Replies

President George W Bush nor Senator John Kerry had his facts straight and, collectively, they managed to significantly reduce the already slim chance that there would be any near-term progress in the currently stalled six-party talks process

Just another "See How brilliant I am because I sneer at both sides" puff piece full of sound and fury but lacking any sort of rationality or real significance. This isn't clever, it is intellectually monochromatic.

Note to author. GREAT you baffled us with your BS how about showing some of your supposed brilliance now by offering up some real SOLUTIONS rather then just the same old tired hash of the craping critic demonstrating his stature as an intellectual midget?

I believe the subtext to this is clear from this statement:

If there were any South Koreans left who were still prepared to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt when it proclaims that it is willing to solve the problem diplomatically and is not intent on regime change, they must be shaking their heads wondering, "Where do we go from here?"

The subtext appears to me (and I could be wrong since it appears to me that the author is quite coy about his own suggestion) is that we should solve this "diplomatically" -- newspeak for "appease Kim" -- not via "regime change" -- newspeak for "not appease Kim."

In conjunction with other phrases such as "Kerry is right" seem to me indicate that this is just another appeaser of the Clinton/Kerry/Carter crowd.

Both presidents manipulating or even worse unaware of the facts on the ground, what a great world we live in!

John Kerry is not a "president." George W. Bush is the President.

Now that that's straightened out:

Neither one seemed to know that Beijing - like Seoul, Moscow, and even Tokyo - have long encouraged Washington to deal directly with Pyongyang and that, at the last round of talks (in late June), such a side discussion actually occurred between the US and North Korea, much to China's (and everyone else's) delight.

Bulltwaddle. Bush said multilaterial talks were in the best interest of our country. It prevents N. Korea from permanently walking away from the table, since Kim Jong seriously Ill cannot afford to decisively anger China and Russia, and in his little toady mind, he is (or should be) afraid of a militarized Japan (South Korea is just window dressing, since they don't have much to bring to the table). Would China, Japan, Russia and S. Korea prefer we handle it with bribes and shoulder the entire responsibility of preventing N. Korea from using nukes? Sure -- such is the self-serving nature of every nation (unless you wear John Kerry's fuzzy glasses). As long as North Korea is not allowed to triangulate, and we're not willing to give away the store in return for empty promises , as was the case in the Clinton administration, a "side discussion" is not an earth-shaking event, nor was mentioning it even pertinent to the debate.