Someone Set Up Us The Bomb

This New York Times article on North Korea nuclear program intelligence is a masterpiece of reporting but written in such a way as to obscure the significance of the scoop. I'm going to try bullet points:

The 1994 Agreed Framework froze the DPRK efforts to build a nuclear weapon using plutonium.
In 2002, the Bush administration pulled out of the Agreed Framework, arguing that the DPRK was cheating by running a secret parallel uranium program.
In the intervening years, the DPRK has succeeded in using its now-unfrozen plutonium program to build some bombs.
They have not, however, had any success in building uranium bombs.
This looked like pretty shitty policymaking for the Bush administration.
It looks much worse, however, after we learn today that the uranium program may never have existed.

The odds look decent, in other words, that the administration effectively let the DPRK build nuclear weapons for absolutely no reason at all other than its generally bad attitude toward diplomatic agreements and "stuff Bill Clinton did."

3/1/07 9:59AM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

Yeah, that NYT article was a perfect example of objective journalism run amok--it was hard to understand what the scoop really was until 1/3 or so of the way through.

The New York Times (and any other reputable daily, for that matter) should get into the habit of adding a little emotion to their headlines and ledes, I think. "BUSH MISTAKES LED TO N. KOREA NUKES" would suffice in this case. Neutering a story of any anger or emotion does no good to any involved.

And while I'm at it, is anyone else really angered by the Times' use of the passive in almost all their headlines? They always headline "IRAN SAID TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR POWER" or "TERROR CONNECTION SAID TO EXIST" instead of writing something clearer and that makes more sense. I know they need to be "objective," but come on. The best headlines in the tri-state area will always belong to the Post. Maybe the Times can hire away their lead pun writer?

Posted by: Ben on March 1, 2007 10:16 AM

We now have a new hostile and dangerous nuclear adversary. We were running so low on the critters that there was a real threat to Strategic Defense spending. You kids just don't understand the meaning of the words "National Security", as if it had anything to do with making American safer and preventing death and suffering and expense. Never has, never will.

Posted by: bob mcmanus on March 1, 2007 10:17 AM

That article also featured one of the rare legitimate uses of the moniker "a senior administration official":

“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.

...while crouching under his desk, cradling the phone behind his hand, and speaking in a Donald Duck voice. "If you out me on this," he continued, "I am so fired."

Posted by: mattsteinglass on March 1, 2007 10:18 AM

Speaking of headlines, MY, what's up with yours? Who set what up now?

That said, does W. have a bet that he can win Worst President Ever? Or, do the Republicans get a lottery pick out this somehow? Otherwise the incomptence is just incomprehensible.

Posted by: AJ on March 1, 2007 10:23 AM

AJ: All answers revealed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qItugh-fFgg

NYT headline should have been: YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHY, IN THE ABSENCE OF A SHRED OF PUBLICLY AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, PEOPLE WHO AREN'T INSANE MIGHT WANT TO TAKE THE IAEA SERIOUSLY ABOUT THE WHOLE "IRAN DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM" THING

Posted by: guy on March 1, 2007 10:27 AM

ALL YOUR DIPLOMACY ARE BELONG TO US.

Posted by: dan cock on March 1, 2007 10:32 AM

BUSH TO IRAN: "YOU HAVE NO CHANCE TO SURVIVE MAKE YOUR TIME HA HA HA HA"

IRAN SAID TO BE BRISTLING WITH MIRVS

Posted by: guy on March 1, 2007 10:36 AM

Speaking of headlines, MY, what's up with yours? Who set what up now?

What you say!!

Posted by: John on March 1, 2007 11:07 AM

Didn't the North Koreans *admit* to the uranium program? Even administration critics like Galucci have said they did. Its a separate question of how much progress it has made.

Posted by: rd on March 1, 2007 11:10 AM

Admit to exist != exist

People make statements all the time that aren't so.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on March 1, 2007 11:20 AM

Yeah, this is another masterpiece of bullsh*t media hyping a non-story merely for the purposes of hurting Bush.

The intelligence community made a slight shift in their confidence level about their understanding of NK's uranium program. This is A1 news? Give me a *&#% break.

The media in this country are completely contemptable.

Posted by: Al on March 1, 2007 11:21 AM

"The media in this country are completely contemptable."

True that - but only because of their obsequious coverage of Bush, and Republicans in general. It was not always so, and the good news, as far as I can tell, the ridiculousness of the republican position on just about everything( from abstinence only sex ed to paying for wars of choice with tax cuts) is finally coming to light.

Posted by: theCoach on March 1, 2007 11:31 AM

Yeah, the Bush administration completely botched NK policy and allowed the world's worst dictatorship to acquire nuclear weapons for no good reason. But what's contemptible is the reporting of accurate facts by the media!

Posted by: Scott Lemieux on March 1, 2007 11:33 AM

NK did, it's true, admit to a uranium enrichment program— the news here is that while the administration assumed that the 20 centrifuges AQ Khan sold them were either the tip of the iceberg or going to serve as the basis for a wave of the hundreds of centrifuges they'd need to do anything with uranium, it appears they really just had 20 hunks of metal to use as drum cymbals. Nuclear science is really, really hard!

Posted by: guy on March 1, 2007 11:39 AM

Let's not forget that the wingnuts have been howling with outrage about the NEW "agreed framework," because it involves icky diplomacy and reminds them of stuff Clinton did.

Oh, and when an administration official admits that our government may have mistakenly allowed one of our enemies to acquire nuclear weapons as a result of bad intelligence, that's front page news regardless of which party is in power. Anyone who would try to deny this is truly contemptible.

Posted by: LaFollette Progressive on March 1, 2007 11:46 AM

It's a little known fact that diplomatic protocol requires "Hello gentlemen how are you" to be the standard greeting.

Posted by: norbizness on March 1, 2007 11:52 AM

MOVE 'ZIG'

FOR GREAT JUSTICE!!ONE!!!111!!!eleventy!!!

Posted by: jonathan on March 1, 2007 12:17 PM

The WashPost also has an article about this. Here's what they say about the North Korean "admission".

"Officials also say that a senior North Korean official admitted to the program in October 2002, when Hill's predecessor, James Kelly, confronted North Korean officials over the U.S. intelligence findings at a meeting in Pyongyang. North Korea subsequently denied that any such admission took place."

"U.S. participants at the meeting said in interviews there was little dispute at the time North Korea appeared to be admitting the program, though one said the admission was more "tonal" -- such as the North Korean official's belligerent attitude -- than would appear in the transcript of the discussion."

Sounds like the North Koreans did not say "Yes, we have a program". Instead they got pissed off when accused of having a program and talked trash.

So who were the US participants at this meeting? John Bolton? Is a transcript of this session available?

And get this: "Administration officials insist they had valid suspicions at the time about North Korean purchases -- including 150 tons of aluminum tubes from Russia in June 2002..."

Aluminum tubes !!!

So is this two false accusations of nuclear programs (Iraq and NK)? And are we going for the trifecta with Iran?

Posted by: VOR on March 1, 2007 12:24 PM

Yes we are. How amazing is it that after Iraq you still can't be considered a grown up if you point out that Iran obviously doesn't have a nuclear weapons program of any consequence and obviously does have the sovereign right to do anything they damn well please in regards peaceful nuclear research?

How great is it that Iranian fatwas calling for this or that nonsense are treated with the utmost seriousness, while the fatwa prohibiting the development of da bomb is treated as evidence of a nuclear weapons program?

Posted by: guy on March 1, 2007 12:34 PM

Alternative headlines:

"Terrified Old Ladies of Bush Administration Panic on Fake Nukes, Enable North Korea to get Real Nukes"

"Bush Administration Blows Intel Again & Gives North Korea Nukes"

"Bush Undoes Successful Diplomacy, Arms US Enemies"

"BushCo Panics, Lets North Korea Get Nukes"

"Seriously, what are they Drinking in the White House?"

Posted by: anonymous on March 1, 2007 12:38 PM

Why do some writers -- Sy Hersh, Murray Waas, Dexter Filkins -- always get their name attached to articles (when linked to in blogs), but other authors don't?

Marshall, Yglesias, Drum -- everyone I've read today who's mentioned this article refers to it as a "New York Times article" and not a "David Sanger and William Broad piece." Why can't Sanger and Broad get the love? Especially when the piece is being hailed as a "masterpiece of reporting."

Obviously Hersh has been at the game a long time. But I think part of it is that it's fun to say "Sy Hersh," as in, "you call him Seymour, but I know him as Sy!" And Murray Waas is both memorable and fun to write.

All fun aside, it's important to learn whick reporters write which pieces, because their biases are important to keep in mind (Nagourney, Miller anyone?).

Posted by: Frank on March 1, 2007 01:04 PM

So, to review, the U.S. is attempting to end evil, especially as embodied by Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Progress report:

Iraq: got rid of Saddam. Opened country to widespread terrorist activity and Iranian influence. Got army stuck in brutal and endless war there.

Iran: got rid of Saddam. Strengthened hardliners and enabled the repression of any internal reform movement. Shouts really loud about how they ought to stop their nuclear energy (and possibly weapons) program without in anyway making it in Iran's interests to stop it (either by posing a credible threat if they continue or offering something they want if they stop).

North Korea: Withdrew from a program that limited their ability to make nukes. Allowed them to make nukes.

Well, at least we came to a deal with Libya to get rid of their chemical weapon stocks three years ago or something. That was good.

Posted by: Julian Elson on March 1, 2007 01:05 PM

Why do some writers -- Sy Hersh, Murray Waas, Dexter Filkins -- always get their name attached to articles (when linked to in blogs), but other authors don't?

Basically, because those reporters have a "brand"--most of their stories fall into a certain genre, and a reader of a blog will know a lot more about an article if it's dubbed "a Sy Hersh" piece, rather than "a New Yorker" article (one might think it was a poetry review if it was so labeled).

In contrast, Sanger and Broad are two solid NYT reporters who usually turn out solid product, but neither have a real voice on foreign policy that's distingushable from the NYT as a whole. Whereas Dexter Filkins writes his dispatches from Baghdad while fingering his still-smoking US Army 9mm service pistol, which he just used to fight off insurgents while interviewing Iraqi intelligence operatives on deep background (or so I'm led to believe).

Posted by: Ben on March 1, 2007 01:18 PM

Does this mean that the US effectively broke a diplomatic agreement unprovoked? That's pretty seriously wrong, isn't it? Or does the alleged North Korean admission provide an acceptable pretext?

Posted by: JohnTh on March 1, 2007 01:35 PM

"Well, at least we came to a deal with Libya to get rid of their chemical weapon stocks three years ago or something. That was good."

I wouldn't even give them credit for that. The British negotiated that deal. Sure, they let us sit in on the negotiations, but they ran the show. And they had John Bolton removed from the discussions because he was being disruptive. The only constructive thing we did was to let them get rid of Bolton.

Posted by: fostert on March 1, 2007 01:40 PM

In contrast, Sanger and Broad are two solid NYT reporters who usually turn out solid product, but neither have a real voice on foreign policy that's distingushable from the NYT as a whole.

William Broad is the guy the editors call when they have to retract a previous national security scoop. He replaced James Risen on Wen Ho Lee and he also replaced Judith Miller on Iraqi WMD's. In both cases, NYT coverage of those stories took a 180 degree turn the day he showed up.

Posted by: morinao on March 1, 2007 01:59 PM

Newsweek reported in October that the dog-ate-my-homework on the DPRK uranium program:

There is some evidence that the Bush administration was seeking to manipulate intelligence on North Korea. During a visit to Pyongyang by lead negotiator James Kelly in October 2002, he presented what U.S. officials described as "proof" that the North had a secret uranium-enrichment program, undercutting Clintonite claims that Kim was adhering to a pledge not to advance his nuclear program. Bush officials later said the North Koreans had confessed. But diplomats now say that was a translation error. (Kelly could not be reached for comment.)

Emphasis mine.

Posted by: Andrew Foland on March 1, 2007 02:10 PM

There is a very good reason why Bush will not negotiate with Syria or Iran. It is because he and the rest of the White House are absolutely crap at it as they can't keep their mouths shut. Any kid from an English prep school could run rings around them, even sell them a bridge.

For example, you don't go round saying things like “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,” in public. You make sure everybody, particularly that gasbag Cheney, shuts the fuck up.

The British negotiated that deal. Sure, they let us sit in on the negotiations, but they ran the show.

I suspect that the English (they would not have trusted this to the Welsh, Northern Irish or even the Scottish) negotiators didn't let the Americans anywhere near the Libyans. They just said so to keep them quiet.

BTW, Tony Blair was born and educated in Scotland which explains why he is such a useless shit.

Posted by: blowback on March 1, 2007 04:28 PM

blowback,

If you want to persuade anyone that you have a useful point of view on diplomatic skills, you might consider making less generous use of national stereotypes in your 'public' statements.

That said, I agree the Bush administration is seriously challenged in matters of diplomacy. Not because of all the 'New England-educated Texans' in the administration, but because they have driven out most of the people who possessed both the talent for diplomacy and the requisite depth of knowledge about the people with whom we need to negotiate.

Posted by: STS on March 1, 2007 07:30 PM

Matthew Yglesias, Slate is crediting the end of your post to "Jim, the liberal at Simply Palaver."

Posted by: Ex on March 1, 2007 08:01 PM

Oops. It's in today's Today's Blogs.

Posted by: Ex on March 1, 2007 08:46 PM

Scotish stereotypes are funny.

Posted by: Reality Man on March 1, 2007 09:14 PM

I think Matt has missed the point of the Times article. I see it as an effort by Condi Rice to drive a stake through the heart of the neo-cons by blaming them for being crappy diplomats and giving North Korea the bomb. The truth is, after Bush's Axis of Evil address, nothing was going to stop the North Koreans' desperate rush for the bomb. Forgive me pimping my blog, but I cover the issue here http://chinamatters.blogspot.com/2007/03/who-let-north-korea-get-atomic-bomb.html

Posted by: China Hand on March 2, 2007 04:51 AM

Does this put Bush hot on Buchanan's heels? Not Pat Buchanan, the worst president in American history Buchanan.

Posted by: aleks on March 2, 2007 01:28 PM

STS - Are saying there are no differences between the English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish? Are you saying that an understanding of national and class characteristics is irrelevant in diplomacy?

Posted by: blowback on March 2, 2007 08:22 PM

If you read all these comments, you relize hou lost we realy are when it comes to alternitive feuls. I think there might be some conspiracy from our goverments and there is a lot of con artists in this for money. But one thing is for sure - you can not buy a car that uses water as feul. I think we must start using wind and sun energy to safe money at home and spent it on fuel untill hybrid cars become the norm

Posted by: sohbet on August 21, 2007 12:54 PM

sohbet, chat, arkadaş

Posted by: sohbet on August 29, 2007 07:17 AM

Arabam Güzel Sözler porno sex Oyun Oyun sextube 89 mobilya sohbet sohbet sohbet Site ekle Site Ekle arkadaş Mirc türkce mirc Sohbet Sohbet amerikan kapı tosya ahsap Pimapen Oyunlar Oyunlar Oyunlar forum
Resimleri redtube Sohbet Odaları Bol Sohbet
thank you grup.

Posted by: redtube on September 20, 2007 05:23 AM

thank you for sharing this story and experience with us. a visitor from France.

Posted by: ludo top-art on September 20, 2007 04:06 PM

thanks four you flowers

Posted by: CİCEKCİ on September 28, 2007 01:02 PM

thanks four you text link

Posted by: cicekciler on September 28, 2007 01:03 PM

thanks four you text link

Posted by: sohbet on October 2, 2007 07:22 AM

thanks

Posted by: çiçek gönder on October 7, 2007 03:44 AM

thanks..

Posted by: sohbet on October 7, 2007 06:59 AM

Sağır Oda Fan Club
Türk
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
youtube video
forum
downloads
Haberler
küresel ısınma
dizi izle

Posted by: www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması on November 16, 2007 05:20 PM

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
Türkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Turkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Türkçe mırc
Türkce mırc
Turkçe mırc
Turkce mırc
mirc
mirc
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

Posted by: muhabbet on December 25, 2007 10:22 AM

Thanks for you sites..

Posted by: ByUgur on February 11, 2008 03:49 PM

Thanks for you sites..

Posted by: ByUgur on February 11, 2008 04:42 PM

evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
Sohbet
sohbet
mirc
penis büyütücü
sohbet
muhabbet
matbaa
seks
sex
hikaye
hikayeler
sex
porno
Sohbet kanalları
Sohbet odaları
Chat
evden eve nakliye
chat
magazin
chat
Sohbet
tuzcuoğlu
perde
oto kiralama

Posted by: clubgenclik on February 27, 2008 10:09 AM

Speaking of headlines, MY, what's up with yours? Who set what up now?

That said, does W. have a bet that he can win Worst President Ever? Or, do the Republicans get a lottery pick out this somehow? Otherwise the incomptence is just incomprehensible

Posted by: youtube on March 1, 2008 10:09 AM

thank you for infos

about me...

Dalton Kosmetik

Posted by: Herren Kosmetik on March 28, 2008 07:05 PM

thanks ;)

Posted by: firefox indir on March 31, 2008 05:58 AM

thanks ;)

Posted by: firefox indir on April 1, 2008 10:17 AM

thank you

Posted by: msn, msn nickleri, msn avatarları on April 6, 2008 03:13 AM

thank you

Posted by: firefox indir on April 6, 2008 09:39 AM

thank you

Posted by: maswey on April 10, 2008 06:43 AM

thank you

Posted by: firefox nedir on April 13, 2008 05:18 AM

Thanks for post, and nice all comments ! :)

Posted by: redtube on April 27, 2008 11:38 AM

thank you

Posted by: cep program, symbian program on May 5, 2008 06:17 AM

sohbet
chat
sohbet
sohbet
sohbet
chat
hikaye
diziler
facebook
chat
kadın
forex
arkadaş
muhabbet
gebze
webtasarım
toplist
sinema
film
gebze
asansör
felsefe
reklam
webtasarım
face book
face turk
face turk
youtube
sinema
sohbet
muhabbet
chet
çet
arkadaş
palet
trkadin
hikayen
chat
sohbet
sohbet
marmara
gebze web tasarım
gebze webtasarım
sohbet
chat
moda
magazin
yemek tarifi
yemek tarifleri
kozmetik
diyet
Yakışıklı
Yakışıklılar
Anne Çocuk
Filmler
Filimler
Film
Dizi
sohbet
sohbet
chat
chat
diziler
asansör
hikaye
felsefe
reklam
facebook
face book
face turk
pagerank
masaj
masör
sohbet
sex
porno
kadın
youtube
sinema
sohbet
chat
gebze ticaret
kredi
borsa
sohbet
chat
sohbet
Arkadaş

Posted by: sohbet on May 12, 2008 12:38 AM

No joke! What a great, energetic group - very outgoing. Other than the fact that they kicked Arizona’s ass 6-1 I could hang with these ladies and learn a little something about focus and team spirit. nice

Posted by: irc on June 5, 2008 01:29 PM

Posted by: forum on June 5, 2008 01:31 PM

thanks

Posted by: muhabbet on June 5, 2008 01:45 PM

Thank you very much for this information.

muhabbet
muhabbet
mirc
evden eve nakliyat
sevgi
mirc
chat
chat
mirc
sohbet
kelebek