[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!

[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)

[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.

[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.

[DugwayDuke]

Evidently, the NYTimes doesn't realize that they should stop referring to North Korea. North Korea has a new name: "Next".

[GoMonster]

this is the fellow's e-mail address. Let's thank him for not only his idiotic piece in NY Times, but he was the lead negotiator for the 1994 North Korean deal. jwit@csis.org

[desertcry]

This is a new low I find it very difficult to see nyt get any lower, than it has been since Time begun.

[boris]

"If they had not succeeded, the United States could have worked with South Korea, Japan and even China to craft a tough response."

Ah, yes. The diplomatic 'tough response'.

An Expression of Displeasure, level 4, along with a Condemnation in Severe Terms, level 5, and perhaps a hint of Extreme Disappointment.

Jaime Retief would be proud.

--Boris

[mathurine]

I hope to believe that we have North Korea targetted so completely that with the flick of a switch we can kill every one of them who has not starved to death before nuke day. We need to be able to tell those in charge of that place that our policy is that none of them will survive, not any, if they give any reason to us to act. We need to make it clear just as we did to the Russians that our response will be total in any circumstance, and that no matter how much they spend while starving their people, it will bever be enough to stop us from killing them all if that's where it has to go. I think we have the capability of giving them the message; and I hope we will, I don't happen to care much for the New York Times or the general liberal establishment idea that we should reason with fanatical communists or radical islamics. These are total losers from the get-go and need to be dealt with summarily and violently as early as possible and as often as it takes to simply get rid of them.

[patriciaruth]

the Bush administration should put back on the table a package of economic and political steps to improve relations with Pyongyang.

Pay MORE nuclear BLACKMAIL?

Not a prayer.

Typical liberal NYT, whining for appeasement.

What was that historic rallying cry: "A million for defense but not one cent for tribute!"

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Dear North Korea;

I'm sorry you were late to the party but not every country who signs their name on the list of countries that need a butt kicking moves to the front of the line or even gets added to the list. It's done on a first come, first serve basis. Please inform your friends in Iraq and other countries of our policies. We would ask you to inform your friends in the Democratic Party of this, but we all know they already knew that by the spin they started immediately after you stuck up for Iraq by announcing you have nukes. If you are patient, we will get to you in turn.

Yours truly;

America