Oh right, no oil.

Otherwise I would have suggested ordering the the U.N. inspectors to withdraw, then starting a war because the U.N. inspectors weren't allowed to do their work.

I'll never forget how maudlin one of my Republican associates became on the eve of the Iraq war, about how Saddam Hussein had "threatened our lives..."

Apparantely he's one of the 40% who still haven't figured out that Saddam wasn't responsible for the 9/11 attacks (Religious fanatics, secular tyrant -- hello, arch-enemies?)

Now someone really is threatening to attack the U.S. and the Bushmorons are completely ignorant and ineffectual.

Information by the pound ... but what percent of it is true? Hard to tell with all the smoke from the right-wing echo chamber.

Holding talks, no way. That might indicate intelligence or save lives and suffering. Can't have that.

Subtlety doesn't exist. It's all a pigment. Fig newton. Whatever.

It's logic: Pass the pretzels.

The DPRK has little if anything to export. This is one thing that states are bound to pay more or less the asking price for, if it works. States all over the world are arms dealers, and IRBMs or larger would just be another technology the DPRK, or whomever else has it to sell, will sell. It's not 'rocket science'.

This article poses some good points, i.e. Bush's policy towards North Korea is partially based on a knee-jerk reaction to Clinton rather than common sense. The 6-party talks sound like a good idea, but the proof is in the pudding. The result has been the DPRK firing test missiles on the U.S. Independence Day. Great. Perhaps it's time to scrap that idea and try something else. Obviously, keep the DPRK's neighbors engaged, but the whole right-wing apparatus needs to get over their fear of what they call "appeasement". They need to read some Machiavelli, or heck, even some Dale Carnegie, or take a course in Judo (fighting your enemies closer is more effective), or how about learn something about Korean culture? Why are they so afraid to engage their enemies face to face? There is nothing wrong with humoring KJI to get what is beneficial to the region and to the US. In fact, isn't that the very definition of diplomacy? We need to think of a good negative catch-phrase for the Bush Administration's "strategy" (or lack-thereof). They misname diplomacy "appeasement", whereas the Bush & Co. alternative is simply, well, COWARDLY. Oh, they say they want to resolve the matter diplomatically, but you can't be a diplomat if you are hiding out in Washington, D.C. or Crawford, TX.

Now as someone who disagrees with Bush on most issues I feel he takes too much flak on this one. When he only wants to meet multilaterally in this situation he is criticized, when he only wants to deal bilaterally in others he is criticized. Holding bilateral talks with the DPRK is not a simple thing. Their standard negotiating tactic is to ask for something before they even agree to come to the table. Obviously giving in to this is not a good thing. Bilateral talks are not preferable because another normal tactic for the DPRK is to play one side off another. See China and the USSR during the Cold War. By making it clear that only multilateral negiotiations are acceptable, the US is denying the North a chance to use this favorite manuever.

Pinkston misrepresents the facts here.

In 1994 Clinton's Crew came up with the Agreed Framework in which the the US responded to Kim's nuclear threats by offering aid and the promise of nuclear energy plants. That deal collapsed in 2002 when Kim repudiated it, announced a secret nuclear program and kicked out U.N. inspectors.

THe 1999 incident he cites here is minor compared to the concessions we already gave N. Korea.

It is Clinton's unwillingness to deal with _______________ (bin Laden, Hussein, N. Korea) that has put us in the current mess.

Oh yeah, don't blame others for "knee-jerk" anti-Clintonism , Mr. Pinkston, when your knee is jerking just as swiftly in the other direction.

Your analysis of the consequences of the Bush Administration's refusal to speak to the North Korean government raises a question. In light of a Japanese newspapers report that the long-range missle was aimed at Hawaii do you still believe that the administration should have spoken to the North Korean government? I know that if I'm trying to get somebody to speak with me, I shouldn't punch them first. Actually eight year old children know this. Shouldn't the North Korean government know the same thing?

Andrew Pass

http://www.Pass-Ed.com/blogger.html