Posted on 02/17/2007 3:02:10 AM PST by TigerLikesRooster
Interview with Chosun Ilbo: "N. Korea would not give up nuke... Kim Jong-il regime should be eliminated."
Washington = Huh Yong-bum
2007.02.16 23:22
After 'Feb. 13 Deal on N. Korean nuke,' John Bolton, the former U.S. Ambassador to U.N., has become the figure getting most attention in U.S. As soon as Beijing agreement was announced, he came out, saying, "It is flatly wrong," squarely criticizing George W. Bush. This tough stance is being talked about again and again (in the media.)
In an interview with Chosun Ilbo held on Feb. 15 at American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think tank in Washington, he said, "I think what President Bush is doing is flatly wrong," answering to Bush's retort on the previous day that Bolton's criticism is 'flatly wrong. He said, "I do not enjoy saying things like this. What makes me sad is that the current administration changed its policy direction, abandoning principles it held onto in the first term." He expressed that Bush's policy shift toward compromise with N. Korea is "sad."
Q: What is wrong with this agreement?
"Three things. N. Korea would not give up nukes under any circumstance. Therefore, providing economic aids in exchange for their nuke could only strengthen Kim Jong-il regime. In addition, it would send wrong signals to other countries developing nukes such as Iran."
Q: If so, would the regime change the only solution?
"In my opinion, N. Korean regime cannot be changed but should be eliminated. What should infuriate S. Koreans most is the oppression of N. Korean regime. I have hard time understanding why S. Koreans are not more vocal in putting pressure on N. Korean regime, and eliminating it."
Q: Why do you think N. Koreans came out to the negotiation table and reached the agreement, if they had no intention of giving up nukes?
"It was due to pressure from all sides. We actually pushed N. Korea into a corner, but this agreement would allow N. Korea to escape from the corner and repeat the games it used to play. They have been repeatedly playing the (same) game that they agree to one agreement and then start another negotiation, buying time."
Q: (In your opinion,) how would U.S. respond if N. Korea reneges on its promise again?
"President Bush would also have to scrap the agreement. Hopefully, it would make us go back to the more effective way of dealing with them."
He consistently argued that, if it is a 'wrong deal' anyway, it had better be broken down soon, allowing us to go back to tough policy against N. Korea again, which would deny N. Korea the time to produce more nukes.
Ping!
He sure is.
Hunter-Bolton 2008
Yes Bolton is right.
The bad news just keeps on coming.
Hard to be very hopeful of the future.
Unfortunately the end game was to have the Security Council have our back. I think the Administration saw the writing on the wall and figured to cut a strong deal now unilaterally, and put NK on record for a future (Democrat?) administration. This way W takes credit if it works, and if it fails, can pull a Clinton/Albright - or maybe the US will finally unify the mainland.
Bolton said pretty much the same thing on the Glenn Beck Program Thursday.
Bolton is right on the money ,certainly no fuel should be delivered until the destruction of the nuclear facilities are verified to be destroyed.
I agree- Hunter-Bolton '08. In no particular order.
Why is common sense limited to so few? These two have an abundance of it, and are not afraid to use it.
Captain Kangaroo, the great American Diplomat: "In my opinion, N. Korean regime cannot be changed but should be eliminated."
Bolton is Dead wrong, good thing he is irrelevant.
Bolton may very well be right, but it seems a bit disloyal to undercut Bush when the President was so totally loyal to him and fought hard on his behalf.
I smell ozone...
Hello newbie.
Wondering how long you'll last here.
"this agreement would allow N. Korea to escape from the corner and repeat the games it used to play."
yep.
It's the same with.
Maybe you could write him and explain why S.K. is reluctant to do anything about North.
Hunter-Bolton
I suggested that ticket on a thread a couple days ago.
;~ )
oops,
It's the same with Iran.
(you probably guessed that's what I meant.)
"Bolton may very well be right, but it seems a bit disloyal to undercut Bush when the President was so totally loyal to him and fought hard on his behalf."
10 posted on 02/17/2007 4:52:25 AM PST by joebuck
Disloyal to Bush but honest with the People...patriot.
People like the Edradour should be tracked down.. anyone who compares a Great American Thinker to Captain Kangaroo, should be shot for treason.
You obvious think that the North Korean regime should stay in power, ruling 20-odd million people.
And that says a lot about your beliefs in how a government should act, considering.
Simple. Rope-a-dope works. North Korea has been playing this game for years, and the game works. What's to stop other nations from playing us like fools, when we so willingly let them?
I think it would have been better if Mr. Bolton had been appointed Secretary of State rather than Ms. Rice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.