House Republicans blast Bush for North Korea decision
Was Bush wrong to negotiate with terrorist nation North Korea? Was this a good deal?
Politico-Several prominent House Republicans blasted the White House Thursday for removing North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, as some of President Bush’s staunchest supporters in the war on terror publicly lambasted him for engaging the country once famously branded as part of the “axis of evil.”
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, expressed her “profound disappointment” over the decision, while Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, also expressed his outrage.
“Lifting sanctions and removing North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism flies in the face of history and rewards its brutal dictator for shallow gestures,” said Hoekstra, who has not shied away from criticizing the White House in recent years.
“Just as the Clinton administration was fooled by the Kim Jong-Il regime, time will soon tell if the Bush administration will fall for the same bait,” he added.
John,
You normally support diplomatic solutions. Do you disagree with this multi-lateral diplomatic exercise?
Bart
The truth is direct negotiation is what worked. We were going nowhere until we started negotiating direct! The real question do you support direct negotiation?
I support direct negotiation.
Multi-lateral discussions are for sissies.
John,
Show me where the POTUS had direct negotiation with Kim Jong Il. Everything I read and see on the news is touting the multi-lateral approach saying it would not have happened without China, Russia and Japan.
So again I ask, do you disagree with the multi-lateral approach of negotiation?
I’ve never even HEARD of a North Korean terrorist. They won’t even let us in there to set up training camps.
Bart
You are wrong as usual!
Bart
I will help you with a recent history lesson. Powel was reprimanded by Bush for supporting negotiating with North Korea directly. Than North Korea develop a nuclear bomb and Bush started negotiating directly while attacking Iraq and alienating Iran.
Iran now has more power and influence in Iraq than they have ever had post BUSH COWBOY strategy! And even hardliners now admit Bush sent a message to Iran develop a bomb and we will negotiate with Iran ie appeasement.
That is why the hardliners are against the latest deal with North Korea. Non hardliners think we should have been negotiating from the start with Iran, Iraq….via the U.S. policy since Reagan ie containment strategy.
I hope this helps you understand the debate. Do you even understand what side you are on containment or appeasement?
Foreign policy 101: N. Korea is a client state to China, and a buffer zone, a.k.a. “China’s back yard”. Only idiots and neocons like to meddle around in Russia and China’s back yard.
John,
When you make stuff up, it does not help the discussion. You’re disputing the words of every single person who was interviewed yesterday plus the president’s own words in his press conference….maybe you know more than those actually involved in the discussions…LOL!
Again I ask for your source of Bush negotiating directly with Kim Jong Il…what were the dates of his visit to N. Korea or Il’s visit to the U.S….It did not happen John.
And also, one last time, do you disagree with multi-lateral approach used with N. Korea.
I’m on the opposite side of you; America’s side.
President Bush began his announcement press conference yesterday by disagreeing with John Konop who apparently was not as close to the talks as he would like others to believe:
Good morning. The policy of the United States is a Korean Peninsula free of all nuclear weapons. This morning, we moved a step closer to that goal, when North Korean officials submitted a declaration of their nuclear programs to the Chinese government as part of the six-party talks.
The United States has no illusions about the regime in Pyongyang. We remain deeply concerned about North Korea’s human rights abuses, uranium enrichment activities, nuclear testing and proliferation, ballistic missile programs, and the threat it continues to pose to South Korea and its neighbors.
Yet we welcome today’s development as one step in the multi-step process laid out by the six-party talks between North Korea, China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States.
Bart
If you want to stay delusional and blind it is your choice!
ROTFLMAO!!
John,
You make totally unsubstantiated assertions (as usual) then attack those of us who provide evidence totally debunking your wild comments. It’s not even a challenge busting you anymore…you make it so easy.
Come with some evidence or look a fool like always.
Bart
I feel bad you do not understand basic policy or history!
Bart
I am sorry I forgot you gat your news from Rush while he is medicated.
John,
Well enlighten me…share your vast knowledge of basic policy and history with me. Prove what you post…I know it will be a first, but give it a try…actually substantiate the bullshit you put out. So far, you look foolish.
YOUR HERO JOSH BOLTON
John Bolton Condemns Bush’s “North Korea Capitulation”
April 17, 2008 at 5:22 am · Filed under Six-Party Talks, Appeasement, U.S. Politics
And now Josh Bolton and other are calling the deal appeasement which is what the post is about. So do you support Bolton non-appeasement strategy (my way or highway startegy/cowby) or Bush Flip/Flop on using containment via Powel strategy?
So what John…I never said I supported the agreement…read back through this discussion. Why won’t you answer a simple Y/N question John?
I simply want to know if you agree with this multi-lateral diplomatic exercise?
Bart
Do you understand Bush Flip/Flop on his no negotiating with enemies ie no negotiating foreign policy without set preconditions.
We have always used multi-lateral diplomatic exercise, the issue is do we negotiate directly without pre-conditions. With Iran we have used Russia and France the same way historically that we used China with North Korea. The difference is Bush stop talking directly with enemies until Iran develop the bomb. The debate is rather you agree or not is negotiating unconditionally with countries like Iran and North Korea is a good idea or bad.
Bolton/NEOCON would argue our way or the highway style diplomacy. They are also for regime change. Powel/Containment would argue we must keep the dialogue open and realize whole sell changes could cause more problems than they solve. Ironically the NEOCON position is closer to Carter while Powel was the traditional conservative position.
Many conservatives argued with the tough stance Carter took against the Russians via the wheat embargo as over reaching foreign policy.
John,
WTF are you talking about…Bush flip/flop? He instructed his team to participate in mulit-lateral discussions with N. Korea and finally after many setbacks, there is movement in the right direction.
China and Russia participated with us and 3 other countries to negotiate with N. Korea.
China and Russia both refused to participate in sanctions against Iran.
You bitch when Bush supposedly acts like a “cowboy” and goes it alone. Then you bitch when Bush joins with other countries to address a crisis.
Bottom line John, you are not happy unless you are bitching…especially about Bush. And you never answer even the simplest question…still waiting.
Bart
I am sorry you do not understand the debate!
P.S. IHMO in the name of global stability, I’m for never abandoning our allies in the region such as South Korea, Taiwan, ect…so there would definitely be some difference of opinion in regards to the “isolationists”. But if one takes a look at this monstrosity known as the military industrial complex, some Ron Paul type “change” would entail taking another look at the billions wasted-coprorate espionage, fraud, corruption, outsourcing high tech, tech transfers, boondoggles, pork, pet projects, and paying more attention to whistle blowers, rule of law, ect…
John,
“Understand the debate” — what debate, you don’t even grasp the basic premise of the discussion, how can their be a debate?