# Blaming Bush for North Korea: Will it work politically? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 6, 2003, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blaming-bush-for-north-korea-will-it-work-politically/146954 "2003-01-06T16:02:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blaming-bush-for-north-korea-will-it-work-politically/146954/1 "2003-01-06T16:02:01Z")
Based on comments by various Democrats and Democratic media, a current talking point appears to be that the North Korean crisis is Bush’s fault. E.g., [Edwards blames ‘enormous crisis’ in North Korea on Bush](http://www.newsobserver.com/news/nc/story/2067929p-1985544c.html) Bush has been criticized for several failings:[ol][li]His inclusion of NK in the “Axis of Evil” pissed them off.[_]He has focused too much on Iraq, when NK was always the bigger danger.[_]There is no crisis. South Korea understands that peaceful negotiations can succeed. [_]He has under-stated the NK crisis in order to maintain public attention on invading Iraq.[_]He hasn’t built up a military capable of dealing with NK.He has been too militaristic, goading NK into building up their own armaments.[/ol]The question for debate is: [/li] **Will Bush’s opponents will succeed in getting the public to believe that the problems of NK should be blamed on Bush?** I say these rhetorical attacks will fail, because:[ol][_] The accusations are bogus. NK is a long-standing problem.[_]In particular, there’s nothing really new about NK developing nukes. The new aspect is that we are no longer in denial.[_]The accusations are inconsistent.[_]A single attack message might be effective even if false, but there are two many different accusations here.[/ol] ---
**Author:** ![Master\_Wang-Ka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/master_wang-ka/32/3325_2.png) [@Master\_Wang-Ka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Master_Wang-Ka)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blaming-bush-for-north-korea-will-it-work-politically/146954/2 "2003-01-06T16:05:37Z")
I don’t BLAME the situation on Bush… plainly, they were a threat, even during the Clinton administration, and before… …although I don’t think Bush is taking them seriously enough. Perhaps after a Korean nuke, smuggled in by crazed Muslims, detonates in downtown Washington, D.C… ---
**Author:** ![TBone2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@TBone2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TBone2)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blaming-bush-for-north-korea-will-it-work-politically/146954/3 "2003-01-06T16:17:48Z")
I agree. The Dems have tried to pin a lot of shit on GWB, including a sluggish economy, the 9/11 attacks, the Enron collapse, and on and on. None of it has stuck, and the NK shit probably won’t stick either. The Dems seem to be imploding. Their one-time point man, Daschle, has faded – and rightfully so – to insignificance. They lost control of the Senate and saw their minority status in the House worsen in the mid-term elections. Their best candidate for president in 2004 – the pitiful Al Gore – has decided he won’t even run. At least one recent poll shows that the American people prefer the Republicans in both foreign affairs AND the domestic economy. (!!!) And it doesn’t help that much of the shit they’re slinging at GWB seems to be sticking better to Bill Clinton, who was the man in charge when every one of these issues developed. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blaming-bush-for-north-korea-will-it-work-politically/146954/4 "2003-01-06T16:19:14Z")
**December** , your OP seems to conclude that criticizing the Bush admin’s policy re NK is posturing and entirely a strategy of the GOP’s opponents. Do you honestly maintain there isn’t room for reasonable criticism, especially regarding such a serious issue? Criticism #2 seems especially well-taken. Even folks inside the Bush administration have quietly suggestion this. Does this make them partisans intents on vilifying Mr. Bush, or people who are honestly concerned about a serious situation? ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blaming-bush-for-north-korea-will-it-work-politically/146954/5 "2003-01-06T16:27:47Z")
I’m not so sure: The more one pays attention to NK, the more they grandstand. They’re like a spoiled child that insists everyone look at them. He may (by design or accident) have the right way of dealing with them: ignore them until they act like big boys. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blaming-bush-for-north-korea-will-it-work-politically/146954/6 "2003-01-06T16:34:34Z")
“His inclusion of NK in the “Axis of Evil” pissed them off.” Well, yes, I rather imagine it did. Does seem to be a somewhat provocative statement. Followed by being quoted on _60 Minutes_, stating his visceral hatred of Kim Jong-Il. Sort of thing puts people off, don’t you think? Heck, it might even give them the impression that they were under some sort of threat. People are funny that way, you tell them they’re evil and you hate thier guts, they get all apprehensive. “He has focused too much on Iraq, when NK was always the bigger danger.” Personally, I don’t regard either as that much of a threat, so a comparison is somewhat moot, like a deranged chihuahua and a three legged rottweiller. But I hasten to point out the GeeDubya had information regarding NK’s nuke status, but witheld it while the Iraq Resolution was before Congress. Didn’t want to confuse the poor addled dears, sidetrack them with other urgencies. First things first, and all that. “There is no crisis. South Korea understands that peaceful negotiations can succeed.” Perhaps so. As the alternatives range from the “bad” right through “disastrous” and all the way to “horrendous”, I rather imagine such “peaceful negotiations” might well be worth considering. You disagree? “He has under-stated the NK crisis in order to maintain public attention on invading Iraq.” Actually, as noted above, on that occassion he didn’t mention it _at all_. Being a politician, I think it fair to suggest his motives were political. You say “maintaining attention”, I say “duping”. A matter of inference, I suppose. “He hasn’t built up a military capable of dealing with NK.” Of course he didn’t, didn’t need to. The SK Army, the “Tigers” are legendary for toughness and ferocity. One on one, they are a good match for the Chiricaua Apaches. They are well armed, well trained. Backed by American air power, not to mention American thermo-nuclear arms, they are likely quite capable of taking care of themselves. Recent elections and statements would indicate that they are trying to relay this message: “Butt out, big nose!” “He has been too militaristic, goading NK into building up their own armaments.” Well, gee, **december** , I don’t know. You figure such statements as above might give someone the impression that they were under some threat? Well, yes, I imagine they very well might. “You’re evil, and I hate your guts.” Not the prelude to peaceful negotiations and a cordial, but frank, exchange of views. To address your OP directly: Will it work? Which I rephrase: Will he get away with it? If he has correctly estimated the cupidity of the American people, yes, it will. We are an emotional people, when the drums start to pound we rally round our leader, the threat of war never fails to boost solidarity with the Admin, regardless of what political stripe. The Pubbies know this, and made no bones about thier naked and blatant appeal to such. Will it work? Not with me. How about you? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blaming-bush-for-north-korea-will-it-work-politically/146954/7 "2003-01-06T16:46:17Z")
Of course the democrats slanderous accusations will fail. With Truth, Justice and Moral Certainty on the side of the President, how could the voting public possibly turn against him ? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blaming-bush-for-north-korea-will-it-work-politically/146954/8 "2003-01-06T17:36:33Z")
The OP seems to be asking about the effectiveness of nakedly political tactics, but with some apprehension that they may actually work. That may be right. Consider that the status had been quo for decades, in which there was serious tension but no major incidents that couldn’t be tamped back down. That’s what passes for peace in much of the world, and it’s as good as it often gets. During that time, the South grew prosperous and militarily strong. That’s the basic information most people have. But the only thing that has really changed has been Bush’s cowboying. He has already developed a reputation for that even among those who like him. The result in Korea of that can only be a worsening of the situation. That won’t be a hard point to get across, either, especially when the body bags start arriving - that makes a very effective TV image, ya know. Bush’s Korea “strategy” alone won’t change many minds, but it will be clear that the accumulation of acts that make the world more dangerous and less prosperous can’t all be laid at Osama’s feet, especially when his continued existence is remembered. Yes, politically it will hurt Bush, but only as part of an accumulation of evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blaming-bush-for-north-korea-will-it-work-politically/146954/9 "2003-01-06T19:06:19Z")
> [@](#): > > The OP seems to be asking about the effectiveness of nakedly political tactics, but with some apprehension that they may actually work. That may be right. Anyone else notice how _long_ it took **december** to work up just the right spin on this ? I suspect he may be having secret misgivings of his own _in re_ Bush’s Korean ‘policy’. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blaming-bush-for-north-korea-will-it-work-politically/146954/10 "2003-01-06T19:12:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by squeegee \* > \*\ ***December** … Do you honestly maintain there isn’t room for reasonable criticism, especially regarding such a serious issue? \*\* Right, I would think not at this time. Later, possibly. What serious criticism is available to the Democrats? They can’t blame Bush for the flawed Clinton/Carter agreement, which allowed NK to develop nuclear capability. They can criticize Bush’s words as being not harsh enough or too harsh, but a comment on verbiage isn’t serious criticism. Serious criticism requires the recomendation of alternative policy. They can’t recommend less military action, since Bush hasn’t taken any. They could recommend more military action, but that’s not the Democrats’ style. The only actions Bush has taken are to discontinue the oil shipments, which were the bribe for NK not to develop nukes, and to seek regional consensus. Those actions seem pretty unassailable. So, I don’t see a serious criticism that’s available at the present time. If the NK situation gets worse, then today’s vague criticism may be a useful groundwork at blaming Bush at that time. I guess I agree with **ElvisL1ves** on this point. OTOH, I didn’t like this comment at all: > [@](#): > > **ElvisL1ves** > But the only thing that has really changed has been Bush’s cowboying. This sounds like a joke, but it’s not the least bit funny. [See](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mp09.htm) > [@](#): > > In Hiroshima over 60,000 of 90,000 buildings were destroyed or severely damaged by the atomic bomb; this figure represents over 67% of the city’s structures. > > In Nagasaki 14,000 or 27% of 52,000 residences were completely destroyed and 5,40O, or 10% were half destroyed. Only 12% remained undamaged. This destruction was limited by the layout of the city… > > The Nagasaki Prefectural report describes vividly the effects of the bomb on the city and its inhabitants: > > "Within a radius of 1 kilometer from X, men and animals died almost instantaneously and outside a radius of 1 kilometer and within a radius of 2 kilometers from X, some men and animals died instantly from the great blast and heat but the great majority were seriously or superficially injured. Houses and other structures were completely destroyed while fires broke out everywhere. Trees were uprooted and withered by the heat. > > "Outside a radius of 2 kilometers and within a radius of 4 kilometers from X, men and animals suffered various degrees of injury from window glass and other fragments scattered about by the blast and many were burned by the intense heat. Dwellings and other structures were half damaged by blast. > > “Outside a radius of 4 kilometers and within a radius of 8 kilometers living creatures were injured by materials blown about by the blast; the majority were only superficially wounded. Houses were only half or partially damaged.” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blaming-bush-for-north-korea-will-it-work-politically/146954/11 "2003-01-06T19:42:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Squink \* > I suspect he may be having secret misgivings of his own _in re_ Bush’s Korean ‘policy’. \*\* Even within the administration, apparently: [“‘We will be facing considerable skepticism on the question of how we can justify confrontation with Saddam when he is letting inspectors into the country, and a diplomatic solution with Kim when he’s just thrown them out,” one senior diplomat acknowledged today. \*\*“And we’re working on the answer.’”](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/03/international/asia/03KORE.html) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blaming-bush-for-north-korea-will-it-work-politically/146954/12 "2003-01-06T19:44:26Z")
**december** , you would do well to explain your view of how Hiroshima relates to North Korea. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blaming-bush-for-north-korea-will-it-work-politically/146954/13 "2003-01-06T19:48:24Z")
> [@](#): > > Based on comments by various Democrats and Democratic media, a current talking point appears to be that the North Korean crisis is Bush’s fault. Just so I’m on the same page with the OP, could someone produce a few examples of ‘democratic’ vs. ‘republican’ media so I can determine whether the OP’s implication that the only press criticism of Bush re: North Korea is politically motivated holds any water? Thanks in advance. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blaming-bush-for-north-korea-will-it-work-politically/146954/14 "2003-01-06T20:04:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by El\_Kabong \* > \*\*Just so I’m on the same page with the OP, could someone produce a few examples of ‘democratic’ vs. ‘republican’ media so I can determine whether the OP’s implication that the only press criticism of Bush re: North Korea is politically motivated holds any water? \*\* Take a look at **Elvis’s** cite two posts above yours, from the N Y Times, a Democratic newspaper. It’s not a perfect example, because it doesn’t specifically criticize any Bush action. Still, I find it slanted toward the pessimistic – focusing on why Bush may not succeed. E.g., such comments as > [@](#): > > … despite widespread evidence of American disputes with South Korea and China about whether to isolate North Korea… > > …Behind the scenes, however, the American effort to force a common position among the Asian allies is heating up… > > …But in private, several of Mr. Bush’s advisers say the North Korean crisis has complicated their diplomatic task at the United Nations… > > …Mr. Bush’s comments today were noticeably different in tone from those he made on New Year’s Eve. At that time he was harshly critical of Mr. Hussein but he made no mention of North Korea’s weapons projects, its ejection of inspectors or any consequences it might face. The lopsided nature of his comparison worried some of Mr. Bush’s advisers, who feared that he was not sending a strong enough message to Mr. Kim. > > So today when asked about North Korea, Mr. Bush accused Mr. Kim of economic mismanagement, at a time when, the Central Intelligence Agency estimates, 30 percent of North Korea’s gross domestic product goes to the military… ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blaming-bush-for-north-korea-will-it-work-politically/146954/15 "2003-01-06T20:17:29Z")
So an outlet that disagrees with, or even worries about, Bush’s “doctrine” must be Democratic, and one that cheerleads for him is Republican? Thanks for clearing that up. Welcome to the black and white world of **december** , where all thought can be replaced with partisan labels. Now, how about that Hiroshima explanation? ---
**Author:** ![barton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@barton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barton)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blaming-bush-for-north-korea-will-it-work-politically/146954/16 "2003-01-06T20:21:01Z")
**Demcember’s** first list does not include what I’ve always thought was the main complaint, as it is pretty much all Bush has done in regards to NK since he was elected: 1. break off talks. To be fair, I don’t think ‘hiding’ the resumption of the nuclear program is a valid criticism, as Clinton and Congress were very aware of the strong possibility it was humming along before Bush was elected. I don’t think anyone was really surprised when NK 'fessed up - more at the timing. However, I think the act of walking away from the table is something the President is vunerable to, as Edwards pointed out, if the situation degenerates further. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blaming-bush-for-north-korea-will-it-work-politically/146954/17 "2003-01-06T20:35:58Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s not a perfect example, because it doesn’t specifically criticize any Bush action. But it was the best you could come up with in your ongoing litany of “Horrors! The Democrats are politicians! No Republican has ever played politics with a decsion by a Demcratic president!” ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blaming-bush-for-north-korea-will-it-work-politically/146954/18 "2003-01-06T20:38:55Z")
Ok, so far, in support of the OP we’ve got an article about Edwards, who it turns out is a Democrat running for president and who we can therefore expect to engage in some partisan sniping, and a New York Times article which the OP himself concedes does not provide a “perfect example” of the OP’s thesis. Not much to go on there. I’ve certainly heard some of the OP’s six points of criticism mentioned here and there (mostly on this message board), but I’m still in the dark as to how this supports the idea that criticism of Bush (really, of the administration) over North Korea must be motivated only by partisan concerns. Well, guess I’ll have a bash at answering the OP’s question anyway. Of the six points of criticism mentioned by the OP, I personally feel that One, Four and Six have some degree of validity. I’m quite sure the “Axis of Evil” speech did piss off the NK leadership, that there was some degree of administration understatement of the developing situation to avoid taking the focus off Iraq, and that the administration has been overly militaristic in its response. So to answer the question, if partisan critics wish to hang this particular albatross around Bush’s neck, and we assume that “the public” thinks the way I do (HA!), by going after the points listed above, there is some chance that “the public” would listen. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blaming-bush-for-north-korea-will-it-work-politically/146954/19 "2003-01-06T20:43:47Z")
**december:** \*Bush has been criticized for several failings: […] 5.He hasn’t built up a military capable of dealing with NK.\* **El\_Kabong:** _[…] could someone produce a few examples of ‘democratic’ vs. ‘republican’ media so I can determine whether the OP’s implication that the only press criticism of Bush re: North Korea is politically motivated holds any water?_ It doesn’t. The conservative _Weekly Standard_, for example, published an [article](http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-102802.htm) in November criticizing the Administration precisely on the OP’s point 5: > [@](#): > > But there remains one critical component that the president does not mention: A year into this activist foreign policy, the defense agencies that will prosecute the war on terrorism remain starved of resources and thus incapable of fulfilling their assigned tasks. The rapidly developing crisis with North Korea sharply underlines this point. […] > > In the short term, then, Bush’s failure to champion increases in the numerical strength of the armed forces and to secure an adequate defense budget threatens to undermine his forthright foreign policy. […] The long-term picture is bleaker. The president rightly insists we transform the military to prepare for future conflict, but his current budget spends too little on “leap-ahead” technologies. ---
**Author:** ![TBone2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@TBone2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TBone2)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blaming-bush-for-north-korea-will-it-work-politically/146954/20 "2003-01-06T21:10:16Z")
Democratic (i.e. liberal) media: NY Times LA Times Washington Post Boston Globe Miami Herald Chicago Sun USA Today Columbus Dispatch (OH) Cincinnati Enquirer/Post (OH) Cleveland Plain Dealer (OH) Toledo Blade (OH) Mansfield News/Journal (OH) (Gettin’ close to home here…) CNN/Headline News CBS ABC/Disney NBC CNBC MSNBC AOL/TimeWarner MTV/VH1 Turner/TNT/TCM/TNT HBO/Cinemax Showtime/The Movie Channel BET Newsweek U.S. News & World Report And we can throw in every major Hollywood studio, advice sisters Dear Abby and Ann Landers, and every women’s magazine (LHJ, Cosmo, etc.) of note. Republican (i.e. conservative) media: Washington Times Rush Limbaugh Dr. Laura Lots of AM talk-show hosts FoxNewsChannel Paul Harvey Tried to hit the high spots. Seems a bit lopsided, eh? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blaming-bush-for-north-korea-will-it-work-politically/146954.md?page=2)