MR. RUSSERT: You heard the secretary of state say that when the Bush administration took over in 2001, they were told by your administration, the Clinton administration, in terms of North Korea, "There was nothing to worry about."
MS. ALBRIGHT: I have the highest respect for Secretary Powell and I found that statement, I have to say, somewhat surprising, because we were in the middle of very tough negotiations with the North Koreans. In fact, the reason we were involved in this is that we thought that North Korea was the most dangerous place to deal with. And we were working on limiting their missile technology and dealing with a whole host of issues and when we briefed Secretary Powell and Dr. Rice, we made clear that those negotiations needed to proceed. And I had every sense that Secretary Powell wanted to go on with that, so we never told them everything was all right. msnbc.msn.com
Sounds very much like Sandy Berger and Richard Clark's supposed briefings about Al Qaeda being 'the #1 danger they would be dealing with'. Could it be that, as a parting C.Y.A.-op, every threat that Clinton officials briefed their Bush counterparts on was 'the most gravest threat' to be dealt with?
Of course, Mad. Albright is still nuancing for the Clinton Administration even as she is ostensibly campaigning for Kerry. Asked whether the North Koreans developed a nuclear bomb after they had 'dealt with' the problem, she says no...
MR. RUSSERT: But didn't North Korea develop a nuclear bomb on Bill Clinton's watch?
MS. ALBRIGHT: No, what they were doing, as it turns out, they were cheating. And the reason that you have arms control agreements is you don't make them with your friends, you make them with your enemies. And it's the process that is required to hold countries accountable. The worst part that has happened under the agreed framework, there was these fuel rods, and the nuclear program was frozen. Those fuel rods have now been reprocessed, as far as we know, and North Korea has a capability, which at one time might have been two potential nuclear weapons, up to six to eight now, we're not really clear. But in this period of time when there has not enough action been taken, I think that the threat from North Korea has increased.
And that, my friends is the result of liberal diplomacy with rogue nations bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, you might as well just give them the fuel to build the weapons.
"No, what they were doing, as it turns out, they were cheating." Surprising isn't it? A crazy, desperate, communist dictator cheating on an arms control agreement? *GASP* How can such a thing happen? We went through, "very tough negotiations" which resulted in, an "agreed framework," and there were, "these fuel rods," and, "the nuclear program was frozen."
Now it is Kerry's stated position that we should actually give Iran the nuclear fuel they need. Is this willful blindness or bland stupidity? To me it speaks of a misguided approach to foreign policy. One that is based entirely on an inaccurate view of the world-- i.e. liberalism.
MR. RUSSERT: And it is now an imminent threat?
MS. ALBRIGHT: Well, I think it's a very dangerous threat, and I also think they get the wrong message out of Iraq. You know, we invade countries that don't have nuclear weapons and we don't invade those that do. We didn't invade the Soviet Union and China, so why not build up nuclear weapons as quickly as possible?
They learned an even better lesson from Jimmy Carter and Mad. Albright, that a Kerry Administration can trust in the 'power of diplomacy' even with dictators that have every reason to lie and nothing to lose from doing so.
The odd thing is figuring out Kerry's criticism of Bush on North Korea. Here's Bush creating a multilateral group of North Korea's neighbors to pressure North Korea and Kerry says it's all wrong! We must deal directly with North Korea... or ask the UN for permission first?
"It's no longer just North Korea versus the United States," Powell said on ABC's "This Week." "It's North Korea versus all of its neighbors, which have no interest in seeing North Korea with a nuclear weapon."
Kerry argued that it was the Bush administration's refusal to follow Powell's advice in March 2001 and continue the Clinton administration's direct diplomacy with the North that created the conditions for the current crisis. Kerry has said for months that the United States must deal directly with the government of Kim Jong Il in North Korea -- just as it dealt directly with Nikita Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and directly with China as it became a nuclear power in the 1960s.
When Kerry was pressed about how he would handle the threat of a North Korean nuclear test if he were in the Oval Office today, he declined to be prescriptive, other than to say that the issue would probably have to be taken to the U.N. Security Council.
"Hypothetical questions are not real," he said, arguing that North Korea was a case for preventive diplomacy, and that Bush's "ideologically driven" approach had kept him from engaging the erratic North Korean government. "The Chinese are frustrated, the South Koreans, the Japanese are frustrated." sfgate.com
Of course Kerry can't say exactly how he would handle North Korea because it's a 'hypothetical question'. Which, when you think about it, makes perfect sense, a Kerry Presidency is in fact very hypothetical at this point.