parados wrote:My statement..
Quote:I challenge you to find any intelligence assessment that claims North Korea attained any nuclear material from 1993-2001 capable of making a nuclear weapon. Any at all McG? I won't hold my breath waiting for you to produce any evidence.
Thank your playing, have a nice day.
North Korea nuke timeline: the Clinton years
A summation of a timeline from the Monterey Institute of International Studies, plus details from other sources. Note the repeated failure of diplomacy - meaning appeasement - to achieve adequate concrete results during the Clinton years. At best, it delayed the Hermit Kingdon's acquisition of nuclear weaponry by a few years, and even that much presumes you take a lot on faith. Is this Clinton's fault? Only in the sense that he was enough of a dilettante to trust in mere diplomacy in the first place.
Note also the repeated United Nations resolutions, and their singular lack of effect. Saddam Hussein was not the first to treat the UN's express will with utter contempt.
February, 1993: North Korean regime denies IAEA access to several suspected nuclear weapons sites.
North Korea stonewalls and blusters while evidence accumulates that they are developing nuclear weapons.
March through September, 1993 IAEA repeatedly threatens to bring the issue before the UN Security Council. Statements by Communist China undermine this threat.
July, 1993: Bill Clinton, to soothe South Korean fears, asserts that American ground troops and the US Navy will serve to deter North Korea from any attack on South Korea.
October, 1993: IAEA General Assembly passes a resolution against North Korea. Secret negotioations begin between North Korean regime and the United States government. Team Spirit milatiry maneuvers with US and South Korean forces used as a threat/bargaining chip.
November, 1993: United Nations General Assembly passes resolution against North Korea.
December, 1993: North Korea agrees to allow partial access to its declared nuclear facilities, and may not check IAEA seals. Bill Clinton declares this inadequate. North Korea then offers an expansion of inspections in exchange for a further round of talks. US and South Korea accept this.
January, 1994: Agreement is reached that North Korea will allow access to declared sites in exchange for cancellation of Team Spirit.
February, 1994: Norh Korean negotiators renege on unconditional inspections. Intelligence sources declare that the Yongbyon reactor is intended purely for plutonium separation. Eurochemic and Russia implicated in furnishing the technology.
March, 1994: IAEA detemines that Yongbyon will be online by end of year. Inspectors are shut out of sections of reactor.
April, 1994: north Korean regime calls for direct talks with United States. Hans Blix insists on access to two undeclared sites. North Korea refuses.
May, 1994: North Korea begins removing spent FUEL RODS from Yongbyon reactor, thus destroying evidence. United States threatens to seek a UN Security Council resolution.
June, 1994: Hans Blix explains to the Security Council that there is no way of knowing whether the removed plutonium is being used to create nuclear weapons, the evidence having been irretrievably lost. IAEA suspends techincal aid to North Korea. North Korea relinquishes IAEA membership. Kim-Il-Sung promises Jimmy Carter he will allows some inspections and cameras at Yongbyon, that the FUEL RODS will not be reprocessed, and that the reactor will not be refueled. (Jimmy Carter had publicly voiced his opposition to any sanctions against North Korea.) Bill Clinton calls for sanctions, while John McCain and other Republicans take him to task for having done too little to prevent the situation.
July, 1994: Kim Il-Sung dies, and rule of the country passes to his son, Kim Jong-Il.
October, 1994: United States and North Korea arrive at Agreed Framework, by which the United States gives North Korea many concessions, including two light water reactors, fuel oil, and other economic assistance, in exchange for North Korea honoring past agreements with the IAEA. This seems to include the IAEA verifying the fate of the spent FUEL RODS.
November, 1994: United Nations approves the Agreed Framework. With a small team of inspectors, IAEA confirms that North Korea has halted operations at Yongbyon and at Taechon.
January, 1995: In defense of the agreement against critics in Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Defense Secretary William Perry asserts that North Korea had been five months away from a nuclear weapon, and that this deal would prevetn the spent FUEL RODS from being used to that end.
March, 1995: IAEA asks to be permitted to inspect the spent plutonium FUEL RODS from Yongbyon.
Spetember, 1995: IAEA sends a team of inspectors to North Korea. IAEA General Conference calls on North Korea to cooperate and preserve intact all evidence. Hans Blix speaks of unresolved concerns, mostly about the spent FUEL RODS from Yongbyon.
October, 1995: North Korea denies IAEA permission to inspect the FUEL RODS.
November, 1995: UN General Assembly passes another resolution.
January, 1996: North Korean regime says it agrees to cooperate with inspectors.
March, 1996: Hans Blix reports that North Korea is not cooperating with inspectors.
May, 1996: David Kyd reports that North Korea still isn't cooperating with inspectors with regard to the spent FUEL RODS from Yongbyon.
August, 1996: IAEA safeguards report states they can't verify what happened to the FUEL RODS.
September, 1996: Hans Blix says that the IAEA is still unable to verify. North Korea openly refuses to give the IAEA "any information whatsoever."
March, 1997: Hans Blix declares that talks have stalled.
June, 1997: IAEA says it is still unable to verify, etc.
March, 1998: North Korea reiterates its refusal to cooprate with inspectors.
April, 1998: North Korea unseals the Yongbyon reactor for "maintenance purposes.:
May, 1998 : US and South Korea state that the IAEA has confirmed that the seals remain in place at Yongbyon.
July, 1998: US GAO report says that North Korea has not allowed the IAEA to install monitoring equipment.
August, 1998: North Korea launches Taepo Dong 1 missile into Japanese air space.
September, 1998: North Korea pledges to resume packing its spent FUEL RODS rods properly, after CIA reported it was hiding them in unsuitable containers. US government sources say that North Korea is complying.
November, 1998: IAEA calls on North Korea to re-open nuclear sites for inspection.
December, 1998: North Korea denies access to suspected underground nuclear reactor at Kumchang-ni. Bil lclinton offers North Korea more food aid. This food aid reportedly is diverted to the North Korean Army.
March, 1999: IAEA officials report that critical parts of the Yongbyon reactor have been missing since 1994. (What was that about all seals being in place?)
(Note: Many estimate that North Korea has had a nuclear weapon since about this time frame. Remember those FUEL RODS?)
June 2000: Two Koreas summit. North and South agree to rebuild railroads in DMZ. United States easessanctions against North Korea.
References:
Monterey Institute:
IAEA-North Korea: Nuclear Safeguards and Inspections
World Affairs:
Clinton, Korea, and Presidential Diplomacy
You are quite welcome.
parados, I took up your challenge for McG, and found only sources that confirmed your post; North Korea doesn't have the capability to deliver or make nuke weapons since Clinton's tenure, but have been working on developing them during Bush junior's term, and they may have two or more today, but that's only speculation. Still no experiments and no delivery system that have been successful.
Mr> Parados does not know that the help Clinton gave the North Koreans allowed them to prepare for nuclear advancement. I must really call the White House to let them know that Mr. Parados is one of the few in the Western World who knows what went on in North Korea during the eight years Clinton was in office.
Again___
McGentrix- You are correct that Clinton gave North Korea an advantage. As usual, Mr. Parados is ignorant of the situation in the nineties.
Note Below:
Search: The Web Angelfire VforVendetta
Share This Page Report Abuse Build a Site Browse Sites
« Previous | Top 100 | Next »
Clinton and North Korea
Mona Charen
Town Hall, October 18, 2002
"North Korea Says It Has a Program on Nuclear Arms" -- New York Times, Oct. 17, 2002.
President Bill Clinton will be remembered by history for only one thing, which is a bit of a shame since his record is so thoroughly shabby and dishonorable that it deserves closer study.
Clinton's contribution to our vulnerability to terror has been well documented, and now comes news that another of his foreign policies has come to fruition. The North Koreans have admitted what close observers have suspected all along -- that they have a nuclear weapons program and may have already produced a number of bombs. (Oh, and by the way, worshippers of arms control treaties kindly note: North Korea is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.)
The only mystery is why Pyongyang has now chosen to admit it.
In the early 1990s, North Korea, even more than other communist states, was drowning in the consequences of its system. People were starving. A congressional study estimated that as many as 1 million died of starvation by 1998. But the regime was no less belligerent for that. Pyongyang continued to build up its military and was aggressively pursuing nuclear capability. Though its facilities were supposed to be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency, North Korea persistently delayed inspections. Meanwhile, its aggressive posture and rhetoric toward South Korea continued, as did its development of long-range missiles.
President Clinton, observing this situation, saw what needed to be done: Pyongyang would have to be appeased. As former defense secretary William Perry put it, the administration thought it "necessary to move forward in a more positive way with North Korea." In exchange for a temporary freeze on its nuclear program and a mere promise to refrain from developing such weapons in the future, the Clinton administration extended nearly $1 billion in foreign aid for food and fuel oil, as well as promising to build two light water reactors for the North Koreans.
Certainly the administration must have attached conditions? Surely it insisted that the regime provide proof that the aid was not being used for military purposes, and it must have insisted on some form of political and economic liberalization? The Clinton administration must have tied this aid package to guarantees that the North Koreans would cease exporting ballistic missiles to nations like Iran and Pakistan? Actually, no. As Perry explained, "The policy team believed that the North Korean regime would strongly resist such reform ..."
The North Koreans, rewarded for their belligerence, naturally continued down the same path. (And the lesson was probably not lost on other dangerous regimes that seeking nuclear weapons can bring goodies from Washington.) In 1998, they tested a new, three-stage ballistic missile. Did the Clinton administration at last learn the lesson that appeasement does not work? Not quite. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and William Perry held a press conference to announce that the United States was continuing to pursue good relations with North Korea: "We must deal with the North Korean government as it is, not as we wish it would be."
Accordingly, the Clinton administration proposed to lift economic sanctions on North Korea if it promised -- but this time really, sincerely promised -- to stop development of long-range missiles. The North Korean government didn't even deign to respond for a full week -- but the Clinton administration relaxed sanctions anyway.
The Clinton administration officials believed their policies toward North Korea were a success. By "engaging" Pyongyang, they believed, they had avoided war. Neville Chamberlain thought the same. Instead, the appeasement merely emboldened the North Koreans. A Republican study group concluded in 1999 that North Korea "is a greater threat to international stability" than it had been five years before, "primarily in Asia and secondarily in the Middle East." Is it conceivable that the Clinton foreign policy team really believed North Korea could be bribed into decency?
Edmund Burke warned, "There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men." That includes assuming that they will lie, cheat and betray. The liberal attachment to treaties is thus laid bare for the chimera it is. When strength and resolve were required, Bill Clinton supplied weakness and legerdemain. And in this, as in the war on terror, he has bequeathed a more dangerous world to his successor.
***********************************************************
Clinton provided a substantial aid package to North Korea in 1995 AND LIFTED ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AND BUILT TWO LIGHT WATER REACTORS IF THE NORTH KOREANS REALLY REALLY REALLY PROMISED NOT TO DEVELOP MISSILES IN THE FUTURE.
NORTH KOREA TESTED A THREE STAGE MISSLE IN 1998
************************************************************
1998-Mr.Parados--What do you think the North Koreans are going to put on the Three Stage Missle WHICH THEY DEVELOPED WITH CLINTON'S HELP? LOLLYPOPS??
and
I don't have to "propose" anything. Gun-slinger, incompetent Bush, our president is the moron "leader" of the most powerful country on this planet. Besides, neocons want to blame Clinton for everything gone wrong during the Bush administration.
Fri, Jul 7, 2006 6:36pm EST
Fox News' North Korea coverage: Blame Clinton, no progressives allowed
Summary: In their July 6 coverage of North Korea's missile tests, Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson and Your World with Neil Cavuto featured segments on whether former President Bill Clinton is to blame for the current situation in North Korea. Neither program, however, hosted any Democrats or progressives to discuss Clinton's alleged culpability, nor did they examine the role the Bush administration's policies on North Korea have played in the situation.
In their July 6 coverage of North Korea's missile tests, Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson and Your World with Neil Cavuto featured segments devoted to the question of whether former President Bill Clinton is to blame for the current situation in North Korea. Neither program, however, hosted any Democrats or progressives to discuss Clinton's alleged culpability, nor did they examine whether the Bush administration's policies on North Korea in the past five years might bear some responsibility.
One view of the current North Korean situation is that it is the result of policy failures that arose in past administrations and have endured up to this point. As Media Matters for America noted, Gordon Chang, author of Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes On the World (Random House, January 2006), remarked on the July 4 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360: "But we have to remember that the White House wants to downplay this because they don't want to highlight the failure of American policy for the last five years. This is not just a Bush failure. This failure is evident from administration to administration. The United States is large and North Korea is small, but they always seem to be one step ahead of us."
On the July 6 edition of Your World, guest host David Asman led a discussion with right-wing pundit Ann Coulter and Charles R. Smith, columnist for the conservative website NewsMax, on the subject of whether Clinton and "liberals" in general are to blame for the North Korean situation -- a position both Coulter and Smith espoused. Asman offered little to challenge Coulter's and Smith's attacks on Clinton, asking Coulter if Republican administrations had been "appeasing" North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il just as Clinton had, and noting that the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page "chastised" Bush for "making the same kind of overtures to the North Koreans for bad behavior that the Clinton administration was doing." Coulter rejected both of Asman's suggestions. Throughout the segment, the on-screen text read: "Is President Clinton to Blame for North Korea Crisis?"
Smith also overstated the capabilities of the U.S. long-range missile defense system, praising its "string of series of successes." As Media Matters for America has noted, the missile defense system has not successfully completed a flight test in the past three to four years, the successful tests were conducted under highly unrealistic and artificial conditions that say little about the missile defense system's real-world performance, and its ability to function as an integrated system has not yet been tested.
Subsequent segments on North Korea on the July 6 edition of Your World were also devoid of progressive or Democratic voices. Asman conducted separate interviews with Lawrence Eagleburger, secretary of state under George H.W. Bush, and Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) regarding North Korea.
The July 6 edition of The Big Story also featured a "Blame Clinton" segment. Guest host Julie Banderas led a discussion with a "fair and balanced panel" consisting of Republican strategist Terry Holt and National Public Radio senior correspondent Juan Williams. Throughout the segment, Banderas asked a number of misleading questions, suggesting that Clinton "reward[ed] bad behavior" and got "a little soft" on North Korea. Holt, the Republican strategist, agreed that the Clinton administration is to blame for the North Korean situation. Williams did catch Banderas in a falsehood when she stated flatly regarding North Korea: "[W]e do not negotiate with terrorists, that's what President Bush says." Williams noted that Bush called for multilateral negotiations with North Korea. Throughout the most of the segment, the on-screen text read: "Is the N.K. nuke crisis result of 1994 Clinton admin deal?"
Banderas interviewed two other guests about North Korea but did not discuss Clinton's alleged culpability with either. They were Peter Brookes, senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, and Brookings Institution senior fellow Michael O'Hanlon.
From the July 6 edition of Your World with Neil Cavuto:
ASMAN: Well, if anyone's to blame for this mess with North Korea, my next guest says it's President Clinton's fault. With us now, NewsMax columnist Charles Smith, and a familiar face around here, Ann Coulter, author of Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Ann Coulter, so it's all Bill Clinton's fault, huh?
COULTER: Well, it's the fault of the Stalinist dictator. But the point is liberals always have the same reaction to dangerous enemies, which is be nice to them, and that's what Bill Clinton did in his famed 1994 peace deal, giving the North Koreans $4 billion, chocolates, their favorite, you know, flowers, and it was hailed in The New York Times as, you know, the greatest thing since the Peace of Westphalia. But, needless to say, immediately the North Koreans set to work feverishly building nukes, and now we have to deal with that. We're kind of in a pickle here. I mean, North Korea shows why you have to deal with [former Iraqi dictator] Saddam Hussein before he has nukes --
ASMAN: All these dictators --
COULTER: -- just because he's trying to create them.
ASMAN: Yeah, they all seem very similar in that regard. Mr. Smith, it was not only 1994, as Ann said. There was an agreement in 1998 after they launched a missile, and then there was that 2000 visit of [former Secretary of State] Madeleine Albright to North Korea, which was actually going to presage a meeting that never took place of Bill Clinton. He was actually going to go there in person. You wrote about this three years ago, tell us more.
SMITH: Well, I think it's fairly obvious the price of appeasement is, obviously, war. And in the case of dealing with a dictator, kind of like Kim Jong Il, who's still crazy after all these years, you really can't trust him any farther than you can throw his entire country.
ASMAN: But now, wait a minute, you said "war." As far as I know, we're not at war yet.
SMITH: We actually haven't ended the war in Korea, to be honest with you --
ASMAN: Well that's true, we have an armistice, not yet.
SMITH: And the bottom line is that the Clinton administration actually lied about WMDs to the American public as well as to our allies. In 1998, the CIA issued this wonderful report claiming that North Korea would never have a long-range ballistic missile capability for at least 10 to 15 years. [Retired] General [John] Shalikashvili testified under oath to the same thing. And then, about two weeks later, Kim Jong Il, operating under his own timeline, decides to pop one over Japan, and splashes down off the coast.
ASMAN: Yeah, well, surprise, surprise, the guy's a leader in addition to an awful dictator. But Ann Coulter, haven't Republican administrations been appeasing this guy as well?
COULTER: Um, no, to the contrary. And they get chastised in The New York Times editorial page when they engage in bellicose talk --
ASMAN: But let me -- but let me just stop -- let me just stop you there Ann, because the Bush White House was being chastised by The Wall Street Journal editorial page not long ago for doing some of the same things, making the same kind of overtures to the North Koreans for bad behavior that the Clinton administration was doing.
COULTER: Um, I think what the Bush administration did, when we found out that despite their promises not to build nukes under the fabulous Peace of Westphalia 1994 Clinton peace deal, um, Bush responded by saying we're going to cut off all economic aid and trade, there will be sanctions, we will destroy you economically if you keep going on this program. [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld said, "I'm not ruling out the use of force." And liberals got nervous and hysterical, and bellicose talk frightens them. But, you know, when will they tell us that the threat is imminent? As I say, and I think this an important point, we are really in a pickle with North Korea. They have nukes now. It's a lot harder to deal with -- once a lunatic Stalinist dictator has his nukes, than when he's still trying to acquire them --
ASMAN: But Ann --
COULTER: -- as was the case with Saddam.
ASMAN: -- you know, not everybody is quite on edge as you are. You brought up The New York Times, I'll show you a headline that they had yesterday -- one of their editorials about what's happened with North Korea, the missile launch. They say, quote, they call it, "North Korea's Folly." They say Americans should take some comfort from the failure of that long range missile test --
COULTER: Right.
ASMAN: -- by North Korea. So, a folly is something you don't really worry that much about, right?
COULTER: That's right. They also think we shouldn't worry about Iran. And they thought we shouldn't worry about Saddam. And the definitely thought we shouldn't worry about the Soviet Union. Oh, they're just a paranoid regime and don't upset the little darlings. This is always their approach. There's a bully in the world, threatening America, the liberal response is let's be nice, 'cause otherwise he might hit us --
ASMAN: Charles --
COULTER: -- the Republican response is we'll hit him.
ASMAN: Charles, what is our response? Are we going to take our lead from that New York Times editorial, or from what Ann Coulter is saying?
SMITH: Well, I think the response is pretty clear. We're looking at an ABM [anti-ballistic missile] system in place, and continuing to build a national missile defense in conjunction with our Asian allies like Japan --
ASMAN: By the way, is it good enough -- is our missile defense system right now good enough so it could stop -- if they ever get this missile off the ground, launch successfully -- could it stop one of their missiles?
SMITH: Oh yes. And the recent success of the U.S. Navy with their SM-3 missile is just one in a string of series of successes. Now of course, again, just as Ann is absolutely right on in this. The liberals will tell you that we shouldn't have this because it makes the dictators nervous, and they might actually creep their hand towards that little button out there on their panel. Well, the real reason why they're nervous is that we're tearing apart the billions of dollars they've poured into these ballistic missile programs to threaten us with. And a nuclear deterrent like the good old WMD days of mutually assured destruction just simply does not work with someone like Kim Jong Il, or the mullahs and the ayatollahs.
ASMAN: Well, Ann, we are -- we haven't given up on negotiation. The president says we're negotiating, even [Ambassador] John Bolton, a hard-liner at the U.N., says we still have a lot of negotiating to do before this thing becomes hot. So is it possible that we can talk our way out of this thing?
SMITH: Well, you know --
ASMAN: Hold on, hold on a second, Charles, that's to Ann. Go ahead, Ann.
COULTER: Yes, we talk to them, but with the reserve possible use of force. The difference between that and the proposals of The New York Times, of Madeleine Albright, of the Democrats is, they think the chit-chat is an end in and of itself. Negotiation, engagement, diplomacy, multilateral diplomacy. They think that's the end, that's the answer to the question. It doesn't mean we stop talking, but we also apply economic sanctions. We also have Donald Rumsfeld saying we're not ruling out a use of force.
ASMAN: Ann, very quickly, final question to you. As this thing pans out -- and again, this might go into the next administration, which might not be a Republican administration -- so what's going to happen if that happens?
COULTER: Um, let's hope it's a Republican administration. And, by the way, for any other aspiring dictators, as Saddam Hussein was, trying to acquire nukes, the lesson of this -- I say again -- is that you have to take them out before they get their weapons, because it's a much bigger problem once they have their nukes than when they're just trying to acquire them.
ASMAN: Of course, Lord knows what would happen if we did that. But Ann Coulter, Charles Smith, we've got to save that for our next discussion, thanks very much.
From the July 6 edition of The Big Story with John Gibson:
BANDERAS: Back to North Korea now. President Bush saying today the U.S. is seeking a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff. But diplomacy takes time. Now a lot of Democrats like to blame the Bush administration for the escalating Korean crisis, but should they be going back in time to the Clinton years to that little agreement made with Kim Jong Il back in 1994? Let's ask our fair and balanced panel now, Fox News political analyst, National Public Radio senior correspondent Juan Williams, and Republican strategist Terry Holt, a former adviser to the RNC [Republican National Committee], and thank you both for being here.
HOLT: Thanks, Julie.
BANDERAS: All right, so you know the trick: We learn from the past. So if you look back in the past, in history, mistakes have been made, and we're supposed to be, you know, learning from them. Now, who is to blame here, Terry, if had you to blame someone?
HOLT: Well, it goes back quite a long way --
BANDERAS: And I know you don't like the blame game, but come on.
HOLT: Yeah, and at this stage I think that our biggest job is to keep all of the allies together at the table and use one voice and keep the pressure on North Korea. But the fact remains that Bill Clinton made a bad deal with a terrible dictator in hopes of taking the pressure off, in hopes of maybe he would change his ways and join the community of nations. And clearly that's not happened. So, now we have to get tough. We have to stay tough and keep the pressure on our allies in that region of the world, the Chinese, and the Russians, and the South Koreans, to make North Korea do what we all need it to do, and that is to quit being such a terrible and threatening force in the world.
BANDERAS: All right. So, Juan, by rewarding bad behavior is that why where we're at right now?
WILLIAMS: Well, I think Terry is exactly right. We have got to focus on getting the allies involved, but I think Terry is off when he says that somehow it might be being too soft. Look, the Bush administration isolated Kim Jong Il and North Korea for the longest time. Then last September, in order to get them back into the six-party talks, agreed -- you know what? We'll help you in terms of producing electricity, other things like that. So they made some concessions to try to get it going. It's been North Korea that's resisted these talks, now wants to get some sanctions lifted in terms of banking operations that basically are funding drug deals around the world. But every American, conservative or liberal, has been trying to find a way to get through this crazy guy.
BANDERAS: Well, yeah. You are talking about getting soft on North Korea. Didn't Bill Clinton get a little soft when he even planned on going over there in the year 2000? Why reward a country with aid and such when in 1998 they went ahead and launched off the Taepodong-1. We say, oh, well, you know, we'll forget about that, let's go ahead give him more aid.
HOLT: Well, but see, Kim Jong Il doesn't care how many millions of people die of his own citizens.
BANDERAS: So then why should the Clinton administration?
HOLT: The United States of America and the citizens of this country rightly have a compassion and a concern that so many people live in such misery. And so I think that some of these policies that have been put in place over the years have been toward the idea that perhaps they would eventually care about their own citizens, and that hasn't been true. It still means that we need to keep the pressure on with the Russians and Chinese to hold their North Korean neighbors accountable.
BANDERAS: Right, but Russia and China doesn't want to impose sanctions, so why engage these people when talks clearly have all fallen through in the past, why not further isolate them then, Juan?
WILLIAMS: Julie, what you have got to understand is, the United States tried to even get talks going with Iran about their nuclear capabilities and it was the day after --
BANDERAS: And look where that got us.
WILLIAMS: -- the day after the Bush administration said we'll make some concessions to try to get Iran to talk and try to stop their craziness that then you see Kim Jong Il say, "Hey, I want attention, too. Don't forget about me." And he invites Christopher Hill, the State Department envoy, for direct talks. Of course, the U.S. said no to that. They want the six-party talks. They want China, they want Japan and South Korea involved in trying to control their neighbor. So it's not a matter of being soft. It's a matter of being smart.
BANDERAS: All right. But the six-party talks were suspended last fall. If they reconvene, what if any good is going to come out of talking with terrorists?
WILLIAMS: Well, I don't -- I can't predict that. But I can tell you this. That right now you've got to put pressure, and you've got to get that pressure from the neighbors. I think that's what Terry was referring to earlier. We've got to get China to say, "Hey, look, you are doing something that's totally unacceptable to us, and we will have consequences in terms of our economic support for you." Same thing for South Korea. South Korea, they're reluctant to even stop offering humanitarian aid at this time.
BANDERAS: All right, Terry, final word, got to go.
HOLT: And for Democratic partisans who are trying to blame the Bush administration today, I would just say this Bush administration, you know, they made fun of him when he called it the axis of evil, but it is evil, and it is the place where we have the most concern in Asia today.
BANDERAS: And we do not negotiate with terrorists, that's what President Bush says --
HOLT: That's right. That is exactly right.
BANDERAS: -- and perhaps we shouldn't have negotiated back in 1994.
WILLIAMS: Well, but wait a second, hold on. But he did say let's have these six-party talks.
BANDERAS: We have got to go. All right. Yes, and hopefully when we do talk again, we will come up with some sort of compromise.
Okie- Only Mr. Parados would read the information below from McClintock and say that Clinton did not materially aid the North Koreans in getting their nuclear warheads ready. Mr. Parados assumes that the North Koreans are just shy. They didn't want any inspection of their fuel rods. Only a fool would not suspect that they were hiding something. God forbid that the North Koreans do launch a Nuclear Device with their three stage rocket. I will bet that people like Mr.Imposter and Mr.Parados would not like to be on the receiving end. They would then learn that their reflexive hate for the Bush Administration has caused the deaths for many Americans. I am sure that then they would not be so anti-Admiinstration and would scream to high heaven---WHY DIDN'T THIS PRESIDENT MOVE HEAVEN AND EARTH TO PERFECT THE ANTI-MISSLE DEEFENSE.
I am sure, Okie, that God forbid, there is another attack on the US mainland, that people like Mr. Parados and Mr. Imposter, AFTER ARGUING AGAINST EVERY SINGLE ATTEMPT THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS MADE TO MAKE US SAFER, WOULD BLAME THE ADMINISTRATION FOR NOT PREPARING FOR THE ATTACK.
There is nothing more reflexive than the attitudes of far left extremists liberals who have been out of power since 1994 when Clinton fumbled away the control of the House and Senate the Democrats had held for years.
North Korea nuke timeline: the Clinton years
A summation of a timeline from the Monterey Institute of International Studies, plus details from other sources. Note the repeated failure of diplomacy - meaning appeasement - to achieve adequate concrete results during the Clinton years. At best, it delayed the Hermit Kingdon's acquisition of nuclear weaponry by a few years, and even that much presumes you take a lot on faith. Is this Clinton's fault? Only in the sense that he was enough of a dilettante to trust in mere diplomacy in the first place.
Note also the repeated United Nations resolutions, and their singular lack of effect. Saddam Hussein was not the first to treat the UN's express will with utter contempt.
February, 1993: North Korean regime denies IAEA access to several suspected nuclear weapons sites.
North Korea stonewalls and blusters while evidence accumulates that they are developing nuclear weapons.
March through September, 1993 IAEA repeatedly threatens to bring the issue before the UN Security Council. Statements by Communist China undermine this threat.
July, 1993: Bill Clinton, to soothe South Korean fears, asserts that American ground troops and the US Navy will serve to deter North Korea from any attack on South Korea.
October, 1993: IAEA General Assembly passes a resolution against North Korea. Secret negotioations begin between North Korean regime and the United States government. Team Spirit milatiry maneuvers with US and South Korean forces used as a threat/bargaining chip.
November, 1993: United Nations General Assembly passes resolution against North Korea.
December, 1993: North Korea agrees to allow partial access to its declared nuclear facilities, and may not check IAEA seals. Bill Clinton declares this inadequate. North Korea then offers an expansion of inspections in exchange for a further round of talks. US and South Korea accept this.
January, 1994: Agreement is reached that North Korea will allow access to declared sites in exchange for cancellation of Team Spirit.
February, 1994: Norh Korean negotiators renege on unconditional inspections. Intelligence sources declare that the Yongbyon reactor is intended purely for plutonium separation. Eurochemic and Russia implicated in furnishing the technology.
March, 1994: IAEA detemines that Yongbyon will be online by end of year. Inspectors are shut out of sections of reactor.
April, 1994: north Korean regime calls for direct talks with United States. Hans Blix insists on access to two undeclared sites. North Korea refuses.
May, 1994: North Korea begins removing spent FUEL RODS from Yongbyon reactor, thus destroying evidence. United States threatens to seek a UN Security Council resolution.
June, 1994: Hans Blix explains to the Security Council that there is no way of knowing whether the removed plutonium is being used to create nuclear weapons, the evidence having been irretrievably lost. IAEA suspends techincal aid to North Korea. North Korea relinquishes IAEA membership. Kim-Il-Sung promises Jimmy Carter he will allows some inspections and cameras at Yongbyon, that the FUEL RODS will not be reprocessed, and that the reactor will not be refueled. (Jimmy Carter had publicly voiced his opposition to any sanctions against North Korea.) Bill Clinton calls for sanctions, while John McCain and other Republicans take him to task for having done too little to prevent the situation.
July, 1994: Kim Il-Sung dies, and rule of the country passes to his son, Kim Jong-Il.
October, 1994: United States and North Korea arrive at Agreed Framework, by which the United States gives North Korea many concessions, including two light water reactors, fuel oil, and other economic assistance, in exchange for North Korea honoring past agreements with the IAEA. This seems to include the IAEA verifying the fate of the spent FUEL RODS.
November, 1994: United Nations approves the Agreed Framework. With a small team of inspectors, IAEA confirms that North Korea has halted operations at Yongbyon and at Taechon.
January, 1995: In defense of the agreement against critics in Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Defense Secretary William Perry asserts that North Korea had been five months away from a nuclear weapon, and that this deal would prevetn the spent FUEL RODS from being used to that end.
March, 1995: IAEA asks to be permitted to inspect the spent plutonium FUEL RODS from Yongbyon.
Spetember, 1995: IAEA sends a team of inspectors to North Korea. IAEA General Conference calls on North Korea to cooperate and preserve intact all evidence. Hans Blix speaks of unresolved concerns, mostly about the spent FUEL RODS from Yongbyon.
October, 1995: North Korea denies IAEA permission to inspect the FUEL RODS.
November, 1995: UN General Assembly passes another resolution.
January, 1996: North Korean regime says it agrees to cooperate with inspectors.
March, 1996: Hans Blix reports that North Korea is not cooperating with inspectors.
May, 1996: David Kyd reports that North Korea still isn't cooperating with inspectors with regard to the spent FUEL RODS from Yongbyon.
August, 1996: IAEA safeguards report states they can't verify what happened to the FUEL RODS.
September, 1996: Hans Blix says that the IAEA is still unable to verify. North Korea openly refuses to give the IAEA "any information whatsoever."
March, 1997: Hans Blix declares that talks have stalled.
June, 1997: IAEA says it is still unable to verify, etc.
March, 1998: North Korea reiterates its refusal to cooprate with inspectors.
April, 1998: North Korea unseals the Yongbyon reactor for "maintenance purposes.:
May, 1998 : US and South Korea state that the IAEA has confirmed that the seals remain in place at Yongbyon.
July, 1998: US GAO report says that North Korea has not allowed the IAEA to install monitoring equipment.
August, 1998: North Korea launches Taepo Dong 1 missile into Japanese air space.
September, 1998: North Korea pledges to resume packing its spent FUEL RODS rods properly, after CIA reported it was hiding them in unsuitable containers. US government sources say that North Korea is complying.
November, 1998: IAEA calls on North Korea to re-open nuclear sites for inspection.
December, 1998: North Korea denies access to suspected underground nuclear reactor at Kumchang-ni. Bil lclinton offers North Korea more food aid. This food aid reportedly is diverted to the North Korean Army.
March, 1999: IAEA officials report that critical parts of the Yongbyon reactor have been missing since 1994. (What was that about all seals being in place?)
(Note: Many estimate that North Korea has had a nuclear weapon since about this time frame. Remember those FUEL RODS?)
June 2000: Two Koreas summit. North and South agree to rebuild railroads in DMZ. United States easessanctions against North Korea.
References:
Monterey Institute: IAEA-North Korea: Nuclear Safeguards and Inspections
World Affairs: Clinton, Korea, and Presidential Diplomacy
You are quite welcome.
cicerone imposter wrote:I don't have to "propose" anything. Gun-slinger, incompetent Bush, our president is the moron "leader" of the most powerful country on this planet. Besides, neocons want to blame Clinton for everything gone wrong during the Bush administration.
Your answer is typical. Liberals, typical. Sit in your ivory tower, do nothing, stand for nothing, have no solutions. Take potshots at people that are actively doing something, and criticize their actions, but for yourself no alternative solutions, nothing.
Quit posting reams of useless cut and pastes, imposter.
McG
You actually have a point. I acknowledge my favoritism for a certain sort of political philosophy.
On the other hand, I'm happy to let you go after arguments which you find illogical or which don't match your views or which you find intellectually vacuous.
My address to okie's post doesn't relate to poliical leaning (even if I pick on him, not ci, which does), it relates to encouraging thoughtfulness and carefulness in debate. There is absolutely nothing to be gained, by a reader or most importantly by the writer himself from such a post as the one I noted, other than some sort of masturbatory self-validation.
Yet, you purposefully deleted c.i.'s quote from okie's response. Why did you choose to do so?
I agree that okie has more to offer A2K than c.i. does and therefore should try to keep his posts elevated above those offers by the mud-slingers, but sometimes you need to get down on their level.
