Bush appeases North Korea

skeptical

Muse
skeptical
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
957
I didn't see any other thread titles on this, amazingly enough, so thought I would chime in. It appears the "decider" decided that although communicating with Iran over their nuclear program would be "appeasement", its perfectly fine to talk to and even, gasp, _negotiate_ with NK by easing some sanctions in exchange for some revelations about its nuclear program.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/26/america/US-NKorea-Optional.php

Now, this easing of sanctions may actually prove to be a good move or it might not, that is not the point for me here. The point is that doesn't this simply reek of the stench of hypocrisy after his little "appeasement" speech in Israel a few weeks back? You know, the speech that _wasn't_ about Obama, wink wink, nudge nudge. The one that resulted in the screeching from the echo chamber about comparisons with Chamberlain.

This is exactly why I hate political parties, "factions" as Madison so memorably put it. People who may have differing values on key issues but who might otherwise agree on sound policy are reduced to making idiotic "appeasement" statements to win the hearts of the leering jackals who mindlessly support them. (and that is true for both parties)

So, the only question now is if the right-wing sound machine will go ***** over this the way they did over Obama simply saying he would talk with Iran. Me thinks not, although to their credit, there are some consistent critics like Bolton as the article mentions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did Bush personally negotiate with Kim Jong Il? Was it even bi-lateral talks? Are you smart? The answer is the same for all three questions.
 
Apparantly there were two factions in the Bush Administration: Rice and the State department got their way, the hardliners including Cheney did not.

Bush rebuffs hard-liners to ease North Korean curbs
Two days ago, during an off-the-record session with a group of foreign policy experts, Vice President Dick Cheney got a question he did not want to answer. "Mr. Vice President," asked one of them, "I understand that on Wednesday or Thursday, we are going to de-list North Korea from the terrorism blacklist. Could you please set the context for this decision?"

Cheney froze, according to four participants at the Old Executive Office Building meeting. For more than 30 minutes he had been talking and answering questions, without missing a beat. But now, for several long seconds, he stared, unsmilingly, at his questioner, Steven Clemons of the New America Foundation, a public policy institution. Finally, he spoke:

"I'm not going to be the one to announce this decision," the other participants recalled Cheney saying, pointing at himself. "You need to address your interest in this to the State Department." He then declared that he was done taking questions, and left the room.
Click to expand...

Reaction to the US lifting North Korea sanctions

"Lifting sanctions and removing North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism flies in the face of history and rewards its brutal dictator for shallow gestures. Just as the Clinton administration was fooled by the Kim Jong-Il regime, time will soon tell if the Bush administration will fall for the same bait." — Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich.

"In rewarding North Korea this way, we risk abandoning true and steadfast allies like Japan and we send a message to the regimes in Damascus and Tehran that the United States will endorse a reckless disregard of our own interests." — Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla.
Click to expand...
 
I'd say this is less about the US and the nuke stuff than it is about China and a country in the throes of raging civil war (with strong possibility of involving South Korea, Japan, etc) on its borders ESPECIALLY when the eyes of the world are on it due to the Olympics.

The words "Danger, Will Robinson" run through my brain, and I suspect China is getting the US to help mitigate something that could be very big and ugly, very rapidly.
 
We are talking a fairly minor amount of co-operation from NK and a fairly minor concession on the part of the US, aren't we?

If so, while any positive move is good, it doesn't seem to really discredit or vindicate either the government's earlier hardline approach or Kerry's quoted notion of constructively engaging NK.

By the way Badger and Rika, are you suggesting that North Korea is in imminent danger of a civil war?
 
Last edited:
Rika said:
No, I'm suggesting Bush agreed with China in order to extend minor concessions to North Korea to help China out near the Olympics. Why? I have no clue.
Click to expand...

OK, China obviously doesn't want NK to be an issue during the games, maybe the US doesn't want NK to be an issue between now and the election either.
 
gtc said:
We are talking a fairly minor amount of co-operation from NK and a fairly minor concession on the part of the US, aren't we?

If so, while any positive move is good, it doesn't seem to really discredit or vindicate either the government's earlier hardline approach or Kerry's quoted notion of constructively engaging NK.

By the way Badger and Rika, are you suggesting that North Korea is in imminent danger of a civil war?
Click to expand...

NK has been in a very tenuous internal situation for a few years. It would not surprise me if some tipping point is close to being reached.
 
Policenaut said:
Did Bush personally negotiate with Kim Jong Il? Was it even bi-lateral talks? Are you smart? The answer is the same for all three questions.
Click to expand...
gtc said:
We are talking a fairly minor amount of co-operation from NK and a fairly minor concession on the part of the US, aren't we?
Click to expand...

Besides that: Is NK using rhetorics like those coming out of Teheran about "cutting out" some "cancer"? Apart from hating the capitalist south maybe. :D
 
richardm said:
Well, they said and did enough to be part of the original "Axis of Evil".
Click to expand...

Well they could have launched nukes targetting SK and Japan, but they didn't and now they seem to be cooperative and the response in the US reasonable. Good things I suppose.
 
Badger said:
I'd say this is less about the US and the nuke stuff than it is about China and a country in the throes of raging civil war (with strong possibility of involving South Korea, Japan, etc) on its borders ESPECIALLY when the eyes of the world are on it due to the Olympics.

The words "Danger, Will Robinson" run through my brain, and I suspect China is getting the US to help mitigate something that could be very big and ugly, very rapidly.
Click to expand...
We have a winner.

There is no China for Iran, except perhaps the EU, and they seem to be aligning with IAEA and the US, more or less.

DR
 
Bush allso doesn"t care about Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe. I guess there is no oil in Zimbabwe? Samething about Darfur. And to think that people still blame Bill Clinton for not doing anything in Rwanda.
 
moon1969 said:
Bush allso doesn"t care about Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe.
Click to expand...
How do you support that statement? Is the only way to care about something, as President, to send troops in?

"The USMC: when you care enough to send the very best."

I guess there is no oil in Zimbabwe? Samething about Darfur. And to think that people still blame Bill Clinton for not doing anything in Rwanda.
Click to expand...
Clinton blamed himself, retrospectively. IMO, not getting involved made political sense at the time.

As to Darfur, what compelling American security interest is supported by sending troops there? Likewise with Zimbabwe: what compelling American security interest is supported by sending troops there?

DR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom