The Dear Leader's Dear

Is the whole article on-line somewhere?

RC,

Here.

I don't think John Kerry should be elected either, but not on these grounds. Shouldn't we want a President that the leader(s) of North Korea can talk to about the problems existing between the U.S. and North Korea? So far, Bush has not been that President. This is not to say we should elect Kerry, but it is to say we shouldn't demonize every little thing about him. Bush is not St. George.

The problem with North Korea is its government.

So who are you going to talk to about removing it? The Christians in the concentration camps used as guinea pigs for nerve gas and biowar agents? The non-Christians hunting for a blade of grass or even a slightly green bit of bark to eat in the countryside?

You're incorrect, Nathan. The North Koreans have not only wanted to talk to the Bush Administration, they want direct, bilateral talks because that would raise their stature: it makes them look like they're taking on big, bad America all by themselves. The Bush Administration has pressed for including other players (China, Japan, Russia), not just the U.S.

I still don't think that the Bush Administration has handled North Korea very well. Yes, they've been pushing for talks that include other nations, but the North Koreans are not going for that. So now there has been very little talking, and we're still left with them developing nuclear weapons and such.

Abortion and same-sex unions are the reason I won't be voting for John Kerry, but I don't think that these two issues are going to make him a bad President in other areas. In like manner, I don't think Bush's opposition to those two issues has made him a good President in other areas. I think Bush has failed miserably in foreign policy, environmental protection, and economic policy. I'll vote for him because he doesn't want to kill babies and/or destroy the family, but that doesn't mean he's the greatest President since Washington. In fact, I think he's been a horrible President. If John Kerry were pro-life and didn't support same-sex unions, I'd be voting for him.

We tried talking to the North Koreans one-on-one. They lied to us, took our aid package, and developed nuclear weapons in secret. Obviously the Clinton policy didn't work too well either.

Don't wander into other subjects, Nathan: what, specifically, could the Bush administration have done to reduce the security threat it poses? And what makes you think the North Korean situation can be resolved through talking?

The notion that the Norks will behave if only we get Mr. Kerry to kindly explain the situation is facially ridiculous. Any close observer of the situation knows that Bush has won that stand-off completely, precisely because he rejected the failed approach of the past. Patience is the key to dealing with the North, patience and quiet diplomacy.

Kerry would no doubt return to the oh-so-subtle and sophisticated method of freaking out completely every time Kim rattled his sabre, and sending Carter or Jesse Jackson in wildly waving his arms and begging for a signature on some treaty that isn't worth the paper it's printed on. In dealing with the South, Bush took the cowboyish, brutish, and unsophisticated tack of...wait for it...pulling our troops back, further from the border.

This meant that the US could retaliate with overwhelming (read: tactical nuclear) force in the event of a Northern attack on Seoul. This removed the American trip-wire effect and woke up the South that it needed to start thinking about its own security. Pro-US demonstrations soon followed.

Only last week the North agreed to hold talks under conditions established by the US, while Bush conceded a promise of some kind of security assurance for the Norks. Only by winning these meta-negotiations can you ever come out on top, and the difference between this administration and the last (as well as any potential Kerry administration) is its willingness to be patient, not disregard the possibility that the North's insane and reckless threats are a sign of desperation, and accept the horrifying possibility that time is in this instance on our side, since we aren't the ones whose population is rapidly shrinking to Oompa Loompa stature due to famine.

In short, Bush knows what he's doing because he's being advied by people who beat the Soviets. Electing Kerry on his national security platform is no less delusional than electing him on his family values one.

And another thing: If Kerry would be such a God-send for our Korea policy, why is the North so keen on his being elected? Because they're so peace-loving and reasobale? I wonder if Nathan has even bothered to ponder for a microsecond the significance of the article quoted here.

And I wonder if you, Sage, have ever pondered that North Korea was relatively peaceful after the Clinton treaty, until Bush got into office and included them in the "axis of evil."

Someone asked how I think Bush could have handled this better. I think he could have watched his mouth and acted like a diplomat rather than a Texas Ranger. There were no signs of a problem with the Clinton treaty until Bush opened his big mouth.

Nathan, North Korea didn't resume building their missiles and their nukes after Bush "opened his big mouth." They never stopped -- Clinton just looked the other way. Like all the other "peaces" that Clinton brought -- like the Mideast and Haiti -- it proved false.

Bush is acting like a "diplomat," and has all along: he's let the State Department take the lead in pressuring North Korea to stop acting like a rogue nation. One could argue that he should have taken a harder line, but you can't expect every president to look the other way when a loony regime is exporting nuclear materials and ballistic missiles.

Nathan,

So your idea of good foreign policy is see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil? Will pretending nukes aren't there prevent them from killing people?

I think Bush is doing a bad job with the economy, and he is putting us in war with other countries. I am firmly voting for Kerry in 2004 because he believes in Social Justice. I know there are some who are voting for him on the issues of pro-life and his opposition to same sex marriage. If Bush was PRO-LIFE, he would have been agains't us going to war with Iraq and risking and killing our people, as well as the Iraqi people. A lot of civilians were killed because of this war and so were a lot of our people. Also, Bush says he is agains't abortion yet he is for stem-cell research and believes abortion is okay when the woman's health is at risk or rape (for example). If Bush was PRO-LIFE he would also be agains't the death penalty and also would want to have domestic programs for the needy rather than give tax breaks for the wealthy. To me pro-life is a broader issue it is not just abortion, it is also being against war, capital punishment, and having domestic programs to close the gap between the rich and poor. In terms if North Korea, I think he will get us into war with North Korea like he did with Iraq and without the help of the United Nations. I am a Christian Socialist and wouldn't be able to call myself Catholic if I supported tax breaks for the rich, trying to privatize Social Security and Medicare, and being for the death penalty. I think the United States is a greedy capitalistic country which stands on the notion "everybody for themselves--in terms of getting wealthy, without consideration for the poor, handicapped, color of skin, etc. Being a Catholic means being for the little people, the poor. It does not mean being for the rich. Jesus said that it would be easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle than it would be for a rich man to get to heaven. I have been unemployed for months now and I AM VOTING FOR KERRY FOR PRESIDENT.

William,

So it is being for the little people to favor a man who voted against a law that would have protected almost-born children from having their brains sucked out? I can respect a Catholic position for voting for no one in this race, or for a third party candidate. I cannot respect a "Catholic" position for voting for someone who sanctions murder of the unborn in every circumstance and who opposes any action to prevent the radical mutation, the destruction really, of the cornerstone of our society, marriage.

I guess "the little people" doesn't include the hundreds of thousands of poor Iraqis that Saddam murdered during his reign, or the ones he would have murdered had he continued in office (succeeded by one of his equally murderous sons).

The New International Left: Making the World Safe for Fascist Tyrrany!

This sort of attitude towards Kerry isn't surprising when you consider:

FACT: In a PIPA/GlobeScan survey on America’s foreign policy and leadership, only 3 of the 35 surveyed countries prefer Bush (Nigeria, the Phillipines, Poland), while 30 preferred Kerry.

FACT: Kerry was strongly preferred among all of America’s traditional allies. These included Norway (74% for Kerry to 7% for Bush), Germany (74% to 10%), France (64% to 5%), the Netherlands (63% to 6%), Italy (58% to 14%), and Spain (45% to 7%). Even in the UK, Kerry was preferred by more than 30 percentage points (47% to 16%). Among Canadians, Kerry was preferred by 61% to 16% and among the Japanese by 43% to 23%.

FACT: Only one nation garnered more than 50% for Bush: the Phillipines

FACT: On the matter of US foreign policy: strongest negative views of US foreign policy were held in Germany (83% say “worse”), France (81%), Mexico (78%), China (72%), Canada (71%), Netherlands (71%), Spain (67%), Brazil (66%), Italy (66%), Argentina (65%), and the UK (64%). The only countries in which more said that the Bush foreign policy made them feel better toward the US were: the Philippines, (58% better-27% worse), India (38% better—33% worse) and Thailand (35% better and 30% worse). Nigeria was divided (36% better—34% worse) as was Venezuela (33% better-34% worse).

FACT: The margin of error of this survey is +/- 2.3-5%