Kerry Blames Pres Bush for North Koreas Blackmail

Clinton and Carter Did It

Published on September 13, 2004 By aconservative In Democrat

Mr Kerry attacked Pres Bush again when he said, “I think that this one (referring to North Korea’s nuclear capability) is the most serious failures and challenges to the security of the United States, and it really underscores the way in which George Bush talks the game but doesn't deliver, They have taken their eye off the real ball, They took it off in Afghanistan and shifted it to Iraq. They took it off in North Korea and shifted it to Iraq. They took it off to Russia and the nuclear materials there, and shifted it to Iraq."

To my liberal friends, the problem with North Korea and her nuclear capability was as a result of Mr Clinton and Mr Carter giving the North Koreans 2 “light water nuclear reactors” that they used to manufacture their nuclear weapons. And these are the facts.

On October 12, 1994, the Clinton administration signed an agreement with North Korea that established a three-stage process for the elimination of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. In return, the United States promised to move toward normalized economic and diplomatic relations and assured North Korea that it would provide assistance with the construction of LWRs (Light Water Reactors) to replace North Korea’s graphite-moderated reactors.

Then on October 21, 1994 the United States and North Korea concluded four months of negotiations by adopting the “Agreed Framework” in Geneva. To resolve U.S. concerns about Pyongyang’s plutonium-producing reactors and the Yongbyon reprocessing facility, the agreement called for North Korea to freeze and eventually eliminate its nuclear facilities, a process that would require dismantling three nuclear reactors, two of which are still under construction. North Korea also agreed to allow the IAEA to verify compliance through “special inspections,” and it agreed to allow 8,000 spent nuclear reactor fuel elements to be removed to a third country.

In exchange, Pyongyang received two light water reactors and annual shipments of heavy fuel oil during construction of the reactors. The light water reactors would be financed and constructed through the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO), a multinational consortium.

Calling for movement toward full normalization of political and economic relations, the accord also served as a jumping-off point for U.S.-North Korean dialogue on Pyongyang’s development and export of ballistic missiles, as well as other issues of bilateral concern.

According to an article written by Michael Valenti, Michanical Engineering – CIME dated April 1, 1995, modular designs involving prefabricated components are the main mode of the new generation of advanced light-water nuclear reactors that would replace aging reactor systems. Signals are transmitted throughout the plant using fiber-optics technology which also cuts costs as it enhances the safety features of the facility. Passive safety measures such as gravity and convection exist to further reduce pumps, valves and other instruments. With modular construction, more-sophisticated communications, and safer designs, advanced light-water reactors are set to replace aging nuclear power plants.

At that time the Clinton Administration said that what they gave to North Korea avoided a pending war with North Korea. The rest is history. North Korea ignored their agreement.

I am sure that if Mr Bush was President then, he would not have succumbed to blackmail.

So Mr Kerry, instead of blaming Pres Bush, he should point his fingers to his mentors.

aconservative

"

Comments

WtheDisme

on Sep 14, 2004

Yes, Bush may have just sat on his hands and tell them to "Stop it!" instead of actually trying to do something about it. You think that would have done anything at all? Besides, we never completely lived up to our part of the Agreement...there were so many delays on our end that what we promised in 2003 ended up being projected for 2008. I won't go and say that North Korea wouldn't have did what they did anyway..but it makes you think what may have happened if we were able to deliver what we said we would when we would. If you think Clinton was bad on trusting a wacko dictator on the hope that the area can be safer then we can thank Reagan for Iraq and what we have going for us now..perhaps without Reagan backing Saddam our 2 Gulf Wars may never have happened. I'm sure both guys thought they were doing good at the time, but it sure is easy to "point fingers" now isn't it?

Chemicalkinetics

on Sep 14, 2004

There is a huge difference. Reagan back Saddam to against Ayatolla Kohmeni of Iran. Iran was a bigger threat than Iraq at the time.

kingbee

on Sep 14, 2004

I am sure that if Mr Bush was President then, he would not have succumbed to blackmail

im equally sure that mr bush--who is seemingly incapable of foreign policy that isnt easily compressed into a snappy slogan--has acted nearly as irresponsibly as kim jong il.

in return for increased food and oil, north korea agreed in 1999 to permit the us and the un to monitor the removal of fuel rods and conduct inspections of its kumchangri site. north korea and south korea were talking for the first time ever in june 2000. it was only after bush reneged on the terms of clintons 1999 agreement and made his 'axis of evil' state of the union address in 2002 that things began deteriorating and un inspectors were tossed out of the country.

all of the other countries with an interest in bringing some sanity to the region have expressed dismay at the bush administration's apparent lack of a plan to bring north korea back into line. it was only in june 2004--having apparently realized some voters might take notice of the fact their government had done nearly nothing at all to stop north korea from producing enough enriched plutonium to arm themselves AND provide some to other parties--that the us made its first halfway serious move towards resolving the crisis.

in terms of making the world safer for americans, george bush has failed. placing a single anti-missle system in alaska--especially a system that has failed nearly 20 years of testing--is just one more proof that bush not only doesnt get it. he doesnt realize there's something to get in the first place.

kingbee

on Sep 14, 2004

Iran was a bigger threat than Iraq at the time.

iran has never stopped being a bigger threat than iraq despite what the bush administration hopes youll believe.

drmiler

on Sep 14, 2004

Reply #3 By: kingbee - 9/14/2004 7:19:11 AM
I am sure that if Mr Bush was President then, he would not have succumbed to blackmail

im equally sure that mr bush--who is seemingly incapable of foreign policy that isnt easily compressed into a snappy slogan--has acted nearly as irresponsibly as kim jong il.

in return for increased food and oil, north korea agreed in 1999 to permit the us and the un to monitor the removal of fuel rods and conduct inspections of its kumchangri site. north korea and south korea were talking for the first time ever in june 2000. it was only after bush reneged on the terms of clintons 1999 agreement and made his 'axis of evil' state of the union address in 2002 that things began deteriorating and un inspectors were tossed out of the country.

all of the other countries with an interest in bringing some sanity to the region have expressed dismay at the bush administration's apparent lack of a plan to bring north korea back into line. it was only in june 2004--having apparently realized some voters might take notice of the fact their government had done nearly nothing at all to stop north korea from producing enough enriched plutonium to arm themselves AND provide some to other parties--that the us made its first halfway serious move towards resolving the crisis.

in terms of making the world safer for americans, george bush has failed. placing a single anti-missle system in alaska--especially a system that has failed nearly 20 years of testing--is just one more proof that bush not only doesnt get it. he doesnt realize there's something to get in the first place.

Wrong answer on this. Check below for quote from "Wall Street Journal"

Back to Arms Control
Kerry calls for détente with Iran and North Korea.

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

Who says we aren't getting a foreign-policy debate this election season? In addition to Iraq, the Kerry-Edwards campaign has decided to make an issue of how to handle two other members of the original "axis of evil," Iran and North Korea. In a phrase, they are proposing to take us back to the future of arms control.

Some of us were hoping that that doctrine had died along with the Cold War, but Mr. Kerry is bidding to revive it as the centerpiece of his anti-nuclear proliferation policy. The idea--much loved during the "detente" with the Soviet Union during the 1970s--is that the way to make the U.S. secure is to persuade adversaries to sign treaties promising not to build more weapons, or in the present era not to become nuclear powers in the first place. We will then dispatch U.N. inspectors to verify compliance, and everyone can sleep better at night.

This past weekend, Mr. Kerry suggested that President Bush is to blame because North Korea unilaterally withdrew from its nuclear nonproliferation agreement with the U.S. in 2002, and is now believed to possess at least a couple of nuclear warheads. There's one slight problem with this argument: North Korea is the party that broke its promise.
Under the arms control agreement negotiated by the Clinton Administration--the so-called Agreed Framework of 1994--the U.S. attempted to buy off Pyongyang with fuel oil and two light water reactors in exchange for North Korea giving up its nuclear program. But as soon as the North deemed it convenient, it repudiated that pact, booted U.N. inspectors out of the country, and turned off the TV cameras monitoring its nuclear facilities at Yongbyon. It then began demanding even a larger payoff in return for giving up the nuclear program it had earlier vowed it didn't have.

Here's the link.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005618

If theywon't let you read the entire article because your not registered let me know and I'll post the entire thing.

stevendedalus

on Sep 15, 2004

On October 12, 1994, the Clinton administration signed an agreement with North Korea that established a three-stage process for the elimination of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

NK already had nuclear material to make weapons.

ShoZan

on Sep 15, 2004

NK already had nuclear material to make weapons.

I wonder where they got that nuClear material from, Hell it would be nIce to kNow About it.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!