apparently, the Bush Administrations tough stance on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program is a problem.

Bush administration persistence in using diplomacy to solve a nuclear weapons crisis with North Korea is coming up short as the insular regime bobs and weaves away from resuming negotiations.

Does that make anyone else think that the AP is proposing military ventures? No, wait a second.

The faltering effort is having a divisive effect on U.S. relations with South Korea and Japan, which have blamed U.S. inflexibility for North Korea’s refusal to halt its atomic weapons program.

Rose Gotemoeller, an analyst at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, tends to agree with the
criticism from South Korea and Japan.

"The way in which the administration has
relied on diplomacy is to take a very hard line and stick with it, and
not be willing to explore possible avenues of resolution," the former
Clinton administration official said Monday.

"That’s not diplomacy, that’s standing tough," she said.

This from an official from an administration that only got the NK’s to temporarily shut down their nuke program, not dismantle it, as well as ignoring the threat from Al Queda for 8 years. (Hindsight is 20/20, though). It is a very simple proposition. Shut the program down or don’t shut it down. What other avenues are there? Bribes? Excuse me, trade agreements? Funny how no one in the article actually provides anything other then criticism. No ideas, no recommendations. "A litany of complaints is not a plan."

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “Standing Tough on Nut Jobs”

  1. The Clinton admin did not ignore AQ for 8 years. The first major terrorist attack on U.S. interests reliably attributable to AQ was in 1998, for one. They bombed OBL training camps. They stopped the Millenium Plot. They even had plans (Richard Clarke’s plans, BTW) to invade and Afghanistan to eliminate AQ operations there and unseat the Taliban . . . plans which were later followed nearly to the “T” by the Bush administration. They were not implemented by Clinton because they did not want to “hand Bush a war”.

    If you want to insist that they “ignored” AQ for 8 years, you are going to HAVE to be consistent and concede that the Bush admin ignored them until after 9/11 as well. “Terrorism” did not even make Ashcroft’s list of his top ten priorities until after 9/11, and several officials resigned in protest of what they perceived as a lack of interest.

    But this is not my major point.

    In NK we had a diplomatic grounding and inspectors on the ground until Nov. 2002, when they decided we were not holding up our end. “Our end” was construction on lightwater reactors and oil shipments.

    Call it bribery if you want. I call it diplomacy; a give-and-take. NK could stand to make a lot of money selling this equipement and expertise, and these projects could help offset the loss for them in exchange for greater security for us.

    Reactors and oil are a lot less expensive than, oh, say, losing Los Angeles to a lunatic.

    Besides, the Agreed Framework was never supposed to be the end-all-be-all, but a base on which to build future agreements. Perhaps even dismantlement. Instead of following this path, we chose to follow the Axis of Evil path, and look what that has accomplished. Perhaps NK felt they no longer had anything to lose by developing nukes.

    I’m a realist. I value results over attitudes and macho bluster.

  2. William Teach says:

    I’ll give you that neither admin was as concerned as it should have been, in hindsight. But the NK’s, in particular their Dear Leader, are fanatics who only respond to strength. This is also an Oriental trait. This is similar to the old saying about Germans: “the hun is either at your feet or at your throat.” When Kim is given what he wants, he wants more. Sometimes you have to lay down the law.

  3. “But the NK’s, in particular their Dear Leader, are fanatics who only respond to strength. This is also an Oriental trait.”

    I’ll overlook the bigotry of this statement, and the fact that the same was said about “Arabs” before the Iraq war, and focus on the practical again: Clinton’s diplomatic approach had effectively contained NK’s nuclear ambitions; Bush’s “lay down the law” approach has resulted in advancement of said ambitions.

  4. William Teach says:

    Not bigotry, just tends to be an oriental trait. Part of the whole “loosing face” attitude prevelant in the Orient. If it was possible to bring them around without bluster and being tough, would be great. But, remember, the only thing that has kept the NK’s from crossing the DMZ into S. Korea is a strong military presence. And they still try small unit tactics.

  5. Back to diplomacy (AKA bribery), I say. You know, the pussy tactics that your post was poo-pooing. They seem to actually DO something.

  6. Put it another way:

    — If your goal is to prove who has the bigger dick, stick with the Bush method.

    — If your goal is to reduce the threat from NK nuclear weapons, go with Clintonian enforced diplomacy.

    Your choice.

  7. No more time to waste says:

    What this guy knows about “orientals” or the German people you could fit in thimble and still have room for both your thumbs. You might just as well use your thumbs to gouge out his eyes, he’s deaf, dumb and blind already. The term “orientals” that he uses in polite company is a dead giveaway. It hasn’t been used in years because it’s considered offensive, more so than Howard Dean’s remarks, which they whined about because they were true. What he has no idea of, nor do most people, is that Koreans had central heating in their homes, and other amenities, while our ancestors were still freezing their asses off 5 to a bed and crapping in a hole out in the back yard. He is the face of the new acceptable racism in this country. It’s ugly, isn’t it? You’d have a better chance of talking to a parrot, it learns new words.

    “But the NK’s, in particular their Dear Leader, are fanatics who only respond to strength.”

    Can you feel the waves of irony and self-denial sweeping over the person who made this remark? No? Neither can he. If North koreans want to have weapons to defend themselves from a madman, why the hell not? What could be more libertarian? Nuking L.A.? Oh, please. If there crude firt attempts at this technology are anything like our fearful leader’s re-animation of Ronnie boy’s SDI, the poor bastards would likely blow up P’yongyang. Like I said, bring lots of crackers. We may be able to use diplomacy with other nations when we use the carrot and the stick. We need to employ the same methods with our own fanatics. Drop that carrot, pick up that stick.

  8. fanatic says:

    I agree completely. It’s definitely time to get tough with nut jobs. We need to start with the nut jobs at home first. The number one web story looked at this week according to Popdex.

    CNN’s Nuke Plant Photos Identical for Both Iran and N. Korea! 2/15


    Latest Update

Pirate's Cove