Journalists freed

Well, if they're on John Bolton's mailing list, it'll sound something like this:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gHj0rARiWVv4Jwy1z9FP9AHkYYvw

 

High time!! Thank you, Mr. Clinton!!!

 

You're making it sound like he said that after the release, which I think is inaccurate. For the most part, I think Bolton's approach is correct, and would trust his instincts over Clinton's any day. Today, Clinton's worked, and these people are free because of it. Neither approach is perfect- if it was, no one would disagree. The Giants took 3 of 4 from the Phillies this weekend. Does it mean they are better? No. And if they would play 100 games, I bet Philly would win most of them, but over the last 4 days, SF was better. You tip your cap, & acknowledge the fine work.

Edit - I apologize - he reiterated after the release that it was an unwise move. Made some very fair points IMO. I stand by the rest of what I wrote.

 

He did say it before the release. However, Bolton is well-informed enough to know that Clinton went there knowing that the women would be released if he did.

We used Bolton's approach for eight years, and it didn't work that well. Did North Korea become more or less stable during Bush's term?

 

I ask you the same question about Clinton's 8. What did we get for Albright's dances? an agreement that he ignored before the ink dried.

 

At least they weren't firing missiles then.

Look, I'm aware that the North Koreans aren't likely to join Barack and Joe for a south lawn beer anytime soon. But isolating them won't work. They're as isolated as any nation can be in this time, and they're still acting out. So we send Clinton over there, and the two women are freed and maybe--a long shot perhaps--but maybe they'll start dealing.

John Bolton's isolation/bomb them into the stone age technique won't work. They're already in the stone age.

 

The Bolton approach would ideally start at the beginning. Now that they are this far down the nuclear road, neither approach is likely to have a high degree of success, but there's still arguments in both directions, as well as an idealistic sense of right and wrong. Again, a big reason to invade Iraq was to stop them before they became unattackable like NK or Iran.

 

I thought it was to get Bin Ladin. That's what my president told me, anyway.

 

Where were you living, because I don't think Bush ever said it.

 

Bolton also recently suggested that Israel launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran. So, you know, he's not afraid of looking stupid.

Look, two journalists who were going to be sent to hard labor camps are free. That's good enough for today.

 

Quoted loudly for emphasis. Let's not lose touch with the good stuff that happens.

 

That the should, that he thinks they might or that they have a right to? Not looking to start this here, but if your country had a budding nuclear power regularly telling anyone who will listen that as soon as it gets it, it will destroy you, would you want your leaders to take any defense possibility off the table?

Good enough for me.