Friday, October 01, 2004

Who's being unilateral now?

"I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table," said Mr Kerry.
In this case, Mr. Kerry wants the US to be the only country at the table with North Korea. What happened to working with our international allies? And, oh, why his fascination with history: first the 30+ year old Viet Nam experience and now the 52 year old armistice? I thought he was nuanced enough to understand that things change. There are agreements that Kim Jong Il signed this morning that he no longer abides by. You think he cares what someone else signed 52 years ago says?

Colin Powell clearly states the benefits of this administration's efforts with North Korea are working - and will work: "I'm quite confident that the six-part framework is a framework in which this matter will be dealt with for the foreseeable future, because it serves the interests of all parties," Mr Powell said.

This is re-enforced by an international ally who is part of the process: Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, standing at his side, said the "entire international community" agreed that the six-nation approach was the best way to deal with the problem.

Source: BBC

UPDATE: Stephen Green takes a closer look at Sen. Kerry's position - from August 6, 2003. Here's one case where Kerry's been consistent - wrong, but consistent.

UPDATE II: FACTCHECK [Mark R. Levin]I don't mean to be picky, but another of Kerry's factual errors includes his statement that the Korean War armistice occurred in 1952; it was signed on July 27, 1953. Posted at 02:28 PM

No comments: