[Note: This post originally appeared at Often Right, Rarely Correct. - Ed.]
There is quite serious doubt, to the rational follower of U.S. foreign policy, in the Bush Administration's ability to distinguish political goals from national interest. Nowhere has this been more apparent than in it's nuclear non-proliferation policy, or lack thereof. The case of North Korea (or Democratic People's Republic of Korea) shows us that the Bush Administration's adherence to ideology gravely endangers our nation and its allies.
In 1994, North Korea pledged fidelity to a framework wherein it agreed to freeze its plutonium enrichment program. This framework persisted until 2002 and George W. Bush's infamous "Axis of Evil" speech. Shortly after that speech, President Bush accused North Korea of having a secret uranium enrichment program and pulled the United States out of the agreed framework. Thus freed, North Korea unfroze its plutonium enrichment program. Four years later, they tested a nuclear bomb made from plutonium.
Note very carefully how they did not and have not tested any bombs made with uranium.
It is now apparently clear that North Korea never had a uranium enrichment program to begin with. Not only that, but -- as the linked-to article makes clear -- U.S. intelligence agencies doubted the veracity of President Bush's claim at the time he made it. And so, now that North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon made from plutonium, the Bush Administration has softened its position and negotiated a deal nearly identical to the agreed framework of 1994.
By adhering to ideologically or politically appealing lines of thought, the Bush Administration actually endangers national security. By pursuing a strategy -- if one may be a bit liberal with the word -- that is emotionally and psychologically appealing, they have actually made the world a more dangerous place. The "party of national security" managed, in six years' time, to make the country less secure than it was during the Clinton Administration by this one policy towards this one nation.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
3 comments:
Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.
With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.
No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.
See the Debate Flowchart for some basic rules.
Sourced factual corrections are always published and acknowledged.
I will respond or not respond to comments as the mood takes me. See my latest comment policy for details. I am not a pseudonomous-American: my real name is Larry.
Comments may be moderated from time to time. When I do moderate comments, anonymous comments are far more likely to be rejected.
I've already answered some typical comments.
I have jqMath enabled for the blog. If you have a dollar sign (\$) in your comment, put a \\ in front of it: \\\$, unless you want to include a formula in your comment.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If by foreign policy you mean, (where have I heard that before?) If by foreign policy you mean, euphemistically of course, Driving your SUV through the daisy patch of some unfortunates garden in the poor part of town whilst tossing various live or timed controlled anti-personnel devices out of the window, done in manner so care free as to make the distribution of beads at Mardi Gras look like a planned exercise in bestowing alms to the poor, accompanied by repetitious drivel of words with less than three syllables and delivered with all the subtlety of a freshly discovered turd in a swimming pool, if it is of that kind of foreign policy that you speak, then no, for I have great trouble trying to rationalise the irrational.
ReplyDeleteAs only would the delusional try to rationalise that six years of Bush
rule had made anyone safer, least of all Americans.
The grammar in that content was truly jarring. But thank you. I think.
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome, I think.
ReplyDelete