I Have a Question for Kerry
North Korea seems intent on not moving forward in the multilateral talks until after the November elections, saying Bush cannot be reasoned with. We know Bush's strategy: complete nuclear disarmament in a multilateral agreement, and no concessions until that is agreed to. We know what Clinton's strategy was: bilateral treaties to freeze nuclear weapons programs, not dismantle them.
What would Kerry do? So far he's said Bush is doing the wrong thing, but hasn't quite said what he would do. He's said drawing down the troops sends the wrong message, but he's also said that it sends the wrong message to be forceful with North Korea (e.g., calling them part of the Axis of Evil, refusing to deal bilaterally, etc.).
So, Senator Kerry, what would you do? I won't ask why Kim Jong Il apparently favors Kerry over Bush, because that is not only a cheap shot at Kerry, it also opens Bush up for cheap shots FROM Kerry. :-) But I do want to know what Kerry would do, specifically. I want to know how he plans on getting a permanent solution to the problem -- which neither Bush or Clinton have thus far succeeded in -- without sending any of the "wrong messages" he's been decrying.
And further, if his plan includes complete nuclear disarmament, will Kerry stand up right now and say so? It seems this is the sticking point, and that North Korea is delaying on the hopes that Kerry will be softer on it. These delays in an agreement are delaying our safety. Kerry can help make us all be safer right now by saying he will work to disarm North Korea of all its nuclear weapons programs. Will he do that?
What would Kerry do? So far he's said Bush is doing the wrong thing, but hasn't quite said what he would do. He's said drawing down the troops sends the wrong message, but he's also said that it sends the wrong message to be forceful with North Korea (e.g., calling them part of the Axis of Evil, refusing to deal bilaterally, etc.).
So, Senator Kerry, what would you do? I won't ask why Kim Jong Il apparently favors Kerry over Bush, because that is not only a cheap shot at Kerry, it also opens Bush up for cheap shots FROM Kerry. :-) But I do want to know what Kerry would do, specifically. I want to know how he plans on getting a permanent solution to the problem -- which neither Bush or Clinton have thus far succeeded in -- without sending any of the "wrong messages" he's been decrying.
And further, if his plan includes complete nuclear disarmament, will Kerry stand up right now and say so? It seems this is the sticking point, and that North Korea is delaying on the hopes that Kerry will be softer on it. These delays in an agreement are delaying our safety. Kerry can help make us all be safer right now by saying he will work to disarm North Korea of all its nuclear weapons programs. Will he do that?
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment