Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Finally, a Democrat gets the NK talking points right, but he's a 'ringer'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 12:17 PM
Original message
Finally, a Democrat gets the NK talking points right, but he's a 'ringer'
William Perry, former Secretary of Defense (1994-97) and former Special Adviser to President Clinton on NK, knows more than just about anybody in the world about NK's nuclear capacity. He wrote a definitive 1999 report to President Clinton about it, still online at http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eap/991012_northkorea_... .

Yesterday, the Washington Post published an op-ed of his.

The key point that Bill Richardson and other party spokespeople have omitted on the air this week is that, under Clinton, 8,000 spent reactor fuel rods that now are being reporocessed into up to 30 NK plutonium weapons a year were kept locked under IAEA seal and 24-hour video surveillance.

For more background, see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20... :

"In Search of a North Korea Policy; By William J. Perry

Wednesday, October 11, 2006; Page A19

North Korea's declared nuclear bomb test ... demonstrates the total failure of the Bush administration's policy toward that country. For almost six years this policy has been a strange combination of harsh rhetoric and inaction. President Bush, early in his first term, dubbed North Korea a member of the "axis of evil" and made disparaging remarks about Kim Jong Il. He said he would not tolerate a North Korean nuclear weapons program, but he set no bounds on North Korean actions.

The most important such limit would have been on reprocessing spent fuel from North Korea's reactor to make plutonium. The Clinton administration declared in 1994 that if North Korea reprocessed, it would be crossing a "red line," and it threatened military action if that line was crossed. The North Koreans responded to that pressure and began negotiations that led to the Agreed Framework. The Agreed Framework did not end North Korea's aspirations for nuclear weapons, but it did result in a major delay. For more than eight years, under the Agreed Framework, the spent fuel was kept in a storage pond under international supervision.

Then in 2002, the Bush administration discovered the existence of a covert program in uranium, evidently an attempt to evade the Agreed Framework. This program, while potentially serious, would have led to a bomb at a very slow rate, compared with the more mature plutonium program. Nevertheless, the administration unwisely stopped compliance with the Agreed Framework. In response the North Koreans sent the inspectors home and announced their intention to reprocess. The administration deplored the action but set no "red line." North Korea made the plutonium."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. Bush dismissed the Framework immediately
He bullied and antagonized N Korea from the beginning, despite being warned that it was the wrong way to go. Rummy said he believed N Korea had nukes way back in 2002 to justify their bullying and demean Clinton. Now we've got the full results of their policy, and they want to cover up their failure by denying that N Korea has actually tested the nuke because that would mean it was developed on THEIR watch.

http://www.fas.org/news/dprk/2001/index.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Dubya's 2002 SOTU speech called out 3 countries as an 'Axis of Evil'
Edited on Thu Oct-12-06 12:55 PM by ProgressiveEconomist
Later that year, he abrogated an eight-year old agreement that had verifiably controlled the main source of NK nukes. The NKs said they were going to start reprocessing, but Dubya passed up every opportunity to destroy the single, known-locationYongbian reprocessing facility with airstrikes.

Then Dubya invaded one of the three 'Axes of Evil'. What did he expect the NKs would do? What an imbecile!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slaveplanet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
3. NK did not up and send inspectors home
that's the spin.

BBC has the truth,
Bush waived the inspections right after handing them $95M and then had the gall to say the move was vital to national security.


BBC:

In releasing the funding, President George W Bush waived the Framework's requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors.

President Bush argued that the decision was "vital to the national security interests of the United States".


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia-pacific/1908571.s...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Your "proof" is an article dated 6 mos BEFORE the expulsion of the
inspectors. Put "timeline" into your google next time to get it right.

How could you ever hope to "prove a negative" from an article about one point in time, with no comprehensive timeline?

A much better webpage on the same site as yours clearly shows you are wrong--see the entry for 12/27/02.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2604437.stm :

"Timeline: N Korea nuclear standoff

3-5 October 2002: On a visit to the North Korean capital Pyongyang, US Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly presses the North on suspicions that it is continuing to pursue a nuclear energy and missiles programme. Mr Kelly says he has evidence of a secret uranium-enriching programme carried out in defiance of the 1994 Agreed Framework. Under this deal, North Korea agreed to forsake nuclear ambitions in return for the construction of two safer light water nuclear power reactors and oil shipments from the US.

16 October: The US announces that North Korea admitted in their talks to a secret nuclear arms programme.

...

14 November: US President George W Bush declares November oil shipments to the North will be the last if the North does not agree to put a halt to its weapons ambitions.

...

12 December: The North threatens to reactivate nuclear facilities for energy generation, saying the Americans' decision to halt oil shipments leaves it with no choice. It blames the US for wrecking the 1994 pact.

13 December: North asks the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to remove seals and surveillance equipment - the IAEA's "eyes and ears" on the North's nuclear status - from its Yongbyon power plant.

22 December: The North begins removing monitoring devices from the Yongbyon plant.

27 December: North Korea says it is expelling the two IAEA nuclear inspectors from the country. It also says it is planning to reopen a reprocessing plant, which could start producing weapons grade plutonium within months.

..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slaveplanet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. delete
Edited on Thu Oct-12-06 11:48 PM by slaveplanet


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Self-delete
Edited on Thu Oct-12-06 11:52 PM by ProgressiveEconomist
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
5. Thanks, mysterious recommenders. 2 more needed for the "Greatest
Page" now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 31st 2014, 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC