Mr. Bush’s Nuclear Legacy

NY Times ^ | 9/2/2006 | Some NY Times Weenie

[dirtboy]

Unless something changes soon, by the end of President Bush’s second term North Korea will have produced enough plutonium for 10 or more nuclear weapons while Iran’s scientists will be close to mastering the skills needed to build their own.

That’s quite a legacy for a president sworn to keep the world’s most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the world’s most dangerous regimes.

Even if the United States were not tied down in Iraq, military action would be a disaster. Besides, American analysts don’t know where North Korea has stashed its plutonium nor what technology Iran might have hidden. Its huge centrifuge plant at Natanz is still nearly empty, and the more threatened Iran feels, the more reason it has to hide its program.

[dirtboy]

"The only approach with even the remotest chance of success is to persuade these regimes that they do not need nuclear weapons to ensure their survival, and that there will be real rewards for good behavior. "

Yeah, that worked so well when the Clintonistas tried it. Gee, I wonder why THAT wasn't mentioned?

What a complete lurching mess of an editorial column.

[Dog]

Memo to the Times:

Listen you fishwrap...it's PRESIDENT BUSH!

[bmwcyle]

The Commies in our bomb program and later Bill Clinton hands nukes secrets over to Russia and China and now it is Bush's fault.

[M Kehoe]

I guess this "NY Times Weenie" was on Mars during clinton's administration.

5.56mm

[Pitmaster]

When I see the NYSlimes listed I don't even read it anymore.

[sam_paine]

Luckily, the NYT registration page keeps me from seeing more of the article.

Let's try some alternate editing.

Even if the United States were not tied down in Iraq, military action would be a disaster. Besides, American analysts don’t know where North Korea has stashed its plutonium nor what technology Iran might have hidden.

With bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, and missile defense initially operational in Alaska, the remainder of Pres. Bush's 'Axis of Evil' is more limited in its options for threatening the west than just a few years ago. Meanwhile, the Patriot Act and the removal of the Clinton "intelligence gathering wall" between the CIA and FBI, along with NSA wiretapping programs has improved the chances of the US detecting the whereabouts of these rogue programs.

[sam_paine]

When the NYT shut down the "bugmenot.com" registration work-around, I stopped reading their drivel. Much better now.

[backhoe]

My tagline is far closer to the truth-

[JasonC]

They aren't interested in good behavior and they don't want your stinking "rewards".

Somebody needs to go to every democrat leader today and ask them point blank what they would do this instant about Iran.

They can't say "diplomacy" because it is exactly what Bush is doing and it is visibly failing completely, due purely to Iranian belligerence, since they know it is weakness pure and simple.

They can't say "leave it alone", pretend it is all scaremongering got up by Bush Rove and company, because that is patently false and would also saddle them with blame when it all predictably blows up.

The only reasonable position is far to the hawkish side of Bush - but they can't possibly call for greater hawkishness of any kind, let alone admit that Bush is acting with excessive restraint.

They are utterly useless and they have nothing to offer or say.

[Erik Latranyi]

Somebody needs to go to every democrat leader today and ask them point blank what they would do this instant about Iran.

They would say that we need to work with the United Nations and our allies (what's left of them after Bush) in order to offer Iran such great things that they will stop their nuclear enrichment program.

Liberals always have some insane rationale to avoid using military power. Asking them is pointless.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

From the newspaper that, I'm sure, celebrated Jimmy Carter and Madelaine Half-Bright's deal with North Korea as "peace in our times!". The same paper that defended Bubba Clinton's 8 years of ignorance and malfeasance as the terrorists around the globe took refuge, built up their recruiting drives, trained out in the open, and prepared for the great war to come. Simple amazing.

[dennisw]

My real thoughts on this pompous swill disguised as an editorial are- The gays and bed wetters who run the NEW York Times couldn't do one hundredth as good as Pres. Bush if they ran this country. Same applies to the cowards who run the Democrat party.

This effin' rag has betrayed state secrets (NSA data sifting) and hounded the GWBush administration for three years on the Plame debacle. When will these rats apologize for any of this? My fervent prayer is that a few NY Times wise guys (reporters) are clapped into prison for treason along with editors in chief who vetted them

[JasonC]

But we just did that. And Iran said no.

Come on people, this writes itself. Embarassing silly people who want power and pretend to be responsible is great sport, and a child of 10 could do it in his sleep with these clowns. If we are all going to go to a nightmare world of nuclear terrorism, at least let's get a few laughs out of the transition.

[ClaireSolt]

I thought these dems were mostly lawyers. Why do thry always blame the wrong person? We elected Bush to govern America, not the world and N Korean policies are not his legacy.

[Shady]

the NYT is irrelevant.

[Nathan Zachary]

So, is the NYT's saying Bush should bomb North Korea, acting without the approval of the international community?

Besides, they'll just turn around and say "Bush lied", and used falsified information. After that, all the lefties will scream how Kim dong il. was a swell guy, all his people loved him and it isn't our business how he runs his country.

Personally, I think we should blast N. Korea into wasteland and then give Iran 5 days to gather up all their centrifuges, pile them up in their nuclear facilities parking lot for destruction, or we'll destroy them where they are. While we are waiting for those 5 days to pass, turn Syria into a parking lot to show them we aren't kidding. Bush shouldn't worry that this kind of action might be unpopular. He isn't running for re-election anyways, and he shouldn't care if it costs a few cowardly Rino's re-election.

[Pete98]

Yeah it's Bush's fault, right. It's a little tough to conduct credible diplomacy when half your government is constantly undermining the other half.

How can Bush go to a rogue regime and threaten them with "serious consequences" for doing anything, when the dem party has established that it will fight, kick, scream and block anything he does? And if he actually does get anything accomplished, they'll hold hearings to try and prosecute him for it. And if they can't do THAT, they'll try him in the media and present him to the world as a criminal fascist.

The dems have been effectively telling the world's dictators, "Go ahead, do whatever you want, don't worry about Bush. We'll keep him in check while you go about your business of killing or whatever."

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

Appeasement by another name. We could talk to Kim until we were blue in the face and not stop him from getting nukes. Nukes are what he wanted, just like the Iranians.

[conservativecorner]

I can't figure why they are fingering President Bush on this issue because he's following the wildly successful Clinton doctrine with N. Korea including building them reactors that we don't find objectionable. END SARCASM!

[HawaiianGecko]

Democrats have begun a desperate-yet-predictable effort to blame North Korea's nuclear aspirations on President George W. Bush's strident rhetoric.  Despite their leftist cant, they seem remarkably uninterested in the "root causes" of Pyongyang's current nuclear brinksmanship: Bill Clinton's eight years of appeasement and the gullible cordiality of the South Korean government.

Under the final terms of the Agreed Framework approved in October of 1994, Clinton agreed to provide the "Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea" (DPRK) with two light water nuclear reactors and a massive allotment of oil.  The U.S. agreed to ship 500,000 metric tons of oil annually in response to the North's pretense that the energy-starved backwater had developed the nuclear facility to generate power.  These shipments have cost taxpayers more than $800 million to date - a bargain compared with the $6 billion spent on constructing the nuclear reactors, which now empower North Korea to produce 100 nuclear bombs each year.

Read more at: Appeasing North Korea: The Clinton Legacy Written January 3, 2003...

Isn't it odd that the NYTimes titled their article Mr. Bush's Legacy.