About that North Korean uranium…

In my heart of hearts, I find it impossible to believe that Bush is some kind of Manchurian President, intentionally screwing up American foreign policy and deliberately making the United States less safe.

But once in a while, one really has to wonder.

Last October, the North Koreans tested their first nuclear device, the fruition of decades of work to make a weapon out of plutonium.

For nearly five years, though, the Bush administration, based on intelligence estimates, has accused North Korea of also pursuing a secret, parallel path to a bomb, using enriched uranium. That accusation, first leveled in the fall of 2002, resulted in the rupture of an already tense relationship: The United States cut off oil supplies, and the North Koreans responded by throwing out international inspectors, building up their plutonium arsenal and, ultimately, producing that first plutonium bomb.

But now, American intelligence officials are publicly softening their position, admitting to doubts about how much progress the uranium enrichment program has actually made. The result has been new questions about the Bush administration’s decision to confront North Korea in 2002.

“The question now is whether we would be in the position of having to get the North Koreans to give up a sizable arsenal if this had been handled differently,” a senior administration official said this week.

The 2002 “revelations” about North Korea processing uranium touched off the most recent crisis, and led conservatives to scream bloody murder about how the Clinton administration’s policy and the Agreed Framework were a disaster. Indeed, when the Bush administration became convinced that Kim Jung Il was using enriched uranium as part of a nuclear weapons program, the president effectively tore up the agreements the United States had crafted with North Korea.

But the Bush gang got every possible part of this story wrong, and in the process, dramatically increased the security risk for the United States.

Clinton struck a deal that kept North Korea from pursuing nuclear weapons with plutonium. Bush scrapped that deal because of North Korea’s pursuit of enriched uranium. North Korea responded by restarting the plutonium program and building nuclear weapons.

But there apparently was no enriched uranium. Bush scrapped the deal based on a mistake.

“The administration appears to have made a very costly decision that has resulted in a fourfold increase in the nuclear weapons of North Korea,” Senator Reed said in an interview on Wednesday. “If that was based in part on mixing up North Korea’s ambitions with their accomplishments, it’s important.”

Two administration officials, who declined to be identified, suggested that if the administration harbored the same doubts in 2002 that it harbored now, the negotiating strategy for dealing with North Korea might have been different — and the tit-for-tat actions that led to October’s nuclear test could, conceivably, have been avoided.

Josh Marshall summarized this nicely: “Because of a weapons program that may not even have existed (and no one ever thought was far advanced) the White House got the North Koreans to restart their plutonium program and then sat by while they produced a half dozen or a dozen real nuclear weapons — not the Doug Feith/John Bolton kind, but the real thing. It’s a screw-up that staggers the mind.”

Has the Bush White House gotten a single foreign policy/national security challenge right the past six years? Anything?

It’s almost as if the administration were trying to undermine the United States. I know that’s unlikely, but the alternative is that we’re witnessing the most spectacularly incompetent and dangerous presidential administration in history.

What’s unlikely about it? We have a pretty good history of building up enemies so that we can fight them down the road- Saddam, Bin Laden, Noriega, etc. etc…. Heck, a true cynic might even notice that the same enterprises seem to profit at every stage (Halliburton, anyone?)… Heck, without the USSR, our Missile businesses have been on the ropes… Now, they have North Korea AND Iran to scare people into paying for a massive amount of ICBMs again!

  • It’s quite evident the Decider likes deciding. It’s unfortunate for this nation and the world that his decisions are solely based on the mental equivalent of eeney-meeney-miney-mo.

  • It’s almost as if the administration were trying to undermine the United States. I know that’s unlikely…

    The one thing that would emerge out of total chaos and danger is the totalitarian state. Cheney certainly wouldn’t mind if the presidency slipped into a dictatorship – so if that were to happen, would he want to be on the inside or the outside?

  • The wrong-wingers had it well defined:
    L’il Georgie was to be the Anti-Clinton.
    And so he is. Dumb compared to smart. Aloof compared to engaging. Asexual (or gay) compared to virile. Making the world more dangerous….
    Oh, maybe they didn’t want a reversal of that part.
    I refer to them as wrong-wingers, because that definition is about the only thing that they got correct. Not much else that they do that is right (as in correct or positive).

  • It does almost appear to be deliberate… I still think the all-time classic example is the way they left 340 tons of high explosives unguarded at Al Qa’qaa, and posted guards instead at the oil ministry. They literally gave hundreds of tons of the world’s most powerful conventional explosives to the terrorists.

    “In late April IAEA’s chief weapons inspector for Iraq warned the U.S. of the vulnerability of the site, and in May 2003, an internal IAEA memo warned that terrorists could be looting “the greatest explosives bonanza in history.” Seventeen months later, on Oct. 10, in response to a long-standing request from the IAEA to account for sensitive materials, the interim Iraqi government notified the agency that al-Qaqaa had been stripped clean. The White House learned about the notification a few days later.” […]

    the AP reported on 25 October 2004 “At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said US-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said…

    And of course Al Qaqaa was only one of many such weapon caches hijacked on America’s undermanned post-invasion watch. Have the terrorists ever had a better friend than George W Bush? I really don’t think so.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_explosives_in_Iraq

  • The upper echelons of the Bush administration are overrun with spoiled, narcissistic, immature adults who make their own reality and brag about it. The credibilty gap of the 60s pales in comparison to the current one. They have a hard time putting together one believable sentence. To express any astonishment at whatever is the current perfidy is to imply that the administration is capable of anything better. How many strikes does this administration get?

  • I too often wonder if BushCo (TM) is screwing up by intent (evil) or accident (incompetent). But at the end of the day it is like the distiction between murder and manslaughter. Fairly damn meaningless from the victim’s point of view!

    BushCo (TM) is exactly like its chief alcolyte, FAUX News. Any release of actual fact is purely accidental.

  • Back in 1980, I heard Holly Sklar give a presentation about the Trilateral Commission. What she described sound now a lot like the international corporate people who have benefited most from “globalization.” She also discussed the traditional defense industry people as those who were a power bloc opposed to them. Cheney and neocons have reminded me of that bloc she described. I wish I still remembered better or had a copy of her presentation. Her website is about workers mostly so she isn’t addressing this today. Anyway, your piece today reminded me again of that battle of titans (or race that none of us regular folks, aka riff-raff, have any horse in). It wouldn’t surprise me if it was deliberate because those defense industry players really miss the good ole days of the U.S./Soviet stand-off. They can’t benefit–in money or power–from world peace. They needed to get the U.S. engaged more in war again.

  • Actually, she wrote a book I never read called Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management. I’ll have to read it now–even though its 27 years old. She was decribing what we call globalization today, but I remember her discussing this other power bloc, and I think the neocons are the right wing backlash to globalization.

  • In my heart of hearts, I find it impossible to believe that Bush is some kind of Manchurian President, intentionally screwing up American foreign policy and deliberately making the United States less safe.

    Castor Troy and Sagacity hit the nail on the proverbial head, IMHO. I believe this adminstration for greed (Cheney) and politics/power (Rove) reasons did do this intentionally. They want big scary things out there so they can use fear to stay in power and drive more and more of the treasury to the military industrial complex. W may be a dupe, but Cheney, Rove, Bolten, Addison, et.al., are not.

  • NeilS #6: Yes. And wasn’t Saddam boasting about his bio-weapons programs just as the U.S. was invading? It makes him and lil’ Kim look big and powerful, but does it mean it’s true?

    I agree with many of the previous comments. I’ve been having a discussion with friends around the office for the last 5 years about the actions of this sadministration. Our conclusion: what we’ve been chalking up as colossal incompetence is actually malicious intent. Robbing the Treasury to pay for a future hide-away in the Bahamas. It’s been working for their business cronies for decades, why not the Prez and the VP?

  • The whole hoopla about uranium enrichment is a goddamn sideshow anyhow. The North Koreans used the very simple PUREX process to extract plutonium from regular old spent fuel from a lightwater reactor. They didn’t have to go through all the trouble of enriching uranium. It takes a lot less plutonium to make a bomb anyway (about 5 kg). A 1 GW reactor produces about 200 kg/year in its spent fuel, which can easily be extracted. Job done!

    The implication of this is that the only way to prevent proliferation is to insist on international control over the entire nuclear fuel cycle, worldwide. But that would entail taking nuclear plants out of the hands of private utility companies. Heaven forfend! Socialized energy! Isn’t that like communism?

    Hey, we can wake up to what needs to be done and say fuck the status quo, or we can muddle along with business as usual until some city somewhere goes up in a radioactive cloud. Then suddenly proliferation will be job one, yet true to form we’ll still not want to take the obvious step to fix it because the corporations won’t like it. How many cities will have to go before we wake up and smell the roses? Two? Five? Of course we could see this coming a mile away and act now, but we much prefer to lock the barn door after the horse is gone. Goddamn capitalist ideologue morons! When are people going to admit that in some areas socialism is the only sensible course?

    Like health care. And nuclear power.

  • what we’ve been chalking up as colossal incompetence is actually malicious intent. Robbing the Treasury to pay for a future hide-away in the Bahamas. It’s been working for their business cronies for decades, why not the Prez and the VP? —Comment by The Astrogeek

    Sadly, I have to agree with you. Nobody can be this stupid by accident. No matter what the original intention was, I think it boils down to a desire to shift our resources from a peace driven economy to a war driven economy. Corporate thieves one and all. To quote the late Molly Ivans “That is who these people are.” Now I think they are caught in their own madness, much like a person caught in credit card debt who now has to borrow each month to make the minimum payment. If they admit their folly they will have to amend their conduct and pay the bill, and they don’t know how to do that.

  • When are people going to admit that in some areas socialism is the only sensible course?

    Like health care. And nuclear power. — President LIndsay, @14

    While I agree with you in general, there’s Chernobyl to remind us that nationalised care of nuclear power can be an iffy proposition also

  • I agree. Nationalized is different than internationalized, though. The latter is what would work. The former is no better than what we’ve got now.

  • “..a desire to shift our resources from a peace driven economy to a war driven economy.”

    I don’t actually think we’ve been on a peace-driven economy since WWII. Fear of reversing the Depression-ending war economy of 1941-1945 led to the continued promulgation of fights against international communism, from Korea to Vietnam to the “Cold War” (note that it wasn’t a Cold Peace). Our economy is addicted to military-industrial production, and there is no monetary methadone for it… after all, we’ve sold off most of our manufacturing to foreign countries in favor of the “service economy” — and now which countries are manning all our customer service call centers?

  • Re:#19:hagakure
    I think you are correct, but during the Clinton years we often heard of the “Peace Dividend” and government spending on the military was somewhat under control. Since Bush all stops have been pulled out and all hope of being a responsible party in the world community has gone up in smoke. It now seems quite hopeless to me, and I doubt that I will see a resolution in my lifetime.

  • Comments are closed.