• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

McCain attacks both Clintons over where to place blame

Status
Not open for further replies.
mamacint said:
What end run? I see now facts, they were actually developing plutonium under Clinton? Link?

We could start with this one:

http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/nk-fact-sheet.cfm

It points to intelligence stating that in 1997 the Uraniium enrichment process "found new life" when Pakistan started to share nuclear secrets/technology with North Korea for money.

It also points out that N.K. joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Tready in 1991 (under Bush I) after the U.S. removed nuclear weapons from the South, and signed a pact in favor of de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Later, under the Clinton Administration, they threated to withdrawl from the NPT, but Carter went there to Broker a deal. The deal was in place, provided the U.S. lifted economic sanctions, and provided them with other sources of power. Which were promised, but never fully delivered.

If that link doesn't work for you, try this one:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/030127fa_fact

It states that according to a CIA report, in 1997 N.K. started selling missle technology to Pakistan in exchange for nuclear weapons secrets. All of this occurred under the Clinton Admin, and looks like an end around to me.
 
Kung Fu Jedi said:
We could start with this one:

http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/nk-fact-sheet.cfm

It points to intelligence stating that in 1997 the Uraniium enrichment process "found new life" when Pakistan started to share nuclear secrets/technology with North Korea for money.

It also points out that N.K. joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Tready in 1991 (under Bush I) after the U.S. removed nuclear weapons from the South, and signed a pact in favor of de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Later, under the Clinton Administration, they threated to withdrawl from the NPT, but Carter went there to Broker a deal. The deal was in place, provided the U.S. lifted economic sanctions, and provided them with other sources of power. Which were promised, but never fully delivered.

If that link doesn't work for you, try this one:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/030127fa_fact

It states that according to a CIA report, in 1997 N.K. started selling missle technology to Pakistan in exchange for nuclear weapons secrets. All of this occurred under the Clinton Admin, and looks like an end around to me.

I've already stated they were seeking out uranium enrichment instead of plutonium which they no longer had access to (high-five Clinton!). But uranium is much, much harder to make into a bomb and the uranium production would most likely be detected since it is such a large scale industrial process to refine and enrich.

But again, how you consider an imperfect but working system to be equal (or in APF's case worse) than 100% negligence in GWB's case (where NK was able to go full steam ahead) is beyond me.
 
Boogie said:
bu-bu-bu...FACTS!

Clinton era of "Agreed Framework", which according to you is "failure"
- No plutonium production.
- All existing plutonium under international inspection
- No bomb

The Dubya era of Tough Talk and ummm...more talk, which in your world is "success"
- Active plutonium production.
- No international inspections of plutonium stocks.
- Nuclear warhead detonated.

yes, FACTS
 
mamacint said:
I've already stated they were seeking out uranium enrichment instead of plutonium which they no longer had access to (high-five Clinton!). But uranium is much, much harder to make into a bomb and the uranium production would most likely be detected since it is such a large scale industrial process to refine and enrich.

But again, how you consider an imperfect but working system to be equal (or in APF's case worse) than 100% negligence in GWB's case (where NK was able to go full steam ahead) is beyond me.

First of all, the imperfect system was not working. That's my point. They were still working towards nuclear devices despite what Clinton had done. Secondly, if you'll go back and look at my posts, I only consider them equal in the fact that they both failed to keep North Korea from going after their nuclear ambitions.

Edit: Also, saying that the only thing that Bush II has done is "tough talk" is pretty blatently mis-representing the current administrations policy. They have been promoting multi-party talks, trying to engage China in this issue, almost from day one. While it is certainly a different approach than the Clinton Administration, it's not exactly doing nothing, nor is it just "tough talk."
 

Boogie

Member
During the FDR administration:
No Soviet nuke.

During the Truman administration:
Soviet nuke.

therefore, the Soviets MUST NOT have infiltrated the Manhatten project during FDR's term, because clearly, they did not actually detonate a nuke until the Truman administration.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
mamacint said:
I've already stated they were seeking out uranium enrichment instead of plutonium which they no longer had access to (high-five Clinton!). But uranium is much, much harder to make into a bomb and the uranium production would most likely be detected since it is such a large scale industrial process to refine and enrich.

But again, how you consider an imperfect but working system to be equal (or in APF's case worse) than 100% negligence in GWB's case (where NK was able to go full steam ahead) is beyond me.



Why are you trying to quantify failure? You're whole boring spin is that Clinton is COMPLETELY free of any kind of blame ... now you are back pedaling.

APF said:
Quote please, or STFU.

(wait, that sounds familiar for some reason)


I'm going to need links. LINKS are FACTS!
 
Boogie said:
During the FDR administration:
No Soviet nuke.

During the Truman administration:
Soviet nuke.

therefore, the Soviets MUST NOT have infiltrated the Manhatten project during FDR's term, because clearly, they did not actually detonate a nuke until the Truman administration.

Faulty analogy. It was never a question of tech, it was a question of fissile material. The fact is not in dispute that the Clinton produced an agreement that kept plutonium out of NK hands. They did have enough for 1-2 already from Bush I as APF noted, but he conviently didn't mention the fact that this was also accounted and monitored under the Agreed Framework.

Except the Agreed Framework did nothing to stop their nuclear weapons program. They still had enough Plutonium for a weapon at the time
I'm sure you didn't intend to mislead us now did you? my pretty little wingnut...
 
APF said:
Quote please, or STFU.

(wait, that sounds familiar for some reason)

APF said:
I think it's disgusting that he would respond to arguments that Democrats would do a better job getting NK to cooperate, by arguing that the previous Democrat Administration's NK policy was largely a failure, and suggesting what he believes to be a better approach.

Fair enough, I read this to mean that were stating the Democrats policies were failures and the Bush/McCain policies would be a better approach, rereading it I guess the "he believes" statement absolve you.
 

APF

Member
mamacint said:
I'm sure you didn't intend to mislead us now did you? my pretty little wingnut...
What, like purposefully clip out part of what I was saying and not trying to understand what I was getting at in the first place because you're too busy being kneejerk-defensive, my ugly little spinocrat?
 
APF said:
What, like purposefully clip out part of what I was saying and not trying to understand what I was getting at in the first place because you're too busy being kneejerk-defensive, my ugly little spinocrat?
Sorry, but *FACTS!* are painful, so are nuclear bombs.



Anyway, back on topic.

McCain, 10/11/06, NBC Today

I think this is the wrong time for us to be engaging in finger pointing when in this crucial time, we need the world and Americans united in going to the United Nations to bring about sanctions against North Korea.

McCain, 10/10/06, press conference:

We had a carrots and no sticks policy that only encouraged bad behavior. When one carrot didn’t work, we offered another. Now we’re facing the consequences of the failed Clinton administration policies.

McCain, 10/10/06, Hannity & Colmes:

The fact is that it is a failure of the Clinton administration policies that I was heavily involved in at the time that have caused us to be in the situation we’re in today.
:lol :lol :lol

What a ****ing joke this guy has become. I hope he does run for Prez and finally gets taken down. Straight-talk my ass.
 

terrene

Banned
Boogie said:
During the FDR administration:
No Soviet nuke.

During the Truman administration:
Soviet nuke.

therefore, the Soviets MUST NOT have infiltrated the Manhatten project during FDR's term, because clearly, they did not actually detonate a nuke until the Truman administration.
Production, not detonation. Christ, it's right in his post. And way to gloss over the issue of Bush's level of engagement (no inspection regime, no negotiations).
 

Boogie

Member
terrene said:
Production, not detonation. Christ, it's right in his post.

umm, but we've already shown that North Korea was still making efforts towards nuclear weapons during the Clinton admin. and yeah "detonation" is in his post too :p
 

terrene

Banned
Boogie said:
umm, but we've already shown that North Korea was still making efforts towards nuclear weapons during the Clinton admin. and yeah "detonation" is in his post too :p
Missed my stealth edit.

They were "making efforts" I'm sure, but they had inspectors visiting their country trying to ensure that they didn't produce nuclear weapons, and they had an Administration willing to talk without a lot of pre-conditions. So any "efforts" were completely on the sly outside of the inspector's ability to find -- in otherwords, there's not much that could be done about it, and it wasn't active weapons production, anyway.

Hell, Bush's pre-conditions for talks were basically "completely dismantle then we'll talk." What would there be to talk about, then, the weather? That's something like "stop firing your weapons, then we can negotiate a cease fire." We were arrogant and dismissive of NK for 6 years - SIX YEARS. I can't believe that after so long, Clinton's name even comes up. Obviously, OBVIOUSLY this is a result of the Bush approach.
 
APF said:
As painful as the facts may have been to you, that doesn't excuse your behavior.

This will be the last non-substantive post in response to whatever tantrum you wish to give, but if you wish to characterize restating the simple non-disputable fact that the Clinton administration took a course of action, however faulty, and that got results versus Bush's complete 100% neglect the put NK in control of 13-15 bombs worth of plutonium as some form of "misbehaviour" feel perfectly free.

Trying to argue is useless since with wingnuts reason goes out the window when it comes to all things Clinton. (Feel free to say bu..bu..but you guys hate Bush just as irrationally, but I think it's best not to open those floodgates).
 

Boogie

Member
I'm not glossing over anything. I'm just saying that Clinton isn't some foreign policy genius who had no faults and made no mistakes during his term.

Look, there is a Clinton Defense Force that seems to get up in arms anytime somebody suggests that he made mistakes or got things wrong, and that's what I seem to see in this thread.
 

APF

Member
Clinton's "results" were entirely dependent upon NK's desire to comply, and as already stated repeatedly, NK had no intentions of abandoning their NW program, even (likely) during the negotiations themselves! NK could at any point toss inspectors out, and gee wiz they did when their UE program was discovered and they weren't getting everything they wanted. Neither you, nor terrene, nor anyone else really, have provided a substantive counterargument to what McCain was saying--which was not, "it's Clinton's fault," regardless of the enormous spin you guys try to cast on each and every thing that happens in the world.
 
APF said:
Neither you, nor terrene, nor anyone else really, have provided a substantive counterargument to what McCain was saying--which was not, "it's Clinton's fault,"

McCain, 10/10/06, press conference:

We had a carrots and no sticks policy that only encouraged bad behavior. When one carrot didn’t work, we offered another. Now we’re facing the consequences of the failed Clinton administration policies.

McCain, 10/10/06, Hannity & Colmes:

The fact is that it is a failure of the Clinton administration policies that I was heavily involved in at the time that have caused us to be in the situation we’re in today.

umm...
 

terrene

Banned
Boogie said:
I'm not glossing over anything. I'm just saying that Clinton isn't some foreign policy genius who had no faults and made no mistakes during his term.
On that we agree.

I think the difference is that some would prefer to blame the Clinton "faults" for partisan reasons rather than ignore the elephant in the room -- six years of the Bush approach. The latter is of course the most direct path to how we got here, partisan spin [and typical APF nonsense] aside. There was a major change of course over how NK was handled after 9/11, it's been in place for a long time. The events of the nineties are all but irrelevant now.
 

terrene

Banned
APF said:
Neither you, nor terrene, nor anyone else really, have provided a substantive counterargument to what McCain was saying--which was not, "it's Clinton's fault," regardless of the enormous spin you guys try to cast on each and every thing that happens in the world.
:lol

APF, I luv u so.
 

Diablos

Member
Faults are one thing. Flawed analysis of what he did as President that's more and more increasingly being brought up as if it were fact is another, and what I can't stand.
 
Jesus Fvcking Christ. It's impossible to have a discussion in these forums with out it degenerating into a "Bush did this.." "Nah-uh! Clinton did that.." argument. As I said earlier, neither of the polcies were successful. There is blame for both administrations. If you can't see that, than you've let partisan politics cloud your judgement.
 
Kung Fu Jedi said:
Jesus Fvcking Christ. It's impossible to have a discussion in these forums with out it degenerating into a "Bush did this.." "Nah-uh! Clinton did that.." argument. As I said earlier, neither of the polcies were successful. There is blame for both administrations. If you can't see that, than you've let partisan politics cloud your judgement.

Clinton did something. We can judge wheither he acheived the best possible results in negotiating with NK (dealing with them is never going to easy, we can all agree with that), or we can say that he got played. However, the fact that he keep plutonium out of their hands after they already had an active program is not in dispute.

Bush did nothing. He gave a few "tough guy" speaches, but did absolutely nothing to actually contain NK. Plutonium production was unhindered and they detonated the bomb.

I'm glad you don't want to turn this into a typical partisan shitfest, but that doesn't mean that you have to seek out false equivalency.
 
mamacint said:
Clinton did something. We can judge wheither he acheived the best possible results in negotiating with NK (dealing with them is never going to easy, we can all agree with that), or we can say that he got played. However, the fact that he keep plutonium out of their hands after they already had an active program is not in dispute.

Bush did nothing. He gave a few "tough guy" speaches, but did absolutely nothing to actually contain NK. Plutonium production was unhindered and they detonated the bomb.

I'm glad you don't want to turn this into a typical partisan shitfest, but that doesn't mean that you have to seek out false equality.

*Sigh* Again. Never said anything about equality. And again, ignoring the Multi-Party talks that the Bush Administration has sponsored, which have included the U.S., North and South Korea, Japan, and China, and saying he has done "nothing" but give tough talk is just wrong as well. But, what ever you want to tell yourself. You've obviously cloaked yourself in that very partisan politics that I spoke of.
 
Fred Kaplan just wrote up an article on Slate about McCain's claims about the Clinton Administration's handling of NK. He argues that "McCain's version of history goes beyond 'revisionism' to outright falsification. It is the exact opposite of what really happened." Give it a read if you're interested.
 
Cornballer said:
Fred Kaplan just wrote up an article on Slate about McCain's claims about the Clinton Administration's handling of NK. He argues that "McCain's version of history goes beyond 'revisionism' to outright falsification. It is the exact opposite of what really happened." Give it a read if you're interested.




In the spring of 1994, barely a year into Bill Clinton's presidency, the North Koreans announced that they were about to remove the fuel rods from their nuclear reactor (as a first step to reprocessing them into plutonium), cancel their commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (which they had signed in 1985), and expel the international weapons inspectors (who had been guarding the rods under the treaty's authority).

Did Clinton "reward" them for doing these things, as McCain claims? Far from it. Not only did he push the U.N. Security Council to consider sanctions, he also ordered the Joint Chiefs of Staff to draw up plans to send 50,000 additional troops to South Korea—bolstering the 37,000 already there—along with more than 400 combat jets, 50 ships, and several battalions of Apache helicopters, Bradley fighting vehicles, multiple-launch rockets, and Patriot air-defense missiles. He also sent in an advance team of 250 soldiers to set up logistical headquarters for the influx of troops and gear.

He sent an explicit signal that removing the fuel rods would cross a "red line." Several of his former aides insist that if North Korea had crossed that line, he would have launched an airstrike on the Yongbyon reactor, even knowing that it might lead to war.

...

At the end of 2002, when the North Koreans really did unlock the rods and kick out the inspectors—when they crossed what Clinton had called the "red line"—Bush didn't take military action, he didn't call for sanctions, nor did he try diplomacy. It's Bush, not Clinton, who did nothing.

Ouch.
 

JayDubya

Banned
I wish our federal politicians would quit their petty squabbles, stop playing the blame game, act unified for a change, and just in general quit acting like panty-wastes long enough to actually present a unified resolve to scare Kim Jong Il shitless until he stops acting like a petulant child, and failing that, to take his ass down.

But maybe that's just me.
 

ronito

Member
JayDubya said:
I wish our federal politicians would quit their petty squabbles, stop playing the blame game, act unified for a change, and just in general quit acting like panty-wastes long enough to actually present a unified resolve to scare Kim Jong Il shitless until he stops acting like a petulant child, and failing that, to take his ass down.

But maybe that's just me.
Yeah it is just you. The rest of us are complaining about our state politicians too.
 

JayDubya

Banned
ronito said:
There's the libertarian I know!

Roffle! I'm a libertarian and a strict constitutionalist, geez! I don't idolize the Articles of Confederation!

Defense is one of the few responsibilities federal government has assumed that I view as totally legitimate! :D

But seriously, though, I do think Congress needs to stand firm in the face of the nuclear threats Kim Jong-Il is making lately.

"We view sanctions as an act of war!"
"Okay, great, we're technically still at war by the way, here's legislation approving executive measures to remove your administration from power the instant you make your next aggressive gesture. Try us."
 

Crag Dweller

aka kindbudmaster
Here is a timeline from Frontline that details some key moments between the U.S. and N. Korea. You can also watch the program from 2003 that deals with the last time we tangled with North Korea. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kim/





1989
End of Cold War; North Korea loses Soviet patronage

In 1989, Soviet control of communist governments throughout Europe begins to weaken and the Cold War comes to a close. As the USSR's power declines, North Korea loses the security guarantees and economic support that had sustained it for 45 years.



1989
Activity at Yongbyon nuclear complex

Through satellite photos, the U.S. learns of new construction at a nuclear complex near the North Korean town of Yongbyon. U.S. intelligence analysts suspect that North Korea, which had signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1985 but had not yet allowed inspections of its nuclear facilities, is in the early stages of building an atomic bomb.

In response, U.S. pursues a strategy in which North Korea's full compliance with the NPT would lead to progress on other diplomatic issues, such as the normalization of relations.



May 1992
North Korea allows first inspections

For the first time, North Korea allows a team from the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), then headed by Hans Blix, to visit the facility at Yongbyon. Blix and the U.S. suspect that North Korea is secretly using its five-megawatt reactor and reprocessing facility at Yongbyon to turn spent fuel into weapons-grade plutonium. Before leaving, Blix arranges for fully equipped inspection teams to follow.

The inspections do not go well. Over the next several months, the North Koreans repeatedly block inspectors from visiting two of Yongbyon's suspected nuclear waste sites and IAEA inspectors find evidence that the country is not revealing the full extent of its plutonium production.



March 1993
North Korea threatens withdrawal from NPT

North Korea's announcement shocks the world. Facing heavy domestic pressure from Republicans who oppose negotiations with North Korea, President Bill Clinton appoints Robert Gallucci to start a new round of negotiations. After 89 days, North Korea announces it has suspended its withdrawal. (The NPT requires a 90-day notice before a country can withdraw.)

In December, IEAE Director-General Blix announces that the agency can no longer provide "any meaningful assurances" that North Korea is not producing nuclear weapons.



April 19, 1994
North Korea raises stakes; U.S. considers military response

North Korea announces that it is going to move its stock of irradiated fuel from its five-megawatt reactor without allowing international inspectors to monitor the process. It also threatens to go one step further and reprocess the fuel from that reactor, which would give Pyongyang enough plutonium to make five or six nuclear weapons.

The Clinton administration decides that it will take every possible action to try and stop the North Korean nuclear weapons program. It considers a strike against the Yongbyon facility, but concludes that the consequences -- an estimated 100,000 casualties from a North Korean reprisal are too severe.

The administration instead decides to press for U.N. sanctions, a move that North Korea considers extremely provocative. Park Yong Su, a North Korean negotiator, warns, "If you force us to go to war, we will go at anytime." He threatens that North Korea will turn Seoul into "a sea of flames."

In South Korea, authorities call for civil defense exercises to prepare the country for an attack. Clinton asks the Pentagon for options to reinforce troop strength in South Korea.



June 1994
Carter travels on peace mission to Pyongyang

Despite opposition from some senior members of the Clinton administration, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter travels on a private trip to Pyongyang to meet with Kim Il Sung and try to broker a diplomatic solution to the crisis. While in Pyongyang, Carter makes a controversial television appearance in which he details the commitments he has extracted from Kim Il Sung. He tells CNN that Kim Il Sung "[has] given me assurance that as long as this good-faith effort is going on between the United States and North Korea, that the inspectors will stay on site and the surveillance equipment will not be interrupted." Carter also announces that Kim Il Sung has agreed to go back to the negotiating table.



July 1994
Death of Kim Il Sung

Kim Il Sung dies suddenly of a heart attack on the day that negotiations begin. Kim Il Sung is succeeded by his son Kim Jong Il, who had been linked to acts of terrorism against South Korea, including a 1983 bomb blast that killed 4 government ministers and a 1987 blast aboard a South Korean airliner that killed 115 civilians. Kim Jong Il is also tied to North Korea's nuclear ambitions -- he was the founder of the Yongbyon complex.



October 1994
Agreed Framework negotiated

In October, the U.S. and North Korea complete negotiations in Geneva of what becomes known as the Agreed Framework. North Korea agrees to shut down the Yongbyon complex and cease plutonium production. In return, the U.S. promises to help with the construction of two modern light-water reactors to help solve North Korea's energy problems. The light-water reactors are modern nuclear power plants that are built, operated, and regulated in accordance with international standards of safety. The U.S. also agrees to provide 500,000 metric tons of heavy fuel oil annually until construction on the light-water reactors is complete.

When the deal is announced, many Congressional Republicans are outraged. Critics claim that the deal is "appeasement" because it rewards North Korea for bad behavior. In part because of Congressional opposition, construction of the light-water reactors falls behind schedule and delivery of the heavy fuel oil is often late.

December 1994
North Korea shoots down U.S. helicopter

One U.S. soldier is killed when North Korean forces shoot down a U.S. helicopter. North Korea accuses the helicopter pilot of spying, while the U.S. maintains that the aircraft had strayed off course during a routine training mission. Pyongyang holds the pilot for 13 days and to win his release, the U.S. expresses "sincere regret" for the incident.



Mid- to late 1990s
North Korea faces devastating famine

A combination of long-term economic decline and devastating weather conditions lead to a famine during the mid-1990s, during which foreign aid workers estimate as many as 2 million people die of starvation. In 1995-96 floods destroy 16 percent of the country's arable land. In 1997 and again in 2000, North Korea suffers a devastating drought along its fertile west coast. According to the World Food Programme, the food deficit in North Korea has been in excess of 1 million tons per year since 1995.



1998
South Korea launches Sunshine Policy

Newly-elected South Korean President Kim Dae Jung institutes a new approach to dealing with North Korea, which becomes known as the "Sunshine Policy." It advocates openness and engagement with North Korea and assumes that Kim Jong Il wants to modernize the North Korean economy.

Aug. 31, 1998
North Korea launches Taepodong missile; U.S. conducts policy review

In a surprise move, North Korea launches its Taepodong missile -- a three-stage missile estimated to have a range of 3,800 to 6,000 km -- over the Sea of Japan. The missile launch proves that Pyongyang can launch an attack on Japan and is an embarrassment to President Clinton, who had backed the Sunshine Policy. Mandated by Congress to review U.S. policy toward North Korea, the president asks former Defense Secretary William Perry to conduct the review.



March 1999
North Korea agrees to inspections of suspected nuclear site

After several months of negotiations, North Korea agrees to allow U.S. inspectors visit a suspected nuclear site located at Kumchangri in exchange for food aid. Inspectors twice visit the complex -- which was believed to house an underground nuclear reactor and plutonium reprocessing operation inside of a mountain -- but find no evidence of nuclear activity at the site, although some continue to speculate that the North Koreans removed evidence before allowing inspections. The incident is an embarrassment to U.S. officials.



May 1999
Perry visits Pyongyang

The first U.S. presidential envoy to visit North Korea, Perry tries to convince Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear and missile development programs in exchange for improved diplomatic and economic relations with the U.S. His trip, during which he hand-carries and delivers a letter from President Clinton to Kim Jong Il, is the culmination of his policy review.

Perry delivers his final report in October, at the end of an eight-month review. The report concludes that "the urgent focus of U.S. policy toward the DPRK must be to end its nuclear weapons and long-range missile-related activities."

The Perry report suggests a two-path strategy in which the U.S. and North Korea would gradually negotiate an end to North Korea's weapons program and the normalization of relations between the two countries.



September 1999
Hopeful signs

North Korea pledges to freeze all tests of its long-range missiles and President Clinton responds by easing some economic sanctions that were put in place in 1950, when North Korea invaded South Korea.



Summer 2000
North-South tensions ease

In June, South Korean leader Kim Dae Jung travels to Pyongyang for a summit with Kim Jong Il. The meeting raises hopes for a further warming of relations between the two countries.

In August, family reunions are held in Seoul and Pyongyang for families divided at the end of the Korean War. The following month, athletes from both North and South Korea march together in the opening ceremony of the Olympic games in Sydney, Australia.

In October, Kim Dae Jung receives the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to open a dialogue with North Korea.



July 2000
North Korean anger at delays in Agreed Framework

Angry at the loss of electricity from delays in the construction of the light-water reactors promised in the Agreed Framework, Pyongyang threatens to restart its nuclear program.



October 8-12, 2000
U.S. and North Korea issue joint communiqué

A high-level envoy, Vice Marshal Jo Myong Rok, visits Washington in early October. He brings an invitation for President Clinton to travel for a summit in Pyongyang and reaffirms that North Korea wants to improve relations with the U.S.

Jo's visit results in the issuance of a joint communiqué in which the two countries state their intentions to "fundamentally improve" bilateral relations. The communiqué also notes that, "As a crucial first step, the two sides stated that neither government would have hostile intent toward the other and confirmed the commitment of both governments to make every effort in the future to build a new relationship free from past enmity."



October 2000
Albright visits Pyongyang

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright becomes the highest-level U.S. official to visit North Korea since the Korean War when she travels to Pyongyang to negotiate a missile deal with Kim Jong Il. The key items on Albright's agenda include continued inspection of suspected nuclear sites, an end to the North Korean long-range ballistic missile program, an end to North Korean sales of its ballistic missile technology, and improved relations with South Korea.

Another reason behind Albright's mission is to lay the groundwork for a potential visit to Pyongyang by President Clinton. At the end of the summit, Kim Jong Il reiterates an invitation for Clinton to visit North Korea. However, Clinton, who's at the end of his presidency and is consumed by the Middle East peace process, decides not to go.



January 2001
George W. Bush inaugurated

At first, it appears that the Bush administration will continue the Clinton administration's policy of engagement with North Korea. Secretary of State Colin Powell tells reporters, "We do plan to engage with North Korea and pick up where President Clinton and his administration left off. Some promising elements were left on the table."



March 2001
Bush signals shift in policy

Bush holds a summit with South Korean president Kim Dae Jung in Washington. Although he publicly endorses the Sunshine Policy, privately Bush tells Kim that the U.S. will not continue talks with North Korea, setting aside the Clinton administration's policy of engagement. The South Korean president is stunned.

The administration also announces that it will conduct a review of U.S. policy towards North Korea. In remarks to reporters, President Bush voices doubt over trusting North Korea, saying, "Part of the problem in dealing with North Korea, there's not very much transparency. We're not certain as to whether or not they're keeping all terms of all agreements."



June 2001
North Korea threatens to restart missile tests; Bush administration completes policy review

North Korea warns that it will consider restarting missile tests if the Bush administration refuses to resume diplomatic contacts aimed at normalizing relations between the two countries. The following month, the State Department reports that North Korea has conducted tests of its long-range Taepodong missile.

After completing its policy review, the Bush administration agrees to talk to North Korea, but insists upon a broad agenda: that talks go beyond Pyongyang's nuclear and missile programs to also include a reducation of conventional forces, and that North Korea immediately restarts cooperation with the IAEA.



Sept. 11, 2001
Attacks on World Trade Center and Pentagon

The Sept. 11 attacks raise new fears in the U.S. about weapons proliferations and the possibility that a rogue nation would sell its missiles and nuclear technology to a terrorist group.



Jan. 29, 2002
Bush delivers "axis of evil" speech

In his State of the Union address, Bush describes North Korea as "a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens." He warns that states seeking weapons of mass destruction are a "grave and growing danger" to U.S. security and signals that the U.S. will act preemptively to deal with such nations. In a memorable turn of phrase, Bush labels Iraq, Iran and North Korea an "axis of evil."

North Korea's official state newspaper reacts by accusing the U.S. of trying to occupy North Korea. It declares the speech is "little short of declaring war."



October 2002
Pyongyang admits secret uranium enrichment program

In the summer of 2002, the CIA, working with evidence that it had been collecting since the middle of Clinton's second term, concludes that North Korea is secretly pursuing a uranium enrichment program. The uranium enrichment program is different from the plutonium-based program that Pyongyang agreed to freeze during negotiations for the 1994 Agreed Framework; however the U.S. argues that North Korea has violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the agreement.

On Oct. 3, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly travels to Pyongyang to confront the North Koreans with the evidence. The next day, the North Koreans admit to the program but refuse to end it. Pyongyang's admission is not publicly revealed for two weeks.

In November, the U.S. Japan, and South Korea cut off all fuel oil shipments to North Korea.



December 2002-February 2003
North Korea restarts plutonium program

North Korea turns off all the monitoring equipment at its nuclear facilities at Yongbyon and sends IAEA inspectors home. The following month, Pyongyang announces its withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and insists that only bilateral talks with the U.S. can resolve the conflict. It restarts the nuclear reactor in February.

As fears that North Korea may soon begin producing nuclear weapons escalate, the Bush administration maintains that the current problems can be resolved peacefully only through a multilateral diplomatic process involving Japan, South Korea and China.



February 2003
Debate within Bush administration continues

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, a Northeast Asia specialist, says, "Our suggestion is not quite that we handle these talks multilaterally, but we have a multilateral umbrella, of any sort." His remarks reportedly infuriate President Bush, who orders a ban on any public discussion of anything that might resemble one-on-one or bilateral talks with North Korea.



March 2003
Tensions escalate; U.S and North Korea at impasse

After restarting its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon in late February, Pyongyang tests two short-range missiles in March. It also intercepts and harasses a U.S. spy plane flying off its coast and announces that it is pulling out of the armistice talks that have been going on since the end of the Korean War.
 
kim_jong_il.jpg

"Bush set us up the baaamb"
 

Pimpwerx

Member
John McCain has no spine. I really liked him over the last 5 years, and I would have voted for him on a Rep ticket in 2000 and 2004. But really...this is as ****ing lame as it gets. He is well-principled at times, but then lets his party drag him around by the leash on other issues. Like when he sucked up to Dubya besides being the victim of attack ads. WTF, McCain? Is there no congressman with scupples anymore? PEACE.
 
Pimpwerx said:
John McCain has no spine. I really liked him over the last 5 years, and I would have voted for him on a Rep ticket in 2000 and 2004. But really...this is as ****ing lame as it gets. He is well-principled at times, but then lets his party drag him around by the leash on other issues. Like when he sucked up to Dubya besides being the victim of attack ads. WTF, McCain? Is there no congressman with scupples anymore? PEACE.
Still, the media love him. Good luck on ever getting them to call him out on his bullshit.

APF said:
McCain should have gone the mamacint route and blamed History's Greatest Monster.
Umm, ok.
 

MrSardonic

The nerdiest nerd of all the nerds in nerdland
people have to accept the fact that while Clinton was president for 8 years, North Korea did not develop nuclear weapons, and Iran was not openly stating their immediate aim to become a nuclear power.

It was not inevitable. The Bush administration altered inter-national relationships and caused these events to happen. Bush changed the rhetoric on the middle east and north korea (axis of evil), he changed the military activity (two regime-changing wars in the middle east and total support of Israeli aggression and wars), he changed the global status of the UN, he changed the governments in two middle eastern countries, and so on. This policy is a fundamental aspect of why Iran and North Korea are looking to have nuclear weapons. Those "talks" which McCain laughs at, and the state of inter-national relations at the time, were a fundamental reason why those nations didn't have nuclear weapons until the Bush administration came to power.

McCain talks of these foreign governments as if they are children to be spanked or have their pocket money taken away when their father decides they have "misbehaved". You can't bomb and sanction countries at will when their government makes a decision about their military arsenal or their politics.

We've seen the consequences of that ridiculous approach...and yet (only) the stupid republicans blame the present situation on the absence of these mistakes and this situation under Clinton! It's ****ing laughably poor logic.
 

APF

Member
MrSardonic said:
You can't bomb and sanction countries at will when their government makes a decision about their military arsenal or their politics.
Better tell the Clinton Administration, and the UN, and NATO that.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
Hey guys, McCain just wants all to stop pointing fingers of blame.

McCain, 10/11/06, NBC Today

I think this is the wrong time for us to be engaging in finger pointing when in this crucial time, we need the world and Americans united in going to the United Nations to bring about sanctions against North Korea.


McCain, 10/10/06, press conference:

We had a carrots and no sticks policy that only encouraged bad behavior. When one carrot didn’t work, we offered another. Now we’re facing the consequences of the failed Clinton administration policies.

McCain, 10/10/06, Hannity & Colmes:

The fact is that it is a failure of the Clinton administration policies that I was heavily involved in at the time that have caused us to be in the situation we’re in today.

Filed under: North Korea


McCain has looked really bad this past summer.
 
July 1994
Death of Kim Il Sung

Kim Il Sung dies suddenly of a heart attack on the day that negotiations begin. Kim Il Sung is succeeded by his son Kim Jong Il, who had been linked to acts of terrorism against South Korea, including a 1983 bomb blast that killed 4 government ministers and a 1987 blast aboard a South Korean airliner that killed 115 civilians. Kim Jong Il is also tied to North Korea's nuclear ambitions -- he was the founder of the Yongbyon complex.


interesting....
 
Kim Il Sung dies suddenly of a heart attack on the day that negotiations begin. Kim Il Sung is succeeded by his son Kim Jong Il, who had been linked to acts of terrorism against South Korea, including a 1983 bomb blast that killed 4 government ministers and a 1987 blast aboard a South Korean airliner that killed 115 civilians. Kim Jong Il is also tied to North Korea's nuclear ambitions -- he was the founder of the Yongbyon complex.


FOXDIE? any thruth to the reports of a bi-pedal walking tank near the NK nuclear test site?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom