AP, NBC repeated Bush's claim that Clinton's North Korea policy "didn't work," ignored that it halted plutonium production
SUMMARY: The AP's Terence Hunt and NBC News' David Gregory both reported President Bush's "veiled swipe" at the Clinton administration's North Korea policy, in which Bush said, "I appreciate the efforts of previous administrations. It just didn't work." But neither noted that, following the Clinton administration's signing of the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea, that country did not produce any plutonium until 2002, when the Bush administration abandoned the agreement.
During an October 11 Rose Garden press conference, President Bush took what Associated Press White House correspondent Terence Hunt described as a "veiled swipe" at the Clinton administration's North Korea policy. "[B]ilateral negotiations didn't work," Bush said. "I appreciate the efforts of previous administrations. It just didn't work. And therefore, I thought it was important to change how we approached the problem." But in reporting this comment, neither Hunt nor NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory noted that, following a 1994 agreement negotiated by the Clinton White House, North Korea halted its plutonium production until 2002, when the Bush administration abandoned the pact. As other news outlets reported, numerous former Clinton administration officials have made this point in recent days, in response to both Bush's comments and similar remarks made on October 10 by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).
In his October 11 article, Hunt reported that Bush had taken a "veiled swipe at former President Clinton" and "suggested that direct Clinton administration contacts with the communist regime showed they were unprofitable." From the article:
Most of the questions at the news conference dealt with North Korea, with Iraq a close second.
Bush rejected criticism from Democrats that his administration had not paid enough attention to the brewing North Korean nuclear crisis. "The North Korean situation was serious for years," he said in a veiled swipe at former President Clinton.
Bush said that Pyongyang had broken a 1994 deal negotiated by the Clinton administration in which Pyongyang had promised not to develop a nuclear program.
"It's the intransigence of the North Korean leader that speaks volumes about the process," he said of Kim Jong Il. "It is his unwillingness to choose a way forward for this country -- a better way forward for his country. It is his decisions."
As to direct talks with North Korea, as the U.N. secretary general and many other diplomats have urged, Bush suggested that direct Clinton administration contacts with the communist regime showed they were unprofitable.
"Bilateral negotiations didn't work. You know, I appreciate the efforts of previous administrations. It just didn't work," Bush said.
McCain similarly criticized the Clinton administration policy on October 10, describing the Agreed Framework -- the 1994 agreement between the United States and North Korea -- as a "failure." But as Media Matters for America noted in response to the media's uncritical reporting of McCain's remarks, under the Framework, North Korea did not produce any plutonium for eight years.
The terms of the 1994 agreement stipulated that North Korea would halt its plutonium production and lock up its stockpile of spent fuel rods (used to make weapons-grade plutonium). In return, the United States, along with the European Union, Japan, and South Korea, would assist with the country's energy needs. For the next eight years, the North Korean plutonium production program remained "under lock and key," as an October 10 Los Angeles Times article reported, and the country's central nuclear facility "was monitored 24 hours a day by U.N. surveillance cameras."
By contrast to the AP, an October 12 New York Times article quoted former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright making this point:
Madeleine K. Albright, a secretary of state for former President Bill Clinton, issued a statement on Wednesday defending his administration and striking back at Mr. Bush.
"During the two terms of the Clinton administration, there were no nuclear weapons tests by North Korea, no new plutonium production, and no new nuclear weapons developed in Pyongyang," Ms. Albright's statement said. "Through our policy of constructive engagement, the world was safer. President Bush chose a different path, and the results are evident for all to see."
Despite the North's test, Mr. Bush insisted Wednesday that his diplomatic approach was the best course and that he would continue to seek support for sanctions from other nations. He resisted calls for direct negotiations with North Korea of the sort the Clinton administration had engaged in, saying "the strategy did not work."
An October 12 Los Angeles Times article noted a similar response from a Clinton spokesman, who further noted that Bush's former secretary of state, Colin Powell, had "endorsed" the Agreed Framework. From the article:
A spokesman for Clinton responded Wednesday that Republicans were attempting to "rewrite history."
After the 1994 agreement, North Korea produced no nuclear weapons during Clinton's time in the White House, and the Clinton approach was endorsed by Colin L. Powell, then Bush's secretary of State, in 2001, said Ben Yarrow of the Clinton Foundation.
"For eight years during the Clinton administration, there was no new plutonium production, no nuclear weapons tests and therefore no additional nuclear weapons developed on President Clinton's watch," Yarrow said.
Moreover, on October 12, The Washington Post devoted an entire article to taking apart the Bush administration's unequivocal assertion that the Clinton policy was a failure, noting that, contrary to Bush's assertion, "the reality is more complicated." The article by Post staff writer Glenn Kessler quoted former Clinton administration official Robert L. Gallucci, the chief negotiator of the Framework, as stating that North Korea would currently possess enough plutonium "for more than 100 nuclear weapons," if not for the agreement:
President Bush asserted yesterday that the administration's strategy on North Korea is superior to the one pursued by his predecessor, Bill Clinton, because Clinton reached a bilateral agreement that failed, while the current administration is trying to end North Korea's nuclear programs through multi-nation talks.
"In order to solve this diplomatically, the United States and our partners must have a strong diplomatic hand," Bush said at a news conference. "And you have a better diplomatic hand with others, sending the message, than you do when you're alone."
As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice put it on Tuesday: "The United States tried direct dialogue with the North Koreans in the '90s, and that resulted in the North Koreans signing onto agreements that they then didn't keep."
But the reality is more complicated, according to former and current U.S. officials and a review of the diplomatic history.
[...]
Robert L. Gallucci, the chief negotiator of the accord and now dean of the Georgetown School of Foreign Service, said it is a "ludicrous thing" to say that the Clinton agreement failed. For eight years, the Agreed Framework kept North Korea's five-megawatt plutonium reactor frozen and under international inspection, while North Korea did not build planned 50- and 200-megawatt reactors. If those reactors had been built and running, he said, North Korea would now have enough plutonium for more than 100 nuclear weapons.
By Gallucci's account, North Korea may have produced a small amount of plutonium for one or two weapons before Clinton came into office -- during the administration of Bush's father -- but "no more material was created on his watch."
On the October 11 edition of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams, Gregory reported that Bush had asserted at the press conference that the Clinton strategy "failed to deter the Kim regime" and aired a clip of Bush saying of his predecessor's policy, "It just didn't work." But like Hunt, Gregory failed to note the Clinton administration's response. From the Nightly News broadcast:
GREGORY: And a strong response, as well, today, to Democrats who charged that a White House preoccupied with Iraq failed to stop North Korea.
BUSH: It's the intransigence of the North Korean leader that speaks volumes about the process.
GREGORY: The president, adding that even the Clinton administration's direct talks with the North, failed to deter the Kim regime.
BUSH: I appreciate the efforts of previous administrations. It just didn't work.
By contrast, on the October 11 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson, ABC News chief White House correspondent Martha Raddatz aired the same clip, but subsequently noted Albright's rebuttal:
KOFI ANNAN (U.N. Secretary General): I believe that we should -- that the U.S. and North Korea should talk. They did talk in the past.
RADDATZ: But President Bush shot back, saying that the Clinton administration had tried that and failed.
BUSH: Bilateral negotiations didn't work. You know, I appreciate the efforts of previous administrations. It just didn't work.
RADDATZ: Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright disputed that today, saying, during the Clinton administration, "there were no nuclear weapons tests by North Korea, no new plutonium production, and no new nuclear weapons developed in Pyongyang."
...is perhaps the greatest harm the media could perpetrate. For while I can't guarantee that there was no uranium produced during this period -- there is definitely good evidence that points to this. However, to without any proof on their end, claim military solutions are better than diplomatic ones and that isolating a country is better than engaging it in the international community in the name of a talking point is wreckless and they should be held responsible.
A "WRECK" is exactly what Bungle hath wrought! (Yeah, I know you meant "reckless", but how could I pass a straight line like this?
I seem to remember that at some point in time the North Koreans removed/disabled cameras that were set up to monitor their nuclear facilities.
Did that happen during the Clinton or the Bush Jr. administration?
jr's watch. and "watch" is appropriate because that's all he's done.
By the end of 2002 North Korea said it was lifting the freeze on facilities frozen under the agreed framework between the United States and North Korea, including a nuclear reactor at Yongbyon. Furthermore, North Korea asked the International Atomic Energy Agency to remove its cameras from the Yongbyon facility. North Korea defied world opinion on 21 December 2002 by removing United Nations seals and cameras at a nuclear power plant suspected of making weapons-grade plutonium. North Korea tampered with surveillance devices the UN nuclear watchdog installed at the Yongbyong complex. The agency said the North cut most of the seals on equipment and tampered with cameras at the five-megawatt reactors. North Korea says the agency did not respond to Pyongyang's requests that it remove the equipment. The International Atomic Energy Agency said it was trying to keep communications open with Pyongyang. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said it was deplorable North Korea had ignored requests for talks.
that North Korea's actions were completely legal as Bush & Co had abrogated the agreed framework. If you want a good account of the current mess we're in Fred Kaplan wrote a good article on slate.com under war stories. enjoy
NK admitted, in Oct 2002, that it was pursuing WMDs through uranium enrichment after US uncovered evidence of the fact. This was in violation of the Agreed Framework. NK believes in intimidation to get concessions. Apparently NK was trying to threaten with uranium enrichment to get further concessions. Note that some experts still debate whether NK could make uranium bomb. NK also was not letting IAEA examine fuel rods (which were sealed, IAEA tried to determine exactly how much plutonium was in them), or inspect two waste sites. One of the sites was hidden but discovered (note it is estimated that NK has between 11-15,000 military cave complexes built deep into the mountains or underground, some large enough to house a reactor). There has always been suspicion that NK had enough plutonium for perhaps 1 or 2 bombs even before Clinton took office. The 5mw reactor was shut down for 70 to 100 days in '89, it is believed fuel rods were removed at this time (NK stated that it removed only 80 defective fuel rods at the time). NK initiated the failure of the AF and badly misplayed its hand. Bush badly misplayed his hand in response as well. Bush could have undertaken a measured response rather than wholesale collapse of AF.
Bush is such a liar. Why does the news let himdo this?
They're lazy. They don't want to do an effective job, and balance the news. It's just hard work.
Doesn't know what the hell he is talking about, as usual. His handlers just tell him to speak and he does. He can appear on Letterman during the "Stupid President Tricks". Doesn't he get it that he will be the one going down in history as the worst president in history. And this on top of his criminal record and jail time(hopefully) may cause him to ask himself "What happened, I was the Decider?" But his still won't get it. This whole mob in the White House has recently been taking, in a small way, responsibility for all the wrongs but to date, no one has been made to pay for their incompetence. No one.
why is that the 1st thing republicans do? Can you say hypocrite?
because you are. I really enjoy goring the ox when its either you or solon.
[link to www.gwu.edu]
The title of this document is "The DPRK's Violation of its NPT Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA". Interesting read. Notice that it is dated 1997. For all you "Its Bush's fault" libs out there, that was the first year of Clinton's second term. Bush wasn't even on the White House radar then.
The above cited document basically says North Korea lied to Clinton and Albright about how much plutonium they had separated prior to the 1994 'framework" and that they had removed the IAEA seals from its reactor as early as 1997. The DPRK had also agreed to abide by the Non Proliferation Treaty [NPT] as a part of the Agreed Framework. and I quote from the framework "DPKR would remain a party to the NPT".
Translation for you libs out there: The North Koreans began violating Clinton's "Agreed Framework" no later than 1997. By impl;ication, they lied to Albright and put one over on Slick Willie. The treachery was a done deal before Bush ever set foot in the White House.
How would you like your crow served, Sir?
Did you even read the document you linked to? The document does not back up any of the false assertions or lies you posted. The only possible exception is North Korea's lie that it only produced a small amount of plutonium (less than 100 grams) during Bush 41's presidency which everyone knew was a lie at the time.
NOWHERE in that report is it stated that AFTER the framework were the seals on the fuel rods breached. I dont know of anyone that has ever claimed that. You pulled it directly out of your ass. There were cameras on them, they were monitered. Next time you want to gore an ox, perhaps you should have some dim idea what you are talking about. You wingnuts really need to learn to read.
Isn't it true that the reason the NoKoreans broke the seals was Bungle's abrogation of the Framework, and refusal to provide the aid we had offered to incent Kim to allow UN monitoring of this energy source?
but has anyone else noted his slowly turning to the right over the past year or so. Shades of Chris Mathews all over again! Are there any creditable news reporters left?
Thanks for pointing out these facts, MMFA. I was a uncertain about the timeline involved in which North Korea resumed its nuclear weapons program. Unless I have just been tuned to the wrong channels I have not seen any coverage or detailed explanation on television refuting the Bush administration's blaming of Bill Clinton for North Korea's nuclear testing.
I know that eventually I would read a detailed explanation in perhaps The New Yorker or The Atlantic, but the fact is that we rely on television for immediate news and analysis. Unfortunately, by the time the truth of what North Korea did or did not do will be fully explained by responsible investigative journalism the damage of Bush's lies will have been long done.
I commend the New York Times, The Washington Post and the L.A. Times for printing the other side of the story but once again it makes me wonder about the value of television as a source for information. Certainly, if an airplane crashes into a New York skyscraper television is valuable for immediate, on-the-spot coverge. But it appears that whenever a story requires the least bit of historical research television coverage comes up way short.
IMO opinion the spin meisters in the Bush administration are well aware of the limitations of television and they use it to full advantage. They hammer away with multiple lies knowing full well that television news networks are either incapable or unwilling to do the work to analyze their lies. Eventually, the truth comes out but by then it's old news and most people have already formed strong, unshakable opinions.
Thanks again, MMFA...
She should be no authority on NK , this is a women that has blood on her hands and is bad as the Bushies.
"50,000 Iraqis dead is worth it " in her response to those brutal sanctions".
American Foreign Policy regardless of party in power is sick and hurts 3rd world nations.
Our past 4 presidents have not been the best at foreign policy. Clinton was better than the Bushes though. But still, Clinton's actions (the sanctions and bombings) as well really hurt Iraq. I just don't understand why we can't have a foreign policy that doesn't involve dropping bombs and watching genocide.
On the other hand, I really hate this whole "Blame Cinton" scheme going on. It's a desperate election scheme in my opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if they blamed Clinton for Hurricane Katrina response.
"50,000 Iraqis dead is worth it "
what you and TMAN seem to conveniently forget is that the sanctions were on weapons, and many dual-use items, not necessary food & medicine/supplies. the "oil for food" program would have more than met the needs of those "starving iraquis", had mr. hussain actually chosen to spend the funds on it. instead, he used it to buff up his palaces, his republican guard, etc, and then claim those sanctions were responsible for untold misery and death.
hogwash! mr. hussain was directly responsible for those deaths, their blood is on his hands, not ours. clearly, those sanctions were effective, as no wmd's, nor the ability to produce them, has yet been located in iraq.
if you're going to attempt republican revisionist history, better wait until everyone who was actually around is dead first.
She made this statement in 1996 on 60 Minutes, I along with most progressives was outraged back then. You should be also. Taking a stand against American foreign policy is not defending Republicans. Try and Understand the difference.
I am also OUTRAGED that the Bushies and Bush and Co continue to try and blame Clinton for their mistakes. My point is Albright is just as bad for making hateful comments that killing 50,000 Iraqi children with crippling sanctions was worth it. Worth what?
[link to www.fair.org]
but who's counting
Sec Albright is a patriot, Saddam was responsible for the 500K deaths not Albright or Clinton.
Stop the partisan hate.
the sanctions were a full trade embargo. Bush Sr. stated "By making life uncomfortable for the Iraqi people, [sanctions] would eventually encourage them to remove President Saddam Hussein from power". 500 000 civilians died...where is your humanity.
The Oil For Food program worked fine for food, Iraqis were not starving to death.
What was killing them was the sanctions on medical supplies and equipment. Iraq could not import any advanced medicines or chemicals to make them. Basic medical supplies were blocked, no oxygen imports, no lab equipment, medical electronics, no parts for the foreign built equipment they did have.
People died because they couldn't get chemotherapy when they got cancer or no oxygen when they had pneumonias or emphysema, stuff like that. They died because the US kept them from having an adequate health care system, one which did work prior to the sanctions.
The US embassy at the UN did all the vetoing of medical requests, all based on the bs that anything more advanced than an aspirin could be dual use. To deny medical supplies to a civilian population is a war crime under Geneva Conventions and the Nuremburg Charter.
One million estimated dead, half of them children. No US official ever taken to trial for their deaths. Instead they do talk show and lecture circuits.
The commentary claims that the Bush administration abrogated the Framework. How did it do so?
international agreement that the United States was a party to: Kyoto, NPT, ABM, ICC etc et al. The Bushies said we're no longer going to support these agreements. End of story.
Somewhat from memory (you are welcome to fact-check if your memory differs) Bungle suddenly decided that having no plutonium production, lockdown UN seals, and cameras monitoring the spent rods from the active facility, weren't worth the $92m cost of fuel supplies/subsidies, and the US wasn't going to continue to supply what we had agreed to supply. After a flash of negative reaction world-wide, Bungle rushed to amend his proclamation to "of course, we will continue to ship food."
All part of his plot to somehow justify the Repugnant urge to spend billions more chasing that Star Wars missle defense, that only NoKo seemed to warrant.