New Rules of Engagement with North Korea

New York Times ^ | Oct. 19, 2002 | Joel S. Wit

[mondonico]

Unbelievable spin by the NYT. They'll do anything for Clinton. This is a new low. Howell Raines must have sore knees.

[newsperson999]

MUST READ FORM THE NYT's 8 years ago today..here

[Commander8]

North Korea is indeed a much greater threat to us than Iraq. I would much rather we confront the North Koreans than engage in Clinton style nation building in the Middle East.

[Man of the Right]

The article is reminiscent of a Stalinist history rewrite.

[Mr. Mojo]

Moreover, this administration has never been enthusiastic about talking with North Korea or carrying out the 1994 Agreed Framework.

No, it doesn't....and thank God for that. Bush isn't going for the "we give them our money and they build nukes with the money" framework. The new framework, I'd imagine, will be probably more of the "disarm immediately or be crushed" variety.

[Minutemen]

Just as I thought, Clinton had North Korea under control and Bush came along and muffed it all. North Korea needs a but whippin'once and for all. But it aint gonna be done by us.

[slimer]

Unfortunately, the Bush administration's policy toward Pyongyang has left it with very few options to solve this problem. The Clinton administration succeeded in negotiating access to a suspected nuclear production site in 1999 because it had an ongoing dialogue for putting that arrangement in place. Such a dialogue does not exist today.

Usually I look at the source before reading an article but for whatever reason I didn't with this one. As soon as I got to the above line, I said to myself, "I'll bet this is from the New York Times.

Well, I'll be dag burned!

[b4its2late]

New Rules of Engagement with North Korea

New rules? Nope, there aren't any now. Clinton has left the building................

[fight_truth_decay]

Saturday, October 19, 2002
The Daily Dish
RAINES WATCH: The Times predictably ran an op-ed on North Korea today that essentially ignored the question of which policies led to North Korea getting a nuke (with U.S. help). Instead, the op-ed all but defends the 1994 accords and sees them as the basis for new diplomacy. I guess this is a fair position - the notion that people who have supported a failed policy should actually explain their failure seems, in the world of Raines propaganda, hopelessly utopian. But look who they got to write the op-ed: the guy who was, in Jake Tapper's words, "a State Department official responsible for implementing a 1994 agreement with North Korea that was to have ended the country's processing of plutonium at a factory suspected to be manufacturing nuclear weapons." Joel S. Wit. Here's his CSIS bio:
He was most recently the coordinator for the 1994 U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework and was responsible for U.S. policy related to the implementation of that agreement. From 1993 to 1995, Mr. Wit served as senior adviser to Robert L. Gallucci, ambassador-at-large in charge of policy towards North Korea, where he worked on U.S. strategy to resolve the 1994 nuclear crisis, was in charge of the interagency sanctions working group, and led the U.S. effort to establish a new international organization, KEDO, to implement the Agreed Framework.
Again, that's fair enough. But shouldn't the Times have at least identified the man as such? Isn't it relevant that the guy now defending the failed 1994 accords on the New York Times op-ed page was actually the person in the Clinton team responsible for enforcing them? Raines law says otherwise. Keep the readers in the dark, and keep spinning, spinning, spinning.(andrew sullivan.com)

[Arkie2]

North Korea doesn't have any oil and they're not going anywhere. It's best to wait until they collapse of their own weight.

[Mr. Mojo]

What nation do you think will administer the whoopin'?

[Jim Noble]

>>Unfortunately, the Bush administration's policy toward Pyongyang has left it with very few options to solve this problem. The Clinton administration succeeded in negotiating access to a suspected nuclear production site in 1999 because it had an ongoing dialogue for putting that arrangement in place

And a fat lot of good it did! This is (or will be) more blood on Xlinton's hands.

[Minutemen]

Ah yes, "Peace is at hand"...ala Neville Chamberlain

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

what makes you say North Korea is more dangerous than Iraq?

[Minutemen]

We sure as heck wont, we'll be too busy with Bin laden & the taliban/Al queda and Saddam.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

I always get the impression that this is all a big game to the liberals. They are so busy pulling for a Bush screw up they don't realize that this is not a game.

[Commander8]

Because the North Koreans actually have nukes, if Iraq had nukes, the Isrealis would have paid them a visit like they did twenty years ago.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

I read that the information we confronted North Korea with was mostly 1998 satellite photos. Liberals generally have a very difficult time believing that other people (ie. North Korea) don't think like us and don't necessarily want peace and harmony.

[Mr. Mojo]

Nonsense. We can fight a two front war - especially with the nations in question - with the greatest of ease. And we will indeed do so if the situation dictates.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

If Israel's intelligence is so good they wouldn've known about 9/11 and they wouldn't be under constant attack at home. Iraq may not have the nukes yet, but they have plenty of other goodies that aren't much fun.