Kerry was right ! Example # 4,500,675: North Korean talks

[TayTay]

From the web site of the Council on Foreign Relations:

August 8, 2005

Charles L. (Jack) Pritchard, a former top U.S. negotiator with North Korea, who quit the State Department in protest against the Bush administration’s reluctance to deal directly with North Korea, says there has been a major change in U.S. policy toward Pyongyang since Condoleezza Rice became Secretary of State.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8597/pritchard.html?jsessionid=1315fd3d3b76f72333b3bb2f841e0f27
(snip)

Specifically, what was the major change in the United States’ position?

If you go back to the presidential debates in 2004, a question was asked about North Korea. John Kerry said, in effect, that “I think we should have a stronger bilateral component to the six-party process.” The president essentially said “nonsense, it’s six-party, we are going to have nothing to do with the North Koreans in a bilateral way at all.”

What has happened in the last several months is that the individual spokesmen in the White House and the State Department, as the line has changed at the top, have signaled publicly that this is OK for direct talks, so long as it is in the context of the six-party talks. But if you wanted to take a look at this in a critical fashion you would say exactly what critics were saying for a long time, and that the president must have reversed himself. But I think it is a losing battle to try to assign blame, to get the administration to admit the president changed course.

Rice was asked on the Lehrer show recently, “Haven’t you changed your tactics?” Her answer was, “No, this is what we have been doing all along.” There had previously been contacts between James Kelly, the former head of the delegation, and the North Koreans. This is not even close to being the truth, but it doesn’t matter. They are not going to admit a mistake. But it doesn’t matter. What matters is what is being done currently and in the future.

[wisteria]

1. I love to see Kerry proved to be correct!

It just makes me mad that so many people will not be made aware of these Kerry was right instances. I remember hearing so many times,during the election, from the media and other politically minded people, that kerry wasn't saying anything, Kerry wasn't offering any plan or kerry's repeating Bush's ideas. Why did so many media types feel a need to promote Bush and down play Kerry?

[ginnyinWI]

2. because real journalism is all but dead.

Few are willing to make the effort anymore, when a mediocre performance will do.

Bunch of lemmings.

[karynnj]

3. It was esp annoyin when they said he was repeating Bush' plans

because Bush NEVER said what his plan was and the media never pused him for one.

[beachmom]

4. Because Kerry knows what he's TALKING about

He actually spends some time reading over these issues, looking at possible alternative policies, talking with adviors, deciding on the best option, and then promoting and talking about it. Meanwhile, the Shrub has advisors who do EVERYTHING for him, including the thinking. I'm all for being surrounded by experts who know more than you on a particular subject, but when it comes down to it, it's the president's job to make the decisions. I would trust Kerry to the last to consider all the facts, mull it over, and come to the best decision he can. But Bush doesn't do that. Which is why his policies continue to fail. Where is the judgment in this administration? Oh yeah, I guess we may see the results of his lack of judgment, to quote a current Sec. of State, "in the shape of a mushroom cloud". Sigh.