The Boston Globe has an editorial today that lauds the latest developments in our standoff with North Korea, and their quest for nuclear weapons. It says the recent signs are very promising, and give real cause for hope.
Of course, this is the Boston Globe, which means that their words don't translate into reality.
The title is called "Getting to yes with North Korea." The tone of the piece is that getting North Korea to agree to something is a great accomplishment.
It's not.
What is an accomplishment is getting North Korea to abide by its agreements. The whole history of their quest for the bomb has been marked by their making threats and demands, coming to accomodations that involve concessions on their part, and then blithely ignoring them -- while demanding that the other parties keep their ends of the deal.
So every single agreement, every compact, every treaty has led to North Korea getting at least some of what it wants, while they continue largely unchecked their research and development of nuclear weapons.
But this is the Boston Globe. Style triumphs over substance. As long as North Korea keeps SAYING they'll abide by agreements, that's good enough.
As Billy Crystal's "Fernando" would say, "it is not important that you BE marvelous, but that you LOOK marvelous."
Permalink | E-mail This | Technorati Links | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
War On Terror
Comments (6)
"Getting to Yes"? That sou... (Below threshold)1. Posted by langtry | September 6, 2007 2:24 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
"Getting to Yes"? That sounds like some "Rules"-like guide to getting a proposal from a reluctant boyfriend, not a strategy or goal for dealing with a nuclear stand-off.
1. Posted by langtry | September 6, 2007 2:24 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 6, 2007 14:24
2. Posted by Kilroy | September 6, 2007 3:02 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Hey, stop ragging on the Globe. That paper lines my bird cage like no other, God bless it.
2. Posted by Kilroy | September 6, 2007 3:02 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 6, 2007 15:02
3. Posted by Chris G | September 6, 2007 3:18 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
If my memory serve me correctly, N. Korea has been saying yes for 11 years. But saying yes and doing that which you agree to are two different issues. I remember Jimmy Carter brokering the a deal that had Madeline Albright clinking champagne glasses with Kim Jung Il. And that (Clinton) administration continued to fund the deal even as N. Korea was renigging on it.
N. Korea saying yes, while renigging on their arms deal with the US, is like a wife asking her husband "will you stop cheating on me with that tramp", only for husband to say "yes, I will stop cheating on you with that THAT tramp" and going out and having an affair with a different woman each time the question is asked.
In addition to the fact that people are starving to death, while we were still giving them food aid as part of the deal. Sup' with that? Dianne Sawyer did an expose on N/ Korea earlier this year. It was almost as bad as her interview with Abdiminijhiad (Did I spell that right?).
The Real point of the Globe story is to take N. Korea off the debate table for the Dems in the upcoming election. One less issue to consider as far as the War on Terror or Foriegn Policy for the Dems to explain. Kind of like "See, North Korea is saying yes.. so there is no problem with our relationship". And even Kim understands American politics better than some journalists. If he misbehaves, he helps the Republicans stance for a strong foriegn policy. If he behaves, he helps the Dems by not being an issue to discuss, hence he is invisible in a sense.
Look for similar stories to on Iran, Russia, etc., to minimize the need for an agressive foriegn policy at the hands of a Republican president .
3. Posted by Chris G | September 6, 2007 3:18 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 6, 2007 15:18
4. Posted by Mitchell | September 6, 2007 3:25 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
The title of this thread is the state motto of North Carolina: Esse Quam Videri.
Excellent.
4. Posted by Mitchell | September 6, 2007 3:25 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 6, 2007 15:25
5. Posted by Mitchell | September 6, 2007 3:26 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Actually, it is the reverse; but it obviously refers to our motto . . .
5. Posted by Mitchell | September 6, 2007 3:26 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 6, 2007 15:26
6. Posted by Veeshir | September 6, 2007 3:26 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Somewhat OT, but another example of what Chris G is talking about here
The Real point of the Globe story is to take N. Korea off the debate table for the Dems in the upcoming election. One less issue to consider as far as the War on Terror or Foriegn Policy for the Dems to explain.
Kucinich goes to the Middle East to badmouth America.
So he goes to Syria and plays nice with their dictator, then, he goes to Lebanon. The country that Syria militarily occupied for decades, the country that Syria is trying to re-occupy using assassinations of members of gov't, funding and supplying of Hezbollah and more.
So he's talking about why he won't go to Iraq I don't want to bless that occupation with my presence," he said in an interview in Lebanon, after visiting Syria. "I will not do it."
That's messed up.
6. Posted by Veeshir | September 6, 2007 3:26 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on September 6, 2007 15:26