If President Bush wanted to keep America safe from WMDs, he needed to look no further than one of his "Axis of Evil" members, North Korea. It was obvious that both Iran and North Korea posed a much greater threat to America than the impotent Iraqi regime, yet we attacked Iraq. Now, two years after the to rush to war to avoid mushroom clouds in American cities, we face our most serious nuclear threat since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
North Korea has admitted to possessing the ultimate in WMD's, has decided the multilateral talks they agreed to were "suspended indefinitely" and now wants only direct discussions with America. Perhaps you can recall the presidential debate last fall where John Kerry said, "I want both bilateral and multinational talks." This was a statement President Bush immediately countered by saying, "The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind. That's exactly what Kim Jong Il wants." Despite our commitment to the talks, Kim Jong Il still backed out, leaving America with very limited diplomatic options. We can engage North Korea in bilateral talks, which the President opposes, we can act preemptively again or we can do nothing and hope Kim Jong Il is bluffing. However, North Korea has repeatedly accused South Korea of invasion attempts, so we may not be able to wait long before we find a war on our hands. Had we elected John Kerry in November it's possible that we could have avoided this crisis by engaging North Korea in bilateral talks that would have allowed them to deal with us directly.
President Bush repeatedly bashed John Kerry for his desire to work with the UN, yet here he is saying we shouldn't deal with this enemy directly, but that we should use other nations for leverage because, "China's got a lot of influence over North Korea, some ways more than we do. As well, we included South Korea, Japan and Russia. So now there are five voices speaking to Kim Jong Il, not just one." Kerry's plan would have allowed us to work with our four allies to keep maximum pressure on North Korea while also making sure our position was understood; American security is our top priority. Instead, we're left with bilateral talks as our only option for dialogue and now we have declined that invitation.
Now is not the time for hawkish approaches. Although I am certain we would win a war against North Korea, it would not be the distant battles with no damage to America we have grown up watching. If they choose to attack us, it would have to be with a nuclear weapon, as they could not advance conventional military strength here and the results are unthinkable. We are facing a leader with no concern for his own people and even less for ours. It is time for us to deal with North Korea in a strong but respectful manner, not in a way that leaves them cornered with no choice but to attack. Isn't it ironic that the administration that warned against voting for Kerry "because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating," now has us facing that scenario?
Write to Robb at robb614@aol.com
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
