Bush Talks Tough On North Korea

President Calls For 'Strong' U.N. Sanctions, Says U.S. Not Going To Attack

(CBS/AP)  President Bush demanded stiff sanctions on North Korea Wednesday for its reported nuclear test, but asserted the U.S. has "no intention of attacking" the reclusive regime — despite its claims that it needs atomic weapons to guard against such a strike.

In a Rose Garden news conference, Mr. Bush said the United States remains committed to diplomacy but also "reserves all options to defend our friends in the region."

He also vowed increased military cooperation with allies, including bolstering ballistic missile defenses in the region and increased efforts to prevent Pyongyang from importing missile and nuclear technology.

"With both Iran and North Korea on the agenda on Wednesday, the ability of the Security Council to pressure both nations to get back to negotiations and halt their nuclear programs is being seen as a test of the U.N. to keep a nuclear weapons race from spiraling out of control," says CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk.

"South Korea's Foreign Minister, Ban Ki Moon, as the soon-to-be-appointed next Secretary-General, will be at U.N. headquarters as well," Falk says, "making his first appearance since the Security Council chose him to succeed Kofi Annan."

Mr. Bush rejected international appeals — such as one made as he spoke by Annan — for the United States to hold one-on-one talks with North Korea, something the U.S. has refused to do.

In a news conference that lasted slightly more than an hour, Mr. Bush also defended anew his Iraq policy against rising calls, mostly from Democrats but also from some in his own party, to set a withdrawal timetable. “If we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy's coming after us," he asserted.

Mr. Bush conceded "tough times" in the war-torn country where sectarian violence has surged recently. But, he added, "It is in our interests that Iraq succeed."

With just four weeks before the midterm elections, the president acknowledged that the war in Iraq is having a political impact. It is "tough on the American psyche," he said, repeating a phrase he had used before.

Mr. Bush said there were "loud voices" in the Democratic Party for him to withdraw troops, bur added that he was not going to "get out before the job is done."

"I think the elections will be decided by security and the economy," he said, pointing to signs of significant improvement in job creation, lower energy prices and tax cuts that he said are working. He opened his news conference by trumpeting new figures showing a big reduction in the U.S. budget deficit.

Mr. Bush predicted that his party would maintain control of both the House and Senate in next month's midterm elections. In the House, Democrats need a 15-seat pickup to gain control. In the Senate, they need to gain six seats.

The president issued strong support for embattled House Speaker Dennis Hastert's handling of a scandal involving salacious Internet communications between former Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., and teenage male former congressional pages.

"I think the speaker's strong statements have made it clear to not only the party ... but to the country, that he wants to find out the facts," Mr. Bush said. "This is disgusting behavior when a member of Congress betrays the trust of the Congress and the family that sent a young page to serve."

He said he hopes that congressional and Justice Department investigations "find the facts" and that he hoped it was "sooner, rather than later," but said he doesn't think the scandal has undermined Hastert's credibility as a leader.

"Denny's very credible, as far as I'm concerned," he said.

Most of the questions at the news conference dealt with North Korea, with Iraq a close second.

Mr. Bush rejected criticism from Democrats that his administration had not paid enough attention to the brewing North Korean nuclear crisis. "The North Korean situation was serious for years," he said in a veiled swipe at former President Clinton.

The president said Pyongyang had broken a 1994 deal negotiated by the Clinton administration in which Pyongyang had promised not to develop a nuclear program.

"It's the intransigence of the North Korean leader that speaks volumes about the process," he said of Kim Jong Il. "It is his unwillingness to choose a way forward for this country — a better way forward for his country. It is his decisions."

As to direct talks with North Korea, as the U.N. secretary-general and many other diplomats have urged, Bush suggested that the Clinton administration's direct contacts with the communist regime showed they were unprofitable.

"Bilateral negotiations didn't work. You know, I appreciate the efforts of previous administrations. It just didn't work," Mr. Bush said. He called for a resumption of six-way talks among North Korea, South Korea, China, Russia, Japan and the United States. Such talks have been suspended since November 2005.

Mr. Bush said that North Korea with its actions "has once again chosen to reject the prospect for a better future."

North Korea has said one reason it tested an atomic weapon is to stave off an Iraq-style pre-emptive attack by the United States. But Mr. Bush said: "The United States affirmed that we have no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula. We affirmed that we have no intention of attacking North Korea."

In answer to a question he asked himself — why the United States doesn't take military action against North Korea — the president said: "I believe the commander in chief must try all diplomatic measures before we commit our military."

He was asked about a recent comment by the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. John Warner, that Iraq was drifting "sideways" and that the United States should consider major changes if Baghdad doesn't get the violence under control within the next few months.

"I appreciate Sen. Warner going over there and taking a look," the president said. "I completely agree."

Still, he insisted, "We're constantly changing tactics."

Warner is one of several prominent Republicans who have expressed misgivings recently about the course of U.S. policy in Iraq.

Mr. Bush dismissed as "just not credible" a controversial new study that contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war. The study was based on interviews by researchers with Iraqi families and suggests a far higher death toll than other estimates.

However, the president, who in the past has suggested 30,000 civilian deaths in Iraq, would not give a figure for overall fatalities. "I do know that a lot of innocent people have died," he said.

On another subject, Bush was asked about legislation authorizing construction of a 700-mile fence along parts of the U.S.-Mexican border and whether the fence would be solid and unbroken, or a "virtual fence" that relies on electronic sensors.

"We're going to do both," he said "Make sure we're going to build it in a spot where it works. " He added that the fence, on which construction has already begun, would be a combination of an actual barrier and electronics.

"You can't fence the entire border," he said

Mr. Bush also used the opportunity to put in a plug for his proposal, stymied so far in Congress, to establish a guest-worker program "so people aren't sneaking in in the first place."

[laurieleemoo]

okay---people your silence says everything---america is weak because of us the PEOPLE---we are too laid back---but we sure as hell no how to complain now don't we.... Gawd---i wish the same spirit was in america that we had when we became the great country we are. What a joke---!!!!

[laurieleemoo]

gawd people---you suck---they just don't make americans like they use to-----our ancestors would have done better-----we THE PEOPLE do NOTHING---but sit there and complain----lets get off our laid back ***** and fight this fight economically with CHINA---North Korea's best friend---yes they are buds all right----in fact, CHINA is hiding behind North Korea--letting North Korea do its dirty work----don't let CHINA kid anyone----they have no interest in solving this problem with North Korea!!!!!!!!!!

[laurieleemoo]

its real easy to sit there and play the blame game---i sit here and listen to everyone everyday---complain---coming up with all these answers that just won't work---such as going back to the table with North Korea---won't work---the answer to all this is so simple its not even funny---yet rather than the american people getting off their ***** and doing something about it---we choose to sit here and blame our gov't....blame no one but ourselves---we keep China as the problem to all this buy buying their products... When i was growing up---everything was "Made in JapanA"---now its alll"Made in China"-----WELL ITS TIME AGAIN FOR A CHANGE. THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER COUNTRIES OUT THERE NOW WE CAN BUY PRODUCT FROM...

[laurieleemoo]

hey---is anyone out there listening about boycotting China-----are you all with me or what

[laurieleemoo]

BOYCOTT CHINA----BOYCOTT CHINA---BOYCOTT CHINA-----CHINA IS PROBLEM----------
Its time the SLAM the pressure down.
Americans need to stop blaming the gov't----its our fault---we buy the products from China---WE---THE PEOPLE----can not blame anyone but ourselves that China has become the biggest problem in the United Nations!!!!!!!!

BOYCOTT CHINA---STOP BLAMING OUR GOVERNMENT.

[pixelslinger]

exus -

sure can. She kept the US physically out of the Lebannon/Israel war without making us look like even bigger hypocrites when it comes to oppressive regimes. Sure it probably wasn't her intent, but that was the outcome. Anytime Albright stood up for Israel, it just publicized that the official position of the US gov't is to support state-sponsored massacres.

I'm not saying she'll come up with a brilliant plan and execute it - I'm saying her lack of diplomacy and capacity to perform the job of Secretary of State may work out to our advantage by leading the Chinese to feel that we're too stupid to deal with this without declaring war, so they'll have to clean up their own back yard. And they might be right, too.

[exusmcsgt]

pixelslinger-

You find Rice effective. Can you list one single diplomatic acheivement since her taking the helm at State? I know I can't.

[pixelslinger]

More importantly, it was in our own vital security interest that NK didn't have nuclear capacities.

Why is this solely on the shoulders of President Bush? Because it is historical fact that the inspections were still going on and the rods were still in place when Clinton left office. This happened on THIS President's watch, and under his military command. His attention was turned elsewhere and the NK's took full advantage of this.

Will they use or sell the weapons? Yes. Unless they get what they want out of this - money. Lots of it. The US's. Not China, not Russia. They want the US to pay them for not using or selling their arsenal - and we will pay it and we will live with being hostages to the inpredictability of NK unless, somehow, we can convince China to handle this one. And that's not entirely impossible. I may loathe Secretary Rice, but she's adept at getting some things done.

[pixelslinger]

To the Democrats-or-Die regime that is popular in these threads - I noticed a lot of people using an FDR quote as some sort of justification for basically blowing the hell out of NK because they had the audacity to defy the United States and I notice a lot of you not doing much with that. Here's a little tidbit - all of your reflections on Bush about Iraq that you've so eagerly shared on this thread ALSO apply to the Democratic hero, FDR. The only difference between his secret plan to get involved with WWII and lying to the country for years about it and Bush's blatant lying is that FDR had the fortune of Pearl Harbor. They both lied about putting the US in a War and they both had a very lucky event that they used to justify it.

All this being said - it is a categorical failure of Bush and his entire Administration - every single one of them - that allowed this to develop to this point. China would have huffed and puffed about us blowing the *** out of their nuclear plants and water reactors after inspections stopped, but they would not have escalated the matter because they are momentarily dependant on too many other necessities that the US and it's allies supply them for their economy. It doesn't take a brilliant political mind to notice that tactical options of force could have severely crippled the capacity to have developed several nuclear weapons without the entire world running to point their own nukes at the US.

[pixelslinger]

I've been gone all day and have come home to check up on this message and literally see pages upon pages of mindless drivel.

For all you self-proclaimed patriots and Bush sympathizers - TAKE THE BLINDERS OFF (and maybe enroll in your local community college and take a few civics and gov't courses). There is NOTHING patriotic in your indignant ranting about North Korea's motives, and certainly nothing intelligent in trying to make a defense of military options when 9 out of 10 ground divisions are committed to Iraq. If you're advocating the Draft, fine. But if you're not willing to go and enlist to be INFANTRY right this very second, you're a hypocrite and don't deserve the freedoms real infantrymen sacrifice themselves for.

To the conspiracy theorists.... seriously, the level and magnitude of which conspiracy theories are generally wrong should be reason enough to take pause and use some of that grey matter. If that's not enough consider a truism - if you have to respond to the people here rewriting history and saying that it was NK that walked away from the treaty, you're just giving that crud undue credit and turning a lie into a valid argument.

[drgoodwin12]

To thgdrive China is the key,do some research on China's relationship with N.Korea and you will find that China has suported N.Korea more than they have supported us.They assist in the sales of weaponary from N.Korea to other nations and have stood by there side prior to our involvement in the Korean War and even now,they are balking at our proposed policy of sanctions against N.Korea.Some key,some ally.We need a new approach,N.Korea has a limited amount of uranium for enrichment to nuclear grade and a limited amount of nuclear weapons.Stop the source of nuclear energy and you stop nuclear proliferation.

[thgdriver]

To ourtomorrows

Pressure has got to be put on China to handle this mess.

Lets give China a chance to resolve this peacefully.

We always have the big stick if we need it.

God Bless the USA and President Bush!

Good Night Everybody.

[drgoodwin12]

To ourtomorrows the problem with N.Korea and Iran rest in the nuclear proliferation treaty.It is a failed policy that countries have used to obtain uranium under the guise of nuclear energy.The primary sources of uranium are our so called allies pakistan and Africa.In order to prevent nuclear proliferation we need to buy up or seize all uranium and then enviromentally destroy it.Sanctions against either country wil not work and military action according to the pentagon against either Iran or N.Korea are not a very rosy scenario.I am not bashing Bush or anyone else for these problems,the problem is the failure to implement a new strategy that does away with uranium.Heaven forbid that any country gets its hands on anti-matter which is another potential problem that needs to be adressed now.

[exusmcsgt]

Typical Bush double-speak:

"Mr. Bush said the United States remains committed to diplomacy..."

and at the same time

"Mr. Bush rejected international appeals...for the United States to hold one-on-one talks with North Korea."

PUHLEASE!!!!!!!!

[ourtomorrows]

I applaud the President's tough stance on North Korea. If only our allies (with the notable exception of Great Britain) had a similar backbone as well as a number of my fellow Americans.

Those of you who have criticized the President for not being tough enough with North Korea and Iran, look around at your fellow citizens who have spent the last five years running around protesting everything this administration has done in foreign policy. Look at the Congress, Democrats and Republicans, who lack the courage to stand up with the President against these looming threats because it might (or more likely would) cost them re-election.

President Bush has thrown out 40 years of failed US policy in the Middle East in favor of a new emphasis on supporting the growth of democratic regimes. And in spite of the problems in Iraq it is working. But, by many in the US, he has been made somekind of evil monster who is compared to someone like bin Laden.

What would the world say if Bush militarily confronted Iran or North Korea after more monhts of talking failed--he would be further condemned by people within his own borders. The reason that North Korea and Iran can thumb their nose at the US is not because of the President, it is because of many of my fellow Americans who believe the the President is the world's enemy.

[jw218389]

Bush's Formula:

Oil?

Yes: "Attack! Sanctions aren't working! Time for a military coalition."

No: "We need to try sanctions, it's the President's Responsidutery to pursue all avenues for peace"

THAT's the difference between Iraq* and NK!

*Bush already asked for plans to invade Iraq BEFORE 9/11/01.

[chicatibu]

Personally I doubt China would engage the Unites States in a war over North Korea. China has to much invested in Wal Mart to risk a war with the United States and we have to much invested in China to go to war.
It%u2019s time for Americans to get over this mentality the only way to survive is to kill. America needs to start talking and stop shooting. Its one thing to hunt down terrorists it%u2019s quit another every time some country doesn%u2019t agree with us to bring up the threat of war. Face it bullying hasn%u2019t worked let%u2019s try negations and let%u2019s do it from a position of strength. Economically and technologically America leads the world, let%u2019s lead it toward peace and not worry about the bravado. Other Countries know we%u2019re good we don%u2019t have to continually prove it.

[thgdriver]

China is "key" in dealing with North Korea.

The USA can turn North Korea into a burned out cinder any time they want to. That has been a fact since 1945.

However, after China became a nuclear power, that option faded. Any action by the USA now would most certainly start a nuclear exchange between the USA and China.

If China won't do anything to curb their little brother, then a nuclear powered Japan is, unfortunately, the best answer to checkmate N. Korea.

If ,on the other hand, N. Korea fires a rocket with a nuclear head at S. Korea or Japan, in the next month or so, well, God help us all!!

As I said, China is "key"!!

[danimal50]

Intransigent.

I am sure even George Bush wouldn't have used the word if he really understood its meaning. The irony is just too obvious.
What better adjective could there possibly be to describe exactly and precisely his "stay-the-course" policy in Iraq?

People, who live in glass houses, or white houses for that matter, should not throw adjectives so descriptive of themselves.

I say again, he's an idiot and an outright embarrassment to our country.

in%u2022tran%u2022si%u2022gent also in%u2022tran%u2022si%u2022geant

ADJECTIVE:

Refusing to moderate a position, especially an extreme position; uncompromising.

[optimas2]

Shingles,

Sometimes you can talk the talk, but sometimes you have to walk the walk.

The problem with North Korea and Iran, for that matter, is we are faced with two tin-horn dictators, who, in the face of repeated admonishments by this country and others, have simply thumbed their noses at the world.

We have repeatedly told Iran not to develop nuclear technology and given it deadline after deadline (another deadline invariably follows the expiration of the previous deadline) at which it must stop its nuclear research. Iran has continued its nuclear program and, in effect, as told the United States "what are you going to do to stop us?" To which the United States has no reply, other than the imposition of another deadline, and the phrase "or else."

The same situation has developed in N. Korea. We told it not to test ICBMs. It tested ICBMs. We told it not to develop and test nuclear weapons. It has (likely) done so. What must be our response?

The unfortunate problem is that US threats are rapidly becoming "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Sometimes you have to pay a price to accomplish things, and sometimes you have to step up and make good on a threat or two, just to keep everyone honest. N. Korea might be one of those times.