Friday, October 18, 2002


Our friends at Global Exchange, who oppose virtually any war the United States might need to fight, call our decision to use diplomacy to contain North Korea “hypocrisy.”

As if they’d be happy campers if President Bush had announced that we would invade North Korea just as soon as we finished with Iraq, and right before we invaded Iran. That would be consistent, right? And Global Exchange is oh so concerned about treating all of the axis of evil the same, right? Forgive me if I assume too much, but I imagine the word “simplistic” was used rather freely by the Global Exchange people when the president declared Iran, Iraq, and North Korea to be an axis of evil. “They are different, how can the president lump them all together as if one strategy fits each of them?” was probably their talking point at the time. And having complained about the cost of war against Iraq, Global Exchange complains that we are letting the potential cost of attacking North Korea stay our hand. Well what is it, should or should not the cost be factored in? The author says we cannot go around the world preemptively striking states pursuing nuclear weapons, when all we are doing so far is preparing to strike one of those states. Who said this is step one of a war against all states? I know Global Exchange fears this but should we then accept their premise when they argue against their own misperceptions?

The author states, “The only solution to dealing with Iraq and North Korea is to use diplomacy, regional pressure and the United Nations (news - web sites) as ways to press for disarmament.” I see, and the example of North Korea’s shameless duplicity of violating the agreed framework and then stating that the agreement is now null (I guess it only becomes null when we discover it, an interesting point of view that should teach Global Exchange something useful) means we need more agreements? Can’t we see how much they are worth?

His (hmm, or is Medea a woman’s name?) last conclusion is good too, "Finally, we can't continue to say that other countries must not develop weapons of mass destruction while we, by far the mightiest military power in the world, continue to refine these deadly weapons.” So, here the author displays his complete inability to distinguish between a brutal, expansionist, and aggressive dictatorship and our constitutional democracy. That’s the scary part. In Benjamin’s mind, there is no difference. I just can’t take the arguments of such a man at all. He lacks something very basic for a rational discussion of the issue. His line may be predictable, but it is still sickening.

Oh, and Benjamin probably thinks the debate is suppressed. After all, s/he was only in USA Today.