[goMac]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapc...lks/index.html

I'm curious as to what the reaction from the right will be. Clinton is constantly dragged over the coals for making a deal with N. Korea. Will Bush be held to the same standard?

[Dakar²]

It's an elaborate ruse designed to give us justification to invade when they inevitable renege on the deal. Or something.

[spacefreak]

Bush can't be held to the same standard because the situations and deals are completely different.

Clinton's deal enabled North Korea to become nuclear. Bush's deal is intended to do take away their nuclear capability. They still have the knowledge though, and most any expert will tell you that is the hardest part to obtain when aspiring to go nuclear.

Clinton's deal had very little verification involved, and it handed NK nuclear technology. Bush's deal (which is actually multi-national) is filled with verification milestones. For North Korea to continue receiving aid, they are going to have to put up with hordes of inspectors and scientists snooping around and dismantling their nuclear weapons facilities.

We were blackmailed, no doubt about it. But we were in a much more difficult position because of Clinton's mishandling.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Clinton's deal enabled North Korea to become nuclear. Bush's deal is intended to do take away their nuclear capability. They still have the knowledge though, and most any expert will tell you that is the hardest part to obtain when aspiring to go nuclear.

Korea was nuclear before Clinton.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Clinton's deal had very little verification involved, and it handed NK nuclear technology. Bush's deal (which is actually multi-national) is filled with verification milestones. For North Korea to continue receiving aid, they are going to have to put up with hordes of inspectors and scientists snooping around and dismantling their nuclear weapons facilities.

Clinton's deal had the same inspection terms.

[tie]

At the moment it is just impossible to tell. The current deal doesn't say much and is very likely to fall apart like previous deals. If the deal does hold up and if it is successfully extended much further, then it would be a great success for the Bush administration. Knowing North Korea, one just can't be sure.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by tie 

At the moment it is just impossible to tell. The current deal doesn't say much and is very likely to fall apart like previous deals. If the deal does hold up and if it is successfully extended much further, then it would be a great success for the Bush administration. Knowing North Korea, one just can't be sure.

China and Russia are involved, so that makes it far more likely that this deal will not just fall apart. No one wants a rouge nuclear state in their back yard, so they'll put the screws to NK in ways that we can't.

But yes, this deal is quite a bit better than the deal that we came to under Clinton. If you say otherwise, you're a partisan fool who would rather hurt our diplomacy than see a Republican succeed anywhere. They're dismantling (almost?) all nuclear production capability, rather than adding to it. That alone is a huge win.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

But yes, this deal is quite a bit better than the deal that we came to under Clinton. If you say otherwise, you're a partisan fool who would rather hurt our diplomacy than see a Republican succeed anywhere. They're dismantling (almost?) all nuclear production capability, rather than adding to it. That alone is a huge win.

They're not dismantling any nuclear production capability. They're only dismantling the nuclear weapons program. They can still produce plutonium, they just have to keep an inventory of it.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Korea was nuclear before Clinton.

In the words of James Baker, who served from 1989 -1992, their nuclear endeavors were no more than "rudimentary". Having a handful of plutonium and not knowing what to do with it is significantly different than having a full-scale uranium enrichment program and advanced weapons delivery systems.

Originally Posted by goMac 

Clinton's deal had the same inspection terms.

And even Hans Blix himself stated over a period of years 1994-1996 that validation was failing. In 1998, Tom Delay called for the US to withhold aid untim North Korea could abide by the deal and prove their compliance. That never happened as the aid continued to flow to North Korea.

As for your original post, as more people are reading the finer print, we're starting to see more opinions. The Heritage Foundation (conservative thinktank) apparently does not like the deal...

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Asi...fic/wm1358.cfm

So yes, scrutinization by conservatives applies as much to the Bush deal as it did the the failed Clinton deal.

Also, note that this agreement is being referred to by the administration as "a start", which contrasts greatly with Democrats' portrayal of Clinton's deal at the time as being a crowning achievement.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

China and Russia are involved, so that makes it far more likely that this deal will not just fall apart....

I can't necessarily say the same, for I don't trust either of those nations. Perhaps Japan and South Korea provided some incentive for Russia and China? One has to figure that with numerous nations involved that there were plenty of back room dealings.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

In the words of James Baker, who served from 1989 -1992, their nuclear endeavors were no more than "rudimentary". Having a handful of plutonium and not knowing what to do with it is significantly different than having a full-scale uranium enrichment program and advanced weapons delivery systems.

They already had nuclear reactors. Clinton giving them one more meant nothing. It's not like Clinton gave them plans for missiles either. He just gave them another reactor.

Clinton gave them nothing they didn't already have.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

And even Hans Blix himself stated over a period of years 1994-1996 that validation was failing. In 1998, Tom Delay called for the US to withhold aid untim North Korea could abide by the deal and prove their compliance. That never happened as the aid continued to flow to North Korea.

Bush seems to think validation is a good idea. Why isn't the right calling him on it?

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

As for your original post, as more people are reading the finer print, we're starting to see more opinions. The Heritage Foundation (conservative thinktank) apparently does not like the deal...

North Korea Nuclear Weapons Agreement Falls Short

So yes, scrutinization by conservatives applies as much to the Bush deal as it did the the failed Clinton deal.

In all honesty, it's the best we can get. I'm not against the deal. What I'm wondering is if Conservatives are going to apply the same values to Bush, or if they're going to squirm their way out of it.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Also, note that this agreement is being referred to by the administration as "a start", which contrasts greatly with Democrats' portrayal of Clinton's deal at the time as being a crowning achievement.

A start? I highly doubt N. Korea is going to be willing to deal much past this. And given how Bush has handled N Korea before this I think he should be happy with the deal he's got and leave it at that.

[tie]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

China and Russia are involved, so that makes it far more likely that this deal will not just fall apart. No one wants a rouge nuclear state in their back yard, so they'll put the screws to NK in ways that we can't.

They already have a rogue nuclear state in their backyard, so I don't really agree with your argument.