Yes, we have. I was referring to Bush admin's actions about N. Korean nuke test, not sorry-ass Clinton's escapade. Bush and China appeared to draw the line on the nuke test, but when it happened, China did not do much, and let it slide.
Remind me again what Bush's options were?
Now you were talking about options. So you admit that I was right on this point.
then why did Kim not just go on doing what he was doing?
With or without agreements, Kim has done what he wanted. What we have to do is to deny him the resource to continue his projects. Not another agreement he would not keep, unless his life literally depends on it. In all likelihood, he is working hard at his projects right now, at the places not known to the West.
Again, what is the price N. Korea has to pay for not keeping the promise? Probably mild rebuking statements from China, even milder one from Russia. A few days of cutting down some key supplies. Some gestures just enough to show that NK's behaviors are not to their liking. However, they would not go ahead and shut down the spigot altogether. N. Korea knows it can still go forward, even if the schedule is delayed a few months.
So tell me, if China repeats the same response for another NK mendacity, what price does China has to pay? After all, Kim was able to set off his nuke despite torrents of criticism from all sides. Even PLA is quiet. If you think Kim would behave, you are really naive. If he is so receptive, we have already accomplished our objective a long time ago.
What is happening now is at best a punt-fake for striking Iran. If U.S. cannot resolve Iran crisis, we can kiss the resolution of NK problem a good bye.
Japan has more leverage to impress China than U.S.. Belligerent posturing by Japan will do much more than U.S. diplomatic initiative, even though U.S. likes to take credit if Japan's posturing works.