The North Korean Threat
As this AP piece points out, the North Korean missiles posed no threat to the United States.
No immediate threat, that is. The fact that a madman is well on his way to developing nukes and learning how to deliver them does, in fact, pose a significant danger to the entire world. Amazing that the only ones who have been willing openly (if profanely) to discuss it have been the creators of "Team America: World Police".
Television "experts" on CNN -- particularly MIT's Jim Walsh -- have been insisting that the goals of North Korea's missile launch are political, not military. (We hope.) Then, in the next breath, Walsh has asserted that the situation has grown worse over the past 6 years (from almost exactly the time that President Bush was elected, it seems -- convenient, no?). That's because, according to Walsh, we've taken a tough line and imposed sanctions, which has made North Korea (a "proud country") "lose face." It's worth wondering what "experts" like Walsh think we should do -- reward Kim Jung Il's bellicosity with new sanctions? He actually seems to think so . . .
And it's silly to try to cast political blame for what's become a very worrisome situation, but if it's going to be politicized, there's plenty of blame to go around, beginning with the Clinton Administration. As Ben Johnson noted back in 2003 in the pages of Frontpage Magazine:
Evidence that North Korea was violating the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty surfaced within weeks of Clinton's first inauguration. After a year of inaction allowed Pyongyang to create at least one nuclear weapon, the emboldened Stalinists announced their formal withdrawal from the treaty. It seemed North Korean officials were angling for a payoff. They must have realized they struck the jackpot when Clinton named tough-as-nails Jimmy Carter as his principal negotiator.
Under the final terms of the Agreed Framework approved in October of 1994, Clinton agreed to provide the "Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea" (DPRK) with two light water nuclear reactors and a massive allotment of oil. The U.S. agreed to ship 500,000 metric tons of oil annually in response to the North's pretense that the energy-starved backwater had developed the nuclear facility to generate power. These shipments have cost taxpayers more than $800 million to date - a bargain compared with the $6 billion spent on constructing the nuclear reactors, which now empower North Korea to produce 100 nuclear bombs each year.
All these measures failed to quell the North's atom-lust.
No immediate threat, that is. The fact that a madman is well on his way to developing nukes and learning how to deliver them does, in fact, pose a significant danger to the entire world. Amazing that the only ones who have been willing openly (if profanely) to discuss it have been the creators of "Team America: World Police".
Television "experts" on CNN -- particularly MIT's Jim Walsh -- have been insisting that the goals of North Korea's missile launch are political, not military. (We hope.) Then, in the next breath, Walsh has asserted that the situation has grown worse over the past 6 years (from almost exactly the time that President Bush was elected, it seems -- convenient, no?). That's because, according to Walsh, we've taken a tough line and imposed sanctions, which has made North Korea (a "proud country") "lose face." It's worth wondering what "experts" like Walsh think we should do -- reward Kim Jung Il's bellicosity with new sanctions? He actually seems to think so . . .
And it's silly to try to cast political blame for what's become a very worrisome situation, but if it's going to be politicized, there's plenty of blame to go around, beginning with the Clinton Administration. As Ben Johnson noted back in 2003 in the pages of Frontpage Magazine:
Evidence that North Korea was violating the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty surfaced within weeks of Clinton's first inauguration. After a year of inaction allowed Pyongyang to create at least one nuclear weapon, the emboldened Stalinists announced their formal withdrawal from the treaty. It seemed North Korean officials were angling for a payoff. They must have realized they struck the jackpot when Clinton named tough-as-nails Jimmy Carter as his principal negotiator.
Under the final terms of the Agreed Framework approved in October of 1994, Clinton agreed to provide the "Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea" (DPRK) with two light water nuclear reactors and a massive allotment of oil. The U.S. agreed to ship 500,000 metric tons of oil annually in response to the North's pretense that the energy-starved backwater had developed the nuclear facility to generate power. These shipments have cost taxpayers more than $800 million to date - a bargain compared with the $6 billion spent on constructing the nuclear reactors, which now empower North Korea to produce 100 nuclear bombs each year.
All these measures failed to quell the North's atom-lust.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:12 AM
8 Comments:
The UN may be ineffectual and a club largely for propping up the bona fides of dictators around the world, but it is the only game in town.
I'm sure Bolton knows this fully well, but nonetheless he has to mouth the diplospeak.
To review for the benefit of all:
1) The North Korean nuclear program is Clinton's fault.
2) Launching missiles without telling anyone that they are planning the test is North Korea's fault.
Hey, did you all hear? In spite of six years of Republican monopoly on power, everything is Clinton's fault!
Carol, you are like a pretzel, or maybe an anaconda, twisting and contorting your "logic" more and more every day in a vain attempt to deflect criticism away from your GOP puppetmasters, from whom all blessings flow.
__________________________
Here's a quick guide to Carol's worldview for all you kids out there following along:
If a Democrat succeeds at doing anything good, it's at best an accident, but more than likely it's because of something a Republican predecessor did.
When a Republican errs, there are several plausible explanations:
1) He/she is not really a Republican, but a RINO, meaning they're really a Democrat, which explains everything.
2) Whatever seems to be a mistake now only appears that way because of a lack of vision. Just wait.
3) If it really is a mistake, it was an impossible situation the Republican inherited from a Democrat.
4) In the event the blunder cannot be explained by the first three, try again. If that still fails, just know that the Republican's heart is in the right place and is therefore inoculated from any criticism.
Flip all the party affiliation and you have the working story for any newspaper.
wrabkin, you really DON'T understand.
Odd, I seem to recall there were 12 years in between those two.
I should add, that Carter went to visit Li'l Kim in 1994. The link is to the Carter Center, so it should show his visit in what Jimmuh would consider the best possible light. Not surprisingly Newsmax was less complimentary. At any rate, that WAS during the Clinton Administration, and even before the GOP took the House of Representatives in the midterm elections.
In October 2000, Madeline Albright offered up this toast at a dinner hosted by Kim Jong Il. (Some October Surprise!)
I'm not going ascribe motives to James Earl or to Albright--I'm sure they THOUGHT they were doing God's work and all--but in the end, it wasn't very effectual on the nuclear front.
Odd, I seem to recall there were 12 years in between those two.
Yes, there were. Which makes me wonder what in the heck he was doing in North Korea in 1994. (link to the Carter Center, an altogether rosier take on the event than Newsmax's account.) Carter's visit, incidentally was even before the Republican's retook the House in the midterm elections.
In 2000 Madeline Albright offered up a toast at a dinner party held by Li'l Kim. (Some October Surprise!)
At the end of the day, the negotiations were ineffectual. If there was a real agreement, it would appear that the NorKs broke it.
All this, though, really had more to do with Li'l Kim's nuclear ambitions. It had nothing to do with the missiles, however.
I'm a little confused -- [non sequitur, uncited]
What I'm saying is this: Democrats during the time of Clinton (including Jimmy Carter in 1994) may well have "meant well" but it didn't do a lick of good in the end. Kim Jong Il didn't stick with any agreement that may have been hammered out between 1994 and 2000.
how could it have been, considering who he was dealing with
Exactly. The point is, why should we even try to "deal"?
Post a Comment
<< Home