Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

North Korea's got nukes -- another BushCo foreign policy failure

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-10-05 10:18 AM
Original message
North Korea's got nukes -- another BushCo foreign policy failure
North Korea Says It Has Nuclear Weapons

34 minutes ago

By SANG-HUN CHOE, Associated Press Writer

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea on Thursday announced for the first time that it has nuclear arms and rejected moves to restart disarmament talks anytime soon, saying it needs the weapons as protection against an increasingly hostile United States.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20050210/ap_on_re_as/nkorea_nuclear

How's that "axis of evil" rhetoric working for you, Georgie? How about those six-nation talks? Who's gonna fight this one for you? :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LynzM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-10-05 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
1. I know...
I heard this on NPR this morning, that they say they have them, and backed out of talks due to the US attitude, basically. There was also speculation that this is all just posturing, that N. Korea wants to be able to get more things on their terms, and that this is a bluff, while we are so occupied with checking out Iran/Iraq...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fertilizeonarbusto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-10-05 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
2. Yup, but Saddam's a total badass and he tried to kill my daddeh
and he's a viable threat with mushroom clouds and we need to export freedom and he was French kissing al-Qaeda and he's the boogieman and has cooties and freedom's on the march and challabi is George washington, no wait, Allawi is and... :silly:
I feel so safe because of *!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaoar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-10-05 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
3. Meanwhile
we draw up plans to attack Iran because they might one day build a nuclear weapon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
murray hill farm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-10-05 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. That tune sounds familiar!
So...off we go to attack another country because of what the might be capable of doing one day....insane! When will someone stop him? Of course, he will take us down with him....when the world decides that they have had enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-10-05 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
5. Biggest foreign policy debacle I can remember!
Clinton stopped them from doing it. Bush basically said to hell with everything Clinton did and BANG, the fuckers have the bomb!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-10-05 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
6. Clark on North Korea (Fall 2003)
TPM: Let me just touch on a couple of issues. Iraq is the major issue now, but there are a few others sitting there that could rise to the surface at any point. On the Korean Peninsula, is there a line that we have to say they cannot cross? And if there is, where is it?

CLARK: Well there was a line, we already set it, but this administration let it go by. This administration thought it was better for the country to permit North Korea to go ahead with the nuclear development program rather than to talk to it. In other words, this administration was more worried about embarrassing itself in front of its right-wing base by talking to the North than it was in preventing the emergence of another nuclear-armed power that could proliferate nuclear weapons. It was a tragic--it will be, it's possible that it could be, a tragic miscalculation. And like much I see in this administration, it's an administration that's put politics over sound policy. People on both sides of the aisle understood that the way to
resolve the North Korean problem was to talk to North Korea--honestly talk to them.

TPM: Which is what the previous administration was in the process of doing.

CLARK: It's what the Clinton administration had done. Is North Korea wily, tough, paranoid, nasty? Sure, it's all those things. Has to be. It's a twenty-three- twenty-four-million population impoverished country in Asia--in the land of super-giants. Its survival as a
separate state is an historical anomaly and nobody knows it better than the North Koreans. And that's why they're hyper and paranoid. That's why they built up an arsenal of weapons and forces that defies all rational explanation but is ultimately highly rational from their
perspective. And so why can't we talk to that regime? We talked to them in the past.

TPM: Given that we let them--we sort of gave them--a tacit green-light, and now they're clearly moving ahead with the plutonium process, the uranium process is probably not quite so far along, but they probably have--we at least assume that they have--some nuclear
weapons, but how do we deal with it now?

CLARK: It's not too late to talk to them.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/clark.interview.pdf

Kerry also stressed the importance of bi-lateral talks, including in one of the debates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-10-05 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Nice to read that interview again
Thanks, Sparkly :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-12-05 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Unilateralist=macho
Clark spoke about this last night at a Dem. fundraiser in Texas. He said the administration is unilateralist for political consumption because it keeps the juices flowing in the xenophobic base. The bushes see it as a position that enables them to sell their brand as "stronger" because no one can tell the US what to do.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'd never thought about the branding implications, and once again, I think Clark is correct. This is all about politics and ideology trumping world peace.

Now, of course it is not a stronger position because inadvertently we have put China in the driver's seat. But hey, can't let those "F" words get in the way.

Clark said that bush is clueless about diplomacy and foreign policy. Absolutely clueless.

To quote Mike Malloy: have I told you just how much I hate these people?

Yeah, yeah, "hate" is a strong word and a worse way to feel so I manage to avoid it. But as far as I know, this is the only planet I can live on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill219 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-10-05 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
7. It's the story of this horrible Bush Administration....
always a day late and 427 Billion dollars short
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-10-05 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
9. I wouldn't put it past this administration to continue this
warmongering forever. Like Clark said, It's an administration that puts politics over sound policy.

They want to have that War Card to have and to play whenever it is convenient to achieve their political ends. Can you say Terror alerts? Well, we have graduated to War alerts.

I don't know how much more I can stand of this!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC