I will save you some time:
-It is Clinton's fault
-The Democrats will raise your taxes

Now, if there are no more questions, I will go back to sleep.

To the Hughs, Lees, BarneyG2000s, etc., I have a serious question:

What would you do now?

You're in charge, now congratulations. You can't change history, so let's chalk it all up to Dubya's fault that we're in the mess we're in.

And you can't impeach him 'til after the new Congress is sworn in come January 2007.

But in the meantime, we've had a North Korean test (that may have fizzled, may not have worked, whathaveyou).

So, what would you do??

And please provide a few details. If the answer is bilateral talks, what does that mean? Is simply talking the answer you would provide? If the NKs are demanding billions of dollars in "reparations" and the lifting of economic sanctions and access to Western technology, would you end the discussions, or would you offer it to them?

Or would you threaten them, and if so, how would you couch it?

Or would you refer it all back to the "Six-Party talks," i.e., Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, and ourselves, in addition to NK?

Seriously, what is YOUR answer?

C'mon, you know the liberal response. Appoint a 'blue ribbon' commission to immediately convene hearings to investigate why the North Koreans hate us. Then give North Korea whatever they want. Or was the question rhetorical?

Has anyone mentioned that the bomb that they may (or may not) have detonated was almost certainly a plutonium weapon not an enriched uranium one. The 1994 crisis was about plutonium production, as it was resolved in the agreed framework, the plutonium remained under IAEA supervision until 2002. That's when we found out they had a clandestine uranium enrichment program. So we broke off the agreed framework and so did they. They no longer were bound to keep the plutonium under lock and key, and we stopped giving them goodies. From that point on we have done nothing to stop either uranium enrichment or plutonium production. For a man of action, tough decisions and a will to stop the worlds worst dictators getting hold of the worst weapons, I'd say that Bush has failed here.

Good point Lurking Observer. The 1994 Agreed Framework was a failure from the get go.

It's your move, Left. Dazzle us.

LurkingObserver,

Since you asked a thoughtful and serious question, let me give you Barney's answer, Barney style:

-I will send Madeleine Albright to give Jong-Il a basketball this time with Kobe's autograph
-Republicans want to take away your rights.

Word is Bush is going to change his evil (axis fighting) ways. Of course, we all know his shift from being the big, bad cowboy to his his new - let's give peace a chance" diplomacy mode is only a political ploy to try to squeeze more votes.

After Sept. 11 . . . the Bush team embarked on a different path, outlining a muscular, idealistic and unilateralist vision of American power and how to use it. He aimed to lay the foundation for a grand strategy to fight Islamic terrorists and rogue states by spreading democracy around the world and pre-empting gathering threats before they materialize. And the U.S. wasn't willing to wait for others to help. The approach fit with Bush's personal style, his self-professed proclivity to dispense with the nuances of geopolitics and go with his gut.

But in the span of four years, the Administration has been forced to rethink the doctrine with which it hoped to remake the world as the strategy's ineffectiveness is exposed by the very policies it prescribed. The swaggering Commander in Chief (essential element of cowboyism) who embodied the doctrine's aspirations has modulated himself too. At a press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair in May, Bush swore off the Wild West rhetoric of getting enemies "dead or alive," conceding that "in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted." Bush's response to the North Korean missile test was equally revealing. Under the old Bush Doctrine, defiance by a dictator like Kim Jon Il would have merited threats of punitive U.S. action -- or at least a tongue lashing. Instead, the Administration has mainly been talking up multilateralism and downplaying Pyongyang's provocation. As much as anything, it's confirmation of what Princeton political scientist Gary J. Bass calls "doctrinal flameout." Put another way: cowboy diplomacy, RIP.

It's good to see Bush is trying something new - kinda confirms that the old ways have failed this country tremendously over the last 6 years.

Of course - you guys don't believe in diplomacy - and the sad fact is that Bush will fail here as well. He's been proven to be a blowhard - shouted down and stared down by superpowers (coff coff) the likes of Iran and North Korea. Even Cindy Sheehan kicked his sorry *ss around the plains of Texas so badly George hid in his bunkhouse until she'd gone.

That's who we have leading this country.

No need to post faux-lefty answers guys. I'm sure Lee, Hugh, & Muirego will be here posting as soon as they get back from the Daily Kos with what Comrade Markos tells them they should think about this.

It's your move, Left. Dazzle us.

Uh, it's Bush's move. And has been for 6 years. He's the one in charge of NK policy. Since then, the only dazzle we've seen is the flash from the test explosion.

C'mon, you know the liberal response. Appoint a 'blue ribbon' commission

I thought it was to appeal to the ineffective UN. Oh wait, that was Bush's response. I guess it's OK for a Republican president to go to the UN.

The 1994 agreement was a total success, for North Korea. It allowed the little fat monkey to get Madam NotAllTooBright drunk, bong her, collect billions of dollars of your money, get two free nuclear power plants (used to further develop a nuclear bomb), and laugh at Slick Willie for only getting a BJ. Something no one else (other than a drunken dwarf) would do. The U.S. got exactly nothing positive out of the agreement. Well maybe a few good jokes for the late night shows. Now Leno is a biased right winger. ROFL

Lee...

tell me where with NoKo diplomacy ever worked?

Brian....

Same old crap......you aint dazzling us.

Cm'on Lurking observer. Did you really think Lee and Co. would be able to articulate a sensable stratigy, let alone dazzle?

All you wanna be dazzled folks:

Did Alred E Bush dazzle you with his press conference?

Seems to me his solution is first to go grrrrr; second, the old tried and true "stay the course."

Notice the silence since Alfred had his conference?

Vagabond: NoKo developed nucelar arms capability six years after Bush took office. Diplomacy worked up until Bush took office, at which time he abandoned diplomacy in exchange for his "Look at me - I'm a cowboy" doctrine of shoot first and ask questions later. Now he's hung up his cowboy hat in exchange for diplomacy - something he should have done 5 years ago.

Your boy failed, Vagabond, and now he's changed his tune. Ask him why he's choosing diplomacy now, Vagabond - he'll tell you it's a really good idea -- too bad he waited this long to figure it out -- but he had a rude wake up call from the real superpowers who refused to back him in his "get tough with NoKo" attempts earlier this year.

I'm glad to see Bush has come around to my way of thinking, aren't you Vagabond. Maybe we can maintain the peace.

Sorry about your Republican pals at Halliburton and Co. - I'm sure they were rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of a nuclear holocaust.

Thus far:

Lee: blockquote and Cindy Sheehan is tougher than Bush.

Brian: I'm not going to answer, b/c it's Bush's move.

Hugh: Bush is inarticulate.

Lee: Misstatement of actual history (in 1994, there was a common view that North Korea had 1-2 nuclear weapons), and throwaway anti-Halliburton line.

But I was serious in asking my question. It's no different than asking what you would recommend President Feingold or President Rodham-Clinton should do (except that it's for 2006, rather than 2009).

In general, mantis has actually had thoughtful answers, and I hope that he swings by this thread. In the meantime, I'll ask once again:

Lee, Hugh, Brian, Barney:

What would be your recommended course of action to the President, as of 11 October 2006?

If you answer "diplomacy," please indicate exactly what you would put on the table for NK, and exactly what you would want in return.

If you answer "multilateral negotiations," please explain what differences you would expect from China and South Korea than have already occurred.

Lee...read the IAEA synopsis on NoKo pre-1994 and post 1994 then get back to me.

Hugh...nice dodge....no dazzle.

I agree with Lee, Hugh, Brian and Barney. The blame for this North Korean fiasco is entirely in the laps of the Bush Administration. I have little doubt that Kim is being prevented from successfully fulfilling the primary campaign promise on which he was elected, ie. building a bustling economy for North Korea and expanding the wealth of the NK middle class. Why? Because of having to put all of the economic resources into a nuclear program to deter a US invasion. In fact, the policies of this administration are having the same effect on economic development in Syria, Iran, Palestine. Geesh, I could go on. I bet you guys really stroke it every time Bush uses the term United Nations too.

and Lee, remember the 1994 Agreed Framework which came out of bilateral talks with NoKo? Tons of US tax dollars went over there and it failed because NoKo viloated the agreement from day one (per IAEA) which gave NoKo the capability to develop somewhat of a nuke.

So unilater talks didn't work . Bilateral talks didn't work. Why should Bush waste his time with those? There are other powerful countries who are closer to NoKo and more influential.

What would be your recommended course of action to the President, as of 11 October 2006?

When sales at my old company were tanking, it was the sales VP's responsibility. When the engineering team was consistently late, it was the team lead's responsibility.

The reason we hire leaders (like a President) is because they're supposed to know what they're doing. The rank and file aren't supposed to tell leaders how to do their jobs. But it doesn't take an expert to recognize when they don't.

"Tons of US tax dollars went over there and it failed because NoKo viloated the agreement from day one (per IAEA) which gave NoKo the capability to develop somewhat of a nuke."

Yeah, I do remember the agrement. Bush waived the requirement for inspections in 2003 - he said the waiver was vital to the security interests of the United States. He's an idiot.

The oversight that was part of the framework was waived by the Republican *sshat in the White House.

The decision to not use diplomacy, but play hard ball instead, was chosen by the *sshat in the White House

George had six years in which to screw this up - and he did a brilliant job of it.

Guess what - one of the outcomes of the next round of diplomacy will be to have regular inspections. This time, Bush won't waive the requirement - i guarantee it.

He's learned his lesson, have you? NO - you guys just keep yammering on trying to defend Bush's actions over the last six years - even Bush has seen the light and chosen a new course - wake up!

Brian.... Same old crap......you aint dazzling us.

VagaBond...nice dodge....no dazzle.

Lurking Observer, it is not my responsibility to have all the answers. It is the responsibility of the voters to elect competent leads. Bush has demonstrated a complete and total lack of competency such as:
-Shiavo
-Meyers
-The Border
-Iraq
-Katrina
-Deficit/Debt
-Energy Policy
-North Korea
-Iran
-Israel / Palestine
-9/11
-Defending the Constitution
-Leaking Classified Data
-Abramoff
-Dubai Ports
-SS Reform

And the list goes on and on.

Brian..

Good point Lurking Observer. The 1994 Agreed Framework was a failure from the get go.

It's your move, Left. Dazzle us.

Brian.... Same old crap......you aint dazzling us.

VagaBond...nice dodge....no dazzle.

Posted by: Brian

Obviously, I am not dodging. Still awaiting answers from the left.

Barney...yawn....

NoKo is awaiting your answer.

Maybe we should expand this.

If you can't come up with an answer, Left, ask your congressman. Maybe they can provide a link.

Scrapie, "get two free nuclear power plants (used to further develop a nuclear bomb)"

Tough guy Rummy thought it was a good idea:

"Mr. Rumsfeld was a non-executive director of ABB, a European engineering giant based in Zurich, when it won a $200m (£125m) contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors. The current defense secretary sat on the board from 1990 to 2001, earning $190,000 a year. He left to join the Bush administration."

Barney that was so convuluted it made no sense. Are you saying Rumsfeld is to blame because he sat on a board for ABB to sell parts to NoKo for a deal that Clinton brokered?

Obviously, I am not dodging.

Your dodge is hiding behind the endless repetition of the childish "Oh yeah? What would you do? Still waiting!"

Still awaiting answers from the left.

Still awaiting responsibility from the right.

So far we've seen pretty much 2 responses from the secular socialists on this thread:

1. Blame Bush but totally ingore Clinton's failure.

and

2. Claim that it is not their responsibility to come up with a solution.

#1 is very hypocritical but typical for lefies.
#2 is a legitimate point for the SS trolls on this site,

HOWEVER, these are the exact same responses we get when the LEADERS of the secular socialist party (Kerry, Pelosi, Reed, Dean, H. Clinton, et. al.) are asked the same question and that is unacceptable and it is the reason why they have lost power.

Americans want leaders who do things- even if they make mistakes- not leaders who point fingers, project blame, and make excuses.

"Americans want leaders who do things- even if they make mistakes..."

That's really, really stupid. America doesn't want leaders who make mistakes - Republicans do... The day that Republicans speak for America has long passed.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this subject, Paul. You are a Republican, right? - please correct me if that's not the case.

Check out Chris Shays' meltdown:

Republican Rep. Christopher Shays defended the House speaker's handling of a congressional page scandal, saying no one died like at Chappaquiddick in 1969 when Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy was involved.

"I know the speaker didn't go over a bridge and leave a young person in the water, and then have a press conference the next day," the embattled Connecticut congressman told The Hartford Courant in remarks published Wednesday.

"Dennis Hastert didn't kill anybody," he added.

I think this is called 'you're not helping'. You can find the story from the AP at Yahoo or whatever, that's where I saw it.

Lee,

The political party I most closely identify with is the Libertarians, but I almost always vote for Republicans since the Libers are not a viable option and the "democrats" are pretty much pure evil.

I do believe that every human makes mistakes, even the President.

Jeebus, people.

This is not a "Oh yeah, what would YOU do?" question.

This is a serious question about what people are thinking about.

No, it's not as though I'm sitting in the White House, polling for answers on blogs. This is a serious question, such as is put forward to think-tanks, Beltway bandits, and research centers at universities.

What is a serious policy response to the North Korean nuclear test.

Is that really so friggin' hard to understand? Is everything a matter of politics to you people (and that applies to both sides, here)?

Imagine you're William Cohen under Bill Clinton. Or Henry Stimson under FDR. Do you really say, "Listen, I'm a Republican, you're a Democrat, so I'm not serving as SecDef, b/c it's all your problem?" Or do you say, "Here's what I'm thinking should be done, as your SecDef"?

But thanks for letting me know that, to you people, it's more important to stick your tongue out and say "Not my problem, dood, it's yours" than thinking for a few minutes about whether there's actually alternative solution sets.

P. Bunyan wrote...

Considering that you're spouting the talking points of Michael Savage, who even respectable conservatives don't pay attention to anymore, I wasn't even going to address you. But what the heck.

1. Blame Bush but totally ingore Clinton's failure.
#1 is very hypocritical but typical for lefies.

I don't ignore Clinton's failures. But Clinton's been out of office for 6 years. How long can you hide behind him?

I would be happily impressed by you demonstrating how to not be hypocritical by admitting Bush's failure in this matter.

2. Claim that it is not their responsibility to come up with a solution.
#2 is a legitimate point for the SS trolls on this site
HOWEVER, these are the exact same responses we get when the LEADERS of the secular socialist party

Please share with us the foreign policy solutions that Bush the candidate offered while he was running. Please identify those that he followed through with once in the White House. Please highlight the ones that have been successful.

You seem to care only about what politicians say they'll do, and not what they actually do. I would be skeptical of anyone running for office who said that they knew the solution. However, Bush has had 6 years to figure out and implement a solution, and rectify whatever flaws he thought were in Clinton's policies. He did, quite literally, nothing.

Brian,

I don't listen to Micheal Savage, as what little I've heard of him seems extreme, but perhaps he, like me, recognizes the evil of secular socialism which has taken over what used to be the Democratic Party.

As far as what Bush has done, and I by no means claim to be an expert on this subject, I am aware of at least two things and I approve of both.

The first is that he has been working to build a multinational coalition- made up mostly of nations in that region- to come up with a comprehensive solution to the problem.

Second, he has authorized the development of a missile defense system to protect this country from missile attacks from nations such as NK.

The Bush administration is probably doing a lot more than of what I am aware, but after all they are the "most secretive administration in the entire history of America" so who really has any clue what they're doing?