Remember Having a Democrat President?

[Helmetcase]

So why would you be surprised that not much has changed for the bottom 90% when the remaining 10% pay 65.84% of taxes and the bottom 50% pay almost nothing?

That's not really what surprises me (though when you consider that the middle forty percent I was talking about pays the other 35% of taxes, and that that represents about 120mil Americans, the fact THAT portion hasn't seen their taxes move up or down IS relevant). What surprises me is that even though 9 in 10 Americans pay the same taxes regardless of who is in office that they buy into the tax cutting rhetorical nonsense. For most of us, it really doesn't matter either way who's president--your taxes are gonna be the same until we spend a lot less.

By the way, regarding North Korea, I am interested in hearing what specific actions of the Bush administration diplomacy you regard as critical to what you perceive as failure

Funny, I asked you guys the same thing about Clinton--what specifically do you think he did wrong? So far, other than ajax's humorously incorrect assertion that we just bought them some nuclear weapons, I haven't heard much in response.

My specific actions re: things W should have done differently are that he abandoned a policy that, while not perfect, was achieving containment of the threat. Instead of continuing the Agreed Framework, he went to rhetorical guns on NK, started rattling an empty sabre at them, and disengaged completely.

I am also curious that since the North Koreans acknowledged they were building nuclear weapons in October 2002, why you hold Bush responsible? Do you feel it reasonable to assume the North Koreans spun up the weapons program suspended under the Clinton administration from a cold start to actual production of nuclear weapons in 22 months?

I've been pretty clear here, and the record is clear--they've had the capabilities to work on nuclear materials since the Reagan administration. I'm not aware of any competent analysis that indicates they had to go from cold start to actual production in only 22 months. The only piece of the puzzle that changed was the production of fissile materials. Did you read the ISIS link I provided yet? They made it clear that, yes, in 2003 they started reprocessing the 8000 rods left over from before the Agreed Framework. They already had the materials in place, they simply started reprocessing them when our policy changed and become more openly hostile to their regime. Don't like it? Take it up with ISIS, but between them and you I know which one I find more credible on the subject.

Finally, how do you reconcile the 2002 admission by the North Koreans that they had traded advanced missile technology to Pakistan in exchange for enriched uranium around 1997 with your blame on this administration?

They clearly were pursuing uranium as an end-around to the Agreed Framework (since they couldn't refine their plutonium under the agreement). Pakistan isn't a signatory to the NPT, so I'm not sure what we could have done about this short of attacking them--from the Pakistani POV, they're pursuing their own interest against India.

Don't conflate the two--the point is that they restarted their plutonium weaponization under the current administration, and nothing has been done about it. Yeah, they pursued some enriched uranium, but I believe one of the Arms Control Association links I posted discussed them doing this as an end-around on the Agreed Framework. EDIT: Yeah, they did mention it, and also that when we learned about their little deal with Pakistan, we slapped them with additional sanctions and told them to knock it off. Point for me. We knew about that as far back as 1997, but only in limited detail. Tricky little bastids, aren't they? More on this here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke-uranium.htm

Seems they were buying centrifuges for refining the uranium itself, actually. Possibly material, but in any event, most likely the technology. Not sure why this means I can't point out that they restarted their plutonium efforts under W and not Clinton.

According to senior US officials, equipment Pakistan exported to North Korea may have included gas centrifuges used in creating weapons-grade uranium. The the shipment took place as part of a barter deal between the two countries in the late 1990s. In return, North Korea provided Pakistan with medium-range ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Russia and China are also said to have supplied equipment for the North Korean secret nuclear weapons program.

North Korea secretly supplied Libya with almost two tons of uranium in early 2001. Libya turned over a large quantity of uranium hexafluoride to the United States in early 2004, as part of an agreement to give up its nuclear program. US officials initially identified Pakistan as the likely source of the material. The uranium amounted to 1.7 metric tons (or 1.87 American tons) of uranium hexafluoride, the standard feed stock for centrifuges. The uranium was slightly enriched to about 1 percent U-235, above the 0.7 percent concentration in natural uranium. Libya could have enriched the urainium to make one small atomic bomb.

Pakistan's assistance to North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program may have continued through the summer of 2002. What was termed "highly suspicious shipping trade" indicated that Pakistan continued to trade nuclear technical knowledge, designs and possibly material in exchange for missile parts.

Evidence continued to accumulate, to the point that by August 2002 year administration officials felt the case was compelling enough to be grounds for cutting off talks aimed at improving relations with the isolated state. Prompted by North Korean attempts to acquire quantities of high-strength aluminum from a source in Russia, US officials decided to confront the North Koreans about the state of their program. Assistant Secretary of State James A, Kelly took the evidence to Pyongyang, the North Korean capital. After initially denying the program, the North Koreans admitted to developing the program in direct violation of the ’94 accord....


...As of late 2002 the uranium enrichment program was believed to be at least two years away from generating enough material for even a single weapon, that is, sometime during 2004. Some sources claimed at that time that North Korean may possess up to 2,000 to 3,000 centrifuges and was already enriching uranium. US intelligence agencies were reported to have evidence that North Korea obtained at least some gas centrifuges from Pakistan, and was trying to acquire large amounts of high-strength aluminum to make more gas centrifuges from Japan.

 

[ajax]

My appologize Helmetcase maybe money wasn't the right wording. I'll use Carters words instead. We will give them aid to help build more modern nuclear reactors. Thats better than money.

 

[Helmetcase]

Eh, I was just bustin yer stones. Point taken.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I was talking about pays the other 35% of taxes, and that that represents about 120mil Americans, the fact THAT portion hasn't seen their taxes move up or down IS relevant)

Actually, they have seen their taxes move down, at least on the Federal level. Of course, many of them just saw their state governments increase taxes accordingly, so not much change. But I would agree we would need to see some major spending cuts before the middle class notices a big decrease in the amount of tax they pay.

Instead of continuing the Agreed Framework, he went to rhetorical guns on NK, started rattling an empty sabre at them, and disengaged completely.

We broke off the Agreed Framework after North Korea:

1) Admitted trading missile technology to Pakistan for enriched uranium
2) Admitted it had developed nuclear weapons
3) Claimed this didn't violate the Agreed Framework because they used enriched uranium instead of plutonium.

Even AFTER this, we continued to honor the Agreed Framework for an additional two months, only suspending shipments of fuel oil in December 2002 when North Korea basically told us to get bent. Exactly how do you propose "softly softly catchee monkey" to be an effective diplomatic strategy under these conditions?

And rattling an empty sabre? Are you sitting next to a bottomless bit of hyperbole or something? Look at North Korea's past historical actions - things like invading their neighbors, landing mini-subs in South Korea and Japan, kidnapping citizens of other countries, launching mini-raids on South Korea, attacking Japanese and South Korean fishing boats in international waters, shooting across the DMZ at U.S. troops, ax-murdering UN laborers trimming the brush back in the DMZ... these guys said "Yes, we blew off the agreement and developed nukes anyway, what are you going to do about it?" I think stepping back from your previous course of action is probably warranted under those circumstances.

I find your characterization of the Bush administration's decision to suspend future work on the light water reactor and stop fuel oil shipments as "disengaging completely" to be a bit off the mark. I think it makes perfect sense not to build a nuclear reactor for the guy who just admitted he broke your last treaty and pursued nuclear weapons anyway. The administration has continued the Six-Party talks and does engage in diplomacy with North Korea, although perhaps not at the same level as the previous administration.

Did you read the ISIS link I provided yet? They made it clear that, yes, in 2003 they started reprocessing the 8000 rods left over from before the Agreed Framework.

I notice your claims of clarity have a certain vagueness to them. Did you read the ISIS link I provided yet? It says the same thing; but much like your tax argument, you are shining the light on just one part of the information. The North Koreans already possessed the fissile material. They were building nuclear weapons as they declared in 2002. So your big complaint is that the Bush administration was unable to stop them from reprocessing the fissile material they obtained during the Clinton administration into more weapons after they ignored the treaty they made not to do that?

They already had the materials in place, they simply started reprocessing them when our policy changed and become more openly hostile to their regime.

And why did our policy become more hostile? Because they admitted building nuclear weapons in violation of the treaty! Are you suggesting that in October 2002, when they admitted violating the agreement and building nuclear weapons we should have become more friendly towards their regime?

Not sure why this means I can't point out that they restarted their plutonium efforts under W and not Clinton

You can point it out all you like. I just don't see why you consider it material that they build their bombs with plutonium instead of enriched uranium or why you blame the Bush administration for plutonium that North Korea acquired in 1993. You seem to be suggesting that if the Bush administration wasn't so mean, North Korea would have been content to simply continue enriching uranium for their weapons program. Is that really a desirable alternative in your view? I get the impression from your comments you favor Lord Chamberlain's strategy of feeding the alligator feet-first in hopes of some deus-ex-machina saving you before he gets to something vital.

Funny, I asked you guys the same thing about Clinton--what specifically do you think he did wrong?

I think he was remarkably naive in dealing with North Korea. I think by providing them fuel oil and assistance with a light water reactor, he relieved a lot of internal pressure on the government. It is a complex issue with no easy answers; but I am baffled that some seem to think that continuing to play along with a nation that had just blatantly violated the primary purpose of the last deal you made with them (and was actively seeking an aggressive weapon they had told you they would not pursue) was such an obvious choice that anyone who wouldn't pursue that line of diplomacy is clearly wrong.

 

[ajax]

It's to bad that when we vote that there isn't a choice on the ballot that says "I have no confidence in either candidate so I choose not to choose until a viable choice is produced by someone thank you very much" It would be interesting to see how many people are tired of both parties.

 

[Sindawe]

Actually, they have seen their taxes move down, at least on the Federal level.

Yep, they sure have. I have great data that supports this. My salary has been unchanged for the past five years, and I've made no changes to the amounts withheld from each paycheck. Since the "tax cuts", I have an additional $11.35 in each monthly paycheck. WOOOHOOOO! I can afford a sixer of good beer each month!

Oh yea, lets not forget the $300 check each American was issued a few years back.

 

[Helmetcase]

Actually, they have seen their taxes move down, at least on the Federal level. Of course, many of them just saw their state governments increase taxes accordingly, so not much change. But I would agree we would need to see some major spending cuts before the middle class notices a big decrease in the amount of tax they pay.

For that middle 40%, the downward movement has been slight; state taxes have gone up because much of the public service burden has been shifted to the states. You're still get soaked, just a different jerk soaking you.

We broke off the Agreed Framework after North Korea:

1) Admitted trading missile technology to Pakistan for enriched uranium
2) Admitted it had developed nuclear weapons
3) Claimed this didn't violate the Agreed Framework because they used enriched uranium instead of plutonium.

We knew about 1 as far back as 1997, when it happened. They were trading for centrifuges, not the uranium. 2) We've known about since Reagan, really--you really need to brush up on the timeline. They've had various elements of a nuke program for a long time, that doesn't mean the AF wasn't working. 3) Already addressed, and we slapped them for thinking they'd get away with that. They certainly didn't test or produce any nuclear bombs in that period, did they? Why is it so hard to believe that once we figured their little ploy out, we couldn't just use THE SAME DAMN TACTICS that brought them to the negotiation table in the first place? All we had to do was sanction them and threaten to delay the light water reactor, same as we did with the plutonium, and we'd have been in business.

The point remains--they did NOT produce fissile materials during the Agreed Framework era. Even if you're justified in defending our abandonment of the AF, is there any indication that THAT was a good policy? Better than the AF? How could it be? They just tested a nuke! Apparently it didn't work, did it? Since we abandoned the AF, they restarted their reactor and detonated a nuke. Whatever weaknesses the AF had, the subsequent policy is worse. It's producing worse results, and a crisis instead of containment.

Even AFTER this, we continued to honor the Agreed Framework for an additional two months, only suspending shipments of fuel oil in December 2002 when North Korea basically told us to get bent. Exactly how do you propose "softly softly catchee monkey" to be an effective diplomatic strategy under these conditions?

You're putting the cart before the horse--they told us to get bent because we abandoned the framework. Colin Powell publicly stated our intention to continue BC's policy, but later had to amend his statement after W's 3/7/2001 statement that we were changing course--he basically said until they gave us everything we wanted, we weren't going to talk to them anymore. They didn't restart their reactor until April of 2003. The same time they withdrew from the NPT, as you'll recall.

You're really not well versed on the basic timeline here, man. Until you are, I really am not sure where we're going to get debating this, but oh well...

And rattling an empty sabre? Are you sitting next to a bottomless bit of hyperbole or something?

Uhm...I really get the impression you don't know what the expression "sabre rattling" means. It means we're offering an implicit threat of military force--something that the NKs probably aren't all that intimidated by, given our already stretched thin by Afghanistan and Iraq military and it's current committments. In short, I was saying that they're probably not thinking we're about to invade them or attack them. All that stuff you posted after that seemed to suggest you thought I was saying the NKs were nice people. Uhm...ok. Moving on.

these guys said "Yes, we blew off the agreement and developed nukes anyway, what are you going to do about it?" I think stepping back from your previous course of action is probably warranted under those circumstances.

Wrong again.

They tried an end around on the agreement, but got slapped for it. They didn't actually develop any bombs or react any materials in that time period. They did admit to having the rudimentary elements of such a program--and why is it that they'd want to flaunt it? To respond to OUR increasingly hostile posture to them, calling them Axis of Evil, etc.

I find your characterization of the Bush administration's decision to suspend future work on the light water reactor and stop fuel oil shipments as "disengaging completely" to be a bit off the mark.

I'm not surprised, because once again you're misunderstanding--by disengaged, I meant "we quit talking to them". See above statement by W. We simply refused to negotiate or discuss anything with them. We removed any and all carrots, and went back to the stick...but the stick simply didn't frighten them, and with good reason.

I think it makes perfect sense not to build a nuclear reactor for the guy who just admitted he broke your last treaty and pursued nuclear weapons anyway. The administration has continued the Six-Party talks and does engage in diplomacy with North Korea, although perhaps not at the same level as the previous administration.

Yeah, cause that worked out great.

It would have made more sense to threaten sanctions and delays in the reactor project, and made it public knowledge you'd slapped them for their little end-around effort. Diplomacy? We don't have any real diplomatic recognition of them at all--essentially our stance is "give us everything we want up front and then we can talk." That's not negotiation. That's not an effective policy position (obviously, eh?) It's not because we don't hold as many cards as you think we do. You're dreaming.

I notice your claims of clarity have a certain vagueness to them.

What the HECK is vague about that? It couldn't be any more clear: they reprocessed pre-AF plutonium rods they'd had in their reactor from before 1994 only AFTER we abandoned the AF--in April of 2003.

And it's not my claim--it's well established fact.

The North Koreans already possessed the fissile material.

Nice effort at backpedaling--I already pointed that out to YOU and showed you where you were misrepresenting that very fact.

They were building nuclear weapons as they declared in 2002. So your big complaint is that the Bush administration was unable to stop them from reprocessing the fissile material they obtained during the Clinton administration into more weapons after they ignored the treaty they made not to do that?

Do you really think if you keep repeating the same erroneous information enough times it'll become true? You keep saying the same factually incorrect things, and it makes for a less than persuasive argument.

FACT--they did NOT acquire fissile materials under the Clinton AF regime. Nor did they build any bombs.

My big complaint is that W used their end-around efforts to justify moving our position to "screw you, no talks until you give us what we want, or we'll bomb you anyway." To which NK responded by restarting their reactor and THEN producing fissile materials and bombs.

And why did our policy become more hostile? Because they admitted building nuclear weapons in violation of the treaty!

No, they admitted having a covert uranium enrichment program (something we'd already suspected they did, and had threatened them about). The increased hostility in our posture backed them into a corner--as we prepared to go to war against another Axis of Evil nation! No wonder they got busy AFTER that.

Are you suggesting that in October 2002, when they admitted violating the agreement and building nuclear weapons we should have become more friendly towards their regime?

No, I'm suggesting that we should have continued the AF, threatened them with sanctions and a suspension of the light water reactor, not adopted our current belligerent stance that only goaded them to restart their plutonium program.

You can point it out all you like. I just don't see why you consider it material that they build their bombs with plutonium instead of enriched uranium or why you blame the Bush administration for plutonium that North Korea acquired in 1993.

Because this is simple, simple enough that I can only figure your obtuse partisan desire to defend W is clouding your judgment.

FACT: Under Clinton, they didn't enrich said plutonium. FACT: Under W, they did.

Yeah, they already had it in the 90s, but they'd had it since REAGAN. They stopped weaponizing it when we implicitly recognized their sovereignty and negotiated for something else they needed--power production capability.

You seem to be suggesting that if the Bush administration wasn't so mean, North Korea would have been content to simply continue enriching uranium for their weapons program.

That's not what I'm saying at all, I've been pretty clear, but I'll spell it out for you once more since it isn't sinking in: I'm saying that our carrot and stick approach was more effective at getting them to not weaponize fissile materials than our current approach.

The facts support that case. Once more--under the AF, no enrichment. No bombs built. Since then--the opposite.

It's not that W was mean--it's that he abandoned a program that was working. All we had to do when we saw their little uranium ploy was continue negotiating with them, threaten to sanction them, and withhold the light water reactor, and there's no reason to think they wouldn't have gotten in line. Those measures got them to quit the plutonium program, no reason to think they wouldn't have canned the uranium program as well if we'd responded appropriately.

I think he was remarkably naive in dealing with North Korea.

Well, it worked--they knocked it off!

I think by providing them fuel oil and assistance with a light water reactor, he relieved a lot of internal pressure on the government.

What's naive about that? They need power, we gave them a carrot that would help them generate it. In return, we got what we wanted.

Naive is thinking that by pulling away from negotiations entirely, throwing a tantrum, and threatening them that we're gonna get anywhere or stop them from developing nukes. And guess what? That's just what happened. Under W's watch!

This is what I don't get--even if you point out a flaw in Clinton's policy, W's is that much worse by comparison!

It is a complex issue with no easy answers; but I am baffled that some seem to think that continuing to play along with a nation that had just blatantly violated the primary purpose of the last deal you made with them

The purpose was to get them to not weaponize fissile materials--and it worked. They tried an end-around, but we could have nixed that as well by the same framework.

You have to play along--if you don't, you put them in a corner and then they WILL weaponize nukes so they can have a chip in the big game.

You have two alternatives, neither of them great, but one clearly better than the other. By not "continuing to play along" we goaded them into restarting their reactor and making them feel they had to go nuclear so that we wouldn't pull an Iraq on them.

Look, even if they were trying to sneak around Clinton's policy...W's policy certainly didn't work. And W is the POTUS, not Clinton--so let's look at what the actual guy sitting in the Oval Office is doing to fix the situation: not much. He screwed the pooch bigtime.

 

[Tommygunn]

Quote:
I think it's a tad irrelevant whether NK produced NO plutonium under Clinton and produced it under Bush.

Actually, no, it isn't. It's exactly the damn point of all this. Fissile material for powering the bombs is kinda the point here. I assume I don't have to explain how nukes work? I'm not a physicist, but I did stay on a lumpy mattress at a Holiday Inn last night. Terrible room service.

I'm fairly well versed on nukes; but you completly missed my point. That was that the Norks always intended to build nukes and neither Clinton nor Bush was able -- or would be able to -- stop them short of obliterating their country.

:
THEY ALWAYS INTENDED TO ACQUIRE NUKES. IT NEVER MADE MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE WHO WAS THE PRESIDENT.

Sure, in their heart of hearts they want them, but why? They want them so A) they won't get the same treatment as Iraq did (and they're right in this regard), and B) so we'll treat them as a legit, sovereign power. Because we did engage them as a legitimate sovereign entity under Clinton instead of insulting and threatening them, because we actually negotiated with them we largely got what we wanted--them to not produce plutonium that was weapons grade. Yeah, they were going to maintain the capability, but they also submitted to international inspections to make sure they weren't actually doing so.

Then we went all macho on them, and forced them into a corner. Now they're testing weapons.

Awwww, we went all "macho." THAT'S why other countries do what they do--only as a response to us. They never ever do ANYTHING because of thir own, internal motivations.

Whining "under Clinton they produced NO fissile material, and under W they've gone hog wild with it" is like complaining that you tripped before you hit the ground.

What a crappy analogy. I'm not even sure what the heck that's supposed to mean. The point is to get them to not(sic) produce fissile materials for bombs. They did that under Clinton. They reversed course under W. He did nothing about it.

It's a pretty fair analogy. You just don't like it because you only believe the Norks do things IN RESPONSE to something we do. And by the way, Bush did not reverse course. Both Clinton and Bush did not want the Norks to get nukes. Clinton pursued a "one on one" approach, and it failed. Bush saw that method failed and decided to pursue a different strategy -- which also failed. It's untrue that Bush "did nothing about it."
If you really want to criticize Bush you need to get a better grip on reality and the facts. There's plenty there to criticize but you're firing blanks.

 

[Art Eatman]

Folks want to talk about the booming economy of the Clinton years as sort of a "Clinton done good?" Okay. How about this liittle "bit": By the late 1990s, over half of all U.S. households had some amount of involvement in the stock market. During 2000, Nasdaq stocks lost some $8 trillion in value. That's a pretty good-sized hickey, seems to me. He done us good?

Once again: One's views about firearms laws reflect one's views about personal sovereignty. They're an indicator of one's views on the way government should operate and one's priorities of governmental actions.

That's my opinion, FWIW. So, I'll vote for a candidate who's not really a good guy on the gun issue before I'll vote for anybody who's an active proponent of more restrictions on firearms or whose party--the party loyalty vote thing--proposes more restrictions.

So far, that means I won't vote Democrat. I don't want Democrats as Committee Chairs. At this time, the seniority of both House and Senate Democrats lies with people who have been actively anti-gun throughout their careers. Seniority determines who chairs a committee, and that's beaucoup power.

Economic issues? Hey, the economy has been going up and down throughout my 72-year lifetime. By and large, there has been a little help from some policies, and a little harm from others, but the idea that any one Party or President makes all that much difference is a pipedream. Eventually, Keynesian ideas and fiddling the interest rates can wreck any system. The larger the system, the longer it takes. Governmental economic policies have been more of an impediment than a benefit, these last hundred years. We got "great big" in spite of policies, not because of them.

Art

 

[Sam Adams]

Yeah, I remember - and the memories aren't pleasant. Bush may be (and IS, IMHO) far less than ideal on the gun issue, but politics isn't about getting every single thing you want - its about getting most of what you'd like, and stopping the people on the other side from creating a disaster.

My attitude is to vote for the person you REALLY want in the primaries, and then against the person you'd least like to see in power in general election.

 

[ozwyn]

If we are stuck with the inevitability of only have 2 parties who can win elections, then we need massive pro-gun protests crashing the conventions of both parties.

I am thinking we are going about this the wrong way all these years.

put 10K+ people in each city during their conventions and both parties will turn around and make the anti-gun crowd the freakish minority among candidates.

it is one thing to fund lots of groups. what we need is a lot of shoe leather and picket signs in the streets. when was the last time a hundred thousand of the 60 million gun owners martched into DC (with signs) asking for their rights back?

Then we can pick our candidates on other issues and not spend as much time owrrying about the 2nd amendment.

 

[Helmetcase]

Ozwyn gets the gold star for today.

I'm in. Wanna help me get it organized?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Why is it so hard to believe that once we figured their little ploy out, we couldn't just use THE SAME DAMN TACTICS that brought them to the negotiation table in the first place? All we had to do was sanction them and threaten to delay the light water reactor, same as we did with the plutonium, and we'd have been in business.

So the proper response to a man waving a gun around is to give him what he wants eh? Maybe we should have been more generous and given them a nuclear weapon? Then they wouldn't have produced any fissile material at all and that particular point seems to concern you more than the end result.

The point remains--they did NOT produce fissile materials during the Agreed Framework era.

Didn't you just provide a link saying that they obtained centrifuges for the purposes of enriching uranium in 1997? Are you suggesting they just socked those away for a rainy day?

I also note you have changed from arguing that no fissile material was produced during the Clinton era to saying that no fissile material was produced during the "Agreed Framewrok" era. Is this because you find North Korea obtaining plutonium in 1993 an inconvenient fact in your analysis?

Let's analyze the argument:

1) North Korea obtains 56kg of plutonium in 1993 (page 6) and threatens to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (which concerns only weapons); but claims it needs nuclear energy for its population.
2) The Clinton administration offers to build them a light water reactor and provide fuel oil if they stop reprocessing the plutonium they acquired for weapons use.
3) The North Koreans agree to stop reprocessing plutonium and within a few years begin to enrich uranium for weapons use instead.
4) This enrichment program continued until at least 2001 (as an added ironic twist, the link blames the restart of the uranium enrichment program in February 2000 on Clinton's decision to not certify DPRK as "not pursuing uranium enrichment" - the very same "We should be more appeasing" argument you are making with regards to Bush)
5. In 2002, we ask them about the uranium enrichment and they say "Sure we are making enriched uranium which we don't need for the reactors you are building for us or for any justifiable energy need, where is our fuel oil?"

So I guess I miss the part where having them enrich uranium instead of reprocess plutonium was a great diplomatic leap forward...

Even if you're justified in defending our abandonment of the AF, is there any indication that THAT was a good policy? Better than the AF? How could it be? They just tested a nuke! Apparently it didn't work, did it?

Well I think basic common sense would suggest that AF wasn't working. Was the change a good one? Your own links state that even under AF they would have had enough enriched uranium for a nuke in 2004 (two years earlier than this test...hmmm). I think a good argument can be made either way - which is why the argument that abandoning AF was an obvious error strikes me a politically motivated opportunism that is not inspired by the best interests of the United States.

It's producing worse results, and a crisis instead of containment.

I guess I disagree that allowing them to process enriched uranium instead of plutonium constitutes containment or that they would have ceased that effort if only we had given them the Sudatenland.

You're putting the cart before the horse--they told us to get bent because we abandoned the framework. Colin Powell publicly stated our intention to continue BC's policy, but later had to amend his statement after W's 3/7/2001 statement that we were changing course--he basically said until they gave us everything we wanted, we weren't going to talk to them anymore.

Even AFTER 9/11, the Administration said it would resume dialogue with the North Koreans any time, any place. There were even scheduled bilateral talks between the U.S. and North Korea for Summer 2002 (same source). Those talks were cancelled after North Korea attacked South Korean naval vessels. So I don't know where you dug that "fact" up; but it isn't smelly dirt on that shovel you're holding.

By the way, if we weren't talking to them anymore after 3/7/2001, then how was it that Assistant Secretary of State James MFEMF was in Pyonggang in October 2002 to hear about the enriched uranium program? For someone who is accusing me of being foggy on the timeline, you seem to have a few problems yourself.

Uhm...I really get the impression you don't know what the expression "sabre rattling" means. It means we're offering an implicit threat of military force--something that the NKs probably aren't all that intimidated by, given our already stretched thin by Afghanistan and Iraq military and it's current committments.

How about a little continuity for argument's sake here? Weren't you just arguing a few posts earlier that the whole reason why Bush was wrong is that he scared them by invading Iraq and calling them an "Axis of Evil?" That they started developing nukes because they were so scared? Now you are saying they aren't intimidated at all by this talk...which is it?

In short, I was saying that they're probably not thinking we're about to invade them or attack them.

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing, or is there some logical consistency between this position and your earlier one that I am missing?

They tried an end around on the agreement, but got slapped for it.

Slapped so hard that a 2003 CIA report noted that in 2001 they were seeking centrifuges on a massive level. Check the previous link I offered from fas.org - there is evidence of uranium enrichment in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 mentioned there.

They didn't actually develop any bombs or react any materials in that time period. They did admit to having the rudimentary elements of such a program--and why is it that they'd want to flaunt it? To respond to OUR increasingly hostile posture to them, calling them Axis of Evil, etc.

And why would our posture be hostile? I mean it wasn't like they attacked the naval vessels of our allies or ignored both treaties and previous warnings (from your own links) and continued to enrich uranium. That ol' Bush is just plain mean... getting all hostile over a little thing like that.

I'm not surprised, because once again you're misunderstanding--by disengaged, I meant "we quit talking to them". See above statement by W. We simply refused to negotiate or discuss anything with them. We removed any and all carrots, and went back to the stick...but the stick simply didn't frighten them, and with good reason.

Again, more BS... In April 2003 a round of three-party talks was held in Beijing with China, the U.S. and DPRK present. Following that in August 2003, the first of the six party talks were held in Beijing including the previous members plus Japan, South Korea, and Russia. Further rounds of the Six-Party talks were held in February 2004 and January 2004. None of this includes about two different Congressional visits over the same time period (Source: fas.org North Korea Chronology pages 5-6)

And once again, you are arguing that they weren't frightened when just a few posts earlier, you argued that the whole nuclear program was because they were frightened from the "Axis of Evil" talk and Iraq. Which is it?

Nice effort at backpedaling--I already pointed that out to YOU and showed you where you were misrepresenting that very fact.

Well perhaps you didn't understand it or didn't bother to click on the link; but I actually provided that link to you in the response prior to you pointing out to me.

Quote:
They were building nuclear weapons as they declared in 2002. So your big complaint is that the Bush administration was unable to stop them from reprocessing the fissile material they obtained during [red]the Clinton administration[/red] into more weapons after they ignored the treaty they made not to do that?

Do you really think if you keep repeating the same erroneous information enough times it'll become true? You keep saying the same factually incorrect things, and it makes for a less than persuasive argument.

FACT--they did NOT acquire fissile materials under the Clinton AF regime. Nor did they build any bombs.

Do you really think that if you keep playing semantical games by changing your argument from "Clinton era" to "Clinton AF regime" I will just sit here and go "Gosh, he is right!"? If you don't understand the distinction between the two, then maybe now would be a good time to reread what I posted earlier and see why your fact isn't relevant to the fact you quoted.

My big complaint is that W used their end-around efforts to justify moving our position to "screw you, no talks until you give us what we want, or we'll bomb you anyway." To which NK responded by restarting their reactor and THEN producing fissile materials and bombs.

I think the timeline at fas.org (PDF) shows this statement of yours isn't supported by the events.

Quote:
And why did our policy become more hostile? Because they admitted building nuclear weapons in violation of the treaty!

No, they admitted having a covert uranium enrichment program (something we'd already suspected they did, and had threatened them about). The increased hostility in our posture backed them into a corner--as we prepared to go to war against another Axis of Evil nation! No wonder they got busy AFTER that.

So essentially, you wish to argue that having a covert uranium enrichment program when they had no peaceful use for enriched uranium isn't the same thing as building nuclear weapons? OK, it is a technical point; but you are certainly right that they aren't 100% equivalent. Now explain why it makes a practical difference.

<SNIP>
I cut a bunch of repetitive arguments here that I feel are adequately addressed earlier in this thread. Feel free to highlight anything you think I missed.

Summary of my points:
Enriched uranium is not an improvement over reprocessed plutonium.
However hard they were "slapped", DPRK continued to pursue enrichment.
Your characterization of the Bush Administrations diplomatic efforts is both unfair and factually incorrect.
Enrichment of uranium when you have no valid peaceful use for it counts as "building nuclear weapons" in my book unless you can show why that small distinction is important in a practical sense.
There are no easy choices here and plenty of smart people have been stumped by the situation - which is why anytime you see somebody running their yap about it authoritatively regarding either Clinton or Bush being to blame they are almost certainly politically partisan and/or poorly informed.

By the way, what is a "Progressive?" Isn't that just a euphemism for someone too ashamed to admit they are a liberal?

 

[Helmetcase]

Eh, I don't have the energy to rehash the whole thing, but if you read up on the subject you'll see that Bart is wrong about way more than he's right...and it appears that one of my posts in response to tommygun got zapped...so I'm thinking this may be in vain anyway...somebody apparently doesn't care for me debunking anti-Clinton claptrap. Look, I don't like the guy on guns either, but this "everything Clinton is bad, everything W is good" bullhuckey doesn't help the RKBA cause.

But no, uranium production != plutonium.

As you alluded to, you can't spin up from zero to weapons grade overnight. It would have taken them years, literally, to get a uranium program up and running from the time we busted them for doing it.

By way of contrast, they already had the damn plutonium in the reactors. It was easy for them to spin back up by comparison.

The question I asked tommy I'll ask you--why try the uranium end around when you could just do plutonium already in the reactor? Because they LIKED what the AF gave them, it gave them nuclear power and recognition as a sovereign power.

By contrast, our policy became belligerent, and they reacted predictably--by restarting the plutonium production that was much, much closer to actually producing a damn bomb.

The contortions you've gone through to ignore this are amusing. Why were they messing with uranium on the sly when they had plutonium close at hand?

Because the AF was in fact working. All we had to do was use the same carrot and stick and they'd have knocked it off.

 

[Dravur]

Sorry Cooked...

But the NRA chose the coalition it wants to win the elections. It realizes that even if they help a gun loving demo get into office, all they have done is give the Demo's power, the power to choose such things as chairmanships, and what measures, ie, the AWB to get out of committee. <how the heck does one spell committee> hehe.

The NRA and others in this country realize, Party trumps person. the Republican party is the one that stands for our rights for the most part. This is the party that they choose to help get elected. It is also why I would vote for a Rino over a Demo even if the Demo was perceived to be more gun friendly. The Demo party is controlled by the left wing of party which is anti-gun at best. I prefer to keep this group out of power at all costs.

If we can keep majorities in both houses, we can control the agenda. Maybe I have a few soft republicans thrown in just because I had to but it sure beats the Demos controlling congress with a few pro-gun ones who you will never hear from as they start passing their anti-gun agenda.

Support the NRA.

 

[Tommygunn]

By contrast, our policy became belligerent, and they reacted predictably--by restarting the plutonium production that was much, much closer to actually producing a damn bomb.

I don't get how WE got belligerent? The Norks are the ones threatening us. They keep whining how they'll take steps against us.
If anything Bush has taken more aggressive steps (atleast rhetorically) than Clinton.
And I also don't get why anyone would think Clinton's strategies worked. If they had worked, we wouldn't be were we are today. They didn't produce plutonium because Bush said something naughty and scarred them, they began producing plutonium because they wanted a plutonium bomb.

Sorry a post of yours apparantly got "zapped." By the way "Tommygunn has to "n's" in it.
If you care to repost I'll try to answer it.
Just keep in mind something. I'm not trying to tell you Bush's way is better than Clinton's. Bush tried something that Clinton tried a different way than Clinton did 'cause Bush perceived that how Clinton went at it did not work. Bush tried it differently, and his way also has not worked. The reason for this, IMHO, has nothing to do with either president, but is the result of the fact the only thing the Norks want right now is the Nuke.
Unfortunatly, nuclear proliferation is a reality. Pakistan has them now, too, suckering the CIA (apparantly -- thank you, Church Commission) in the process.
IMO we're gonna see more of it, and eventually...yes, a terrorist or terrorist group will get a nuke...and then. well....say your prayers, I guess....

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Eh, I don't have the energy to rehash the whole thing, but if you read up on the subject you'll see that Bart is wrong about way more than he's right...and it appears that one of my posts in response to tommygun got zapped...so I'm thinking this may be in vain anyway...somebody apparently doesn't care for me debunking anti-Clinton claptrap.

The ol' "I'm right and you're wrong but I am too tired to prove it" argument? As to your post, I haven't moderated in this thread at all so you will need to take that up with the L&P mods if you haven't already received a note on it.

The question I asked tommy I'll ask you--why try the uranium end around when you could just do plutonium already in the reactor? Because they LIKED what the AF gave them, it gave them nuclear power and recognition as a sovereign power.

Because one of the things the Agreed Framework did was establish the quantity of plutonium that DPRK possessed. You can't reprocess that material because when they notice it missing, you lose your fuel and reactor assistance.

Uranium on the other hand is used to power the light water reactors the U.S. was building for them. The only difference between weapons grade enriched uranium and the uranium used in the reactors is the greater concentration of U235 in weapons grade (>20% vs. <5% for light water).

Once they have a method of enrichment, whether centrifuge or otherwise, all they need to do is take the AF-approved fuel they are already using and enrich it. Under the terms of the AF, it is virtually impossible to stop them from doing it since there is no way to hold them accountable for this fuel. Evidence for this can be found in the fact that despite us adhering to the AF from 1997-2002 when we knew they were pursuing uranium enrichment, we were still unable to make any realistic estimate as to how much uranium had been enriched or to account for fuel used in the program.

Because the AF was in fact working. All we had to do was use the same carrot and stick and they'd have knocked it off.

I guess that depends on whether you believe the goal of the AF was to stop them from reprocessing plutonium or whether it was to stop them from building a bomb. If the goal was to stop them from building a bomb, it failed miserably. They pretty much continued to pursue the same goals as they had before only now with enriched uranium instead of plutonium.

Since you seem to believe strongly that the DPRK would have accepted additional restrictions on enriching uranium in return for even more concessions, what restrictions would you have put in place to allow them to enrich to light-water levels without producing weapons grade uranium and how would you enforce it?

O yes, and make sure that South Korea, Japan, China and North Korea will also go along with your plan...

 

[GoRon]

Because the AF was in fact working. All we had to do was use the same carrot and stick and they'd have knocked it off.

You cannot really believe that.

Normally I find your leftist point of view interesting, you are articulate and passionate about your beliefs.

This time you are following DNC talking points to the letter. Kind of sad.

Lets face it, you guys tried the carrot and it failed. Not because President Clinton failed or Mdm Albright failed but because the Norks are going to do what they want to do. Same for President Bush, his options were/are limited.

The left has become unhinged and politicizes everything that happens. We are a superpower, not God.

 

[gezzer]

both of which

are the direct result of good ol' Bob Dole, a republican.

Are you smoking somthing, Dole tried to get rid of the AWB.

 

[anotherKevin]

Good arguments, on both sides, but ...

I have no fondness for Republicans, and don't consider myself aligned with more than 50% of their platform, typically. However, I almost always vote Republican. Why? For those that argue the case for voting Democrat, take a long hard look at who you are siding with - the anti-American, blame-America-first, communist, socialist, dead voter and illegal voter, pro-azatlan, Jesse Jackson crowd.

I can't stomach that group.

I live in CA, so I have first hand experience with Democrat rule. In CA we have voter propositions. You get enough signatures you can put your own law on the ballot. You might be surprised at how fiscally, ethically, and morally solid these propositions can be. You might also be surprised to hear that even when propositions are voted in, by huge majorities of voters, that they are ignored by the socialist Democrats in power. Even when propositions become law, and do not get overturned by some legal glitch, the will of the people is bypassed "for the better good".

When you hear Chrissi Hynde say "I hope we get our asses kicked in Afghanistan!" (note, not Iraq, this was shortly after 9/11), when you see people say they want our troops to kill their officers, when returning troops are once again referred to as "baby killers", that is who you are siding with, when you vote Democrat.

As I said, I don't hold strong convictions with the party platform of the Republicans, though some of it I agree with. I vote Repubican for one reason, and one reason alone:

to keep Democrats out of the driver seat.

 

[wwhitby]

>1. Pro-gun Democrats have no reason to trust the NRA. They remember >how the NRA abandoned them and threw them under the bus for a >Republican-only alliance in the early 90's

David:

You may have forgotten, but the NRA endorsed Don Siegleman for reelection in 2002.

Warren

 

[Helmetcase]

<Insulting rhetoric removed by Art> I'm relying on non-partisan nuclear arms control organizations, not AM radio and John McCain's nonsense.

One more time, here are the facts, gleaned from the NON PARTISAN CHRONOLOGY I'VE ALREADY POSTED:

North Korea’s bombs are built with plutonium. Not uranium. They produce their plutonium in a reactor they built during the Reagan presidency, starting around 1984. They separated enough plutonium for perhaps two bombs during the first Bush presidency.

When they tried to make more plutonium under President Bill Clinton, he said he would go to war to stop them. He had plans prepared for the attack. The North Koreans backed down.

Bill Clinton froze the program in its tracks. North Korea did not separate a gram of plutonium while Bill Clinton was in office. He also stopped their missile tests. Was his policy perfect? Probably not. But the alternative was war, something nobody wanted in the go-go 90s. That's why I find this position of Ron's funny:

Lets face it, you guys tried the carrot and it failed. Not because President Clinton failed or Mdm Albright failed but because the Norks are going to do what they want to do. Same for President Bush, his options were/are limited.

It didn't fail. They didn't produce any fissile material (nor did their uranium end run produce any) and they didn't produce any bombs. The fact that you can't accept that is pathetic guys.

But assuming it did fail, that means Bush failed too. And worse. Cause the bombs came to life under HIS administration. So let me hear you say it: Bush failed too.

Until you can say that...you're just a partisan mudslinger.

What was his biggest failure? Right out of the gate, Bush walked away from the deal in his first months in office. In March 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell said he wanted “to continue the process begun under Clinton.” Bush cut him down.

U.S. intelligence had detected signs near the end of the Clinton years that the North Koreans were trying to evade the freeze by beginning a uranium program. When confronted with the evidence in 2002, the North Koreans admitted it and offered to put that program on the table as part of a comprehensive deal. Bush used it as an excuse to walk away from negotiations. He thought he did not need to talk to the North Koreans. He thought he could overthrow the regime.

He failed. He issued threats and drew lines in the sand. The North Koreans walked right past them. They threw out the IAEA inspectors in December 2002, while Bush was preparing to invade Iraq. The month after the invasion, they withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In 2005, they reprocessed plutonium from the fuel rods Clinton had made them keep in pools under IAEA inspection. They took another load of fuel out of the reactor and processed more plutonium. They reloaded the reactor to make even more plutonium. They tested missiles, they made bombs, now they have tested a bomb.

Bush did nothing.

The fact that you guys don't realize the difference between their plutonium program and their uranium program, which NEVER would have been able to produce a bomb by this point, tells me all I need to know about your "analysis."

EDIT: Your earlier post contained so many ad hominem attacks and baseless distortions of my positions that I hardly have time to debunk them all, but this can't be let stand:

How about a little continuity for argument's sake here? Weren't you just arguing a few posts earlier that the whole reason why Bush was wrong is that he scared them by invading Iraq and calling them an "Axis of Evil?" That they started developing nukes because they were so scared? Now you are saying they aren't intimidated at all by this talk...which is it?

Surely this can't be THAT hard to understand. In 2002, when we started gearing up for war and calling them Axis of Evil, Kim saw that regime change in the Axis of Evil countries was our policy. It was our stated policy. It was evident in our actions. He had every reason to believe we posed a threat to his regime (as we damn well should!). He also knew that SH didn't have a real nuke program and didn't have a credible military threat to our might (something he knows he needs), and that by having one, he had a bigger chip in the high stakes poker game with which to threaten us and make it that much less likely we'd actually come after his little tin pot regime. So what does he do? Admits that, hehe, yeah, I've been toying with uranium...so haha. He puts it on the table hoping we'll agree to recognize his sovereignty; we sure don't, and recognizing that he doesn't have time to develop uranium, he simply restarts his plutonium program which is a lot quicker to spool up, only taking about 2 years instead of the better part of a decade to produce a bomb. Let's do the math...early 2004...a couple years to make a bomb...it's now Oct 2006...yup. See what I mean?

Now, once we're fully engaged in Iraq, and with our committment to Afghanistan, it's readily apparent that we're simply stretched too thin to come after him. He had every reason to see us as a threat to his regime in the Axis of Evil days, but now that we're bogged down in two other quagmires, he knows we're not likely to come after him. Hell, we'd probably go after Iran before him...so he's sittin purty.

Enough continuity for ya? Geeze, that ain't hard. Your argument was essentially "why would he be scared of us in 2001, or 2002, or the early part of 2003, and not in 2004?" Duh. It's pretty obvious. By 2004, it was obvious we weren't in a position to come after him, and, surprise suprise!...he's making bombs.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

North Korea’s bombs are built with plutonium. Not uranium.

That is an impressive bit of knowledge. The rest of the world is still trying to determine if there actually was a bomb and you know the fuel used to make the bomb. Could you clarify if there is some information to support this assumption or whether it represents someone's best guess? Since you didn't mention the source more specifically, it is hard to check.

They produce their plutonium in a reactor they built during the Reagan presidency, starting around 1984.

Minor nitpick; but their reactor program started in the 1970s when they were a Soviet satellite.

When they tried to make more plutonium under President Bill Clinton, he said he would go to war to stop them. He had plans prepared for the attack. The North Koreans backed down.

Nobody cared that they were reprocessing plutonium. They had been using plutonium as fuel since the 1970s and as I already indicated earlier, there is evidence showing they obtained an additional 53kg from Russia during 1993 (who was President then?). The trigger was their announcement that they intended to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Clinton rightly recognized that as a threat and offered a package of both incentives and threats to bring them to the table.

North Korea did not separate a gram of plutonium while Bill Clinton was in office. He also stopped their missile tests.

This is factually incorrect. North Korea tested missiles in 1993 and 1994 and after the AF was signed, they simply moved their testing to Iran and Pakistan to further develop the system. They not only finished the testing but actually deployed the missile operationally from 1995-1999.

It didn't fail. They didn't produce any fissile material (nor did their uranium end run produce any) and they didn't produce any bombs. The fact that you can't accept that is pathetic guys.

The "fact" (you seem to use this word a bit more casually than most) that we can't accept that may be due to the fact that no study I've seen is willing to give a conclusive estimate of how much fissile material North Korea possesses. All of them mention it is difficult to determine how much enriched uranium was produced. So how is it you know this answer and when it was produced as well?

But assuming it did fail, that means Bush failed too. And worse. Cause the bombs came to life under HIS administration. So let me hear you say it: Bush failed too.

People have been saying it. Repeatedly even. I think the point I have tried to repeatedly make is that the Bush decision is a perfectly rational one. North Korea was plainly cheating on the previous agreement. Faced with a hard decision of continuing to negotiate with someone who would not deal in good faith or trying to isolate them from the world community, Bush decided to walk away.

As I have said repeatedly, I think it is a tough decision and everybody I know who has faced the problem generally realizes there aren't any easy answers to it - which is why I regard the criticism on this front to be politically motivated. Some wish to make it look as if there was an obvious choice when there were few choices and none of them easy.

What was his biggest failure? Right out of the gate, Bush walked away from the deal in his first months in office. In March 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell said he wanted “to continue the process begun under Clinton.” Bush cut him down.

Strange nobody thought to voice that criticism at the time eh? You would think if this was his biggest and most obvious failure, the criticism wouldn't have waited for the next Presidential election to surface.

EDIT: Your earlier post contained so many ad hominem attacks and baseless distortions of my positions that I hardly have time to debunk them all, but this can't be let stand

Ad hominem attacks are prohibited at THR even for moderators. Please point out what you feel are ad hominem attacks and I will happily edit or explain them. You can also use the "Report this post" button to report it to a different moderator. The progressive comment was meant to lighten the mood, not be a personal attack; but other than that I cannot imagine what you would consider a personal attack - after all it isn't like I called you a "partisan mudslinger" or implied you were "pathetic" for not thinking like I do.

 

[Helmetcase]

That is an impressive bit of knowledge. The rest of the world is still trying to determine if there actually was a bomb and you know the fuel used to make the bomb. Could you clarify if there is some information to support this assumption or whether it represents someone's best guess? Since you didn't mention the source more specifically, it is hard to check.

Baloney. We know they didn't have a uranium based bomb. At best, they could have made uranium enrichment facilities by mid decade. There's no credible indication that I'm aware of that they have. Heck, even Fox News noted that they're using plutonium to make their bombs. They've admitted as much. Why struggle with uranium when plutonium is ready to go out of the box?

No one really doubts this. It's highly unlikely their uranium program is ready to produce bombs, but their plutonium program was further along. It's generally accepted that their plutonium program is much further along by experts in the field. As you'll see if you read up, the absolute best case scenario for NK's uranium program according to the experts would still make it difficult for them to have a uranium bomb by this point. If you've got something to the contrary, I'm all ears. If you'd been reading up on this, you'd know that. Man, we really are going in circles here--this is addressed in several of the non partisan links I've provided. Have you not yet noticed that my posts are crammed with links to non partisan or even conservative sources like Fox News? It ain't like I'm making this stuff up. Some people toss out what they hear on AM radio. I actually provide links to support my case.

It gets back to the question you STILL refuse to answer--why would they bother with this uranium end run when they're so much further along with plutonium? Contrary to what you've asserted, Uranium != Plutonium.

Clinton rightly recognized that as a threat and offered a package of both incentives and threats to bring them to the table.

Seems like a good policy, hmmmmmm?

This is factually incorrect. North Korea tested missiles in 1993 and 1994 and after the AF was signed, they simply moved their testing to Iran and Pakistan to further develop the system. They not only finished the testing but actually deployed the missile operationally from 1995-1999.

No, it's not; there's nothing factually incorrect therein. They didn't produce fissile materials under Clinton. 1993-1994 missiles tests were prior to the AF--when Clinton got them to knock it off (read carefully--I didn't say they never tested missles under Clinton, only that he got em to quit). To wit (from your link, BTW):

North Korea has reportedly tested the No Dong only once, in 1993.

You really, really, really, really, really are NOT in a position to be questioning my command of the facts of this case. Really. You'd think that'd be settling in by now.

The "fact" (you seem to use this word a bit more casually than most)

Ad hominem. See below.

that we can't accept that may be due to the fact that no study I've seen is willing to give a conclusive estimate of how much fissile material North Korea possesses.

And here's where all four wheels just fell of your wagon, homey.

Nobody said squat about what they possess. I said they didn't produce any more under Clinton. That was the fact in question. It's true. Get over it.

All of them mention it is difficult to determine how much enriched uranium was produced. So how is it you know this answer and when it was produced as well?

Already addressed. See the links above. Hint: I'm right, you're wrong.

People have been saying it. Repeatedly even. I think the point I have tried to repeatedly make is that the Bush decision is a perfectly rational one. North Korea was plainly cheating on the previous agreement. Faced with a hard decision of continuing to negotiate with someone who would not deal in good faith or trying to isolate them from the world community, Bush decided to walk away.

This is fundamentally where we disagree about the subjective part--from what I can see, yeah they're sneaky and they're tricky and not good faith people, but we already knew that, and have since I dunno...1950 or so. But we didn't even try tweaking the AF policy, we simply used their snarkiness and attempts at an end run to abandon a workable policy wholesale, without even trying. I'm with Colin Powell on this one--we should have tried to continue the AF policy, and use the same carrot and stick that got them to knock it off with plutonium to get them to knock it off with uranium. Hell! They NKs tried to offer that up to us, and we refused!

It's as though we were trying to provoke a conflict.

Ad hominem attacks are prohibited at THR even for moderators.

See above. The point I'm making isn't that it hurts my feelings or even that I really give a ****, but more that I sense a bit of a double standard at play here, there have been more than a few such aspersions launched in my direction and frankly I don't mind addressing them in turn, but my perception was in doing so it was my post that got zapped. Maybe I'm wrong and I just got my feathers ruffled for no reason, who knows. Again, this is something subjective and not objective. I do expect to be and understand why I'm the minority 'round here.

I don't mind the progressive thing, it gives me a good chance to make a point--I'm all for making progress in advancing the human condition, and part and parcel of that is allowing people to participate in their own self defense, something too many "liberals" ignore or trivialize. Heck, that's why I'm here beating you up about NK and not over at Democrats.com.

That said, AFAIAC, that'll be the last post from me on the subject, I've had my say, supported my positions with non partisan arms control groups analysis and the CIA, and don't really think there's much else I can say to dissuade the "it's all Clinton's fault" crowd... I really do have to do some work around here occasionally. It's been entertaining, but I've provided links to read up on if you're interested and you can draw your own conclusions from there. I'm sure there are more important things for us to be blaming on Bill Clinton, like AWBs and the like.

 

[cracked butt]

I'm not too worried about N Korea. I'm sure it will give us all warm fuzzies in our bellies when China anounces that it has ICBMs tipped with copies of W-88 warheads pointed at certain American metropolitan areas in case we get any ideas about intervening with N Korea or even Taiwan.