The Bush administration struck a fantastic deal with North Korea earlier this week. You can tell how good it was by how much John Bolton objected to it. I can't believe that maniac was ever our ambassador to the United Nations. We pretty much stole North Korea's nukes, and he is still complaining because we didn't attack them.
You didn't read me wrong. The Bush administration's deal with North Korea was excellent. Yes, it was six years late (partly because of John Bolton). Yes, it's pretty much the same deal as Clinton got earlier. Yes, we have to be very vigilant to make sure they follow through on it. Yes, pressure from China had a lot more to do with North Korea capitulating than anything we did. But in the end, results matter. And we got what we wanted.
North Korea gave up its nuclear weapons program for a measly $250-300 million dollars. That's literally what we spend in Iraq in one day. Oh yeah, we promised not to invade them and to start trading with them. And what would be the downside of that?
You have to give credit where credit is due. Score one for the State Department. Score one for the realists. And score one for the Bush administration.
Now, on the other hand, the Bush government promises to wipe away all of those gains with the insanity they seem to planning in Iran. Many people say that they aren't really planning to attack Iran, even though they are doing exactly what they did with Iraq right before they attacked them. They say that this is just a negotiation ploy. But there are a couple of problems with that theory.
One, look at what we did with North Korea. We didn't send three carrier groups and minesweepers off the coast of that country. We didn't invent intelligence about their weapons program - which actually exists. There was no hype, just plain old negotiations.
It seems that's what we do when we want to negotiate.
On the other hand, one of the signs that we are not interested in negotiating is when we don't actually negotiate! Bush has promised not to talk to Iran. So, how can all this bluster aimed at Iran be a negotiation strategy if there are no negotiations to begin with?
Finally, Larry Johnson makes a great point about the propaganda coming out about Iran. He points out that even if the ridiculous briefing in Baghdad about Iranian weapons were completely true, Iranian weapons would be responsible for less than 8% of our fatalities and less than 4% of our wounded in Iraq.
On the other hand, the Sunni insurgency is responsible for the great majority of our casualties. And you know where some of their funding comes from? Saudi Arabia.
So, why are there are no grand presentations by anonymous military analysts and press conferences by the president about the threat to our troops from Saudi Arabia?
You know who else came from Saudi Arabia? Fifteen out of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers.
Could the discrepancy in propaganda and reality have something to do with the fact that Saudi Arabia allows us to have complete access to their oil and Iran does not? No, couldn't be. Must be just a coincidence. Probably better to attack a country that is at most 8% responsible for our problems in Iraq instead, and secure their oil while we're at it.
If you give credit where credit is due, you also have to give blame where blame is due. And the Bush administration's policy toward Iran makes absolutely no sense if you listen to their rationalization for it, just as Iraq made no sense. If you haven't figured out what this is really about yet, wake up and smell the oil.
Oh, by the way, did I mention that North Korea has no oil? Gee, I wonder why we were willing to make a deal with them instead of invading them. It's probably another wild coincidence.