At this late date, huh.

This implies clearly that a “complete and verifiable dismantling” was possible at an earlier time.

Did he make a strong case that such an outcome were possible early on?

He almost sounded like he was making what could be a valid point — that Bush not going to one-on-one talks in 2003 gave North Korea time to process more material to make bombs with.

But, I need more clarification on what he meant by “Pyongyang was practically begging for negotiations all through 2003.” Does he mean NK was begging to talk or begging to talk in 1-on-1 format? He says it like they were begging to talk no matter what and the US simply refused. That is a little BS in itself. If he means the US should have been thankful NK was very willing to talk in any format and we should have accepted the 1-on-1 offer, then he should state it that way. As is, it is misleading and I would venture the reason is that the primary concern was not relating recent history but rather swiping at the current US administration.

When he tacks on the part about “complete and verifiable dismantling” he also turns any potentually valid point he had about earlier negociations possibly stopping the reprocessing of fuel rods a sham argument.

If he had written that agreeing with 1-on-1 talks in 2003 could have led to the re-mothballing of the fuel rods and thus limited the amount of new nuclear bombs North Korea could be making right now, it would have been hard to argue against him.

But, as he has laid it out, it falls flat.

There is no set of reasons anyone can lay out that can convince us that North Korea was, is, or will be ready to “completely and verifiable dismantle its nuclear programs” regardless of what any US administration could have done.

A good case can be made for why 1-on-1 talks were not a good format to enter into what are going to be useless negociations if the goal people will find acceptable is complete yada yada yada.

If that is the outcome people like this writer will accept and no others (like remothballing the nuke material) their chances of taking swipes at the Bush administration for not having achieved that result are hollow.

Kristof from the New York Times recently made himself look like a gigantic jackass with the same type of argument —- that Bush should have gone to the table with North Korea long ago and should have (magically) been able to solve the problem.

When these guys lay out for me a series of items that convincingly show a system through which the United States takes positions/actions X,Y,Z and so on that will obviously bring about North Korea’s willingness to dismantle its nuclear programs, I will gladly read and applaud their insightful analysis.

But, as long as they keep chastising the cow for not jumping over the moon, I wish they would shut up about North Korea and pick a different topic to write about.

I don’t blame Clinton for not “solving” the North Korea problem. I don’t blame Bush I or Reagan or Carter, or Nixon, and so on.