Administration incompetence led to North Korea nukes?

C

Cypress

Well-known member
NY Times, via americablog


Administration incompetence led to North Korea nukes?


Today's New York Times article on North Korea is really a significant (and excellent) piece of reporting. It give a good history of the issue, explaining the different policies and programs over the last two administrations, but then kind of obscures the fact that evidence increasingly shows that the Bush administration basically allowed North Korea to make nuclear weapons through sheer diplomatic idiocy.

Yglesias got to writing about it before I did, and I don't think I could improve much on his analysis, so go check it out. He even uses bullet points for expediency. Money quote:


The odds look decent, in other words, that the administration effectively let the DPRK build nuclear weapons for absolutely no reason at all other than its generally bad attitude toward diplomatic agreements and "stuff Bill Clinton did."

And for a brief primer on the plutonium versus uranium (and other similar background) check out this analysis from back in October.



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01korea.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

and americablog
 
"“The question now is whether we would be in the position of having to get the North Koreans to give up a sizable arsenal if this had been handled differently,” a senior administration official said this week."


"Just don't do it like Clinton did" is a piss-poor way to run a foreign policy. But, that's what ideologues do I guess.
 
But the cowboy foriegn policy idiots thought deplomacy was for panty wastes so they wanted to swagger and say things like "bring it on" instead of acting like adults.

Oh how I hope America has gotten that stupidity out of its system FOREVER.
 
Administration incompetence led to North Korea nukes?

You mean you are just now figuring out Clinton and Albright were incompetent for making the deal they made with North Korea? Ha! I coulda told you that 20 years ago!
 
Dixie said:
Administration incompetence led to North Korea nukes?

You mean you are just now figuring out Clinton and Albright were incompetent for making the deal they made with North Korea? Ha! I coulda told you that 20 years ago!
Click to expand...

Wrong yest again Einstein. Its now becoming clear through investigations, that virtually none of this can be blamed on the deal Clinton made with North Korea in 1994. This is Bushs fault.

The deal that was made in 1994, involved placing limits and inspections on north koreas plutonium enrichement program. And guess what? There's no evidence the north koreans ever cheated on their plutonium program prior to 2002.

The bush adminstration accused North Korea in 2002, of developing a parallel uranium enrichment program. And based on those accusations, the bushies started blustering and bullying north korea: leading to north korea kicking inspectors out and resuming its plutonium enrichment program -- which had been HALTED under clinton -- and ultimately this led to the testing a nuclear plutonium bomb.

So, what started this all were the Bush admins accusations of a parallel north korean uranium enrichment program. And guess what? It turns out the evidence for a north korean uranium enrichment program is DUBIOUS. It may not even exist, or if it does there are doubts about what, if any, progress the koreans have made on it. Hmmmm....the Bush's exaggerating intelligence? Sound familiar?

And if the bush's hadn't blustered and bullied on something that may not have even be a threat - a uranium enrichment program - inspections and diplomatic efforts on the plutonium program could have proceeded. The north koreans evidently weren't cheating on the plutonium program, that clinton negotiated on


Two administration officials, who declined to be identified, suggested that if the administration harbored the same doubts in 2002 (on the uranium enrichment program) that it harbored now, the negotiating strategy for dealing with North Korea might have been different — and the tit-for-tat actions that led to October’s nuclear test could, conceivably, have been avoided

--NY Times
 
Last edited:
none of this can be blamed on the deal Clinton made with North Korea in 1994. This is Bushs fault.

Nah, you're wrong... If I come to your house and shit on your porch, and you come out and step in it later, it's not your fault. It stinks, you're pissed, you smell like shit, it messed up your shoes, however it's anything BUT your fault. Sorry, nice try, but no cigar!
 
Dixie said:
none of this can be blamed on the deal Clinton made with North Korea in 1994. This is Bushs fault.

Nah, you're wrong... If I come to your house and shit on your porch, and you come out and step in it later, it's not your fault. It stinks, you're pissed, you smell like shit, it messed up your shoes, however it's anything BUT your fault. Sorry, nice try, but no cigar!
Click to expand...


And if the bush's hadn't blustered and bullied on something that may not have even be a threat - a uranium enrichment program - inspections and diplomatic efforts on the plutonium program could have proceeded. The north koreans evidently weren't cheating on the plutonium program, that clinton negotiated on


Two administration officials, who declined to be identified, suggested that if the administration harbored the same doubts in 2002 (on the uranium enrichment program) that it harbored now, the negotiating strategy for dealing with North Korea might have been different — and the tit-for-tat actions that led to October’s nuclear test could, conceivably, have been avoided

--NY Times


There's no evidence the north koreans ever cheated on the plutonium deal they made with clinton. Until 2002, when bush started bullying them with dubious intelligence on a parallel uranium program
 
Cypress said:
Wrong yest again Einstein. Its now becoming clear through investigations, that virtually none of this can be blamed on the deal Clinton made with North Korea in 1994. This is Bushs fault.

The deal that was made in 1994, involved placing limits and inspections on north koreas plutonium enrichement program. And guess what? There's no evidence the north koreans ever cheated on their plutonium program prior to 2002.

The bush adminstration accused North Korea in 2002, of developing a parallel uranium enrichment program. And based on those accusations, the bushies started blustering and bullying north korea: leading to north korea kicking inspectors out and resuming its plutonium enrichment program -- which had been HALTED under clinton -- and ultimately this led to the testing a nuclear plutonium bomb.

So, what started this all were the Bush admins accusations of a parallel north korean uranium enrichment program. And guess what? It turns out the evidence for a north korean uranium enrichment program is DUBIOUS. It may not even exist, or if it does there are doubts about what, if any, progress the koreans have made on it. Hmmmm....the Bush's exaggerating intelligence? Sound familiar?

And if the bush's hadn't blustered and bullied on something that may not have even be a threat - a uranium enrichment program - inspections and diplomatic efforts on the plutonium program could have proceeded. The north koreans evidently weren't cheating on the plutonium program, that clinton negotiated on


Two administration officials, who declined to be identified, suggested that if the administration harbored the same doubts in 2002 (on the uranium enrichment program) that it harbored now, the negotiating strategy for dealing with North Korea might have been different — and the tit-for-tat actions that led to October’s nuclear test could, conceivably, have been avoided

--NY Times
Click to expand...


"For nearly five years, though, the Bush administration, based on intelligence estimates, has accused North Korea of also pursuing a secret, parallel path to a bomb, using enriched uranium. .

That accusation, first leveled in the fall of 2002, resulted in the rupture of an already tense relationship: The United States cut off oil supplies, and the North Koreans responded by throwing out international inspectors, building up their plutonium arsenal and, ultimately, producing that first plutonium bomb."

-- NY Times
 
the stretch to blame clinton is just amazing

seven years later they still seem to think anything that Bush screws up they can still blame on Clinton.

Mind boggleing
 
The north koreans evidently weren't cheating on the plutonium program, that clinton negotiated on

LMFAOooooooO! Really?

Well tell me, Mr. Brilliant... how the fuck did NK magically produce all the fuel for the nukes? This takes DECADES to make, not a few years! They LIED to us! That's what happened! Clinton and Notsobright negotiated with KimJong, gave him the needed equipment to make the fuel for his nukes, and told us everything would be just fine and dandy, we could "trust" him! Now that he has developed nukes with what Clinton and the dingbat GAVE him, you want to try and pass the blame off on Bush! Typical!
 
This is so easy to understand Dixie, even a woman-hating moron like you should get it:


1) Prior to 2002, there's no evidence N. Korea ever cheated on their plutonium enrichment deal they signed with clinton.

2) In 2002, Bush accussed the N. Koreans of developing a parallel uranium enrichment program.

3) The Bush accusations lead to a diplomatic meltdown, and North Korea kicks the IAEA inspectors out, and in 2002 resumes its plutonium program that had been halted under clinton and had been under control and under inspections.

4) Four years later, the north koreans test a plutonium bomb. With plutonium they began enriching after the 2002 diplomatic meltdown, caused by bush's accusations of a parallel uranium program.

5) 2007: Ooops! The bush administration now admits there may never have been a viable uranium enrichment program, that led to the original diplomatic meltdown, the kicking out of the inspectors, and the resumption of the plutonium program.
 
Dixie: how the fuck did NK magically produce all the fuel for the nukes?"

Read this, and pay particular attention to number 3.


Cypress said:
This is so easy to understand Dixie, even a woman-hating moron like you should get it:


1) Prior to 2002, there's no evidence N. Korea ever cheated on their plutonium enrichment deal they signed with clinton.

2) In 2002, Bush accussed the N. Koreans of developing a parallel uranium enrichment program.

3) The Bush accusations lead to a diplomatic meltdown, and North Korea kicks the IAEA inspectors out, and in 2002 resumes its plutonium enrichment program that had been halted under clinton and had been under control and under inspections.

4) Four years later, the north koreans test a plutonium bomb. With plutonium they began enriching after the 2002 diplomatic meltdown, caused by bush's accusations of a parallel uranium program.

5) 2007: Ooops! The bush administration now admits there may never have been a viable uranium enrichment program, that led to the original diplomatic meltdown, the kicking out of the inspectors, and the resumption of the plutonium program.
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
This is so easy to understand Dixie, even a woman-hating moron like you should get it:


1) Prior to 2002, there's no evidence N. Korea ever cheated on their plutonium enrichment deal they signed with clinton.

2) In 2002, Bush accussed the N. Koreans of developing a parallel uranium enrichment program.

3) The Bush accusations lead to a diplomatic meltdown, and North Korea kicks the IAEA inspectors out, and in 2002 resumes its plutonium program that had been halted under clinton and had been under control and under inspections.

4) Four years later, the north koreans test a plutonium bomb. With plutonium they began enriching after the 2002 diplomatic meltdown, caused by bush's accusations of a parallel uranium program.

5) 2007: Ooops! The bush administration now admits there may never have been a viable uranium enrichment program, that led to the original diplomatic meltdown, the kicking out of the inspectors, and the resumption of the plutonium program.
Click to expand...

Juan Cole further elaborates:


It was on the basis of this alleged uranium enrichment program -- which may well not even have existed -- that the US pulled out of that agreement (the 1994 plutonium agreement).

This allowed the North Koreans to get back into the plutonium business with a gusto. And they have since produced -- by most estimates -- at least a hand full of nuclear weapons, one of which, albeit a rather feeble one, they detonated last October.
 
Desh said:
the stretch to blame clinton is just amazing

seven years later they still seem to think anything that Bush screws up they can still blame on Clinton.

Mind boggleing
Click to expand...


Note the stark contrast between Bush fans, and clinton supporters.

In 1994, when clinton struck the deal on n. korea's plutonium enrichment program, he had been in office little more than a year. Yet, North korea had a plutonium enrichment program since the 1980s - the days of Ronnie Reagan. Did clinton or his supporters ever try to blame Reagan or Bush senior? No. They did hard-nosed diplomacy and got a deal with the north koreans that halted plutonium enrichment. A deal the north koreans NEVER BROKE until 2002, when Bush (perhaps falsely) accussed the NKs of a parallel uranium nuclear program.


Contrast this with the behaviour of bush fans. Here it is, the year 2007, and they're still trying to point the finger of blame back at clinton. When, in fact, the NKs never cheated on the plutonium deal they signed with clinton until the diplomatic meltdown in 2002
 
Last edited:
The only problem is, it takes about 10-12 years to produce enough enriched plutonium or uranium to make a nuke. That is, providing you already have the various components ready to roll, and the infrastructure in place. You don't just roll out of bed one day and decide to make nukes. Of course, you don't know a lot about nuclear physics and stuff, and your mental affliction makes you automatically believe anything some nut tells you, so it's not surprising to me that you would buy this crap.

It does have me worried though. The Clintonista's must have heard word that NK planned to nuke somebody or something, and figured they better start doing some damage control now... you know, The Legacy and all?
 
Cypress said:
NY Times, via americablog


Administration incompetence led to North Korea nukes?


Today's New York Times article on North Korea is really a significant (and excellent) piece of reporting. It give a good history of the issue, explaining the different policies and programs over the last two administrations, but then kind of obscures the fact that evidence increasingly shows that the Bush administration basically allowed North Korea to make nuclear weapons through sheer diplomatic idiocy.

Yglesias got to writing about it before I did, and I don't think I could improve much on his analysis, so go check it out. He even uses bullet points for expediency. Money quote:


The odds look decent, in other words, that the administration effectively let the DPRK build nuclear weapons for absolutely no reason at all other than its generally bad attitude toward diplomatic agreements and "stuff Bill Clinton did."

And for a brief primer on the plutonium versus uranium (and other similar background) check out this analysis from back in October.



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01korea.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

and americablog
Click to expand...

well I think the only question is if the administrations incompetence led to the nukes, no dispute at all about the administration being incompetent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top