Ambassador Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs for the US was on Meet the Press on Sunday. He was pleading for NK to live up their obligations. He talked about the agreement that Clinton signed with North Korea in 1995.
When Bush took office in 2001 didn’t he unilaterally pull out the 1978 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty? Wasn’t that an international agreement that we pulled out of? The Bush administration said that we had to pull out of the treaty in order to defend ourselves.
So, why can’t the North Koreans say that they are trying to protect they people against outside aggression? How is that different from what we did?
Nicholas Eberstadt from the conservative AEI was not as kind as I am with the Bush Administration. Last week he had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. He’s a portion of his tongue lashing –
Although the Bush administration's rhetoric about Kim Jong Il and his regime has sometimes been ferocious ("loathsome dwarf," "axis of evil," etc.), North Korea's leaders seem to have concluded that the Bush North Korea policy consists mainly of empty words--and that oft-repeated admonitions and warnings need not be taken terribly seriously. By more than one criterion, indeed, Pyongyang's strategic successes on the Bush watch outshine those from its brinkmanship during the Clinton years. Apparently unwilling to move against North Korea's nuclear challenges by itself, and evidently incapable of fashioning a practical response involving allies and others, the Bush administration's response to Pyongyang's atomic provocations is today principally characterized by renewed calls for additional rounds of toothless conference diplomacy.
I guess my question what is Bush doing? He has one policy for Iraq. Kick butt and take no prisoners. He has another policy with NK. Ignore. (For 3 years we did not talk with NK in any form.) Then peer pressure with us asking China to take the lead. Finally, we have another policy with Iran. Some one explain this to me.
