During the 2004 Presidential campaign the Rove machine worked tirelessly to create the image of a flip flopping Kerry, a politician unable to make a firm, resolute decision. This was an interesting and bold tactic as there is a great variety of evidence that shows that Bush was the true flip flopper, from the creation of a Department of Homeland Security and the 9/11 Commission to changing opinions concerning to privacy of medical records and restrictions on 527s, therefore it shouldn't come as any surprise that the Bush administration has flip flopped again, this time concerning the method of diplomacy in regards to North Korea. More below the fold...
Attention should be brought to this particular change of heart as this is a current, serious situation and the fact is that we do not have a firm, resolute leader to take charge, stick to his guns and protect the interests and well-being of America and its citizens.
If we look at the first debate of the 2004 campaign the questioning turned to differences between Bush and Kerry concerning the methods to be employed in diplomacy with North Korea. Bush favored multilateral talks,
"And so we began a new dialogue with North Korea, one that included not only the United States, but now China. And China's a got a lot of influence over North Korea, some ways more than we do. As well, we included South Korea, Japan and Russia. So now there are five voices speaking to Kim Jong Il, not just one."
Kerry, following, outlined a similar position with support for the multilateral solution, but he also felt that the United States should engage in bilateral talks with North Korea, saying,
"Both. 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."
Bush responded to this (I remember clearly a smirk on his face and an air of superiority in his brilliant reasoning), by showing disdain for the idea of bilateral talks, saying,
"The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind. That's exactly what Kim Jong Il wants. And by the way, the breach on the agreement was not through plutonium. The breach on the agreement is highly enriched uranium. That's what we caught him doing. That's where he was breaking the agreement."
In other words, according to Bush the initiation of bilateral talks with North Korea, even on the sidelines of the multilateral talks, would be disastrous and also, the proposition of this idea, shows that he, above Kerry, is the best and safest choice of a firm, resolute leader for America.
Now we find out that the Bush administration has approved the initiation of bilateral talks with North Korea. The AP article I have linked too states,
" A U.S. envoy expressed support for China's proposal to hold informal six-nation talks on the North Korean nuclear threat and offered to meet bilaterally with the North on the sidelines of those discussions."
Of course, now that Bush has flip flopped again, will the media highlight this as they did the charges against Kerry in 2004? Will conservatives howl with unmitigated fury against this decision much as they did against Kerry in 2004? I think not.
Conservatives rallied behind Bush on this issue after the initial debate, ridiculing Kerry and his proposition of bilateral talks. Bill Roggio of the The Fourth Rail stated, in a critique of the debate,
"The demand for unilateral negotiations with North Korea is flawed, and President Bush called [Kerry] on this."
Free Frank Warner, a "liberal" hawk blog stated,
"There is a better way. Yes, it's multilateralism. And Bush, as dumb as he may be in some areas, has handled this remarkably well with North Korea."
Joe Mariani offered commentary on GOPUSA where he stated,
"Speaking of North Korea, Kerry's plan to augment the six-way multilateral talks with unilateral talks has also already drawn fire. The "direct bilateral talks" Kerry proposes (web site) would exclude the countries that have worked so hard to bring North Korea to the table, and with the most stake in North Korea's cooperation. China, in particular, (web site) did not respond well to Kerry's plan to appease Kim Jong Il by excluding them."
Commentators on Free Republic expressed the same sort of disdain for Kerry's idea, one wrote,
"How can Kerry in the debate state that bilateral talks with North Korea could be successful, when in 1994 such negotiations failed to stop that country's nuclear ambitions? Even PBS shows how Clinton and Carter's appeasement was a failure."
And, finally, Erick Erickson a Georgia Conservative, stated in another critique of the debate,
"First, Kerry showed he fundamentally does not understand the situation in North Korea. Kerry wants bilateral talks at the same time we are engaged in multilateral talks. Kerry believes the North Koreans would be more likely to respond receptively to us in bilateral talks. This is undermined by North Korea's previous dealings with the Clinton administration. In bilateral talks, the North Koreans felt free to hold Clinton hostage to bizarre demands and behaviors. Bush understands North Korea is linked to China. With China at the table, North Korea can only act up so much. Kerry's inability to think outside the Clintonian foreign policy box was on display."
I'm curious as to what everyone's opinion is now. Bush was never the firm, resolute leader he was portrayed to be and so many of the Kool-Aid drinkers hung on his every word, defending him with their last breath, that even they did not notice, or chose not to notice, that they were drawn into becoming flip floppers themselves as they defended every single position of Bush, no matter if that position contradicted another offered a few months before. I wonder what they think now, because we'd never know from their words or actions.