Monday, October 09, 2006

Bush Distracted from North Korea and War on Terror by Iraq Sideshow

Howard Dean warned that becoming distracted by Iraq would leave America vulnerable to the real threat of North Korean nuclear proliferation. For that he was branded a naive peacnik. Of course as recent events have shown, he was one hundred percent right. Glenn Greenwald points out how prescient he was just a month before the invasion of Iraq:
We must remember, though, that Iraq is not the greatest danger we face today. Consider, to begin with, North Korea.

The Administration says it is wrong to draw a parallel between the situations in Iraq and North Korea, because those situations are quite different. I agree.

Iraq has let UN inspectors back in. North Korea has kicked them out.

Saddam Hussein does not have a clear path to acquiring nuclear weapons. North Korea may already have them - and is on a clear path to acquiring more.

3 comments:

Prairie Kid said...

Why don't we negotiate with North Korea? After all, isn't that what the NDP wants to do with all conflicts? Or are you going to chose which countries we negotiate with and which ones we should blast.

Cliff said...

Are you still peeing your pants over Jack Layton's simple and logical point that historically you only end insurgencies through negotiation rather than military force?

You're aware that Bill Frist the Republican head of the US Senate recently said the exact same thing, plus he said that we should bring the Taliban into the government in Afghanistan right? That goes quite a bit further than Jack did.

And since you ask, yes I do think engaging North Korea and talking to them would be quite a bit more effective than the Bush bunch's juvenile approach - which seems to boil down to sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting 'NANANANANANAAAA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!!!!' which granted is the base-line reaction for right wingers when they hear something that contradicts their ideology.

Mike said...

I remember wondering back in 2002 and 2003 why Bush was so keen on Iraq, which even then a large part of the world thought DIDN'T have WMD, and was ignoring NK, which did.

And for the lat year, he's been sabre rattling at Iran, which again, doesn't have nukes, while NK does.

Now, what do Iran and Iraq have in common, that the more dangerous NK does not have?

As Canadian Cynic likes to say, think about it, it'll come to you.

Meanwhile the world is a much more dangerous place because Bush had a hard-on for Iraq.

Recent Posts

Popular Posts