The Choice on North Korea (Washpost calls sKerry a partisan hack!)

The Washington Post Company ^ | Monday, October 4, 2004 | editors

[Dick Holmes]

ONE OF THE substantive surprises of Thursday's presidential debate was the detailed exchange between President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry on the critical but neglected subject of North Korea....

As Mr. Kerry put it, "while they didn't talk at all, the fuel rods came out, the inspectors came out . . . and today, there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea."

Some truth-squadding is needed here: While the CIA concluded that North Korea may have built one or two nuclear weapons before Mr. Bush took office, and while U.S. intelligence agencies believe the fuel rods have been reprocessed into plutonium, there is no certainty that North Korea has built more nuclear weapons. To say so is to make the same sort of reach that Mr. Kerry faults Mr. Bush for making in his statements about Iraq's nuclear program....

Mr. Bush's prediction is probably right: As soon as the United States agrees to bilateral talks, the North Korean regime will refuse further sessions of the "six party" negotiations that have been underway, relieving China, South Korea, Japan and Russia of responsibility for pressuring Pyongyang and leaving the United States to make a deal alone. Lacking the tools of China -- which controls North Korea's energy supplies and could cause its regime to collapse simply by loosening border controls -- the United States would once again face the choice of offering distasteful bribes to a murderous dictatorship or threatening an almost unthinkable war....

Apart from purely partisan motivations, Mr. Kerry's rejection of it makes little sense.

[Dick Holmes]

I was surprised to see the Leftington Post trying to be so fair and balanced, and all. Though it still gave sKerry a pass on his confusing of plutonium and enriched uranium in the debate, it called him dead on his pure partisan BS criticism of the Bush admin's diplomatic efforts.

[MEG33]

Kerry really blew this one...Unilateral/multilateral

Flip Flopping absurd.

[L.N. Smithee]

Lacking the tools of China -- which controls North Korea's energy supplies and could cause its regime to collapse simply by loosening border controls -- the United States would once again face the choice of offering distasteful bribes to a murderous dictatorship or threatening an almost unthinkable war....

Apart from purely partisan motivations, Mr. Kerry's rejection of it makes little sense.

I am stuned like someone hit me with a beeber. The Washed-Up Post is practically conceding that Kerry is being contrary just to create an opportunity to say that Bush has mishandled the NorKoComs.

Well, this one gets my "Stopped Cuckoo Clock Award."

[Judith Anne]

Mine too. The award I mean.

Good article.

[jellybean]

bump for later reading...

[devolve]

WP has some good people.

They come thru with excellent analysis and follow ups every so often.

They deserve a hand on this piece.

[MEG33]

I agree...kudos.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Wow. The Washington Post? Wow.

"When a donkey flies, you don't blame him for not staying up that long." - Murray Slaughter

[Tallguy]

If we agree that North Korea probably has nuclear weaponry, then the next thing on our agenda should be to prevent them from actually testing those weapons. Testing would remove the uncertainty that attends any new weapons system. The Six-Party Talks are not likely to force NK to declare & give-up the nukes that they already have. Those regional countries have shown far too much passivity to reach that objective. BUT, if NK actually tests a bomb, the whole equation changes, and these countries will actually take the lead in demanding that NK arrive at an agreement to limit/dismantle their nuke program. Moreover, the economies of South Korea & Japan would be in a position to rapidly arm themselves to levels that would permit a nuclear first strike against NK along with a healthy second-strike capability.

So, IMO the Six-Party Talks are probably going to force NK to adopt the Israeli approach toward nukes, IE. Build a small nuke force, hint that you have them, but don't do anything that would actually PROVE that you have them. Security through uncertainty. And this might actually work to US interests, since there are signs that the Kim Regime is about to collapse.

[The Mayor]

Apart from purely partisan motivations, Mr. Kerry's rejection of it makes little sense.

say it ain't so.. : )

He will lose..

[alnick]

Mr. Bush doesn't have a good record on North Korea, but he has mapped a possible way out of this difficult bind -- assuming, that is, that a diplomatic solution is possible. Apart from purely partisan motivations, Mr. Kerry's rejection of it makes little sense.

Maybe I'm being picky, but this sentence seems to contradict itself. If President Bush has "mapped a possible way out of this difficult bind," that would negate the claim that Bush's record on North Korea is "not good."

[wildbill]

I read your post with tears in my eyes. It looked like The WAPOST was favorable to Bush on North Korea and "dissed" Kerry

While the WAPOST editorial was surprisingly even-handed, your post only provided the snippets most favorable to Bush.

Before everyone starts thinking the WAPOST has seen the light they better read the whole thing. Still, on the whole, I thought it supported the Bush position in the end as opposed to Kerry. And that's a major achievement for a Republican administration.

[Dick Holmes]

While the WAPOST editorial was surprisingly even-handed, your post only provided the snippets most favorable to Bush.

Yeah, I had to chop it up quite a bit to make it fit the 100 word exerpt limit. I just thought it was good the piece ended on that note: sKerry's partisan hack attack.