[dalebert]

No one can be 100% sure of no nuke threat.

[Dog Gone]

This is a fairly good analysis until we get to the mandatory final sentence zinger.

[Unmarked Package]

Yet another option, she said, would be to ignore the North Koreans and let them have their nuclear weapons, as the United States has not acted to remove nuclear weapons from Pakistan.

This describes Clinton's foreign policy and his personal conduct all in a nutshell: What's the big deal? Everybody does it!

[Question_Assumptions]

The Bush administration should restate the the US policy on nuclear weapons falling on American soil is still mutual assured destruction. If the other side is unable to assure the destruction of the US, that is their problem but we should fire enough of our arsenal to assure their total destruction.

[Maynerd]

"Whatever choice the administration makes, Sherman said, "I think we are really in a very difficult place," made more difficult by two years of Bush administration inaction. "

I think this article is typical liberal bias BS. They quote two Clintonoids who are in part responsible for this potential disaster. Even the most intellectual honest individuals will instinctively go into CYA mode.

The mainstream media is as usual amnestic in regards to the genesis of this crisis. Another gift from the feckless foreign policy team of Clinton and company.

[tomahawk]

Wipe out the reactor. Then, we know for sure. No "deal" can be trusted with Kim Jong Il, as they mean nothing to him. He understands only force. Appeasement will bring war and more death later.

[rwfromkansas]

What do you mean there is no way to definitely eliminate the nuclear threat??

I would say sending a dozen Hiroshima bombs on N. Korea at the same time would do the trick.

[Sabertooth]

Wendy Sherman, special adviser on North Korea policy to former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, said one option is a unilateral, pre-emptive U.S. attack on Pyongyang. That probably would start a war with catastrophic consequences for hundreds of thousands of South Koreans and the 37,000 U.S. troops in South Korea, she said.

Or, Sherman said, the administration could try to contain North Korea to keep it from "going over the edge."

Yet another option, she said, would be to ignore the North Koreans and let them have their nuclear weapons, as the United States has not acted to remove nuclear weapons from Pakistan.

Sherman agrees with Einhorn that full-fledged negotiations is an option that must be considered. She suggested they could be conducted even in secret, if necessary, to stop the crisis from escalating.

Whatever choice the administration makes, Sherman said, "I think we are really in a very difficult place," made more difficult by two years of Bush administration inaction.

Wendy Sherman shall not remain a faceless Clintonista liar. She is a partner in crime with Clinton, Carter, and Albright in allowing the North Korean nuclear situation to fester. In fact, the Democrats rewarded Kim Jong Il by giving him two light water nuclear reactors to stop his weapons program.

Gee, why didn't that work Ms Sherman?.

[SAMWolf]

Whatever choice the administration makes, Sherman said, "I think we are really in a very difficult place," made more difficult by two years of Bush administration inaction.

Gee, no mention of 8 years of Clinton basically giving them the go ahead and having us pay for it?

[Woodstock]

Wendy Sherman, SPECIAL ADVISOR on North Korea policy to former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, said one option is a unilateral, pre-emptive U.S. attack on Pyongyang. That probably would start a war with catastrophic consequences for hundreds of thousands of South Koreans and the 37,000 U.S. troops in South Korea, she said.

Or, Sherman said, the administration could try to contain North Korea to keep it from "going over the edge."

Yet another option, she said, would be to ignore the North Koreans and let them have their nuclear weapons, as the United States has not acted to remove nuclear weapons from Pakistan.

Sherman agrees with Einhorn that full-fledged negotiations is an option, that must be considered. She suggested they could be conducted even in secret, if necessary, to stop the crisis from escalating.

Is this person an analyst or an advisor?

[Nick Danger]

What is this new term "full-fledged negotiations"? And why would we bother to negotiate anything with guys who signed Clinton and Carter's "historic agreement" and then proceeded to go right ahead and make nuclear bombs anyway? What good is an "agreement" with such people?

OK, so Clinton and Carter got snookered. That doesn't mean we have to fall for it again.

Kim Jong-Il is like Saddam Hussein in that he cannot be pressured with sanctions and whatnot, because he does not care if his people starve. They're already starving, and he spends his money on weapons programs anyway, just like Hussein does.

I don't think we're going to be going through the UN on this one. This is the kind of thing that you fix in the dead of night, by surprise. The challenge is to make sure that you get enough of the leadership that whoever has the bombs doesn't know for sure what to do. It all has to happen realQuick, and completely by surprise.