# Has the Bush foriegn policy failed, even by its own standards? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 10, 2006, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873 "2006-10-10T00:32:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/41 "2006-10-10T23:42:14Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] Again, the standard was “do whatever it takes to prevent NK from obtaining nuclear weapons.” [/QUOTE] If Bush really said that (and I don’t take JG’s word for it), then it was a stupid thing to say. So if you want to claim that NK is a failure per Bush’s own standards, fine. But that makes the other three “not failures”. Personally, I prefer to evaluate the success or failures based on what I think is best for the country and what I think is a reasonable accomplishment or not. But it’s your thread, so take it in whatever direction you want. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/42 "2006-10-10T23:42:34Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > If North Korea is determined to have nuclear weapons there is no way we can stop them, short of war. > [@John Mace](#): > > Look, NK has wanted the bomb for years-- long before Bush came to power-- and it is going to want the bomb after Bush leaves office. No matter what concessions we make, no matter what we agree to, they are going to want the bomb. This idea that we can somehow negotiate them out of wanted nukes is naive beyond comprehension. You may be right, but the President was telling us otherwise back in [December 2002](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021231-1.html): > [@](#): > > Q: Sir, I’d like to ask you if I could, why are you not considering military action against a defiant, unstable, unpredictable, nuclear-armed North Korea? > > THE PRESIDENT: I view the North Korean situation as one that can be resolved peacefully, through diplomacy. The international community – particularly those countries close to North Korea – understand the stakes involved. I had a very good visit with President-elect Roh of South Korea. I’ve obviously talked to Jiang Zemin right here in Crawford about a nuclear weapons-free Peninsula. > > There is strong consensus, not only amongst the nations in the neighborhood and our friends, but also with international organizations, such as the IAEA, that North Korea ought to comply with international regulations. I believe this can be done peacefully, through diplomacy, and we will continue to work that way. I take – all options, of course, are always on the table for any President, but by working with these countries we can resolve this. That sounds to me like a declaration of a specific foreign-policy aim—i.e., a peaceful diplomatic resolution to bring North Korea into compliance and keep it nuke-free. The Bush Administration did not accomplish that goal, so I don’t see any way to avoid the conclusion that the Administration’s NK policy has failed, **by its own standards**. Maybe those standards were unreasonable, and maybe there never was any realistic way to keep NK from getting the bomb, but that’s not the line the Administration was pitching us a few years ago. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/43 "2006-10-10T23:47:46Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] Apparently, the bomb _was_ a plutonium device, so the uranium program the right’s been wailing about is irelevant. It was post 2002 events that got us where we are today. [/QUOTE] Huh? Where did you get that? Even if it were plutonium note the following form the PBS cite I gave above: > [@](#): > > “Satellite photographs,” Larry Niksch wrote in a Jan. 7, 2003 paper, “reportedly also show that the atomic reactors have no attached power lines, which they would have if used for electrical power generation.” > > In 1989, the North Korean government shut down the active reactor for some 70 days. According to South Korean, Russian and American intelligence estimates, workers at Yongbyon removed the nuclear core and processed enough plutonium to construct one or two atomic bombs. Why would plutonium = post 2002? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/44 "2006-10-10T23:48:02Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Look, NK has wanted the bomb for years-- long before Bush came to power-- and it is going to want the bomb after Bush leaves office. No matter what concessions we make, no matter what we agree to, they are going to want the bomb. [/quote] Another subtle changing of the subject. Sure. Also, I want a bomb. However, that doesn’t mean that it is impossible to convince them that it is not in their best interests to continue to pursue one. Basically telling them to fuck off for five years isn’t even just failing: it’s not even trying. > [@](#): > > This idea that we can somehow negotiate them out of wanted nukes is naive beyond comprehension. Cite? Did you forget Libya? Poland? > [@](#): > > Maybe (and that’s a highly qualified maybe) China could do that, but not us. **We have nothing to offer them.** Nothing, nada, zip, zilch. Cite? Where are these claims coming from? They seem to amount to “I suck at soccer, therefore, there is no possible way to score a goal.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/45 "2006-10-10T23:54:37Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] Another subtle changing of the subject. Sure. Also, I want a bomb. However, that doesn’t mean that it is impossible to convince them that it is not in their best interests to continue to pursue one. Basically telling them to fuck off for five years isn’t even just failing: it’s not even trying. [/quote] Where do you get the “fuck off” from"? You keep repeating that, but it’s just wrong. We have been negotiating with them for years as part of the 6-party talks.]([Six-party talks - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_party_talks)) > [@](#): > > Cite? Did you forget Libya? Poland? > > Cite? Where are these claims coming from? They seem to amount to “I suck at soccer, therefore, there is no possible way to score a goal.” No, they come from: I’ve watched their actions for years, and they’ve given no indication that they will negotaite in good faith. They never stopped their nuclear program no matter what we did. What evidence do you have that NK will negotiate in good faith. Besides, I’m too old for soccer-- no one played that commie sport when I was a kid. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/46 "2006-10-10T23:56:16Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] You may be right, but the President was telling us otherwise back in [December 2002](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021231-1.html): [/QUOTE] Yeah, well Bush is an idiot. You can quote me on that. Seriously, though, what do you expect him to say when he knows a military option isn’t viable? Do you believe everything Bush says? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/47 "2006-10-11T00:01:59Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Huh? Where did you get that? Even if it were plutonium note the following form the PBS cite I gave above: Why would plutonium = post 2002? [/QUOTE] Could it be that, if that were the case, the source material would be more likely derived from the actual plutonium rods that were known to exist and was under IAEA seal until they practically begged Bush to intervene and keep them from breaking open the seals than from some alleged and purported super secret uranium enrichment program? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/48 "2006-10-11T00:10:01Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Huh? Where did you get that? Even if it were plutonium note the following form the PBS cite I gave above: Why would plutonium = post 2002? [/QUOTE] December 2002: [North Korea expelling IAEA inspectors](http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/27/nkorea.expulsions/) That’s when NK got _access_ to the fuel rods they been busily reprocessing. BTW, did you notice the article I linked to where McCain blames Clinton’s failure to stop NK’s **uranium** program for this mess? You said no one was doing that. > [@](#): > > “I would remind Senator (Hillary) Clinton and other critics of the Bush administration policies that the framework agreement of the Clinton administration was a failure,” McCain said in a statement, referring to a 1994 deal under which North Korea agreed to halt work on a plutonium-based nuclear facility, partly in exchange for free fuel oil deliveries. > “The Koreans received millions of dollars in energy assistance … and what did the Koreans do? They secretly enriched uranium,” McCain said. Is the senator intentionally spreading disinformation, or is he just ignorant? ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/49 "2006-10-11T00:28:22Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] Thank God Bolton’s UN appointment is up in January. Of course, Bush’ll probably manage to scrape up a _worse_ choice. [/QUOTE] I hear Michael “Heckuva Job” Brown is looking for work, as is Tom Delay. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/50 "2006-10-11T00:32:39Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Yeah, well Bush is an idiot. You can quote me on that. Seriously, though, what do you expect him to say when he knows a military option isn’t viable? Do you believe everything Bush says? [/QUOTE] Who in their right mind would? But that doesn’t change the fact that Bush’s words still define the Bush Administration’s standards, which is the basis in this thread for judging the Bush Administration’s foreign policy outcomes. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/51 "2006-10-11T00:37:27Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Where do you get the “fuck off” from"? You keep repeating that, but it’s just wrong. We have been negotiating with them for years as part of the 6-party talks.]([Six-party talks - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_party_talks)) [/quote] Which, as it happens, were not what the NKs really wanted. What they really wanted was the cred from dealing with us head on. > [@](#): > > No, they come from: I’ve watched their actions for years, and they’ve given no indication that they will negotaite in good faith. Ah, so it’s just your opinion that negotiation is 100% pointless. So, in your estimation, our foriegn policy should be to simply wait until they get nukes, and then run around screaming “OMG THEY GOT NUKES”? It doesn’t seem like anyone on the planet agrees with your opinion though. > [@](#): > > They never stopped their nuclear program no matter what we did. [http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010308.php](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010308.php) To summarize: What was denoted last weekend appears to be the material that NK gained access to in 2002 when both sides dropped out of a treaty neither side was living up to. They may have also been trying to enrich uranium, but so far that plot is not known to be anywhere near compleition. The Clinton plan may have fallen apart, but contrary to your claims, it does seem to have stopped their plutonium program at least for a signficant amount of time until Bush decided that cowboys and indians was a better idea than trying to salvage the old agreement and the NKs just broke open the plutonium and started at it again. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/52 "2006-10-11T00:43:04Z")
[GWB, 1/12/04](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040112-7.html): > [@](#): > > Iraq is more free every day. The lives of the citizens are improving every day. And one thing is for certain; there won’t be any more mass graves and torture rooms and rape rooms. [Mass graves](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/14/AR2006031400273.html): > [@](#): > > Daylight Tuesday brought the discovery of at least 86 shot or strangled men across the city, most of them with hands tied and many of them tortured, according to police. They included 27 corpses in one of the first mass graves to be found in the capital since the U.S. invasion three years ago. [Torture chambers](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/international/middleeast/19abuse.html?ex=1300424400&en=e8755a4b031b64a1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss): > [@](#): > > As the Iraqi insurgency intensified in early 2004, an elite Special Operations forces unit converted one of Saddam Hussein’s former military bases near Baghdad into a top-secret detention center. There, American soldiers made one of the former Iraqi government’s torture chambers into their own interrogation cell. They named it the “Black Room.” [Rape](http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1890260,00.html): > [@](#): > > Strong anecdotal evidence gathered by organisations such as that of Yanar Mohammed and by the Iraqi Women’s Network, run by Hanna Edwar, suggests rape is also being used as a weapon in the sectarian war to humiliate families from rival communities. “So far what we have been seeing is what you might call ‘collateral rape’,” says Besmia Khatib of the Iraqi Women’s Network. “Rape is being used in the settling of scores in the sectarian war.” h/t [Billmon](http://billmon.org/archives/002818.html). ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/53 "2006-10-11T00:51:56Z")
Re North Korea, remember that enriching uranium is an exacting engineering process; just because you get A.Q. Khan’s diagrams that tell you how, doesn’t mean you can do it if your country lacks the overall technological level to build all those cascading centrifuges to the proper tolerances and all. At worst, maintaining the Agreed Framework would surely have bought us some time while North Korea mastered the technology of enriching uranium to bomb-level purity. At best, they might never have gotten there, even if we pursued no further deals with them. And somewhere in between, we might have been able to negotiate a second deal with them, covering uranium enrichment. Probably not with this President, of course, but the next one’s only two years, three months, and ten days away. But who’s counting? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/54 "2006-10-11T01:40:47Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] Ah, so it’s just your opinion that negotiation is 100% pointless. So, in your estimation, our foriegn policy should be to simply wait until they get nukes, and then run around screaming “OMG THEY GOT NUKES”? It doesn’t seem like anyone on the planet agrees with your opinion though. [/QUOTE] I never negotiations were pointless. That’s a strawman. I said I doubt that they’d stop NK from getting nukes. There’s always value in talking-- whether you can achieve a particular objective by talking is a separate issue. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/55 "2006-10-11T01:46:30Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] December 2002: [North Korea expelling IAEA inspectors](http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/27/nkorea.expulsions/) That’s when NK got _access_ to the fuel rods they been busily reprocessing. [/quote] Well, that was a unilateral decision made by NK. But I thought you were implying they had never had access to plutonium prior to 2002, which they did. > [@](#): > > BTW, did you notice the article I linked to where McCain blames Clinton’s failure to stop NK’s **uranium** program for this mess? You said no one was doing that. Is the senator intentionally spreading disinformation, or is he just ignorant? Of course there are plenty of people IRL who will blame Clinton for everything. It should have been clear for the context that I was talking about people in this thread. Sorry if that was confusing. As fo McCain, do you not know anything about poltical posturing? McCain (a likely 2008 presidential candidate) made that response to HRC (another likely 2008 presidential candidate) when HRC said that the test was an indication of the failure of the Bush policy. McCain didn’t just say that out of the blue, as you implied. Those two remarks appear to have little to do with Bush and a lot to do with the 2006 and 2008 elections. Don’t you think so? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/56 "2006-10-11T02:06:18Z")
I’ll offer a paradigm, or maybe just twenty cents worth… I don’t think Hillary is running, but I think she is making every effort to keep in place, such that if the Democratic Party comes clamoring for her hand, she may accept. Even steel magnolias are still ladies, you know? Johnny is running like crazy, running every minute. He has some respect amongst the leftish, but none of them is going to send him any money. Gotta have money. (Remember Phil Gramm: “The mother’s milk of poliltics”? No corrupt sleazeball ever uttered truer words…) Gotta kiss that which presented. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/57 "2006-10-11T03:44:46Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I never negotiations were pointless. That’s a strawman. I said I doubt that they’d stop NK from getting nukes. There’s always value in talking-- whether you can achieve a particular objective by talking is a separate issue. [/QUOTE] Ah, it’s a strawman because you believe that talking is personally rewarding… but ultimately pointless in achieving what they are meant to achieve. But not, you know, POINTLESS, because it turns out that you think that like, we’ll all grow as people from them? That’s really splitting hairs to avoid the point I think. The reality is that the parties to negotiations, including the US, aren’t there for any other reason than to make sure NK does not become a nuclear power. You think that’s impossible, but then it doesn’t seem like anyone’s really tried either, so how would anyone know? What negotiations were done DO seem to have accomplished stuff for at least a certain period of time. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/58 "2006-10-11T06:10:17Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] Ah, it’s a strawman because you believe that talking is personally rewarding… but ultimately pointless in achieving what they are meant to achieve. But not, you know, POINTLESS, because it turns out that you think that like, we’ll all grow as people from them? That’s really splitting hairs to avoid the point I think. [/quote] Look, are you interested in an honest debate or do you just want to insult the people who disagree with you? There are lots of good reasons to continue the dialogue, not the least of which is that the Chinese do have some leverage. Besides, you never know what information you might get just be being at the table. I said it didn’t make a lot of sense to negotiate one-on-one with NK, but I never said the 6-party-talks were worthless. In fact, I said I thought that was the right to go. > [@](#): > > The reality is that the parties to negotiations, including the US, aren’t there for any other reason than to make sure NK does not become a nuclear power. You think that’s impossible, but then it doesn’t seem like anyone’s really tried either, so how would anyone know? What negotiations were done DO seem to have accomplished stuff for at least a certain period of time. What did it accomplish? The N. Koreans continued their nuclear program on the sly while we gave them food and oil. You seem to be implying that NK actually suspended their nuclear program-- do you have any evidence that they did? I offered a cite which claimed they didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/59 "2006-10-11T08:14:06Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Look, are you interested in an honest debate or do you just want to insult the people who disagree with you? There are lots of good reasons to continue the dialogue, not the least of which is that the Chinese do have some leverage. Besides, you never know what information you might get just be being at the table. I said it didn’t make a lot of sense to negotiate one-on-one with NK, but I never said the 6-party-talks were worthless. In fact, I said I thought that was the right to go. [/quote] You didn’t just say that it didn’t make a lot of sense: you said: “this idea that we can somehow negotiate them out of wanted nukes is naive beyond comprehension. Maybe (and that’s a highly qualified maybe) China could do that, but not us. We have nothing to offer them. Nothing, nada, zip, zilch.” > [@](#): > > What did it accomplish? The N. Koreans continued their nuclear program on the sly while we gave them food and oil. You seem to be implying that NK actually suspended their nuclear program-- do you have any evidence that they did? I offered a cite which claimed they didn’t. We suspect that they continued their uranium program, which the agreement never covered in the first place. We also appeared to have reneged on our side of the agreement. We do have lots of evidence that their plutonium program, the one we DID have an agreement on, was suspended. We also know that THAT program was always the most plausible one for them getting and having a bomb in the near future. As John Marshall puts it, summing up Condi Rice’s description of Success and Failure (which I guess is a NEW redefined standard for the Bush administration) > [@](#): > > “Failure” =1994-2002 – Era of Clinton ‘Agreed Framework’: No plutonium production. All existing plutonium under international inspection. No bomb. > > “Success” = 2002-2006 – Bush Policy Era: Active plutonium production. No international inspections of plutonium stocks. Nuclear warhead detonated. > > Face it. They ditched an imperfect but working policy. They replaced it with nothing. Now North Korea is a nuclear state. You might object that the 6 party talks wasn’t nothing, but a heck of a lot of people said from the start and continued to say that 6 party talks weren’t going to go anywhere. You tried the claim of how talking to them individually would allow playing oen against the other, but what makes far more sense is that 6 party talks allowed them to bog down negotiations by involving a dizzying array of different interests and policies. Negotiations between two parties is always going to be more direct and to the point than between a horde of them. It also makes no sense to claim that Bush policy “worked” to prevent nukes in Iraq or Iran. All evidence points to the fact that Iraq had no hope of nukes, and Iran if anything has been emboldened and enabled to speed up their development of them. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/60 "2006-10-11T08:23:45Z")
This post article seems to lay things out pretty well: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001285.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001285.html) Key quotes: > [@](#): > > The Clinton administration declared in 1994 that if North Korea reprocessed, it would be crossing a “red line,” and it threatened military action if that line was crossed. The North Koreans responded to that pressure and began negotiations that led to the Agreed Framework. The Agreed Framework did not end North Korea’s aspirations for nuclear weapons, but it did result in a major delay. For more than eight years, under the Agreed Framework, the spent fuel was kept in a storage pond under international supervision. In short, all evidence is that one on one challenging the North Koreans DID have an effect, and thus your claim that we have no power at all to influence them looks, simply put, wrong. The agreement was imperfect in that it didn’t cover other avenues to the bomb: it dealt with the devil we knew at the time. But as imperfect as it was, it DID seem to have some real effect in dealing with it. > [@](#): > > It appears that the administration is deeply divided on how to deal with North Korea, with some favoring negotiation and others economic and political pressure to force a regime change. As a result, while the administration was willing to send a representative to the six-party talks organized by the Chinese in 2003, **it had no apparent strategy for dealing with North Korea there or for providing leadership to the other parties**. In the meantime, it increased economic pressure on Pyongyang. Certainly an argument can be made for such pressure, but it would be naive to think it could succeed without the support of the Chinese and South Korean governments, neither of which backs such action. North Korea, sensing the administration’s paralysis, has moved ahead with an aggressive and dangerous nuclear program. As Marshall notes, you can criticize the Clinton policy for being all carrots (as you have done) but this is both historical inaccurate (the Clinton administration made a specific military threat against a specific action) and hard to hold up as ineffective. The Bush policy has been neither carrots nor sticks: it’s not clear it was much of anything. And, not surprisingly, not doing anything of substance didn’t accomplish anything of substance. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873.md?page=4)