Posted on 07/09/2006 5:06:16 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
Richardson to Japan: "Drop dead."
That 's the same article by Larry Kudlow I quoted in my above post #15.
Funny, anita
I wondered if you had seen that Kudlow article, when I replied to you.
Not only had you seen it, you had already linked it on this thread!!!
Robert Gallucci (former negotiator to giving NK nuke technology): It's not so bad to have bad healines if you get on the right course.
Ashton Carter: Six party talks aren't so bad. Reason to have everyone at the table is so everyone has a stake in the outcome. We don't trade with NK or recognize them diplomatically. There's almost nothing we can do short of military action we can do and we're capable of it. It makes sense to have 6 party talks but agree with colleagues that nothing has been produced so far but a quadrupling of nuke technology. There's a lot of blame to go around. The Chinese and S. Koreans haven't done everything they can. They've been unwilling to deal. On our side, it matters less who is at the table than that we have our own wits about us and we're divided about the 6 party talks.
One camp believes we have to give the 6 party talks a try. Another camp believes that negotiating with NK is immoral. I think it's more immoral to let them go nuclear.
Good Morning and as always thanks for the thread
Clintonistias are taking tough on N Korea.
[They are wanting to make it appear they are hardliners as the election approaches. Which future candidate does this help? Do we need 3 guesses?]
I will be freeping and watching Wimbledon today
Didn't he conducted some secret negotiations with NK sometime ago in New Mexico as if he was ruling & MSM was alerting constantly? I am not sure why MSM (Fox included) give him such prominence for such empty vessel?
It tends to clash with sport in Britain so the sport wins every time.
No problem, maica. These things need to be repeated & reminded again & again as MSM ignore such good news.
Absolutely
Tim: You advocated a preemptive strike on missile. Many said that could trigger war against S Korea or Japan. Do you stand by that statement?
Carter: I do. If NK goes to launch pad and prepare to launch missile, we should destroy it before they launch. It would be limited military action. The NK's aren't going to start a war in response to that. For those who think it's too much, where do you draw the line in the sand with NK? Bill Perry and I thought about this long and hard and think it's relatively non-provacative. There's a risk in inaction and letting them go nuclear.
Tim: How would NK react if we took out test missiles.
Richardson: I respsectfully disagree with Carter, but at least he has a new idea which the administration doesn't have. The fact is, you risk the N Koreans shooting missiles at S Korea. You could have face to face talks and also continue six party talks.
Tim: You've been there 5 times and yet you said you didn't think they were going to test.
Richardson: No, no Tim. I said they weren't going to test.
Tim: You said they weren't going to test.
Richardson: But earlier, on CBS, I said they would. NK doesn't believe in compromise. They think their cause is right and are unpredictable. We showed by direct engagement in the Clinton administration that it's the only way to deal with them.
Carter got an agreement with them that was later violated. We dealt with them directly.
Tim: But do they keep their word? Albright iwth Kim in 2000 and this was our exchange:
Albright: Kim didn't develop a nuclear bomb under the Clinton administration.
Tim: You negotiated that agreement and we later found out that they were making uranium.
Gallucci: Not actually. We stopped their program. The deal was that NK ended their nuclear program. We think they ended the agreement in the late 90'/s, but we don't know a lot about that. (HUH?) They absolutely cheated. There was a nuke weapon program that was stopped and afterwards, that agreement was allowed to collapse. (All Bush's fault, naturally).
One camp believes we have to give the 6 party talks a try. Another camp believes that negotiating with NK is immoral. I think it's more immoral to let them go nuclear.
######
That was a great comment!
MTP
Russert catches Richardson in a lie:
Russert says Richardson previously said he (Richardson) didn't think NK would actually shoot their missiles.
Richardson contradicts and says he didn't say that.
Russert quotes him as saying it.
Richardson responds that he may have said it but previously said they would shoot them --- on CBS.
lol
Richardson was flipflopping like a Kerry.
Gallucci: With each passing day, we're going to find ourselves closer than we were before when that material can be transferred or sold to AQ. (Well no kidding. All thanks to Clinton)
Tim: But we'd know the return address.
Gallucci: It doesn't work very well when an enemy values your death more than his own.
Dr. Mike, I had to do a double-take there. Did you say he AGREES with President Bush's policies????
Gallucci: Albright had it essentially correct. We had some transparency (LOL).
You might make another deal. You should. You don't ask have they fooled us before and will do it again. (Really? This guy is an idiot and has contradicted himself several times.)
Tim: I'm showing clips of Clinton and Bush talking to the N Koreans.
Clinton: We have to be firm about NK developing nukes.
Bush: W e don't tolerate nukes in NK.
Tim: If you're a North Korean watching that, what are you thinking?
Carter: I think they're thinking we have to give new meaning to the word intolerable. It's possible to reach agreements that serve our interests.
A little question, rhetorical style --
How could we both instantly recall what Kudlow wrote yesterday, and Russert not want to acknowledge it? Larry has a show on CNBC - which is connected to the NBC empire.
The DBM has been lying extraordinarily comprehensively about the American economy for years.
In the book The Real Jimmy Carter, there is a lot of paper devoted to how Carter undermined the Clinton administration in the North Korea matter and we now find ourselves facing a nuclear armed North Korea as a direct result of Carter's intervention and Clinton's inattention to the matter.
Carter personally dropped demands that UN inspections resume and that N. Korea surrender its fuel rods. Kim agreed to Carter's proposal, naturally. In addition, Carter never mentioned Kim's human rights violations in the last century. It's an astounding section of the book and condemns Carter in the strongest words possible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.