http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021301061. html

In fundamental ways, the deal returns to the "Agreed Framework" for halting Pyongyang's nuclear program that the Clinton administration reached with North Korea in 1994, but which Bush and key aides disparaged on taking office.
.
.
So why the change? Bush "needed a good news story," said one disgruntled administration partisan.
.
.
"It would have been preferable to secure more dramatic action toward a verifiable dismantlement of North Korea's weapons more quickly but the perfect should not be the enemy of the necessary," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the non-profit Arms Control Association. "The real shortcoming of this deal is that it wasn't struck sooner ... We're getting back essentially to the situation we were in 2002. Time has been lost and North Korea's nuclear and missile program has advanced," he said.


Wow, what progress; for the last four years, North Korea developed its nuclear program, has tested actual bombs and missiles, and is now much more dangerous than it was when Bush took office. But hey, it's the Democrats who are weak on defense, on foreign policy, right? Diplomacy never works. Gotta threaten 'em. "Axis of Evil" and all that. Seems to have worked wonders!!!

Thanks, George W. Bush!!!

Andrew

You have anything else to add except bash our nation's president?

Herb

In this and so many other cases, I think that's about all you can do.

You have anything to add to defend him?

Actually, the only reason the N. Koreans are giving in to the deal is because their weapons program failed. Giving them any aid will only allow them to raise more money to work on it.

Herb...
Your always talking about all of us bashing DUHbya. Care to give us reasons why we shouldn't???

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Or is that too many???

Wait a minute, Herb - aren't you the one who's always bashing Clinton for appeasing the North Koreans? Now you're silent when Bush does the same thing. Because he's a Republican, you treat him differently?

Andrew

" our nation's president " was meant to shame us.

Didn't work.

"Wait a minute, Herb - aren't you the one who's always bashing Clinton for appeasing the North Koreans? Now you're silent when Bush does the same thing. Because he's a Republican, you treat him differently?"

Wait a minute. Just a month ago, you guys railed on Mr. Bush for not doing something about North Korea...remember? You said he was 'sidetracked' on Iraq and that the evil black-hearted [my words] Kim Jong Il [he makes me ill] was the one to focus upon.

Now he does just that. And what do you guys do?

Complain, whine and hand-wring, with your lily-livered, ad-hominem-attacking ham-fists.

Ol' Herb doesn't carry water for the pope or Mr. Bush. I'm a Nixon man, remember? But at least be consistent you guys.

Herb

So do you now support the Clinton approach (diplomacy or as you call it "appeasement") that Bush has gone back to after six years or not?

And I wonder why it's so bad for me to criticize "our nation's president" but perfectly OK for you to pile on top of Bill Clinton? Oh, wait - that's because he's a Democrat, and you have different standards of judgment based on party.

Andrew

"So do you now support the Clinton approach (diplomacy or as you call it "appeasement") that Bush has gone back to after six years or not?"

No.

What we SHOULD do is lay it out for the Chinese. They're the only ones having leverage with their fellow commie brethren, the North Koreans.

Unless we're ready to fight the Chinese, I say we boycott Chinese goods until the North Koreans come clean.

Herb

We'll see if it actually takes - but - we have a diplomatic solution at hand. It's better than many alternatives.

I'll take it and be fine. We do it ALL the time AND we ask other countries to do the same.

But like I said, we'll see. And heck, I'll even give Bush some credit if he can hold it together. I'm just that kind of guy.

Herb writes:
"So do you now support the Clinton approach (diplomacy or as you call it "appeasement") that Bush has gone back to after six years or not?"

No.


So does that make Bush an appeaser?

What we SHOULD do is lay it out for the Chinese. They're the only ones having leverage with their fellow commie brethren, the North Koreans.

Unless we're ready to fight the Chinese, I say we boycott Chinese goods until the North Koreans come clean.

If we did that tomorrow, we'd put America into a deep recession. Wal-Mart would have to shut its doors. America no longer has the manufacturing capacity to make much - most of our products are made outside the USA, many in China.

So we'd have to wait a few years to build up American manufacturing capability first before we go threatening the Chinese about boycotting their products.

Andrew

"So does that make Bush an appeaser?"

Sure, if he did the same thing Mr. Clinton did.
Again: I'm not a Bush guy. Fair and balanced is my deal.

So are you guys appreciating Mr. Nixon even more these days?

Herb

Compared to Bush, you bet we are appreciating Nixon. At least a little...

Andrew

"Unless we're ready to fight the Chinese, I say we boycott Chinese goods until the North Koreans come clean."

There goes Wal-Mart.

And dinner.

"Compared to Bush, you bet we are appreciating Nixon."

Most excellent. Seriously, he was one of our better presidents when it came to global politics. Plus, he didn't trust communists.

Herb

He didn't trust communists??? Nixon entrusted his political fortune on the opening of China. The Chinese communists could have embarrassed him greatly on the eve of his re-election and the whole thing could have backfired badly. He also gambled that the Chinese could shut off the flow of arms to Vietnam and reign in the North Vietnamese. Too bad he was wrong on that...

Andrew

Read both volumes of RN, his autobiography. It is excellent.

Mr. Nixon said that unless confronted, the communists would continue like pushing bayonets through mush, until they hit steel.

He knew their black-hearted ways. He's the guy who took down the commie Alger Hiss, a darling of the left.

Herb

Nixon is your Van Halen.

I'll second Andrews sentiment.

Hey Chicken, does that make Hilary his Boy George?

(I'll step down now, thank you very much!)

Some people pine for the '60's because of 'free love.'

I pine for Mr. Nixon's presidency because he was a leader, a man's man and no wimp.

Herb

Herb...
We're all waiting for reasons why we shouldn't BASH DUHbya....

NIXON WASN'T a wimp??? He resigned! He LIED to the American people! He SECRETLY audio taped people!

"He resigned!"
Mr. Clinton was impeached.

"He LIED to the American people!"
Mr. Clinton didn't?

"He SECRETLY audio taped people!"
So did JFK and LBJ.

And your point is...?

Herbert Milhous Nixon III

The point is that when those things happen, they bother us.

Agreed.

For a so-called "Republican," Trixter sure spends a lot of his time defending Mr. Clinton.

Hmmmm.....

Herb

That's because Clinton was just not a bad guy, all things considered!

Some people try and weigh the good things vs. the bad things and make decisions based on that.

Oh lord.

N-o-r-t-h---K-o-r-e-a? Wasn't this about North Korea?

The Chinese are already sending bus loads of North Koreans home with the same swift, gentle spirit that we use to send home illegal Latinos. The Chinese do not want North Korea to have the weapons. They do not want a war, refugees or the radiation from a test. The Chinese just unionized Wal-Mart and would love to keep filling your carts with useless garbage. So, we work with the Chinese... right?

Is there a way to discuss a solution in here or is that simply out of the question?

"The Chinese do not want North Korea to have the weapons."

I agree that position would make sense for the Chinese to have.

However, they are a contrary lot and harm their own people.

One wouldn't think that they'd like a loose cannon like Kim Jong Il next door. However, if they indeed could take him out, why don't they?

I think they let North Korea do the sabre-rattling and monitor our defense posture. That way, they don't have to lift a finger to figure out how our defense capability works.

Herbert M.

The Chinese have killed many simple peasants from North Korea who were illegal migrant workers. They were also engaged in a fight with the Japanese over North Koreans who have sought asylum:

http://www.chosunjournal.com/LAT5-14-02.html
http://www.rfa.org/english/news/politics/2004/09/01/noko_schooldefect090104/

North Korean stories:

http://www.nkfreedomhouse.org/resources/refugee-stories/

China does not want any Korean refugees. Period. Beyond all of the other concerns, that is their greatest. It is possible that they have quietly accepted the weapons development in the hope that it might allow North Korea to seem powerful. As their closest ally, that would make sense. It has to be clear to them, by this point, that North Korea is in desperate poverty and ought to move toward reunification. China fears a mess much more than a solution. They might be willing to talk about a unified Korea if it meant benefits in the long run and stability now.

(edit)

It just dawned on me that one of our allies could be very helpful in laying out plans to make reunification seem both plausible and possible: Germany.

My point is Herb that Nixon was all of those things and nothing more except Foreign policy was good and the EPA was a good touch.....

I'm NOT defending Clinton what I'm doing is saying that NO President is honest and all you want to do is talk about how GOOD all the Republicans have been and how BAD all the Dems have been. EVERY GD time you get a chance to fire another shit rocket at Carter or Clinton or whomever Dem you want you just do it.
Newt and Co. took MILLIONS of tax-payers money and 7 1/2 years trying to find anything and everything about Slick Willy. GIVE IT A MFin rest!
The Republicans have been in the White House 19 of the last 27 years so where is that the Dems fault? Where does it sit squarely on the shoulders of the Dems all the time? Why were the neo-CONers so vicious against Clinton? And WHY are you neo-CONers so damn vicious still today? It's really asinine.....

Well???
Herb???

Mr. Clinton compromised our security.

Give me a strong on defense democrat and we can talk.

Until then, we're at war with evil men who would slit both of our throats if they could. The only difference between you and me is that I take them at their word. With all due respect, Trixter, Democrats appear to want to do the kum-bah-yah thing. Calling people neo-cons doesn't address that one bit.

No thanks.

Herb

You think it will come down to the Truman approach?

Controversial to say the least but over and done one drop!

If they want a nuke so bad...hell I say we give them one!

Truman had the war won. MacArthur, Spaatz, hell, virtually all of our military and diplomatic corps agreed it was over by the end of July. Truman was a stubborn rookie who "won" with Hiroshima in August. He then ignored the allied POW camp, all the civilians and committed a war crime with the drop on Nagasaki. It was bad, but it is over and done, buttoned up, and this wasn't an invitation for debate.

Since we did let this djinni out of the bottle, any nuclear manifestation of warfare on our part is out of the question -- if we want to dispose of this madness any time soon. If your neighbor beats his wife, you cannot tell him it is wrong when you do the same damn thing. Our "high road" days of foreign policy are so far behind us, I am not sure we remember that they worked at all.

For you on the right, there is Nixon and China. For you on the left, there is Carter and Camp David. For those of us in the center, we rub our chin and cringe. Isn't it obvious to America that we haven't had a positive hand in global change since the Pirates won a championship and disco was the rage?

No, communism does not count. To paraphrase Danner on the other side, "Just because you clap and Mt. St. Helens blows up, doesn't mean you started it by clapping." That was an inevitability. Sure, it is nice to take credit for driving another company out of business, but sometimes, believe it or not, they bankrupt themselves with little or no help at all.

So, we restore our legacy. We start by sitting down and having a talk with China, right? We encourage the two Koreas to seriously consider being one Korea. Sure, we could put together a secret deal with Beijing, rub out the dictator and mutually agree on a handpicked successor, but really, folks. We do not need yet another despot in another place that we put in power and cannot control. This has to be above board, diplomatic and happen very soon.

I'm almost ready to buy into DarkTemper's idea.
If it's nukes they want, give it to them before they can mount a retaliatory strike.

Herb