IT APPEARS THAT North Korea wants to return to the friendly confines of the world of nations. In contrast to its tough talking president/dictator, North Korea has released a statement that Pyongyang is "committed to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and to return at an early date to the nonproliferation treaty of nuclear weapons." The six nation talks, led by China, have lasted for over two years and finally show some signs of progress. As part of the deal, the US has agreed not to invade North Korea and announced that it has no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula. In turn the US also grants North Korea some form of legal recognition along with some form of diplomatic relations. I’m confused too.
The agreement also allows North Korea the rights to peaceful use of nuclear energy and left the door wide open to a light-water reactor in the future. The brokered deal with the third member of the Axis of Evil also gives energy and security assurances, all to be supplied by the US and other countries.
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this the same diplomatic solution that Clinton brokered in 1994? Haven’t the neocons and conservatives been yelling and screaming that the “liberals” created this terrorist negotiating, sympathizing world by coming up with this same deal 10 years ago? I think some minute details are different, but the overall conclusions are very similar, if not totally. So, has Bush realized he’s overstretched and now ready to change course or is something else happening?
Speaking of Clinton, the NY Times reported that the former prez criticized President Bush rather sharply over the weekend. “You can't have an emergency plan that works if it only affects middle-class people up,” stated Clinton on Sunday on ABC’s This Week program. Clinton went on to talk about how poverty rates have risen since Bush took office in 2001. Despite O’Reilly’s and other neocon claims about how the poverty rate was higher during Clinton’s two-terms, the facts are that a reduction in poverty did take place and the opposite is occurring during Bush. Of course it is a matter of measurement like O’Reilly says, but that’s called spin when the Democrats do it. It always brightens my day to see Clinton hitting back.
Tags:
Burger King Commercial, North Korea, Clinton, Bush
9.19.2005
No WMD For You
Posted by Chris at 4:40 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I’m not familiar enough with what was brokered in the past to know if this deal is the same. I am interested to know what might be behind it if anything.
I believe if you read any of the real econ data it looks clearly as though poverty has increased and the middle class has faired poorly economically not to mention educationally and from the standpoint of health insurance and retirement planning.
I read the NYT and Washington Post articles about Clinton, good for him as it needed to be said.
Graham:….so you don’t like Hilary eh?
MJ: as you are more knowledgeable on this stuff than I could hope to be I’ll just wait and see what you come up with.
I loved the Clinton burn, as we called it at my office.
Korea has always been an egnima to me so I don't know if they are doing this now for nothing more then belt notching,or if there is something off the radar we are not privy to.
Interesting to think about though and hopefully nothing to worry about.
We conceded more symbolically than in substance. I'll have some more words to say on my blog tomorrow but for now it suffices to say that we:
(1) conceded in principle to unilateral disarmament by allowing the North to negotiate over its weapons program while assuring them of a nuclear-free South.
(2) conceded in principle to future talks over light water reactors, the very kind of project we agreed to without having the North admit to operating the very uranium-enrichment program that led us to abandon the project to begin with. Are we at fault for the collapse in talks? Don't answer that.
(3)reiterated our commitment to refrain from regime change on the peninsula.
What did not happen:
(1) a promise to build such reactors. We say they must disarm before we even talk about them. They say we must build them before they disarm.
(2) clear commitments from both sides to when nuclear disarmament from the North is to begin and to when inspections will take place.
We conceded more symbolically than in substance. I'll have some more words to say on my blog tomorrow but for now it suffices to say that we:
(1) conceded in principle to unilateral disarmament by allowing the North to negotiate over its weapons program while assuring them of a nuclear-free South.
(2) conceded in principle to future talks over light water reactors, the very kind of project we agreed to without having the North admit to operating the very uranium-enrichment program that led us to abandon the project to begin with. Are we at fault for the collapse in talks? Don't answer that.
(3)reiterated our commitment to refrain from regime change on the peninsula.
What did not happen:
(1) a promise to build such reactors. We say they must disarm before we even talk about them. They say we must build them before they disarm.
(2) clear commitments from both sides to when nuclear disarmament from the North is to begin and to when inspections will take place.
Graham, Bill does make everything more understandable. He might not be the best prez ever, but he is better than the one we have now. I feel the same way about Hillary. And if we talk about trade, then China surely comes into play. Thanks for reading.
Alice, Canadian eh? Sorry but I have to make fun of anyone that uses eh. Poverty has indeed risen since Bush took office. And I think conservatives attacking Clinton and his record will backfire on them. I would think the last thing conservatives would want to do is talk about the peace and prosperity of the Clinton era while trying to compare it to todays world of Bush.
businessman, I too am very hesitant about the North's new agreement. I think Reagan's trust by verify is a good term for this one.
real one, thanks for reading. But please do more reading.
stormingamerican, thanks for reading. Welcome here any time. And thanks for the kind words.
Heretic, good to see you around. I have highlited your comments in a new post.
Thanks to all for reading.
Post a Comment