May 18, 2003
AN INTERVIEW WITH HOWARD DEAN....Liberal Oasis has an email interview with Howard Dean up today. Check it out.
I think it's nice that Dean gave an interview to a blogger, and it
looks like it really was him answering the questions. I've always
thought that email interviews with politicians were problematic because
(a) it's too easy to just regurgitate campaign talking points in email,
and (b) it's too easy to assign the interview to a staffer. Who would
know?
Like I said, however, this sounds like it's really Dean, which makes
this answer to a question about his opposition to the Iraq war immensely
frustrating: Frankly, I've never understood why
[Bush] was concentrating on Iraq, which had been successfully contained
for twelve years, while every day a country like North Korea develops
its nuclear capability.
OK, then, Dr. Dean, what do you think we should be doing about North Korea?
But there was no followup. Argggh.
Posted by Kevin Drum at May 18, 2003 12:33 PM
| TrackBack
You expected a follow-up question?
Okay, then, what would the answer be?
If we did something about North Korea, you can bet that Dean would be
pointing out that North Korea had been successfully contained for almost
exactly half a century and wondering why we weren't doing something
about...whatever was left we hadn't done something about. Trinidad,
maybe.
I think he's said he'd be willing to give more aid for verifiable, on the ground inspections.
"...Dean's discussion of North Korea's nuclear threat. He said the
United States should resume food and fuel aid - and diplomatically
recognize North Korea - in exchange for that country's allowing weapons
inspectors to enter. Diplomatic recognition will pay off, Dean said.
"We'll have more leverage over their behavior when they're in the tent than when they're out of the tent," he said."
5/14/03
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA%20Dean%20Seattle
And when the North Korean government accepts the offer, aid resumes,
and they keep the inspectors from verifing anything, I suppose Dean will
say 'Damn the starving peasants, turn that oil spigot off, and stop the
shipments of food!'.
Or is he more likely to say: "We must not take any rash acts which
will allow the North Korean government to harden their resolve and which
will tend to complicate the situation."
If answer #2 is more likely, he will be following in the recent
tradition of the Democratic Party, North Korea will continue cheating,
and the bargain will become food and oil as trade for pretending that
North Korea was ceasing its nuclear program, just like it was under
Clinton.
Why don't you send him some questions and see what you get back?
and the bargain will become food and oil as trade for pretending
that North Korea was ceasing its nuclear program, just like it was under
Clinton.
Oh, like Bush's response, "Oh YEAH? Well I DARE you to cross this line. Oh YEAH??? Well now I dare you to cross this
line. Oh YEAH . . . ????" Playing chicken with a psycho itching for a
confrontation (funny, but that fits either one of them) makes me feel so
much safer.
and the bargain will become food and oil as trade for pretending
that North Korea was ceasing its nuclear program, just like it was under
Clinton.
In fact, North Korea did cease its plutonium production
program in 1994, which was all it was required to do under the agreement
with Clinton. That agreement said nothing about not refining
weapons-grade uranium which, in fact, is much more difficult to
produce than plutonium, and which requires a massive industrial
infrastructure that North Korea doesn't have. (Why do you think the
U.S. produced only one uranium bomb, and nobody else has produced one
since? It's because plutonium is a thousand times easier and cheaper to
make.) And the North Koreans didn't undertake their uranium production
plans (which have gone nowhere; see above re industrial capacity) until
the Bush Administration started threatening them and then broke its
agreement to build the light water nuclear reactors Clinton had promised
them. The Clinton plan was actually working, until Bush started making
noises about the "Axis of Evil" and then decided to poke a stick into
the hornet's nest.
The fact that Dean didn't offer up a response to what he would have
done instead doesn't invalidate the question implicit in the answer
which was: Why Iraq and not North Korea.
One of them was actually President, sort of, and ought to be able to explain why he made the choice he did.
That we've already prosecuted a war and we still don't know is more than a little troubling to me.
That said, Dean's response as posted by 90210 satisfies me
notwithstanding Sebastian Holsclaw's response to it, relying as it does
on Holsclaw's opinion of what Dean would do if Dean had done what Dean
says he would have done.
We've already seen Bush's choices in action, might as well delve into
those before we prosecute Howard Dean for the choices someone thinks he
might potentially make at some point in the future, especially since
those choices are likely to be moot before Dubya is done with all of us.
Care to explain, Sebastian, why Bush's handling of NK is so exemplary?
Basharov, the Agreed Framework specifically stated that as part of
the food and oil program, the North Korean government was to live up to
all of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Even
Clinton wasn't silly enough to trade everything we had to bargain with
in exchange for one particular method of making nuclear weapons.
The Uranium production was restarted by 1998 which according to my
calculations predates the 'Axis of Evil' speech by 3 years, and in fact
predates the entire Bush presidency. So unless 'working' is defined as
'the North Korean government can continue to pursue nuclear weapons
while we pay them in oil and food not to pursue nuclear weapons'
Clinton's diplomacy was at best kicking the problem forward into the
next presidency, and at worst a complete failure.
Dean's approach has been tried, and it is was a failure. How many
failures do we need before we are allowed to admit that the experiment
has failed?
The value of Bush's approach is that it names a danger as actually
dangerous. Instead of continuing to pretend that North Korea is in
control, we are admitting that it is out of control. The situation in
North Korea is just as bad now as it has been for a decade. We are only
admitting how bad it is now.
That's lovely, Sebastian, but I asked you what Bush is doing about it, not what he's saying about it.
Wonderful.
The beauty is that Bush is doing nothing to accomplish nothing; which
is far better than doing something to accomplish something.
I see the point with Clinton, it's like presiding over a surplus and
thus kicking the problem of how to rationalize deficits forward to the
next President.
At least we can say that Bush has cured us of complaining about others abrogating treaties.
What, exactly, is Bush doing to contain North Korea? Last time I
checked, it had taken about 9 months of North Korea taking more and more
obvious and public steps before Bush even admitted that perhaps talking
about maybe having negotiations would be a good idea.
Failure or success, at least Clinton did something. Bush has
done nothing about North Korea except publicly threaten them and refuse
to hold any sort of negotiation (until about what, a month ago?).
Neither of which did anything but accelerate North Korea's plans.
Oh, forgot something. He also invaded Iraq, which means North Korea
is happily untouchable for several months since our army is involved
elsewhere.
Bush is playing "carrot and stick" except he didn't bring the carrot, and loaned his stick out.
I'm not a believer in 'doing something' just because you want to be seen as doing something.
Rick, I'm not sure how comparing this to the surplus/deficit issue
illuminates anything other than the fact that you dislike Bush for
multiple reasons.
What Bush is 'doing' is illustrating that the North Korean government
doesn't get food and oil from us for free. If they want to bargain
their nuclear programs for food and oil, that is one thing. If they
want to bargain food and oil from us for the APPEARANCE of getting rid
of their nuclear program, there is no deal. North Korea has made quite a
few demands that have to be met before they will negotiate. In another
setting, Kevin said that that kind of behaviour revealed a
unwillingness to really negotiate, and many of you on this board agreed.
What is differenct here?
So Bush is planning to eventually bargain with them?
Incidentally, it is Dean--confirmed by his own blog.
90210, the US and China were involved in negotiations with North
Korea not more than a week and a half ago. Reports are that China was
shocked by how ridiculous the North Koreans were.
So? I'm still waiting for you to explain how Bush's policy will have
better results than what Dean proposes. You say NK will realize that
Bush means business-- well here's something to consider: what if they
just keep on deceiving us? Bush may talk tougher but his stick is no
different than that of any other President.
So if there is no way to win, then you are saying that Bush's approach is no worse than any other approach right?
Question for all liberals. Is there any set of circumstances under
which you will point to a situation and say that negotiations have
broken down to the extent that further negotiations will not be helpful?
Well, to me the difference is not the approach but the skill of the
approacher. Based on their records, I'd trust Dean with it long before
I'd trust Bush. Same approaches, different results. Want to compare
Dean and Bush for lifetime accomplishments?
And no, while I am willing to go to war if necessary, even to make
the first strike, I would always be willing to negotiate. It might not
help, but on the other hand it might, and it can't hurt.
Question for all liberals. Is there any set of circumstances
under which you will point to a situation and say that negotiations have
broken down to the extent that further negotiations will not be
helpful?
I'm not taking the bait. Since the current occupant of 1600 hasn't negotiated the question is entirely moot.
A fairer question would be to ask if there is any circumstance under
which the current GOP and their fellow travelers would negotiate before
they declare the negotiations have broken down.
Unless they're arguing that Clinton's Administration had at least as
much skill as they think they can muster, I suppose that could be; in
fact I'd bet on it. I just haven't heard them advance that argument.
I see them declaring anything short of war or impotent capitulation futile.
Maybe it's just me, though.
The idea that negotiation can't hurt shows a horrible
misunderstanding of the way that extra time can work to a dictators
advantage.
Calling the GOP 'fellow travelers' is a fascinating bit of irony
considering with whom you would have us negotiate. Do you understand
the term?
"Fellow traveler"=someone who supports a party's goals but is not a member, approximately.
"The GOP and their fellow travelers"=republicans and declared independents who support republicans.
So Rick understands the term, and didn't call the GOP "fellow travelers" of anyone.
Nitpicking aside--
Under Clinton, N. Korea was secretly pursuing uranium enrichment, an
ineffective method that might, after a long long time, have produced one
nuclear weapon (in addition to the two they had before Clinton came
into office).
Under Bush, N. Korea is openly pursuing plutonium reprocessing, an
effective method that will give them a lot of nuclear weapons soon.
Bush also back-burnered the crisis for about a year while pursuing war on Iraq.
Advantage: Clinton! And the policy Dean mentions, too.
As I understand it, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was made of uranium; the one dropped on Nagasaki was made of plutonium.
The Hiroshima bomb was not very efficient, but it certainly killed a lot of people (over 100,000).
According to the CIA world factbook, North Korea is blessed with large uranium deposits, and has been mining them for some time.
For these reasons, I don't think we should be so dismissive of the
possibility that the North Koreans are enriching uranium. To me, this
sounds very dangerous. I do understand that the manufacture of nuclear
weapons is a massive undertaking and is difficult to hide. But if it is
at all possible to do it covertly, then it can be done in North Korea.
On another note, one of the interesting things about this crisis is that there may be no good solution to it.
Personally, I think that the course Bush is pursuing is the best one
under the circumstances. For decades, we have made it very clear that
the development of nuclear weapons will lead to economic sanctions.
South Africa and Argentina destroyed their nuclear weapons because they
were worried about economic sanctions. A lot of other countries, like
Algeria, have stopped developing nukes because we threatned to sanction
them if development continued.
Imagine what would happen if we suddenly reverse course and reward
North Korea with econmic aid for its development of nuclear weapons. I
don't think that it is a precedent we want to set, and I think that Bush
is doing the right thing by stonewalling.
A room without books is like a body without a soul.
Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need.
Always enjoy reading your blog. Thanks!
815 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here
you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~
6248 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-)
|
