Richardson Endorses Obama

[dragonrider]

You were the one defending KJI's behaviors and his 'reasons' for doing so.

I never defended his reasons. I once mentioned the reasons Kim cited for pulling out of the agreement, but I do not defend them.

Here it is:

"North Korea was a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but withdrew in 2003, citing the failure of the Bush administration to fulfill the United States' end of the 1994 agreement to limit North Korea's nuclear ambitions, begin normalization of relations, and help North Korea supply some energy needs through light-water nuclear reactors."

That fact is, he did cite those reasons. And then the American resopnse to that would be, "Yeah, we didn't come through with our end, because you were cheating on your end!" So, no, I don't DEFEND his pulling out of the agreement or his reasons.

But we lost more than they did by letting the negotiations break down. They got a nuke. We got ... what?

You choose to bash my countries' administration unchallenged? I refrain from bashing my own country, because I believe in it as a whole. I do not hang with a crowd that get's off by bashing all things american. You were the one defending KJI, his reasoning and his actions. How insulting indeed.

Do you extend your restraint to candidates, or only to elected presidents? Is it only after a candidate is elected that they become immune from criticism? And then does that immunity expire after they leave office as it apparently did with Clinton? It'll be interesting to see how much restraint you exercise when Obama or Clinton is in office. If you do feel a need to criticise one of them while they are in office, will you equate that with "bashing all things American?"

I feel it is perfectly fair to criticise a sitting president for his failures, reagardless of partisanship. My critcism of Bush for failing in our American policy goals in North Korea does not amount to "America Bashing." And it does not amount to defending North Korea --- get past that, man, I do not defend them.

You may have never said they were fine, yet you declare his reasoning was a direct result of the Bush administration bungling the diplomacy.

I do not know where you get this shit. I did not defend Kim's reasoning. I DID declare the Bush administration bungled the diplomacy, but that does not equate to defending North Korea.

Diplomacy has never worked with KJI, and likely never will. It's just another promise to break.

Kim abuses diplomacy. He lies and cheats. He is extremely difficult to deal with. But diplomacy has worked to some extent, because he can be basically bought off. Unless you want a war, diplomacy is your only route. Failing to use diplomacy obviously did not work --- he got a nuke out of it. One of Bush's problems is his stark black and white world view, things like, "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists," or this idea that becasue North Korea is dishonest, they can't be dealt with at all. If Bush wasn't up to the difficult job, he should not have signed up.

You show a propensity to accept a despotic madman's reasoning over that of the president of the United States, our diplomats, and the UN's IAEA inspectors. To me...that's insulting!

Again with this crap. I do not sympathize with Kim or accept his reasoning.

There is no magic dust Bush could have sprinkled over N. Korea. No magic wand. No crossing his arms, and blinking, to get N. Korea to comply. Our only tool was diplomacy, and the humanitarian goods we give them.

Yes, those are our only tools in this case, and it does us no good if we don't use them. I actually have a feeling that Bush was attempting the magic dust, waving the wand, crossing the arms and blinking method. You should have told him that wouldn't work!

I hope that you will refrain from questioning my patriotism, or saying I "bash America first," or suggesting I sympathize with a despicable tyrant just because I think Bush failed to achieve a crucial foregin policy goal.

I think we agree that it was an important goal to keep North Korea from getting a nuke. They have one now. They got it five years into Bush's presidency after years of diplomatic stalemate. I say it is because Bush failed diplomatically. Personally, I think Bush tends to put his own ideas of right and wrong ahead of the country's real interests. I think he didn't want to deal with them because thay are liars and cheats, and that resulted in failing to achieve our foreign policy goal. He put his own principles and desire to teach them a lesson ahead of preventing them from getting a nuke.

You are certainly free to disagree with that, but try to do it in a way that doesn't say I am less of an American than you.