http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080626/D91HPNB80.html Bush administration lifts North Korea sanctions WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Thursday he will lift key trade sanctions against North Korea and remove it from the U.S. terrorism blacklist, a remarkable turnaround in policy toward the communist regime he once branded as part of an "axis of evil." The announcement came after North Korea handed over a long-awaited accounting of its nuclear work to Chinese officials on Thursday, fulfilling a key step in the denuclearization process. Bush called the declaration a positive step along a long road to get the nation to give up its nuclear weapons. Yet, he remained wary of the regime, which has lied about its nuclear work before. And North Korea's declaration, received six months late, falls short of what the administration once sought, leaving it open to criticism from those who want the U.S. to take an even tougher stance against the regime. "We will trust you only to the extent you fulfill your promises," Bush said in the Rose Garden. "I'm pleased with the progress. I'm under no illusions. This is the first step. This isn't the end of the process. It is the beginning of the process." To demonstrate that it is serious about foregoing its nuclear weapons, North Korea is planning the televised destruction of a 65-foot-tall cooling tower at its main nuclear reactor at Yongbyon. The cooling tower is a key element of the reactor, but blowing it up - with the world watching - has little practical meaning because the reactor has already been nearly disabled. Specifically, Bush said the U.S. would erase trade sanctions under the Trading With the Enemy Act, and notify Congress that, in 45 days, it intends to take North Korea off the State Department list of nations that sponsor terrorism. "If North Korea continues to make the right choices it can repair its relationship with the international community ... If North Korea makes the wrong choices, the United States and its partners in the six-party talks will act accordingly," Bush said. The declaration, about 60 pages of documentation, is the result of long-running negotiations the United States, Japan, South Korea, China and Russia have been having with Pyongyang. A senior U.S. official said the declaration contains detailed data on the amount of plutonium North Korea produced during each of several rounds of production at a now-shuttered plutonium reactor. It is expected to total about 37 kilograms of plutonium - enough to make about a half-dozen bombs. However, the declaration, which covers nuclear production dating back to 1986, does not contain detailed information about North Korea's suspected program of developing weapons fueled by enriched uranium. It also does not provide a complete accounting of how it allegedly helped Syria build what senior U.S. intelligence officials say was a secret nuclear reactor meant to make plutonium, which can be used to make high-yield nuclear weapons. Israeli jets bombed the structure in the remote eastern desert of Syria in September 2007. Sen. Joseph Biden Jr., D-Del., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said it's critical to understand the nature and extent of North Korea's nuclear cooperation with Syria and any other countries. "Without clarity on these issues we cannot proceed with confidence to the next phase of the negotiations - the dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear facilities and the removal of any fissile material from the country," he said. North Korea had promised to complete the declaration by the end of last year in exchange for removal from U.S. terrorism and economic sanctions blacklists, which restrict its foreign trade and ability to get loans from international development banks. North Korea was put on the list of nations that sponsor terrorism for its alleged involvement in the 1987 bombing of a South Korean airliner that killed 115 people. The designation has effectively blocked North Korea from receiving low-interest loans from the World Bank and other international lending agencies. The president, insisting that the U.S. was not giving North Korea a free ride, said the U.S. action would have little impact on North Korea's financial and diplomatic isolation. "It will remain one of the most heavily sanctioned nations in the world," Bush said. All U.N. sanctions, for example, will remain in place. Bush said the United States would monitor North Korea closely and "if they don't fulfill their promises, more restrictions will be placed on them." Bush said that to end its isolation, North Korea must, for instance, dismantle all of its nuclear facilities and resolve outstanding questions on its highly enriched uranium and proliferation activities "and end these activities in a way that we can fully verify." Bush thanked all members of the six-party talks, but singled out Japan. Tokyo has argued that the U.S. decision to remove North Korea from the list of terrorist nations should be linked to progress in solving North Korea's abduction of Japanese nationals in the 1970s and 1980s. "The United States will never forget the abduction of Japanese citizens by the North Koreans," said Bush who called Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda on Wednesday to express U.S. concern about the issue. "We will continue to closely cooperate and coordinate with Japan and press North Korea to swiftly resolve the abduction issue."
Um, while denuclearization is wonderful, that doesn't correlate to ceasing to sponsor terrorism. There's something missing here.
When it's all said and done, people in the future will look back at Bush's post 9/11 State of the Union "Axis of Evil" speech and acknowledge that he addressed each of the three with outstanding results. In Iraq, Saddam is gone, and even the NYT had to admit on their front page/headline that we're winning the peace. In Korea, we didn't bow to pressure to have one-on-one negotiations with Kim Il Sung. Iran is the toughest of the three. Carter left office with the Middle East a festering sore, and Iran a violent and virulent enemy. While Iran may not be brought around to become a good citizen on the world stage during Bush's two terms, it is going to happen and it is going to happen because of the groundwork laid during those two terms.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 08:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Um, while denuclearization is wonderful, that doesn't correlate to ceasing to sponsor terrorism. There's something missing here.</div> Gave 'em the stick. Now that they're cooperative and looking like on the right path, it's time for the carrot.
Denny, do you really think people will look favorably on Bush and how he handled Iraq? Yes we may win there, but it certainly seems like it could have been handled better, Iraq lasted longer than WWII. Bush will be destroyed by textbooks.
I can't find the graphic online, but the Daily Show moved North Korea out of the "Axis of Evil" with Iran and Iraq, and into the "Axis of Assholes" next to France and Germany. Made me laugh.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jun 29 2008, 01:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I can't find the graphic online, but the Daily Show moved North Korea out of the "Axis of Evil" with Iran and Iraq, and into the "Axis of Assholes" next to France and Germany. Made me laugh.</div> Colbert also said we need to add Spain to the Axis of Evil for wanting to give Apes human rights. :]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jun 28 2008, 11:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Denny, do you really think people will look favorably on Bush and how he handled Iraq? Yes we may win there, but it certainly seems like it could have been handled better, Iraq lasted longer than WWII. Bush will be destroyed by textbooks.</div> I think that when he's no longer relevant and $billionaire George Soros isn't focusing his PR campaigns against Bush, the lens of partisanship will be removed and people/scholars will look at his presidency with a fair mind. "Iraq lasted longer than WW II" is spin. The actual war lasted 3 weeks and will be viewed as being as impressive as the finishing off of the Germans after D-Day. What historians will see in 20 years, looking back, depends on whether Iraq turns out to be a pretty solid nation and good place to go to or be from. The Korean War was far bloodier and basically still ongoing by your chosen logic. Yet, South Korea is one of the great success stories among nations in the world after all this time has passed. Truman's approval rating was as low or lower than Bush's, yet today he's seen as a much better president than he was given credit for at the time. Hell, look at Jimmy Carter. The guy was the worst president in history, yet even his image has been rejuvenated, as if anything he thinks about the middle east is worth considering. Bush I was hated by the end of his presidency, and people now think it wasn't anywhere near as bad as it was made out to be at the time.
Speaking of Iraq... Before the surge, Iraq was 23% of the news coverage. Now that it's working, it's 3% of the news coverage. Makes you go... "hrm...."
You barely hear Iraq on the news anymore, not even the newspapers are picking up any stories. Which in a way tells you to almost never believe the media and their bull crap.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 29 2008, 08:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Seriously, I could never stand that "Axis of Evil" rhetoric. It annoyed the hell out of me.</div> 2/3 of the Axis of Evil has new leadership. Germany and France. France wasn't exactly popular here (nor Germany) during the diplomatic activity before we took out Saddam. Remember "freedom fries" ? But it's WAAAAY more important for France to like us, for some reason I don't fathom. Chirac ran on and won on anti-USA rhetoric while Clinton was president, so I'm not sure Bush's foreign policy changed anything in that regard. Germany elected Merkel, who's much closer to Bush's POV and wants better relationship with the USA. George W. Bush is mobbed by adoring fans when he visits Africa. If I heard right, on Reliable Sources on CNN this morning, they said the US press isn't showing Bush's current trip to France because he is drawing similar large crowds of actual fans.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 29 2008, 09:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jun 28 2008, 11:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Denny, do you really think people will look favorably on Bush and how he handled Iraq? Yes we may win there, but it certainly seems like it could have been handled better, Iraq lasted longer than WWII. Bush will be destroyed by textbooks.</div> I think that when he's no longer relevant and $billionaire George Soros isn't focusing his PR campaigns against Bush, the lens of partisanship will be removed and people/scholars will look at his presidency with a fair mind. "Iraq lasted longer than WW II" is spin. The actual war lasted 3 weeks and will be viewed as being as impressive as the finishing off of the Germans after D-Day. What historians will see in 20 years, looking back, depends on whether Iraq turns out to be a pretty solid nation and good place to go to or be from. The Korean War was far bloodier and basically still ongoing by your chosen logic. Yet, South Korea is one of the great success stories among nations in the world after all this time has passed. Truman's approval rating was as low or lower than Bush's, yet today he's seen as a much better president than he was given credit for at the time. Hell, look at Jimmy Carter. The guy was the worst president in history, yet even his image has been rejuvenated, as if anything he thinks about the middle east is worth considering. Bush I was hated by the end of his presidency, and people now think it wasn't anywhere near as bad as it was made out to be at the time. </div> No. Winning the war in Iraq is not the problem. It is the waste of resources, time, and focus that concerns me.
Iraq not being in the news anymore has more to do with the plummeting economy and upcoming elections than it does success with the military surge. And most of that attention is a side effect of Iraq, in a way. This election wouldn't be as important if people never realized how much electing a horrible President could change their lives in a negative way. And our economy would be in much better shape had we not spent so much money in Iraq to begin with.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jun 29 2008, 01:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Denny, do you really think people will look favorably on Bush and how he handled Iraq? Yes we may win there, but it certainly seems like it could have been handled better, Iraq lasted longer than WWII. Bush will be destroyed by textbooks.</div> Depends on who's writing those textbooks as well. Like Denny said, Jimmy Carter is an excellent example IMO. By many accounts, he was a shit President, but he wrote 25352525 books and is still relevant today. In my mind, I think Bush has a lot to look forward to in 15-20 years. His Presidency was marked by a lot more controversy that Carter's was (Bush served four more years than Carter), but wasn't as disastrous. If we don't withdraw from Iraq, we have a chance to make sure the Iraqi government can function as a democratic society and keep Iran from expanding its influence, and that could help Bush. If Obama withdraws from Iraq, and if by chance we have to go back in again, Bush will be helped by the fact that we should have stayed in Iraq.