|
|
A Senatorial Fisking
Posted by Stephen Green · 6 August 2003
Oh, boy. Today we have Presidential candidate and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry in The Washington Post with a campaign commercial -- er, op-ed piece -- on what to do with North Korea. He was given a chance to write something fair, impartial, beneficial to our national security and to his national campaign should he win the nomination. Instead, he plays to his base, and plays badly: The Bush administration's reported decision to meet again with North Korean officials looks like a positive development. But the administration's erratic handling of the North Korean nuclear crisis over the past year leaves it little room for error. It first ignored the threat because it was preoccupied with Iraq, then played it down -- thus leading Pyongyang to think we would accept a nuclear North Korea -- then proposed a dialogue, but steadfastly refused to talk directly with the North Koreans. All this served only to create confusion and put North Korea's despotic leader, Kim Jong Il, in the driver's seat. I hate to accuse a United States Senator of lying, but I don't know what other word fits. Let's take this one, ah, prevarication at a time. The Bush administration's reported decision to meet again with North Korean officials looks like a positive development. But the administration's erratic handling of the North Korean nuclear crisis over the past year leaves it little room for error. Erratic? Hardly. While I can't say what's going on in the minds of the President and his Secretary of State, their policy has hardly been erratic. Have there been ducks and weaves? You bet -- that's how the game is played. But the overall effect (and, apparently, goal) has remained the same: To keep North Korea isolated, under increasing diplomatic and economic pressure, and to hope the regime implodes before it can explode a nuclear bomb. Anyone who can read the papers knows all this. So I'm assuming Kerry can read the papers when I say he's lying. "Looks like a positive development?" Please. North Korea caved completely on the talks, probably due to pressure from their last remaining ally. And having China come even partly to our side is almost certainly our best bet for resolving this thing peacefully. John Kerry must know this, too. Kerry must be lying. [The Administration] first ignored the threat because it was preoccupied with Iraq. . . Unless someone can quote me a story where Bush & Co. ignored Korea, then we'll chalk this up as another lie. . . .then played it down -- thus leading Pyongyang to think we would accept a nuclear North Korea. . . Ditto. Furthermore, Li'l Kim's nuclear ambitions have never relied on American acquiescence, else he would never have agreed to (then cheated on) the 1994 Agreed Framework. Another lie. . . . then proposed a dialogue, but steadfastly refused to talk directly with the North Koreans. The Administration never proposed a "dialogue," because a dialogue occurs between two parties. Bush asked for -- and North Korea repeatedly refused -- multilateral talks. Any refusal we made was to talk to the North Koreans on their terms, terms we knew they would never live up to. Two phrases, two lies. All this served only to create confusion and put North Korea's despotic leader, Kim Jong Il, in the driver's seat. The little sadist who doesn't have complete control over his military, who rules over a starving populace, who is reduced to making nuclear threats against the world's mightiest nation, who is facing enormous pressure from his "allies" in China, who is desperately short on money and material and, most importantly, time. . . this man is supposedly "in the driver's seat?" That's a big fat whopper of a lie. And the rest is no better. Here are two more easily-demolished statements: Since the end of last year, North Korea has moved quickly to restore its capacity to produce nuclear weapons. There is no evidence North Korea ever seriously curtailed its abilities. If the coming talks are to be more than show, however, the Bush administration must commit itself to negotiate directly with the North Koreans. . . Not a lie, but sheer stupidity. North Korea has never lived up to anything its agreed to, making direct negotiations pointless. What is required is pressure, and China is in the best position to apply it. And China can't be made to do so if we're taking full responsibility (as indicated by bilateral talks) for the outcome. George W Bush, so long as he continues to spend recklessly, support the USA PATRIOT act, oppose full rights for gays, keep John Ashcroft, and enable our destroyers in Riyadh, is begging me to support a Democrat in 2004. But if today's piece is a fair example of John Kerry's veracity and national security policies, then Kerry isn't the Democrat I'm looking for. Comments
Well that makes two...first Howard Dean and now Kerry making fools of themselves by revealing their frightening ignorance of military and foreign affairs. Bush may not be the greatest, but is anyone really willing to turn over the country to one of the 9 Dwarves to save a couple pet causes? Just remember...as soon as it was politically safe to criticize the President after 9/11, all these guys opposed going into Afghanistan, opposed going into Iraq, opposed the domestic crackdown on terrorists, and opposed the President's policies on North Korea. Would you rather live in a world where the Taliban still runs Afghanistan, Osama and Al Queda still operate freely, Saddam is still in power with the freedom to build WMD, and political correctness prevents us from finding and prosecuting terrorists already within our borders? If that's the world you want to live in from 2004-2008, vote Democrat. Posted by: Mike M at August 6, 2003 07:10 AMStephen I am not thrilled with the ridiculous amt of spending that Bush has agreed to and in fact promoted, the farm bill Rx benefits, No Child left behind, But there is no Democrat (save maybe Lieberman) who seems to grasp the idea that Islamic Fascists would like to kill us all, that NK is not trustworthy enough to hold a bake sale let alone unilateral talks with the US. Its amazing to me that in Iraq they carp on unilateralism and in NK they carp that we are aiming for (and getting) mulrilateral talks. Hypocrites. They are just not serious people and deserve any and all derision heaped upon them. Posted by: Kevin, Philadelphia, PA at August 6, 2003 07:20 AMbush is spending like a drunken sailor... but the dems want to spend like high greenpeace activists... at least the sailor is good in a brawl and knows how to handle weapons... the greenies will just cry and get beaten up... ugh no good choices... Posted by: hey at August 6, 2003 08:38 AMYour fisking of Sen. Kerry (who served in Vietnam but is now pandering to the antiwar crowd) made my morning! Nothing bad can happen to me for the rest of the day.:) Posted by: Bloodthirsty Warmonger at August 6, 2003 09:13 AMI'd think Kerry would know better, being the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs. There's only about three choices that make any sense: 1) He's telling the truth. 2) He's deliberately lying. 3) He actually doesn't know. If 2) or 3), he's unworthy of consideration for the office of President. I understand politicians have to lie for a living, but that sort of activity has gotten a lot of frowns lately, even from the left side of the aisle. On the other hand, if he is speaking from ignorance, he needs to lose his committee membership so that someone who's actually interested can replace him. Posted by: David Perron at August 6, 2003 09:47 AMYou're noted and quoted over on Blaster's Blog. Bush is erratic my, err, foot. Posted by: blaster at August 6, 2003 10:17 AMhahahaha Lil' Kim. That is the greatest. Posted by: Bob at August 6, 2003 01:57 PMThe North Koreans love, yearn, need, are desperate for bilateral negotiations with the United States. Why? Because they can use South Korea and their other neighbors as hostages to paralyze any action from us when they break the agreements. And of course, they know from the start they will break every agreement... L'il Kim would vote for Kerry. Posted by: Cliff at August 6, 2003 03:39 PMHave to agree with the above comments. As much as I despised Bush before 9/11, I'm thankful that he won, and if need be, I'll hold my nose and vote for him again. Posted by: Bill Peschel at August 7, 2003 10:01 PMI hate to accuse a United States Senator of lying, but I don't know what other word fits. Well, considering the statements you've challenged were value judgements and not statements of facts (i.e., "erratic handling," "looks like a positive development," etc.), I can think of a number of more appropriate words. Boneheaded analysis, ignorant, facile, the list goes on, but to accuse someone of lying because you disagree with their assessment of the situation is just sophistry, and childish sophistry at that. Unless someone can quote me a story where Bush & Co. ignored Korea, then we'll chalk this up as another lie. Uh, generally, they don't write stories with lede's like "the Bush administration continued to ignore North Korea." But this piece bolsters Kerry's claim. But again, this was a normative statement -- whether the Bush administration has payed sufficient attention to the crisis is open to interpretation. So, accusing him of "lying" is pretty cheap. People complaining about Bush pushing too much spending might consider two possible explanations for it. First the cynical political one: that these spending increases and new entitlements take away election issues from the Dems. The other explanation is that spending increases and protectionist moves are the price the Dems exacted from him for even the modest cooperation they are giving to the War on Terror. Poppy had to accept the George Mitchell Tax Increase before even some of the Dems would support GWI. This may be the same thing. I think the Bush Administration's handling of North Korea has been quite a bit more subtle than it's given credit for being. Recognizing the desperate straits of the NorKs they kept their cool instead of panicing, got other countries into the affair, grasped the initiative from NorK, and have gotten negotiations on their terms, not NorK's. The cooler the administration is, the more hysterical the NorKs act, the more it convinces the surrounding countries that the latter is an imminent danger to everybody there, and not just America's problem. Posted by: Michael Lonie at August 9, 2003 07:57 PMMichael Lonie: Quite right, on both of your major points... Posted by: Cliff at August 11, 2003 02:06 PMI know I'm chiming in late; but Kerry has proven again and again that he wouldn't know the truth if someone beat him with it. OTOH, "truth" to a communist is anything that advances the cause. I think the Democrats are either communists or are scrimmaging from the same playbook... I didn't vote for Bush last time; but I will this year... Posted by: jtb at March 1, 2004 01:15 PMI second Cliff's praise of Michael Lonie's succinct comment. The key to the NoKo's is China. Any negotiations that fail to gain China's support are doomed to fail. Great blog post. Right on the button. Posted by: Reid at September 30, 2004 10:36 PMI am biased against deficit spending, BUT, is there any evidence that the US unemployment rate would be lower, today, or this quarter, had there been less fiscal stimulus? The bad effect of deficit spending is the higher long term interest rate, and higher inflation rate. I believe they will be coming if spending doesn't go down ... but I'm in no way convinced that as of FY 2004 the bond markets have said there is too much spending. And only when THEY talk, so I feel I HAVE to listen. Even if they seem to disagree with my own ideology. Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at October 1, 2004 06:43 AMMissed in all of this is the fundamental incoherence of Kerry's ideas on handling North Korea and handling Iraq and Iran. In Iraq and Iran he claims we haven't brought in enough allies and haven't worked "with" them enough. In North Korea he's suggesting the total opposite. How does he reconcile these fundamentally antagonistic methods of diplomacy? Worse still is his evasion or ignorance of the failure of the Clinton administration's earlier use of bilateral negotiations. Was that not a COMPLETE failure? Exactly how would he do anything differently than the Clinton gang when it looks like all of his advisors (Holbrook, Berger and Albright) are the same crew? Posted by: jag at October 1, 2004 07:39 AMbush is spending like a drunken sailor... guess you haven't spent much time on any greenpeace ships, eh, hey? would guess most greenies can drink, fight, and sail a lot better than yr man in office |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"Best Free Booze on the Internet... and that's saying something!"
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
     |
