A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Tyrone Slothrop]

As luck would have it, Fred Kaplan has an article in Slate today about the North Korea mess. Here is some of the history:

• In 1993-94, the North Koreans threatened to reprocess their nuclear reactor's spent fuel rods into plutonium—the fastest way to get nuclear weapons. After a tense standoff, Kim Jong-il and President Bill Clinton signed an "Agreed Framework." The rods were locked in a pool and placed under continuous monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency. In exchange, the United States promised to furnish North Korea with two light-water reactors for fuel and, eventually, to establish full diplomatic relations. By the end of the decade, the deal was collapsing. The United States never came through with the reactors or the relations; Kim secretly pursued nukes through enriched uranium. But those fuel rods, which could have processed enough plutonium for more than 50 bombs by the time Clinton left office, stayed locked up.
  
  In October 2002, the CIA caught on to the enriched-uranium ploy, and the North Koreans, once presented with the evidence, confessed (though they later retracted the admission). In December, the North Koreans tried to replay the crisis of 1993, threatening to unlock the fuel rods, kick out the IAEA's monitors, and reprocess plutonium unless President George W. Bush supplied fuel aid and promised not to invade. Bush didn't go along, saying that even sitting down with North Koreans would reward "bad behavior." Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wanted to topple Kim's horrible regime. To negotiate with the regime would legitimize and perpetuate it.
  
  So in January 2003, the North Koreans carried out their threat. U.S. spy satellites spotted a convoy of trucks moving from the reactor to the reprocessing facility. Bush did nothing in response. Despite urgings from Secretary of State Colin Powell, he refused to negotiate. Briefings from his military advisers indicated the attack options were too risky. Intelligence agencies didn't—and still don't—know where all the nuclear targets are. And the North Korean army has thousands of artillery rockets—some loaded with chemical munitions—deployed near the South Korean border, a five-minute flight from the capital, Seoul. A U.S. attack would miss some of those rockets; a North Korean retaliation could kill hundreds of thousands of South Koreans. Every U.S. ally in the region has said a military option is out of the question.
  
  Not until last June did Bush authorize James Kelly, then the assistant secretary of state, to put a specific offer on the table. Yet the offer was nearly identical to a deal that the North Koreans had proposed 18 months earlier, before they started reprocessing the plutonium. They would need a much more attractive bargain to cash in the chips, once they had them.

Bush's policy appears to be to do nothing, in the conviction that one shouldn't bargain with evil dictators. That's not working very well:

• If Kim Jong-il was the sanest leader on the planet (and those who have negotiated with him say that he's not as loony as he seems, that he's well-informed and can behave quite rationally), he might still have good reason to desire a cache of nuclear weapons. First, from Bush's "axis of evil" to Rice's "outposts of tyranny," the administration has never relaxed its open hostility to North Korea. Any leader of Pyongyang could justify wanting nukes as a deterrent. Second, North Korea is an impoverished country with nothing to put on the table in negotiations. Nukes give Kim a potent bargaining chip. It's an unpleasant thing to be put over a barrel by some terrible tyrant, but if we want him to forgo nuclear weapons, we have to give him something that he values in return.
  
  In June 2003, Rep. Curt Weldon, a Pennsylvania Republican, led a delegation to Pyongyang and proposed a specific 10-step timetable for implementing such an exchange. North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam Sun endorsed the plan.
  
  Was he sincere? Who knows? There was only one way to find out, and Bush didn't go there. Would any disarmament proposal be feasible and verifiable now—two years after the North Koreans started reprocessing all 8,000 of their fuel rods and at least 18 months after they might have started producing nuclear weapons? When Pyongyang first proposed a deal, which explicitly included an offer to put the rods back under IAEA control, there was still a chance to stuff the genie in the bottle. Now nobody knows where the plutonium and enriched uranium are stored, how many bombs there are, or, if they exist, where they're stored.
  
  In short, President Bush may well have blown it. If there is still time to strike a deal, he has to strike one very soon and not just ask the Chinese to persuade Kim to back down. As is, Bush has waited so long to get serious that an accord—if one were reached—will cost us a lot more than it would have a year or two ago. There are only three alternatives to diplomacy, though, and they are grimmer still. One is to launch a war that nobody in the region would tolerate and that we lack the resources to wage. Another is to apply sanctions in order to isolate North Korea, a country that is already, by its leader's choice, the most isolated on earth. The third is to live with the fact that the world's last totalitarian has joined the league of nuclear powers.
  
  If President Bush doesn't like any of those alternatives (and who could?), it's time—it may be his last opportunity—to swallow hard and pick up the phone.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Do you say that because there are handwritten comments? You've really never seen interoffice memos with handwriting on them?

no, I haven't.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Six foot, 180, two black belts. And not stuck in Detroit doing pawn shop defense or tenement repossession.

Next?

Out of curiousity, why do you need 2 black belts. Does the first make you a bad enough ass?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Are you accusing the NSC of declassifying false documents?

No, I'm just questioning whether the memo was delivered.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
lots of righteous indignation

Ty, when you originally posted your absurd statement regarding Clinton/Bush and Afganistan, I found it far to absurd to respond to, so I cited an equally absurd position regarding NK.

Lighten up.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No, I'm just questioning whether the memo was delivered.

I really didn't expect the party of "Personal Responsibility" to adopt the "check's in the mail" excuse. This is way lame, club.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Out of curiousity, why do you need 2 black belts. Does the first make you a bad enough ass?

He keeps one at the office in case he leaves the other at the gym.

[Someone's Evil Twin]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
It's posts like this that make everyone think you are very short.

Post ipsa loquitor.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Someone's Evil Twin
Post ipsa loquitor.

I know it's only February, but . . .


AOTY.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Ty, when you originally posted your absurd statement regarding Clinton/Bush and Afganistan, I found it far to absurd to respond to, so I cited an equally absurd position regarding NK.

Here is the "absurd" statement: 'Clinton didn't ignore the threat, and Bush did.'

If you read Clarke's book, or any of a number of other sources, you will learn that Clinton didn't ignore the threat. If you think that's absurd, post something non-Korean about it.

Did Bush "ignore" the threat? Literally speaking, he may not have plugged his ears and turned away when he got a CIA briefing that Al Qaeda wanted to launch attacks in the United States in August, 2001, but if you think he did anything about it, maybe you'd like to enlighten us as to what that was. Or apparently you think Bush didn't ignore it because Condi never got the memo? Which position is absurd again?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Out of curiousity, why do you need 2 black belts. Does the first make you a bad enough ass?

makes him look taller.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As luck would have it, Fred Kaplan has an article in Slate today about the North Korea mess. Here is some of the history:

• In 1993-94, the North Koreans threatened to reprocess their nuclear reactor's spent fuel rods into plutonium—the fastest way to get nuclear weapons. After a tense standoff, Kim Jong-il and President Bill Clinton signed an "Agreed Framework." The rods were locked in a pool and placed under continuous monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency. In exchange, the United States promised to furnish North Korea with two light-water reactors for fuel and, eventually, to establish full diplomatic relations. By the end of the decade, the deal was collapsing. The United States never came through with the reactors or the relations; Kim secretly pursued nukes through enriched uranium. But those fuel rods, which could have processed enough plutonium for more than 50 bombs by the time Clinton left office, stayed locked up.
  
  In October 2002, the CIA caught on to the enriched-uranium ploy, and the North Koreans, once presented with the evidence, confessed (though they later retracted the admission). In December, the North Koreans tried to replay the crisis of 1993, threatening to unlock the fuel rods, kick out the IAEA's monitors, and reprocess plutonium unless President George W. Bush supplied fuel aid and promised not to invade. Bush didn't go along, saying that even sitting down with North Koreans would reward "bad behavior." Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wanted to topple Kim's horrible regime. To negotiate with the regime would legitimize and perpetuate it.
  
  So in January 2003, the North Koreans carried out their threat. U.S. spy satellites spotted a convoy of trucks moving from the reactor to the reprocessing facility. Bush did nothing in response. Despite urgings from Secretary of State Colin Powell, he refused to negotiate. Briefings from his military advisers indicated the attack options were too risky. Intelligence agencies didn't—and still don't—know where all the nuclear targets are. And the North Korean army has thousands of artillery rockets—some loaded with chemical munitions—deployed near the South Korean border, a five-minute flight from the capital, Seoul. A U.S. attack would miss some of those rockets; a North Korean retaliation could kill hundreds of thousands of South Koreans. Every U.S. ally in the region has said a military option is out of the question.
  
  Not until last June did Bush authorize James Kelly, then the assistant secretary of state, to put a specific offer on the table. Yet the offer was nearly identical to a deal that the North Koreans had proposed 18 months earlier, before they started reprocessing the plutonium. They would need a much more attractive bargain to cash in the chips, once they had them.

Bush's policy appears to be to do nothing, in the conviction that one shouldn't bargain with evil dictators. That's not working very well:

• If Kim Jong-il was the sanest leader on the planet (and those who have negotiated with him say that he's not as loony as he seems, that he's well-informed and can behave quite rationally), he might still have good reason to desire a cache of nuclear weapons. First, from Bush's "axis of evil" to Rice's "outposts of tyranny," the administration has never relaxed its open hostility to North Korea. Any leader of Pyongyang could justify wanting nukes as a deterrent. Second, North Korea is an impoverished country with nothing to put on the table in negotiations. Nukes give Kim a potent bargaining chip. It's an unpleasant thing to be put over a barrel by some terrible tyrant, but if we want him to forgo nuclear weapons, we have to give him something that he values in return.
  
  In June 2003, Rep. Curt Weldon, a Pennsylvania Republican, led a delegation to Pyongyang and proposed a specific 10-step timetable for implementing such an exchange. North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam Sun endorsed the plan.
  
  Was he sincere? Who knows? There was only one way to find out, and Bush didn't go there. Would any disarmament proposal be feasible and verifiable now—two years after the North Koreans started reprocessing all 8,000 of their fuel rods and at least 18 months after they might have started producing nuclear weapons? When Pyongyang first proposed a deal, which explicitly included an offer to put the rods back under IAEA control, there was still a chance to stuff the genie in the bottle. Now nobody knows where the plutonium and enriched uranium are stored, how many bombs there are, or, if they exist, where they're stored.
  
  In short, President Bush may well have blown it. If there is still time to strike a deal, he has to strike one very soon and not just ask the Chinese to persuade Kim to back down. As is, Bush has waited so long to get serious that an accord—if one were reached—will cost us a lot more than it would have a year or two ago. There are only three alternatives to diplomacy, though, and they are grimmer still. One is to launch a war that nobody in the region would tolerate and that we lack the resources to wage. Another is to apply sanctions in order to isolate North Korea, a country that is already, by its leader's choice, the most isolated on earth. The third is to live with the fact that the world's last totalitarian has joined the league of nuclear powers.
  
  If President Bush doesn't like any of those alternatives (and who could?), it's time—it may be his last opportunity—to swallow hard and pick up the phone.

See you postr some blog shit, then a month from now you'll say you've proven whatever this was meant to prove and we just won't listen- that's why I can't engage here anymore.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Here is the "absurd" statement: 'Clinton didn't ignore the threat, and Bush did.'

If you read Clarke's book, or any of a number of other sources, you will learn that Clinton didn't ignore the threat. If you think that's absurd, post something non-Korean about it.

Did Bush "ignore" the threat? Literally speaking, he may not have plugged his ears and turned away when he got a CIA briefing that Al Qaeda wanted to launch attacks in the United States in August, 2001, but if you think he did anything about it, maybe you'd like to enlighten us as to what that was. Or apparently you think Bush didn't ignore it because Condi never got the memo? Which position is absurd again?

What should have been done? Have a meeting? Talk about it? We talk about it- is this helping?

I mean fuck- 2 embassies, the world trade center and a warship had been blown up in the previous 8 years- of course they knew about al Queda.

[Hank Chinaski]

posted by ggg's sock

you wish-
This all started because of you all having great respect for the GWU webpage- I am a graduate of the National Law Center- "1 of the 40 top 20 law schools in this country"

I would definetely get an interview with greedy's firm, but the partners would think I might make clients feel uncomfortable because I'm too tall, so no offer.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Here is the "absurd" statement: 'Clinton didn't ignore the threat, and Bush did.'

If you read Clarke's book, or any of a number of other sources, you will learn that Clinton didn't ignore the threat. If you think that's absurd, post something non-Korean about it.

Did Bush "ignore" the threat? Literally speaking, he may not have plugged his ears and turned away when he got a CIA briefing that Al Qaeda wanted to launch attacks in the United States in August, 2001, but if you think he did anything about it, maybe you'd like to enlighten us as to what that was. Or apparently you think Bush didn't ignore it because Condi never got the memo? Which position is absurd again?

Was the Clinton Administration aware of it? Yes. Was the Bush Administration? Yes. But, I think both Administrations failed to sufficiently address the threat. What do you think the Clinton Admin did?