While we’re on the subject of slurs from Republican hack politicians, you all may remember Tom DeLay’s “claim”:http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200403/POL20040309b.shtml a couple of months ago that John Kerry did indeed have the support of foreign leaders – such as Kim Jong-Il. “NKZone”:http://www.nkzone.org/nkzone/entry/2004/who_does_pyongy.php#more, your one and only one-stop-shop for North Korea related news, begs to differ. Apparently, a North Korean spokesman has recently “done an interview”:http://cfkap.com/commentary/interview/0904kmcinterviewMal.html warning that Kerry’s call for CVID,[1] and pressures from Democrats for military action mean that a Kerry administration would lead to heightened military tensions. He suggests that North Korea would respond to increased pressure from Kerry by test-firing ICBMs into the high seas close to prominent American cities, and test-detonating a H-Bomb. I’m not a qualified North-Korea tea-leaf reader by any stretch of the imagination, so I don’t want to speculate too much on the source and meaning of this. Still, on its face, it certainly appears to give the lie to Republican claims that North Korea would prefer a Democratic administration.
fn1. “i.e.”:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/FE08Dg01.html Complete, Verifiable Irreversible Dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal.
{ 13 comments }
Tom T. 08.31.04 at 1:22 pm
Maybe this is an opening for Nader.
Nat Whilk 08.31.04 at 2:11 pm
So we can rest assured that if Kerry wins it won’t make North Korea happy but will instead induce it to fire ICBMs near prominent U.S. cities. This is a great selling point. I think Kerry should make it a focus of his campaign.
fast & wily 08.31.04 at 2:50 pm
The claim by folks in/around/standing near the administration that the dictator with the best dictator style (shazam on that hair and those leisure suits big boy!) is pro-Kerry is round two. As I recall, round one was that Osama is pro-Kerry because he’s “scared” of Dubya. The response to this by folks in/around/standing near the Kerry camp was that Osama wants Dubya to win, because he is a terrorist recruting tool wet dream. I’m sure round three will rehash the Kerry flub of declaring that “other world leaders want me for prez” (whence some of this sprang, I’m sure) with the Dubya camp declaring that the French want Kerry (borne out by recent articles in le Monde), and we all know what commiepinkos the French are, so if you don’t vote for Dubya you, too, are a commiepinkoterrorist. And you get your money, like George Soros, from trade in narcotics.
In the meantime, until we extend the American franchise to the North Koreans/Taliban/Al Qaeda/the French, I’m going to stick to worrying about Ohio.
John Davies 08.31.04 at 3:23 pm
What makes you assume that North Korea doesn’t want to test fire ICBM’s?
My explanation of the facts provided is that North Korea would be afraid to fire near US cities when President Bush is reelected.
Sebastian Holsclaw 08.31.04 at 4:56 pm
Since CVID is the position of both candidates, it is tough to make a choice between them on that basis.
Matt Weiner 08.31.04 at 4:58 pm
John, North Korea sure hasn’t felt afraid to move forward aggressively with their plutonium reprocessing program with Bush in office the first time.*
I’d make a lot of facetious remarks about how silly it is to base our choice on what the North Koreans want–like, “Nat, aren’t you appeasing evildoers?”–but I don’t think this is funny at all. Bush’s head-in-sand policy toward North Korea not-a-crisis was the best way policy to increase the chance that a million Americans will die in an atomic bomb blast sometime. My brother is about to move to Washington, and I don’t find this amusing at all.
Seymour Hersh and Fred Kaplan have had more on Bush’s bungling.
(Oh, and if that interview’s been reported correctly I think North Korea’s just talking smack. I’m not an expert but I haven’t seen anyone suggest that they’re close to being able to develop an H-bomb as opposed to an A-bomb.)
*Plutonium reprocessing is much scarier than uranium enrichment, which was what was going on before Bush assumed office. See the first two paragraphs of the Kaplan article on the difference.
Barry 08.31.04 at 5:18 pm
Matt, I’d peg the best chance of a whole bunch of Americans getting some ‘instant sunshine’ in the next couple of decades on terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons. The most likely source being the (countries of) the former USSR. The Nunn-Lugar program attempted to deal with that problem; Bush, of course, cut the funding (I guess because it addressed a real terrorist threat, and not something more politically useful).
Nat Whilk 08.31.04 at 5:37 pm
Matt Weiner wrote: “I’d make a lot of facetious remarks about how silly it is to base our choice on what the North Koreans want—like, “Nat, aren’t you appeasing evildoers?â€â€”but I don’t think this is funny at all.”
(1) I’m glad to see that you’ve mastered the art of paralipsis.
(2) Who are these evildoers I’m supposed to have appeased? My engineering math students?
“Bush’s head-in-sand policy toward North Korea not-a-crisis was the best way policy to increase the chance that a million Americans will die in an atomic bomb blast sometime.”
Would you have supported unilateral pre-emptive military action to prevent North Korea from acquiring the makings of nuclear bombs?
“My brother is about to move to Washington, and I don’t find this amusing at all.”
Don’t you miss the good old days when it was “We’ll all go together when we go . . .”?
Shai 08.31.04 at 5:49 pm
that political tactic (FUD) has nothing to do with evidence. once you get into an argument over whether kim jong il is a supporter of john kerry… well, you’ve already lost. and they’re saying it louder and more often elsewhere, in strains, versions, variations resistant to your original counter-argument.
Doc 08.31.04 at 6:23 pm
Kerry might not let the “Rev.” Moon sell/give North Korea any more nuclear subs.
If you’re the owner of the Washington Times that means you’re feted at the Capitol rather than dragged to Gitmo.
Matt Weiner 08.31.04 at 6:53 pm
Nat–The appeasement remark was meant to evoke a parody of the line of thought that goes, “The last thing we should ever do is something that will make the terrorists/evildoers happy”–as you point out “it won’t make North Korea happy but will instead induce it to fire ICBMs near prominent U.S. cities” is not a great selling point. Except I meant to say it in a facetious way that made it clear that I didn’t think there was anything wrong with your comment.
But since you ask if I would have supported preemptive military nuclear action against N. Korea–no, I don’t think that would’ve been a good idea. As far as I can tell the least bad course of action would’ve been to make some concessions to N. Korea in return for keeping the plutonium locked up (which it was; again, there’s a difference between plutonium and uranium). Not a good choice, but we’ve already settled that sometimes you have to do what the evildoers want. Pretending there was no problem was a dumb move.
And I don’t miss the days when it was “We will all go together,” really.
Barry–
N. Korea strikes me as a country that is likely to sell off nukes, but I ain’t an international security expert.
dipnut 08.31.04 at 9:03 pm
Um, the interviewee is Kim Myong Chol, the self-described “unofficial” spokesman for the DPRK. He’s a Korean expatriate living in Japan, with no particular connection to the Kim regime. He’s also a bit of a whack-job.
Grain of salt, people.
Barry 09.01.04 at 1:24 pm
“Barry—
N. Korea strikes me as a country that is likely to sell off nukes, but I ain’t an international security expert.”
Posted by Matt Weiner
It’s a worry, but the retaliation part applies (if a nuke goes off in a US city, N. Korea is in deep, deep trouble). Terrorists and post-soviet criminals, however, are less constrained.
Comments on this entry are closed.