Kerry Blames Bush for N. Korean "Nuclear Nightmare"
 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry accused the Bush administration of letting a "nuclear nightmare" develop by refusing to deal with North Korea when it first came to office.

In a telephone interview with The New York Times, published on its Web Site late Sunday, Kerry said the current fear that North Korea may be preparing to test a plutonium bomb was a consequence of President Bush's preoccupation with Iraq.

The newspaper said the interview was initiated by the Massachusetts Democrat, who is running against Bush in November's U.S. presidential election.

While officials were still trying determine whether recent activity at a potential nuclear test site in North Korea indicated an upcoming test, Kerry said North Korea's threatening such an action was a sign of failed diplomacy.

"I think that this is one of 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," the Times quoted Kerry as saying.

"They have taken their eye off the real ball," Kerry said of the Bush administration. "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."

Calling the current nuclear situation in North Korea "a nuclear nightmare," Kerry directly accused Bush of leaving the United States more vulnerable to North Korea, the Times said.

Bush's press secretary Scott McClellan told the Times that Kerry "wants to return to the failed policies of the previous administration, where the U.S. was duped. We've been down that road before and we have no intention of letting it happen again."

Kerry also said the Bush administration's refusal to follow Secretary of State Colin Powell's March 2001 advice to continue the Clinton administration's direct diplomacy with North Korea had created the conditions for the current crisis.

"The week that Colin Powell stood up and said we are going to continue the dialogue with the North Koreans, I said, 'Good,"' Kerry said, recalling the administration's foreign policy rift, months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"And two days later when George Bush pulled the rug out from under Kim Dae Jung," South Korea's then-president, "when he was in the Oval Office, and sent him back both embarrassed and bewildered to South Korea, I said that was both dangerous and the wrong direction for this issue and America."

Asked about how he would handle the threat of a North Korean nuclear test if he became president, Kerry replied that the issue would likely have to be taken to the United Nations Security Council.

"Hypothetical questions are not real," he said, arguing that North Korea was a case for preventive diplomacy and that Bush's "ideologically driven" approach had kept him from truly engaging North Korea. "The Chinese are frustrated, the South Koreans, the Japanese are frustrated," he said.

Bush is the cause of everything

i think its kinda weird to kerry has a point i mean we went to war with iraq/afghanistan and completley neglected the fact that north korea was still testing/holding/acquiring/ nuclear weapons. All eyes were on North Korea when they're leader was slaughtering 1000s of his people.

I kinda wish Kerry would quite attacking Bush.. it's turning into the typical dirty politics and it's just going to back fire on him and cause us to get stuck with Bush Jr for another four years.

I think Kerry is fucking up right now on his campaign.. He isn't going to win Bush supporter votes by bashing Bush.. He will win them by telling people how he will do thing differently and convencing them he can win a war on terror.. Which seems to be the major point in which Bush supporters seem to think Kerry lacks.

but wait who started the attacks bush lol he's the one who started it with the commercials attacking kerry, whatever bush gets he's asked for or has had it comming to him he's a SCUM BAG

well I guess it was Sata clause that called the North Koreans part of the Axis of Evil and openly threated them.

You can't expect them to respond in a good way after that. So lets look back at Bush's little Axis of Evil as he calls it.. Out of the three I remember. Iraq has been turned into a breeding pool for and endless supply of new terrorism.. Iran has decided to push it's nuclear program and as it Seems North Korea is in the testing phase.

So yea Bush policy seems to be working great.

yea I know Bush started it, and Kerry should do some attacking back.. Trust me I support Kerry over Bush.. What I'm saying is Kerry needs to win Bush voters, he isn't going to do that by attacking Bush. He will simply piss them off and make them like Bush more.

Kerry really needs to step up to the plate and show everyone he is a true leader. It's sad but people like the tough talk of Bush even if he doesn't deliver. People are stupid, they don't see that Bush has failed to deliver on almost everything he has promised they see that he stands up and looks kinda like a cowboy.

For some reason that's more important to the other half of this country. Kerry needs to step up to the plate and show he's a tough guy.

Kerry needs to show that he has balls and FOCUS....

Stop saying that he would have gone to war in Iraq anyway... that it was the right thing to do...

It was the wrong thing, and he should start saying it CLEARLY ...

The tax cuts were and are wrong, so say it.

No big speeches: most americans do not have a long attention span, so KISS ( Keep It Simple Stupid )...

Just like Bush... makes it easy of the low IQ population....


:2 cents:

you should support kerry, and your right what kerry has to do is win over bush's voters and by attacking bush he's not going to do that he has to persuade them that he has is on the same level as bush when it comes to control and power, the people need that feeling of security. Kerry needs to step up and go at bush's throat explain to the people what he has promised and what he has delivered to us. Bush has done nothing but put this country in harms way, almost everything he has promised the people has been a lie.

If I recall correctly, North Korea has been a problem for the past fifty years. Suddenly it's the fault of the current President sitting in the Oval Office? That's kind of funny.

they've only posed as a nuclear threat while he was in office :thumbsup

thank you

thats because most of these kids are 20 or 30 and have no idea what Korea was all about.
just something in a history book, if even that.

RocHard it was Bush that stood up in his speech and named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as a Axis of Evil and openly threated them. As a result Iraq is now a breading ground for new terrorism, and Both Iran and NK have stepped up their work on obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Even Collen Powell (the only sain person in the Bush admin) wanted to continue with Clinton's plan and talks with NK.. Which GB abruptly put a stop to.. So I say yes GB jr is a big reason we are in this position with NK today.

What do you expect from an idiot cowboy ???

He can't even pronounce " nuclear ", so how could he discuss and negociate...:1orglaugh

he can't pronounce....you can't spell....

I am not american , my mother tongue isn't english ....

Bush is ...

BTW, what spelling mistake... or is it a typo ( my keyboard is not even english...)

:321GFY

no we didnt we are in 6 nation talks with North Korea... South Korea, China, Japan, Russia, US.. are all talking about this trying to solve it diplomatically....

Trust me no one wants North Korea to have Nuclear weapons... That coalition right there will end North Korea...

Don't get so upset, I just thought it was funny. If it makes you feel better, "negociate" is actually ok according to dictionary.com. I had just never seen it spelled that way. Feel better? :)

My point was....people always bash Bush for being stupid, and a lot of them are idiots themselves. Just one of those things. :)

And youd say that incorrectly, because it was Clinton that gave him North Korea the nuclear reactor... And I garuntee you rather or not Bush named the Axis of Evil... NK and Iran would but work just as hard... Just you wouldnt know about it... And the talks continue with North Korea...

This is another example of Kerry twisting the facts to show that he really is the security guy....

But, I ask anyone... What would of Kerry done differently in North Korea? What could he do differently. This is Japan, China, Russian, and South Korea's problem more then ours... We kind of have to wait and deal with them diplomatically, since if there is any military action needed we are going to want all of them on our side not the other side... So again I ask.. what could Kerry do differently? Make speeches about it everyday so all you morons know that there something going on? Because if you dont hear about it.. it doesnt happen right?

What's funny is Clinton's "secret diplomacy" resulted in North Korea getting a Nucelar Reactor for "energy purposes" on the promise that it wouldnt develop wmd's.... Problem with that is it's not hard to turn a nuclear reactor for energy purposes into a weapon making machine...

But this is how Kerry and other democrats deal with these types of people.... They appease them...

If you are ok with appeasement... then vote for kerry... if you think if we are really nice to terrorist and rogue nations we wont have to fight them then vote for kerry.. Because thats his policy...

If you are like me and think you can't appease these guys then vote for Bush...

but how can you say it's not our problem? IT'S THE WORLDS PROBLEM. if north korea attacks china, japan, or russia you don't think one of them is going to retaliate with a nuclear attack? as soon as one nuclear attack takes place they're will be multiple attacks around the world one nation after another attacking eachother in defense of each eventually killing off all nations including those who don't care... now wouldn't it make sense if nato stepped in here, all we do is negoiate when do we take fuckin action against these asshole if they can't follow the rules than they will pay the consiquences and so will the rest of us...

what a bunch of crap ...

Bush threatened a country that to that day was conforming to its agreement...
Same as Iraq,,, and PLEASE, do not mention your fucking F-16 being shot at: they had NO business there ( google before you make an ass of yourself with " but the UN resolutions,,, bla bla bla...)

good to see the collective ignorance is still alive and well.

ignorance is bliss

False facts, Clinton agreed to a deal that would get North Korea a reactor if they followed through on their end of the deal.

They did not and the reactor was never built.

:thumbsup

Let me correct that, the reactor was never built by THE U.S. China came in a gave them what the needed to finish it up.

North Korea in fact has blammed the U.S. for trying to oppress them by denying them the ability to build a reactor and directly blammed Clinton for pulling out of the deal they originally made, just to prove the point further.

Agreed, it is the worlds problem, but first most it is the neighbors... and also they hvae the most influence over there... Don't get me wrong I don't think we should wait around forever while the neighbors make up their mind.. But, maybe we should let a diplomatic process try to work? if it doesnt work like in Iraq's case then build the coalition to destroy these guys?

So how can you say the secret diplomacy was working?

So Iraq, was conforming to its agreements? and so was North Korea?

And Bush was the bad guy by threatening them?

Soemthing tells me no amount of facts could help you...

so we put our lives in their hands and when they fail we try to save them only causing us to bring more shit upon ourselves because now we attacked north korea and are at risk of being attacked by a nuclear weapon i dunno theres no right answer we don't know whats gonna happen

whoa. you have no idea what you are talking about. N. Korea was violating their agreements. that had a nuclear program and agreed to let it be monitored while agreeing to stop pursuing nuclear weapons programs in exchange for oil, food, medicine etc.... they secretly started another program AND continued to recieve oil, food, medicine etc under the agreement with Clinton.

none of that is in dispute.


some of you fucking pussies are unbelievable. make up your minds... you say Bush is wrong and did nothing... and a couple years ago you were bitching that Bush was provoking N. Korea. Now Bush let N. Korea have nuclear weapons?

Bush is responsible for everything... Of course... Thats the essence of Bush hating..

My main problem with democrats.. and this is what made me such a stout republican.. before i realized this i was more in the middle... but, democrats they critize everything.. negative about everything... yet they dont really provide any good solutions for the problems... They do a helluva a good job pointing problems out though...

Please show me a quote that came from me saying that secret diplomacy was working?

Agreed, no right answer.. especially sitting here in the cheap seats... I have not idea whats going on in the talks maybe or whats secretly being said behind backs...

I was referring to the thread in general... where kerry wishes bush didnt end the secret diplomacy...

No I think what people are saying is that instead of focusing on an impotent leader such as Saddam Hussein, and his country who posed no real threat to the world we should have focused on the countries that did.

Instead we focused on Iraq and are now spreading our military too thin..and we've lost ocntrol of over 50% of the country given up major cities to "insurgents" and created enough hate that allows things like fundamentalism and theocracies to take hold.

Short, clear and to the point.

:thumbsup


Posted by Piker:

As I said : only bla bla bla , no facts.

Ok, you feel that they did this, did that... but that's your feelins, your perception, not facts...

Nuclear power is required by countries with no oil, and that cannot invade the ones with the oil ...

Why the US can have nuclear power ??? Because they are peacefull ????

You are a typical democrat.. good at critizing.. not so good with solutions....

So let me get this straight... You would of preferred to let Saddam alone and continue trading with the likes of the French and etc... So that he can build he WMD aresenal up again to cause more problems then now?

And do what with North Korea? We shuld of invaded them? What do you mean by focus? Like we haven't focused on them... Like they werent part of the Axis of Evil Bush declared in his State of the Union... Did you want us to send our troops there instead?

Ohh and before you argue that there is no proof that Saddam would of built up weapons.. There was no proof he wouldn't either.. and there is proof he had done it before and had no real concern for the world opinion... Maybe you think he had or would have a miraculous turn of agenda like Kerry. I don't know...

But I do know that terrorist are now fighting our soliders in iraq instead of our citizens in nyc... I do know that terrorist are scared of the Iraqi's having their own peaceful self-governing government... This is why terrorist are conecentrating on IRaq right now because it is an important time.. They think they can make the US pull out and then they can control Iraq and its resources... Because once the US is gone the current Iraqi government has no chance against the likes of Al Queda...

So let me get this straight, you dont think the US should have Nuclear Power?

And you think this whole thing is about nuclear power? Energy right?

Sarcasm... get it ?

USA invades countries ... all over the world...

Ok, I HEAR THE BELL RINGING ; time to get back in class, PIKER.