John Kerry Calls North Korea Nuke "The Bush Bomb"

The US has confirmed, it says, that North Korea did in fact detonate a nuke.

In a speech, John Kerry claimed that "as Bush turned his back on North Korea, North Korea turned back to developing a nuclear weapon." He calls the NK nuke "the Bush Bomb."

(Paraphrased. Inexplicably, I can't seem to find an article about this.)

The always idiotic Bill Maher made similar claims this past week (only to be knocked back by a conservative panelist).

Kerry and Maher both press for the US "talking" to North Korea. Talking to what end? Madeleine Albright "talked" to them in 1993, and they continued working on the bomb.

Maher calls moral clarity "childish." But here's the real childishness: Insisting that a country run by a madman can be "talked" out of doing what he is determined to do, especially when he has previously been "talked" to and ignored the promises he "talked" to Albright.

There is a reason for the six-party talks. There is a reason to avoid the bilateral talks Maher, Kerry, and the other liberal dunderheads insist upon.

The United States is not in a position to pressure North Korea, except by actual acts of war (blockades, seizures of ships on the sea, etc.), which is what we're trying to avoid through diplomacy. But we are thousands of miles away from North Korea, and not a trading partner of that country, and no longer a supporter of that country. We cannot pressure the North Koreas, save through acts of war, and can only, acting alone, offer bribes to the regime.

Whether or not giving into North Korean nuclear extortion is a defensible policy is debatable -- or rather, it would be debatable were it not show to have previously failed. If there was some reason to believe that bribery could solve the problem, then we could have the debate over whether or not the United States should submit to extortion.

However, as we already bribed the North Koreans and they violated the terms of their agreement from the moment of its signing, there is hardly any reason to debate the other point. Whether or not giving in to nuclear extortion is wise is a moot question-- because it's already been shown to be futile in any event.

The six-party talks involve all the countries critical to containing -- and propping up -- the North Koreanb gulag state. Thus, these talks are not all just about carrots (which the North Koreans gladly take, but without living up to their promises); they also threaten sticks, sanctions, trade embargoes, the end of economic cooperation with North Korea, the cutting off of vital Chinese oil deliveries, etc. No, the current sanctions are not very toothy. However, the six-party structure of talks at least holds out the possiblity of pressure, not merely US payoffs.

The left likes to criticize the right as engaging in "babytalk" in deeming terrorists and rogue states "evildoers." Chris Matthews used precisely that term -- "babytalk." They like to pride themselves on their nuance and realism and intelligence.

But what are the offering except the most absurd, and most dangerous, babytalk of all? Is it not "babytalk" to continue insisting, despite all evidence, that a nation can be simply sweet-talked through diplomacy to act against its own perceived national interests?

How does that work? How charming does a diplomat have to be to convince a country to act against its own perceived interests? If we can do so with North Korea, why don't we similarly convince all creditor nations to sinply wipe away the money the US owes to them (due to their ownership of T-bills) and hence wipe away the deficit?

Why not? All it takes, we're told again and again, is "talking" to other countries, and using "diplomacy."

What Bill Maher and Chirs Matthews and John Kerry really mean, of course, is that they intend to blame Bush for North Korea's nukes, but that they themselves would, if they ran things, also allow North Korea to have nukes, and would not even impose the watered-down sanctions we currently have.

After all, that is "undiplomatic." You can't "talk" to someone, really, when you're taking action against them.

If it is impossible to persuade North Korea to desist from its nuke program, and impossible to persuade the regional powers from acting aggressively to induce North Korea to so desist, without going to war over the issue -- then fine. It is futile to engage in diplomacy of any kind, and we are left with two unpalatable options, which people may rank differently in terms of palatability -- either go to war, or allow North Korea to continue developing nukes and ballistic missiles 9and, of course, exporting their technology).

But what is the most childish of babytalk is to insist that there's some miractle solution of just being pals with Kim Jong-Il and subjecting him to such charm and wit and decides to act contrary to his own believed self-interest.

You want a reason to vote Republican?

The Democrats think they're so smart and charming they can merely woo terrorists and rogue nations into compliance with America's wishes.

That sort of naivete -- and arrogance and hubris, if you will -- is deadly in the age of coming nuclear terrorism.

posted by Ace at 04:18 PM

| Access Comments