John Kerry, AT IT AGAIN!

rated 10, worthy of commment.
kerry's not going anywhere. the democrats didn't like his campaign. he's been trying to get them back by sending email to everyone but he's polling so low with the democrats that most of the time he doesn't even register.

2 of his problems:
he can't speak in a sound byte. his answers are long. he can't condense them.

he handled the swiftboat deal poorly.

these are fatal to a national campaign.

Agree with troublemkr...Forget Kerry. I had to hold my nose when voting for the Kerry/Edwards ticket, even though I consider Dubya the worst possible president -- a dismal composite of James Buchanan, Warren Harding and Richard Nixon.

Unfortunately, Barbara, the best you can expect from Congress is that they will continue to toss brickbats at one another. The GOP, unfortunately, has run Congress as though it were the Reichstadt in the '30s, cutting the Democrats off from any input , ignoring long-standing rules of procedure (witness the Medicare bill) and essentially denying roughly half of the population its right to meaningful representation. It's especially discouraging because our antidemocratic, anachronistic electoral system has created a situation in the Senate where the minority party represents more actual voters than the majority party -- it's the triumph of acreage over citizenry. So when the majority party denies the minority a voice (or even meeting space for their caucus), it is essentially a slap in the face for democracy and representative government. These are bigger problems than the blame game, which is to Congress as baseball used to be for the nation.

I hope he runs again, just to cause problems for the Hillary people.
One thing I have never understood about the Democrats in D.C. If George W. Bush has a history of reaching across the aisle to get meaningful things accomplished, like he did in Texas, why aren't they trying to work him more often? Are they really this blinded by hate? There were so many opportunities for bi-partisan work that would have helped the country and instead nothing happened, just back stabbing and finger pointing. They should take all politicos and throw them in the ocean and start over again.

Barbara says:

" ...Democrats are good at the "divide and conquer" ethic, which is in my opinion very unethical. ... "

Oh my God, when will you folks wake up to the fact that so many of such statements that you use are but those that apply primarily to your own party ???

Why is it that your own worst faults are always somehow transferable to your opponents ? GET REAL !!!

troublemkr s says:

" ... he can't speak in a sound byte. his answers are long. he can't condense them...."

Could it just possibly be that some things are truly complex enough that they really need a fuller expression than a mere 'sound bite' ???

I realize that the average neo-con supporter cannot understand complexity, thus relying only on the twisted sound bites of FOX. It really shows in most of their comments here on Gather and where ever else they express themselves.

I suppose that if the elections put the Democrats in office this November, we will have to wait and see what good they can do for the nation, not their party. I just don't have much faith in them. This comes from a once Democrat who has been stung by the party many years ago.

jck, i agree that problems are complex. but people didn't want to listen to kerry's answers.

i think most democrats and independents want bill back but the only way they're gonna get him is to vote for hillary. i think hillary will run on a two-for-one campaign.

with kerry, if people don't wanna listen to your answers, they're not gonna vote for ya. he can't pull his supporters together even though they include the entire democrat party. people are just not responding. if you can't get support that way, you are dead in the water for another run.

Mike, I'm astounded at your belief that George Bush -- arguably the most divisive president we've had in decades -- reaches across the aisle in amiable bipartisanship to get things done. He talks about this, to be sure, but like just about everything else he talks about, nothing is done. He has alienated Democrats and some 60-70% of the American public, to say nothing of our allies overseas, where people think him a complete incompetent. This man is shallow, willfully ignorant, and a disaster for this country and, since we are so powerful...or used to be...the world at large.

Jerry K.??? YOU'RE NOT FOOLING ANYONE, MR. JOHN KERRY ( or should I say J. Kerry). Your pseudonym doesn't fool us.

Bill, he tried with immigration, which totally screwed him with conservatives, and I remember that he proposed a bipartisan committee to deal with social security, but Democrats put their hands over their ears and kept saying "nah, nah, i'm not listening". So yes, he has reached across the aisle. Sorry it wasn't enough for you.

And it's interesting that Kerry is complaining about Bush (on Meet the Press) about Bush not dealing unilaterally with NK. When Bush went "alone" against Iraq, people said he should have included the international community, now that he is including the international community to deal with NK, Kerry and other Hypocrats are saying he should do the opposite.

Bush can't win with Dems no matter what, so he should just do what he thinks is right.

My sentiments exactly, Oscar. Thanks for commenting on this so succinctly. Bush has tried to reach across the aisle and he has been rebutted on so many issues, fixing the social security for one. I agree, no matter what he does, it won't be good enough for the Dems as they only want more power in Congress. Trouble is, with the quest for power, they are bringing down our nation in bits and pieces.

Thanks, Barbara. So right, there is a major divide being caused by the Left. Their efforts to undermine this Nation, our Adminstration, policies and yes, war, is unjust and only emboldens our REAL enemies.

If Kerry were in office now (as he kept spouting off today that he should be), I shudder to think....

Dubya and bipartisanship in the same sentence? Afraid not. Bush's idea of bipartisanship is to propose something -- Oscar mentions social security -- that is totally unacceptable to Democrats and say that he will accept the unqualified support of anyone who will agree with him. That's not my definition of bipartisanship. His social security "fix" was supposed to address the fact that demographics are working against it, but what he was proposing had nothing to with the problem and would in fact exacerbate the expected shortfall by a massive amount. A bipartisan approach would be to work together with the Democrats to come up with a workable solution to the problem. You can make the same case for the estate tax (and I realize that both sides are at fault for not coming up with a sensible compromise). But to assert that Democrats are to blame because they won't go along with Bush/GOP when they propose unacceptable legislation is disingenuous...only slightly less so than the charge that the Left (whoever or whatever that is) is trying to undermine the nation.

Oscar H.

I won't blame you personally for making a silly comparison between Iraq and North Korea, because Bush has tried to find cover behind that specious argument himself. That dog won't hunt. Bush's LONG-STANDING insistance on multi-lateral talks, along with a series of harsh exchanges with the megalomaniac in Pyongyang beginning early in the Bush presidency, resulted in NK's breaking of the locks on storage facilities containing fuel rods that could be processed into nuclear bombs, and expelling international inspectors, circa 2002. Everything has spiraled downward since.

NK had agreed to locks, monitoring cameras, inspectors on the ground under agreements back in 1994. After things have taken such a nasty series of turns with the bungling of the past 6 years, Republicans have now proclaimed that maybe there was some cheating--maybe some material was enriched under the table during the 90's. That's about like complaining after you've rammed the Titanic into an iceberg and are sinking fast, that the salad forks in the dining room had been placed on the wrong side of the plate.

"The refusal to engage with Pyongyang directly has been condemned by lawmakers in both parties and by diplomats, including U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, who urged the United States yesterday to sit down with North Korea." -- Oct. 12, 2006

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/11/AR2006101100523.html

Oh, John Kerry had the gall to point out yet another failed Bush policy? Shame, shame.

My question in all of this Dave was how are any of the Dem's protestations on Bush doing us any good or moving our nation forward? It's all just a dog and pony show for the elections. Everyone can see that. Shame on the Dems.

Barbara B.

I believe that saying there should be bilateral talks with NK is a clear, understandable, and reasonable position.

The Republicans, and especially the Bush administration, has attempted over the past few years to paint anyone who wants to debate the issues, or provide alternatives to the administration's official line, as wrongheaded, and even unpatriotic.

In this article we are asked to accept that for an elected lawmaker to bring forward policy recommendations is unethical. Somehow this is "playing with our lives," whatever that means.

Let me suggest that this is not the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and we are not subjects of The Great Leader Kim Jong Il. Despite the cold wind blowing over the Bill of Rights under OUR "great leader," we still get to speak freely, even if it sometimes sounds like criticism. Heck, saying "that was the wrong policy" without elaborating a replacement policy is, I believe, still legal in the US.

The Democrats, as Bill Lawrence noted (thanks, Bill), have been shut out of the legislative process. When Denny Hastert ignored reports of a pedophile prowling the House of Representatives, the Democratic member of the Page Committee was not even told about the situation. The Republican Party has crippled the development and refinement of policy alternatives, other than those that emanate from their leadership, in conjunction with the White House.

We need not only to hear dissent and policy alternatives, we need to demand from our elected representatives that the broken process in Congress be fixed.

Dave A., I believe that while the scandal with Foley to be reprehensible, I believe the focus should be on the problems we are having in the world. I can see the people lining up in front of the television cameras to blast the administration, but I don't believe that is productive behavior at this time in our history. Doing this is nothing but a way to promote politics and the elections. I wish we had more statesmen than politicians in Washington. While dissent is important in any democratic society there comes the time to stand firm as one to defend our nation against foreign enemies. Now is the time to do that.

Barbara B., let me respond first with a note of empathy and then by briefly attempting to highlight and respond to your concerns.

I sense that your displeasure, tinged with anxiety, over the criticism of the administration comes from a heartfelt concern over where our country is going and that you consider unseemly the blasting of the administration in the face of crisis. I share your concern about the country, and I get quite frustrated with anything that stands in the way of progress.

Without characterizing the statements of John Kerry in particular, I'm not a big fan of political posturing, buffoonery, or empty rhetoric. Incidentally, I've read a transcript of Kerry's appearance on Fox News Sunday (you can find it at www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,221200,00.html ).

One question you raise is: are public statements of politicians, especially those that merely criticize the administration, PRODUCTIVE toward solving problems? Here already, Barbara, is where I fear things get messy. I don't want to sound pedantic, but hear me out for a moment. As you, of course, understand, we live in a democracy, where as citizens we have the right to elect representatives to generate and carry out the policies and actions of our government. What is the process of policy formation and implementation laid out in our constitution? We have legislative and executive branches. It is the legislative branch that wields both the power of the purse and lawmaking authority. It also contains 535 individual representatives, each of whom has their own ideas about how the country should be run. It gets noisy, confusing, and downright annoying to hear the cacophony of voices, splitting hairs over public policy and yes, criticizing others for their position.

Because in our system over 400 of these opinionated lawmakers are up for election every two years, they each have to make their case to the voters. (Some are certainly better at it than others.) As you point out, in part, at this time of year we are hearing from politicians that are concerned about election battles--and we are hearing appeals that go to policy formation and actions of our government. There is no separating these "threads"--they're interwoven and part of the fabric of our form of government.

Still on the "productivity" question, we can look at deliberations that take place in the two houses of Congress, and those that are made to the public at large. Here's another messy part of the process of our government: we, the people, have the right to lobby our government for action that we feel appropriate. We have a right to know what our government is up to, and they have a responsibility to listen to their boss--that's you and me, Barbara. We need to hear those public statements, both to learn about our politicians' positions, and to signal the need to contact them with our concerns.

We can hope that in the best case, Senators and Representatives comport themselves as statesmen, and take seriously comments from both their colleagues in Congress and their constituents. Same thing goes for members of the administration. While criticism can sting, in the best case the statesmen look for common ground, adapt, and on occasion change direction.

In posts above, Bill Lawrence most effectively, and I commented on another important productivity-related problem that I'll only mention here: the lack of dialog, civility, and statesmanship within the halls of Congress. My mention of the house page debacle was for the purpose of illustrating how poor the communication is right now.

You also ask: can public criticism of the administration in a time of war be considered appropriate? Your comment brings to mind the presidential election of 1864, at the height of the Civil War, where Lincoln had to endure a blistering attack from George McClellan, who Lincoln believed was likely to try to end the war by promising to rescind emancipation. Lincoln refused to shift his position, saying, "I desire so to conduct the affairs of this administration, that if at the end, when I come to lay down the reins of power, I have lost every friend on earth, I shall have at least one friend left and that friend shall be down inside me." (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lincolns/filmmore/pt_5.html)

Here is what Lincoln wrote about the prospect of holding the 1864 election:

November 10, 1864

"It has long been a grave question whether any government, not too strong for the liberties of its people, can be strong enough to maintain its own existence in great emergencies.

"On this point the present rebellion brought our republic to a severe test; and a presidential election occurring in regular course during the rebellion added not a little to the strain. If the loyal people, united, were put to the utmost of their strength by the rebellion, must they not fail when divided, and partially paralized [sic], by a political war among themselves?

"But the election was a necessity.

"We can not have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us. The strife of the election is but human-nature practically applied to the facts of the case. What has occurred in this case, must ever recur in similar cases. Human-nature will not change. In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak, and as strong; as silly and as wise; as bad and good. Let us, therefore, study the incidents of this, as philosophy to learn wisdom from, and none of them as wrongs to be revenged.

"But the election, along with its incidental, and undesirable strife, has done good too. It has demonstrated that a people's government can sustain a national election, in the midst of a great civil war. Until now it has not been known to the world that this was a possibility. It shows that, even among candidates of the same party, he who is most devoted to the Union, and most opposed to treason, can receive most of the people's votes. It shows also, to the extent yet known, that we have more men now, than we had when the war began. Gold is good in its place; but living, brave, patriotic men, are better than gold."

http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/writer/1864.htm

The cacophony is a baby crying in church. That baby, our Republic, is alive and kicking.

Well said, Dave. This exchange has been a great birthday present.

On the subject of incivility and unwillingness to engage in a dialogue, some time back I read an interesting take in a New Yorker article. The writer -- wish I could remember his name and give you a reference -- argued that prior to the civil rights movement both parties had well defined wings ranging from right to left. The right wing of the Dems were southerners opposed to civil rights, while the right wing of the Republican Party consisted of fiscal and foreign policy conservatives. Because of the often opposing internal points of view, compromise and debate both within the parties and between the two parties was very usual. After the civil rights movement the conservative Democrats gradually shifted their allegiance to the GOP, moving the Dems to the left, while over time the more liberal members of the GOP migrated to the Democrats. The net result was that both parties became more monolithic in their points of view, and less willing to compromise their positions. During the '90s, the GOP was increasingly beholden to the religious right and became significantly more ideological, shifting the nature of the party's right wing. Add to this the effects of increased gerrymandering, creating more and more safe seats for members of both parties, and the need to debate and work toward compromise solutions was further diluted. This, in my view, undercut the democratic process in this country. It took a little more than ten years of GOP rule in Congress to bring about the present situation. It's bad enough now that if the Democrats take power they will probably do unto the GOP as they feel they have been done unto, and we are all the losers, no matter what our points of view.

A last note here. Terrorists can destroy buildings, blow up trains, and kill people, sowing fear and insecurity, but they cannot succeed in bringing down the country. Only we can do that, and too many of the measures taken by this Administration to "protect" us are chipping away at the very principles that make this nation great...and worth saving. What is the Bible verse....something like, "Whatsoever shall it profiteth a man if he gain the whole world, and lose his soul." We need to be very leery of politicians bearing such gifts.

Bill and Dave have taken the time and effort to present very factual and comprehensive comments. I applaud you both !

Those comments reflect much intelligence, and that assures one of self assurance to the degree they know of what they speak/write, thus they need not become belligerent and caustic about things as those of us that exceed our ability to reply so well, end up doing in frustration.

As we all seem to become ever more polarized through the incessant arguing over the finer (and minor) points of things, the biggest issues, that of intentions, goes ignored and unaddressed. It is those larger more important issues that we all in fact hold more in common (like a desire for truth and honesty) that are swept under the rug and ignored.

We are in fact being divided and conquered ! It is being done by our own corporate interests that put power and control (because it makes them extremely wealthy and that buys more power) at the top of their list.

Politics and party loyalty are just a part of the puppet show that we are encouraged to watch and be distracted by while the real meaningful issues are taken care of 'under the table'. As long as we play 'their' game of divisiveness, as we are here doing, we will be the real losers each and all.

The argument presented by those concerned about a cohesive nation united in the time of war, are missing the concerns of those that see such coming together around the present administration as just asking for more of the same, or even more than more, As Kieth Oberman says on TV, we will have the worst, then the worser , and then the worsted or worstist (or something like that). Let's not compound our errors ! Let's look at what really matters to us all and get to the real heart of our mutual and common problems.

Peace, j.

... I know, compare my two comments and it looks like I am 'flip flopping'. I am not, just waffling a bit :-)

Credit Barbara B. if I finally, after 3 tries, got around to saying anything significant (and I'm still not sure I have explained myself adequately to you). You refused to let me off the hook regarding the key issues in your article, which at center aren't so much about partisan politics after all, but rather how this nation conducts its business.

OK, I can't get into all of the silly comments that were made since I last posted, but i'll deal with Dave A.

First, from your post "NK had agreed to locks, monitoring cameras, inspectors on the ground under agreements back in 1994. After things have taken such a nasty series of turns with the bungling of the past 6 years, Republicans have now proclaimed that maybe there was some cheating--maybe some material was enriched under the table during the 90's. That's about like complaining after you've rammed the Titanic into an iceberg and are sinking fast, that the salad forks in the dining room had been placed on the wrong side of the plate."

NK may have "agreed" to one thing, but you and I know full well that they actually did another. The whole point of the 1994 framework was to prevent NK from enriching at all. So to sy that they may have enriched a little in the 90s is silly. A "technical" violation is still a violation. Just like when you break the law "a little bit" you are going to go to jail.

It was only after the Bush administration confronted NK with the fact that they had knowledge of continued enrichment in violation of the framework that NK decided to start pouting and going down this path. But what was the administration supposed to do? Ignore the violations and keep supporting aid being given in exchange for an agreement that they knew NK was not living up to? Of course i'm sure that that is what some people, who wish to avoid conflict at any cost, would have wished that he had done, but that is a weak-minded position.

Now lets look at WHEN the Bush administration knew that NK was enriching in violation of the framework. It was in October of 2002. Surely you can see that Bush did not create this problem, he is just trying to deal with the situation in the best, most diplomatic way that he can. Of course, you can only see that if you are going to look at the situation fairly.

So once the administration knew that NK was enriching uranium in violation of the framework, it only had a few choices. First, they could ignore it. Second, they could attack them like they did Iraq when they suspected that Iraq had/was pursuing nuclear weapons. Third, they could try a diplomatic approach. They went with the diplomatic approach.

Now some people say that the administration should have had face to face talks with NK like Clinton did (when Madeline Albright gave Kim the basketball), but seeing how the face to face talks resulted in a framework which did not stop them from enriching material, the administration felt that that was no longer the best policy. Instead, they took the view that if you have more partners, especially regional players like China (who NK is heavily connected), Japan, and SK, you will have more to offer NK in return for a REAL deal to stop their enrichment, and at the same time more "stick" in terms of sanctioning NK if they refuse to stop their enrichment. So what is so wrong about that? Doesn't that seem like a better way to approach the situation. The only alternative is for the U.S. to threaten military action because we have already had sanctions on NK, so there is nothing more in that capacity that we could do.

I just can't understand why people who were outraged that Bush went into Iraq without international support now chastise him for the approach that he was taking with NK. Should he do unilateral talks, come out with a similar framework as Clinton did, and then 10 years later, we'll have NK with a full nuclear arsenal, including nuclear warheads.

"A last note here. Terrorists can destroy buildings, blow up trains, and kill people, sowing fear and insecurity, but they cannot succeed in bringing down the country. Only we can do that, and too many of the measures taken by this Administration to "protect" us are chipping away at the very principles that make this nation great...and worth saving. What is the Bible verse....something like, "Whatsoever shall it profiteth a man if he gain the whole world, and lose his soul." We need to be very leery of politicians bearing such gifts."

Whatsoever shall it profiteth a man if he keep his liberties, and lose his life."

(Sorry, Jerry K., but this post is going to be one of those more controversial ones. Hang on tight.)

Oscar H.

It appears that we agree on the basic facts about the Bush/NK "diplomacy." We are just drawing different conclusions.

"Third, they could try a diplomatic approach. They went with the diplomatic approach."

I guess it was the character and CHOICE among diplomatic approaches that has resulted in the truly pathetic failure of Bush administration policy with respect to NK. If Dear Leader actually drops the big one, say on Tokyo, we'll quickly forget about the massive screw-up in Iraq and put this imbroglio at the head of the list.

Since this thread is supposed to be about what John Kerry said, here is an excerpt from his Fox News Sunday interview (URL in previous comment):

"Let me go back in time. Bill Clinton was in office for eight years. When he started out in office, there was enough fuel for bombs for about one to two bombs. They were members — North Korea was a member of the non-proliferation treaty and North Korea had not tested.

"At the end of Bill Clinton's term, they had enough fuel for one to two bombs, they were members of the non-proliferation treaty, and they had not tested.

"Now they have enough fuel for nine to 10 bombs. They say they're going to build — get enough for five to six more. They've pulled out of the non-proliferation treaty. We no longer have cameras in the reactor. We no longer have inspectors in the reactor. We no longer know where the fuel rods are. We know that they have now tested.

"The United States of America is less safe, and the six-party talks have been a cover to get away from the idea, because George Bush and Dick Cheney decided ideologically in 2002 they would break off the oil trade, they would not build the nuclear reactors, they would not keep the framework that had been agreed on, and from that moment on, it's been downhill with North Korea."

The uranium enrichment ("salad fork" issue) isn't involved in the plutonium-based bombs currently in production. If every infraction of a law or agreement resulted in the maximum penalty, members of the administration would be serving 5 years in federal prison right now for admitted violations of FISA. But that's another thread.

Sigh. This wil be the last post for me on this thread because it seems as if you're looking for any way, any way at all to blame Bush. So i'll just say this:

If you notice, the time that Bush decided to no longer fund the agreed nuclear reactors corresponds to the time when they suspected and confronted NK with their violation of the agreement. Coincidence? I think not. The reason that Bush stopped funding the building of the nuclear reactors and other parts of the agreement (including stopping oil shipments to NK) is because they violated the agreement and would have continued to do so until they had a nuclear weapon.

Why is it, if the Clinton agreement was so fantastic, that NK would violate the agreement? They were getting oil, aid, nuclear reactors for energy. It sounds like a great deal for NK. So why would they violate that and risk it all. There is only one answer. They wanted nuclear weapons all along, they were going to secretly continue enriching materials to get any kind of WMD they could get. There is no other logical explanation.

I still don't understand what CHOICE you are talking about, if not what I stated. It was either continue the Clinton one-on-one approach, which would have worked except that NK is a lying and manipulative regime that cheats and renigs (It's not Clinton's fault, it's NK's fault), or go with a multilateral approach. Those are the only two choices when it comes to diplomacy.

Here's some more of that Interview that shows just how irrelevant Kerry is. He's playing to the far-left. Wallace asks hime whether he should be blaming NK more than Bush (even after Kerry admitted that NK had been cheating on the framework since the 90s) and...well, you can read his answer

WALLACE: So what would you do differently to deal with this very erratic regime of North Korea?

KERRY: I would do precisely — I would do precisely what I said for the last five years consistently, which is engage in bilateral, face-to-face negotiations with North Korea, make it absolutely clear to North Korea that we are not intending to invade and have a regime change, and work on the entire set of issues that are outstanding since the armistice with regard to the north.

WALLACE: But, Senator, let me ask you about that. Let's look at what you espoused as your basic foreign policy principle during the 2004 campaign. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KERRY: America is stronger. Our troops are safer. And our success is more certain when we build and lead strong alliances, not when we go it alone.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Alliances, not going it alone. Multilateral, not bilateral. Doesn't it still make sense to engage North Korea in talks with all of its neighbors, including China and South Korea, who have a lot more leverage than we do, rather than just get into a conversation about nothing with them ourselves?

KERRY: But it's not a conversation about nothing, Chris. It's a negotiation. Just as Ronald Reagan was prepared to go negotiate with the evil empire and come to an agreement with Gorbachev, we have to be prepared to go negotiate with North Korea, just as Nixon...

WALLACE: But what leverage do we have?

KERRY: ... was prepared to send Kissinger to China — the leverage of the stakes between the two nations.

Let me go back in time. Bill Clinton was in office for eight years. When he started out in office, there was enough fuel for bombs for about one to two bombs. They were members — North Korea was a member of the non-proliferation treaty and North Korea had not tested.

At the end of Bill Clinton's term, they had enough fuel for one to two bombs, they were members of the non-proliferation treaty, and they had not tested.

Now they have enough fuel for nine to 10 bombs. They say they're going to build — get enough for five to six more. They've pulled out of the non-proliferation treaty. We no longer have cameras in the reactor. We no longer have inspectors in the reactor. We no longer know where the fuel rods are. We know that they have now tested.

The United States of America is less safe, and the six-party talks have been a cover to get away from the idea, because George Bush and Dick Cheney decided ideologically in 2002 they would break off the oil trade, they would not build the nuclear reactors, they would not keep the framework that had been agreed on, and from that moment on, it's been downhill with North Korea.

WALLACE: Senator, there are several points you've made that I'd like to ask you about.

KERRY: Absolutely.

WALLACE: But first of all, one, all independent experts say that by 1997, North Korea was cheating on the Clinton agreement.

KERRY: Absolutely. But cheating...

WALLACE: If I may ask my question — and in fact, had already begun secret uranium enrichment. I think to get to the larger issue...

KERRY: Can I stop you there for a minute? Because it's very important, what you just said. Uranium enrichment — their bombs are plutonium.

And the fact is with respect to the threat of the United States, while we knew they probably were cheating, we were on a road where we had them in the non-proliferation treaty. They didn't have additional bomb capacity, and they hadn't tested.

And if we had stayed on that road, then we could have perhaps had a better opportunity to be able to curb this.

One other very critical thing. Eisenhower taught us this. I mean, Richard Nixon taught us this. By working through the diplomatic process and doing it in a legitimate way that builds you credibility, you bring people to your side so that if and when it comes to the moment of crisis, they're prepared to be with you.

Nations are not prepared to be with us today because this administration has broken faith with all of that kind of effort.

WALLACE: I mean, some people would say you want to have it both ways. In the case of Iraq, you blister the United States for acting unilaterally, and here you're attacking them for acting multilaterally.

KERRY: No, Chris.

WALLACE: But if I may, let's go to a speech that you made in New Hampshire...

KERRY: No, no, no, you can't make a statement like that and just get away with it. I am not going to let you do that.

WALLACE: I'm going to ask you a question, and then you can answer the whole thing. You made a speech in New Hampshire on Friday night where you blistered the Bush approach to North Korea. Let's take a look at that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KERRY: When George W. Bush turned his back on diplomacy, Kim Jong Il turned back to making bombs, and the world is less safe today because a mad man has the Bush bomb.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: The Bush bomb?

KERRY: Yes.

WALLACE: I mean, don't you really think you should blame this on Kim Jong Il, not President Bush?

KERRY: It's a bomb that has been developed because of the unwillingness of this administration to engage in opportunities that every expert says have been there all the time.

President Carter went over there in 1994 and President Carter negotiated an agreement. Now, rather than continue that agreement in 2002, this administration just arbitrarily decided, out of ideological whatever — anything but Clinton — they proceed down a different road.

I rest my case. Thanks for the discussion.

Hey, nobody said that international diplomacy was easy.

Discussing this is important in the first place because recognizing a problem is usually necessary before it can be corrected. People can look at the results of the course of diplomacy with NK the past few years and draw their own conclusions about whether we have a shining success on our hands or not. Some are apparently satisfied that everything that could be done was done and that we should "stay the course" with our stance toward NK.

There was and is a broad spectrum of choices available in dealing with NK. Those most critical of the administration's track seem to think that some form of direct talks would have yielded better results, and still would today. Oscar H., that's neither your "Ignore" nor "Continue" option. There are others, really. When you hear criticism of current administration policy, it is typically charged with the hope that there will changes. That's really the point.

(And please, rushing to war with Iraq is not the same as picking up the phone and placing a courtesy call to Dear Leader. That's simply a rhetorical leap to obfuscate a situation that is difficult to defend at this stage.)

Thank you for your thoughtul and patient (I heard the "sigh") comments.

I'm not going to get into the pros and cons of Bush's approach to dealing with NK, but I would like to say that diplomacy is a little like driving: there are mutual expectations involved, and if one of the parties/drivers refuses to comply the result is an accident. We expect our partners in negotiations to be somewhat reasonable within the framework of self interest, to compromise, and to live up to the resulting agreement. NK doesn't play our game any more than does the insurgency in Iraq. Agree completely with Dave A. when he points out to Oscar that rushing into a preemptive war when wiser heads among our allies (except Blair, of course) warned against it is not comparable to the situation vis a vis NK. One wonders whether NK would have dared to go down this path had we not demonstrated to the watching world the limits of our military might. Militarily, we don't have many options, and NK and Iran understand this full well.

One more thing. The assertion that the choice is to lose our liberties or lose our lives is patently false, used by politicians to whip up fear and justify the unjustifiable. Many of the measures taken illegally by the Bush administration could have been taken legally just as well...it is a measure of their arrogance and indifference to legal and constitutional norms. It reminds me of the abuses perpetrated in the name of security by the Alien and Sedition Acts back in the 18th Century. Repealed not long after they went into effect, this was the one regret John Adams had when looking back over his life. But then, he was a statesman. The notion that we should scrap the rule of law and the Constitution in the name of security also reminds me of the justification Italians used for accepting fascism and the Mussolini regime: he made the trains run on time. History will not judge this bunch kindly.