Kerry vs. Bolton: "Righties" too dense to realize Bolton was lying

[ProSense]

Dense and selective!

The wingnuts are circulating a video segment of Kerry questioning Bolton:

KERRY: But this has been going on for five years, Mr. Ambassador.

BOLTON: It's the nature of multilateral negotiations, Senator.

KERRY: Why not engage in a bilateral one and get the job done? That's what the Clinton administration did.

BOLTON: Very poorly, since the North Koreans violated the agreed framework almost from the time it was signed. And I would also say, Senator, that we do have the opportunity for bilateral negotiations with North Korea in the context of the six-party talks, if North Korea would come back to them.

End of clip, but here's the rest of the transcript:

KERRY: Mr. Ambassador, at the time -- Secretary Perry has testified before this committee, as well as others -- they knew that there would be the probability they would try to do something outside of the specificity of the agreement.

But the specificity of the agreement was with respect to the rods and the inspections and the television cameras and the reactor itself.

BOLTON: Senator, the agreed framework requires North Korea and South Korea to comply with the joint North-South denuclearization agreement, which in turn provides no nuclear weapons programs on the Korean Peninsula.

So it was not limited only to the plutonium reprocessing program.

KERRY: Mr. Ambassador, the bottom line is that no plutonium was reprocessed under that agreement. No plutonium was reprocessed until the cameras were kicked out, the inspectors were kicked out, the rods were taken out, and now they have four times the nuclear weapons they had when you came on watch.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/27/AR2006072701847.html

Now for the smack down:

Snip...

What’s painful is that Bolton was wrong, as in either ignorant or lying, and righties are too dense to realize it.

Returning to the “Blame Bush for North Korea’s Nukes” Mahablog archive, we find (note in particular difference between uranium and plutonium) —

Snip...

You can read the actual text of the 1994 agreement here. You will see that the language of the agreement refers specifically to North Korea’s “graphite-moderated reactors and related facilities.” The graphite reactors, as explained above, were specifically for separating plutonium from nuclear waste. I am no nuclear engineer, but from my research I believe graphite reactors are not used for processing uranium. It’s easier to process uranium in other ways. For more information, here is an article about North Korea’s graphite reactors from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

I have found another good source for historical background, which is this PBS Online Newshour page on North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs. It provides a basic history of North Korea’s nuclear research programs going back to the Korean War. If you scroll down to the part about the Agreed Framework, you read (emphasis added),

The main goal in offering North Korea LWRs (light water reactors) was to eliminate the output of plutonium that could be used for weapons. David Albright and Holly Higgins of the Institute for Science and International Security explained the difference between the reactors in a 1997 report.

“If the two light water reactors slated to be built in North Korea are operated to optimize power production, they will discharge about 500 kg of reactor-grade plutonium a year in highly radioactive spent fuel. However, this plutonium cannot be used in nuclear weapons until it is separated from this radioactive fuel,” Albright and Higgins wrote. “North Korea’s existing reprocessing plant…would require extensive and difficult modification to separate all this plutonium.”

Back to the “Blame Bush” page in The Mahablog archives:

And, in spite of what the righties will tell you, the North Koreans kept this agreement. The plutonium processing at Yongbyon and elsewhere stopped, and IAEA inspectors were allowed back into North Korea. The plutonium processors were sealed with IAEA seals.

Snip...

And John Bolton is full of shit, and the righties are still ignorant of what’s really going on. Yada, yada, yada.

I hope you don’t mind my re-hashing this North Korean stuff. I just feel compelled to try to get the truth out every time the Bushies repeat the lies.

http://www.mahablog.com/2006/07/28/bolton-lies-righties-confused

[NewJeffCT]

1. thanks- good post, but...

how much you want to bet that the top quote makes the rounds in the media?

[TayTay]

2. When is the media going to learn that it has a role to play

in helping inform America of what is going on? When is the media going to stop grading everything like it's a prizefight and focus on a damn issue?

Honestly, you look at a lot of the media and just want to cry. Saying the coverage is shallow is the understatement of the year.

[ProSense]

3. One thing to watch is

how many Republicans hype their position as "not-decided," then turn around and vote for more incompetence!

[wisteria]

4. It is a shame that Repubs would rather keep believing lies rather

than face the truth.

[ProSense]

5. “We need someone at the UN who can achieve real results..."

“John Bolton’s still the wrong man, for the wrong job, at the wrong time.

“Mr. Bolton has had nearly a year to prove the Senate wrong since his recess appointment. Instead, he has proven that the Senate was right to deny his confirmation last summer. He has helped isolate the United States, made it harder to pursue our interests, and failed to get results on our critical security issues.

“The world is literally blowing up around us, and we need serious people for serious jobs. I don’t care if he is the smartest kid in the class. I don’t care if he is the loudest kid on the block. I care that he doesn’t get results at a time when we need them. He couldn’t get the UN to enforce Resolution 1559 to disarm Hezbollah. He failed to get Russia, China, and even our ally South Korea on board at the Security Council to impose tough sanctions on North Korea. And he has shown no leadership to stop the genocide in Darfur. We need an Ambassador at the United Nations who knows how to build coalitions and can get results.

“We need someone at the UN who can achieve real results, not just talk big; someone who inspires confidence in all of us, not just confidence in neoconservative circles. This is a time that demands statesmanship in this post.”

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=259761

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3718

[ProSense]

6. Dem Daily posts Colbert clip on Bolton hearing

From Dem Daily link below:

Colbert on Bolton: Colonel Mustard

By: John Amato on Friday, July 28th, 2006 at 12:14 AM - PDT




http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Colbert-Bolton.mov
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Colbert-Bolton.wmv

The Bolton Hearing: John Kerry Helps Drain the Lifebood out of the Neocon Movement

Posted by Pamela Leavey
July 28th, 2006 @ 9:37 pm

Snip...

Dana Milbank noted in the WaPo that “three hours into the dreary and desultory proceedings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a torrent of water began to pour from light fixtures in the ceiling, creating a waterfall between the nominee and the senators.” The mood was light with joking about the flood, as Milbank notes until Kerry entered the room and let it be known he was ready to take on Bolton — flood or no flood.

… Sen. John Kerry entered the room and declared in solemn tones that he would be making no remarks about the leak.

“All the comments have been made about the flood,” he announced. That ended the fun before some of the best puns could be made… Such as “Bolton’s in hot water now.”

The “dripping sound” says Milbank, “was the lifeblood draining out of the neocon movement.” Considering that Kerry was the last to question Bolton on Thursday, it’s pretty clear that the drain on the lifeblood wasn’t plugged up by the classy manuevers of John Bolton — he was all washed up when Kerry was done with him.

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3736

[babylonsister]

7. Does Milbanks' comments havetheir own thread? That's pretty

stunning stuff, coming from him.

[ProSense]

10. Edited in the link to Milbank's article (was in Dem Daily post). n/t

[babylonsister]

11. No comprende your response. Is that a

yes or no?:-)

[ProSense]

12. Added the link to the post! Separate DU thread? Don't know. n/t

[babylonsister]

13. Thanks. nt

[pooja]

8. thanks, i missed the begining last night--still funny

[yellerpup]

9. K&R!

Don't let them get away with lying. You are right to stay on top of it. Thanks.

[ProSense]

14. Syria's ambassador to the U.S. has not had a single meeting w/Bush admin.

July 29, 2006

For Syria’s Voice in U.S., Isolation but Not Silence

By THOM SHANKER

SYRIA’S ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha, has not had a single meeting with any senior Bush administration official in a year and half.

Even in the current crisis, his phone does not ring. The Bush administration may explicitly state that Syria can rein in Hezbollah, whose fighters in Lebanon captured two Israeli soldiers and ignited the rocket and artillery exchanges that now threaten a wider conflict. But the White House has made no calls to open a dialogue with Syria on resolving the crisis, Mr. Moustapha said, nor has the State Department.

Snip...

With no movement toward a significant dialogue with the government, Mr. Moustapha engages in public diplomacy to take his nation’s case to America. He addresses university audiences about once a month. He counts off the members of Congress he has met. Business leaders are on his weekly schedule. His is a common face on television, especially the Sunday morning talk shows.

In keeping with the times — and as would befit the former dean of information technology at the University of Damascus — the ambassador is a blogger. (His Web log on current events, art, music and travel is http://imad_moustapha.blogs.com.) The image currently at the top of the blog, under the title “Lebanon and Israel,” is Goya’s gruesome 1819 painting often called “Saturn Devouring His Son.”

Snip...

On reports that the Bush administration may try to cleave Syria from Iran, he said: “I was bemused. What sort of simplistic solution is this? We believe the core issue is the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, of Syrian territory, of Lebanese territory. The history of the Middle East did not start two weeks ago. We are allies to Iran because Iran is supporting our causes.”

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/29/world/middleeast/29moustapha.html

[ProSense]

15. NYT: Still wrong for the UN

Still wrong for the UN

The New York Times
SUNDAY, JULY 30, 2006

When President George W. Bush nominated John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations last year, we argued that this convinced unilateralist and lifelong disparager of the United Nations should not be confirmed. The Senate agreed. Bush sent him to New York anyway, using the constitutional end run of a recess appointment. That appointment expires in January.

Snip...

But overall, American interests at the UN have suffered from Bolton's time there. At a time when a militarily and diplomatically overstretched Washington needs as much international cooperation as it can get - on Iraq, on Iran, on North Korea and now on the latest fighting between Israel and Lebanon - Bolton is a liability, not an asset at the United Nations.

No ambassador, however tactful and multilateral-minded, can persuade other countries to change their votes on high-profile issues in the face of contrary instructions from their home governments. But some of the most important business that goes on in the UN does not fall into that category. On a wide range of issues - winning the support of smaller countries for needed management reforms, mobilizing a strong international coalition to halt genocide in Darfur, attracting wider European support for stabilization and economic development in Iraq - an effective ambassador can make a huge difference.

Bolton, by temperament and conviction, is far too dismissive of the results that can be achieved by this kind of traditional diplomacy. That is what makes him the wrong man for the job. America desperately needs to repair the alliances and relationships damaged by the shoot-from-the-hip diplomacy of the Bush first term.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/30/opinion/edbolton.php