Sen. Barack Obama Plays the Race Card I

(I can title this “I” because there is no doubt there is going to be a "II", a "III" and who knows where it will end.)

So, the Associated Press reported that on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 that Sen. Barack Obama said, “. . . So what they're (the McCain campaign) going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, 'he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name,' you know, 'he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.'"

Obama Spokesperson Robert Gibbs explained Sen. Obama’s quote this way, “What Barack Obama was talking about was that he didn't get here after spending decades in Washington. There is nothing more to this than the fact that he was describing that he was new to the political scene. He was referring to the fact that he didn't come into the race with the history of others. It is not about race."

For those unfamiliar with the people on “dollar bills” that most Americans see:

President George Washington is on a $1.00 bill. There was no Washington, DC before George Washington so Sen. Obama could not have been talking about President Washington.

President Abraham Lincoln is on a $5.00 bill. President Lincoln served one term in the U.S. House of Representatives so Sen. Obama could not have been talking about President Lincoln.

Alexander Hamilton is on a $10.00 bill. Alexander Hamilton was never President.

President Andrew Jackson is on a $20.00 bill. As near as I can research, President Jackson was once elected to the U.S. House of Representatives but resigned half-way through his only term to run for the U.S. Senate, a seat he won but only served for 7 months before he resigned from the Senate. Some twenty years later, President Jackson again won a U.S. Senate seat but only served for 18 months, resigning to run for the Presidency. Clearly, Sen. Obama was not talking about President Jackson.

I could go on (Grant, $50; Franklin, $100) but there really is no need.

Mr. Gibbs lied and Sen. Obama played the race card on Wednesday.

It will not be the last time the “post-racial” candidate plays it.

Newest Member of the Dixie Chicks

Sen. Barack Obama was auditioning to be the newest member of the Dixie Chicks when, while campaigning for the Presidency of the United States of America, he apologized for America on foreign soil:

"I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we’ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions." - July 24, 2008, Berlin, Germany, Europe, World

This is exactly the mind-set of a man married to a woman who for the first time in her adult life is proud of America.

The wounded American soldiers that Sen. Obama snubbed were actually relieved of the necessity of enduring his visit.

“Because I could die.”

There is nothing like a few days away from the keyboard to clear the cobwebs from the head.

Some four days ago, I started a post that was going to link the key toss-up states for November’s election with the Vice Presidential picks of both Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain. I had over 600 words drafted that highlighted the significance of Florida (27), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20) and Michigan (17), the not-so-significance of the next cut of toss-up states, and the insignificance of the toss-up states with three to five Electoral Votes. I was going to suggest that the Presidential message that wins three of the top four would certainly be enough to carry many of the states in the second and third cut and thus delivery the Presidency.

Then, I recalled an episode of my favorite TV series of all-time, West Wing.

In the inaugural season, it could have been the first episode but it was certainly one of the very first episodes, our hero, Josiah “Jed” Bartlet, is faced with selecting his vice presidential running mate. He had just gone through a brutal campaign with his bitter rival and there was much discussion among Jed’s staff as to whether Jed should ask his rival. Well, Jed does. In a campaign staff meeting, Jed’s campaign manager and chief strategist, passes a note written by the nominee, to all the other staffers with the answer as to why he was going to ask his rival.

“Because I could die,” said the note.

Well, television got it right.

I think both Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain will also get it right.

I am going to give both Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain credit for not selecting a Vice Presidential running mate for the pandering reason that the running mate might be able to deliver a key state (recall, even Presidential candidate Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee in the 2000 election) or deliver a key constituency. Instead, they will ask someone who could actually be President.

So, because Sen. Obama could die in office, I think Sen. Obama will ask Sen. Hillary Clinton to be his running mate. I’m not thrilled that I have to write this, but I do think Sen. Clinton could be President. I would disagree with her on just about everything, but she could lead. She would lead. Again, I’m not thrilled with where she would take us, but she would be a strong Presidential figure.

Because Sen. McCain could die in office, I think Sen. McCain will ask Gov. Mitt Romney to be his running mate. The media will make much of this pick being a pandering pick (Michigan), but the facts are that Gov. Romney has a history of successfully leading. Gov. Romney would be a strong Presidential figure.

Thanks to everyone who submitted a guess in the prior post. Without writing another 200 words, I think Carl submitted a name that would qualify under the “Because I could die” scenario: Sen. Jack Reed. Sen. Reed also knows that the terrorists being held in Guantanamo are really bad guys. No one could ever claim Sen. Obama selected Reed because of Rhode Island’s key 3 Electoral Votes.

Your VP Picks and Why

Summer baseball (son), basketball (daughter), and hockey (son, again) as well as one of my kid's (other daughter) theater productions and my post-work commitments have occupied the last three nights and will occupy the next three nights leaving me little time to construct my own post on Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama's VP picks.

Since I think one announcement is imminent, I turn it over to my readers (let's see how many of you there are) to give me your picks with a brief explanantion why.

If no VP picks are made by Sunday, I'll add my thoughts.

Yeah! They Get to Keep Enriching!

Before my main point, here's a letter in response to the only two letters the Boston Globe found worthy to print in the wake of another prominent Democrat, Gen. Wes Clark, smearing Sen. John McCain's military record:

Editor,

It came as no surprise that after the parade of high-profile Sen. Obama supporters (Rockefeller, Harkin, McGovern, Clark, etc.) smeared Sen. John McCain's military record that the Boston Globe would print two letters perpetuating the liberal lie that President Bush, anyone in his Administration, or anyone on his re-election team was critical of Sen. John F. Kerry's war record (letters, Ideas, July 20, C8).

I know how facts make liberal extremists squirm, but the facts are that the Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth are almost 300 decorated Vietnam veterans, both Republicans and Democrats, who didn't think Sen. Kerry was fit to be Commander-in-Chief and who were, and continued to be, pilloried for expressing their opinion. (End of letter.)

Yes, the Globe didn't publish any letters addressing the attacks, only letters accommodating the lie against President Bush.

To my main point, the United States sent an envoy to participate in a high level meeting where European weenies and Iran were going to discuss Iran's sessation of enriching uranium. My (news)paper was overly smug that the meeting was somehow an embarrassment for President Bush.

My letter:

Editor,

The glee of al Fedaban Americans was almost palpable that Iran DIDN'T have to suspend its nuclear weapons program in order to get a meeting with America's third-highest-ranking diplomat (Official: US envoy to meet Iran arms negotiator, July 16, A2). (End of letter.)

Yes, You Bet There is a Racial Divide

The latest New York Times / CBS News poll showing a wide disparity between how blacks think of Sen. Obama and how whites think of Sen. Obama could not have been cheered more by the self-loathing, guilty, white, liberal elitists at the New York Times.

You could feel the Times’ glee in reporting that, “More than 80% (it was actually 83%) of black voters said they had a favorable opinion of Mr. Obama; about 30% of white voters said they had a favorable opinion of him.”

The title of the article sharing the poll results was, “Poll Finds Obama candidacy Isn’t Closing Divide on Race.” The indictment is of white America.

So, I looked and looked in the article but I could not find the Times’ reporting on how voters felt about Sen. McCain. I had to go to the poll results and hunt through 33 pages of poll data to find what the Times ignored because the facts don’t support its narrative.

Are you ready for what I found?

35% of whites said they had a favorable view of Sen. John McCain, just barely more than the 30% who had a favorable view of Sen. Obama.

5%, no that’s not a typing mistake, I didn’t drop a “0” after the “5”, just 5% of blacks have a favorable view of the white candidate for President.

I have not read a transcript of Sen. McCain’s speeches last week to The National Council of La Raza or to the NAACP. I’ll simply accept the reporting on both speeches that Sen. McCain was aware the audience in each case was well aware of their self-identification. And, that’s a shame.

I’m sure Sen. McCain’s speeches did not begin, “My fellow Americans, . . . .” And, that’s a shame.

Sen. McCain should have used my August 6, 2006 post for the basis of both of his speeches. I provide the link to that post here (paste into browser or just click on "August 2006" in the archives list at right and scroll to August 6) so everyone can easily re-read what I think are the issues that appeal to voters . . . regardless of their skin color, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or any other characteristic that self-identifiers cling to.

http://zacklyright.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html

Michelle's a Militant; Barack's not a Muslim

For those who have not seen the cover of the latest issue of The New Yorker magazine, surf the web for a moment or two and get a glimpse.

As everyone knows, The New Yorker is an extremely liberal rag. The cover, of Sen. Obama in a turban and fist bumping a machine-gun toting Michelle in an Oval office with a picture of Osama bin Laden over an American flag burning in the fireplace, is explained by The New Yorker as satire. The New Yorker is satirizing all the claims and attacks that Sen. Clinton and her supporters hit Sen. Obama with during the primaries (this isn't what they're really satirizing, they're really satirizing attacks NOT made by Sen. McCain but that's how extreme and in-the-tank The New Yorker is for Sen. Obama).

Anyway, Sen. Obama is not a Muslim; he is no fan of Osama bin Laden; and, he is no fan of burning the American flag (Bloggers Note: Hopefully this does not come as a surprise to anyone but I believe the right to burn the flag is protected by the 1st Amendment. I would never do so and I would judge people that did, accordingly.).

That's the brilliance of the piece.

Michelle Obama is a black militant and The New Yorker is trying to dismiss this valid criticism of Mrs. Obama against the invalid criticism of her husband.

First, I think, I do not know, that Michelle is the person that put Barack in Rev. Wright's Church.

Second, I do not think Michelle was offended by the phrase, "God damn America!," any time she heard the phrase, in Church or out.

Finally, I do think she spoke honestly when she recently said for the first time in her adult life she was proud of America.

I've been proud of America tens of tens of times in my adult life and I can't recall an incident where the specific reason for my pride was the color of someone's skin.

What Powers will President Obama Give Back?

Here's is my post from Saturday, October 13, 2007: A Grotesque Willful Suspension of Disbelief; Referencing the prior post (October 11, 2007), this was a letter I sent to the Boston Globe earlier this week: Editor, Anyone who believes Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has craved power her entire life and who has destroyed so many people's lives trying to grab it, when she insists, if elected, she will "roll back President Bush's expansion of executive authority" is guilty of a grotesque willful suspension of disbelief (Clinton vows to check executive power, October 11, A18). (End of letter.) End of post from October 13, 2007.

Obviously, I thought Sen. Clinton would be the Democratic Party's nominee but since I might be wrong, I now have to consider Sen. Obama will.

During this week's vote to renew the FISA law governing the surveillance of terrorists, Sen. Obama voted in support of the bill and in support of President Bush. Sen. Clinton voted against the bill.

At one time, Sen. Obama vowed he would filibuster the FISA bill as long as the bill contained immunity for telecommunications company's that cooperated with the government against the terrorists immediately after 9/11 and prospectively. Sen. Obama did not filibuster this bill; again, he voted for it.

The sentiment I expressed in the October 13, 2007 post is exactly the same point here: What expansion of executive power under the Bush Administration is President Obama prepared to cede back to Congress? This has to be the first debate question he is asked. I suggest there are no powers he will cede back.

Since Sen. Clinton does not look like she will be President any time soon, her vote was no surprise.

Turning Lemonade into Pixx

Below is an article that my (newspaper), the Boston Globe, thought worthy of taking off the wire and putting in its July 6, 2008 issue. I give you the whole thing but the key points are related to the words I bolded. I provide my simple commentary parenthetically.

Questions on Group of 8's reach linger as summit nears
Poverty, soaring costs of food, fuel on agenda
By Linda Sieg, Reuters

TOYAKO, Japan - Leaders of the Group of Eight major industrial nations will meet this week in northern Japan to grapple with a raft of problems from soaring food and fuel prices to African poverty and global warming, but there are doubts about how much the annual diplomatic summit can achieve.

Officials from Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Canada, and the United States will meet tomorrow through Wednesday at a luxury hotel in the lakeside resort of Toyako. They will be joined by the heads of other major economies, including China and India, and seven African states.

That makes this the largest such gathering since the event began more than three decades ago when the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Britain, and Italy met at the Chateau de Rambouillet outside Paris in November 1975 to discuss the oil crisis and a world recession.

The themes sound familiar, but the scale of the summitry, which draws huge media coverage, countless activists, and sometimes violent protests, has some alleging that the event has got out of hand.

"The first summit was a very small affair. They got in a room, said they were facing a crisis, did a little horse trading, and came up with a plan," said Robert Feldman, chief economist at Morgan Stanley in Tokyo.

"It has become something of a carnival . . . and got away from the original intent, which was to sit in a room together - the human side of negotiating and getting things done," Feldman said.

"It's unwieldy and it's not leading to a lot of results."

At the same time, the relative clout of the core group has shrunk.

The then-Group of Six accounted for about 48 percent of the world's gross domestic product in 1975, but by 2006 the Group of Eight's share had slipped to about 43 percent.

Over the same period, the share of five big emerging economies that call themselves the Group of Five - China, India, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa - grew to 27 percent from 12 percent, measured by the purchasing power of their currencies.

(Bloggers Note: Then the Group of then-Six now-Eight has been fantastically successful in combating global poverty if wealth has been more globally distributed!! Do the Eight share the Nobel Peace Prize?)

One reason for higher food and fuel prices is growing demand from such emerging economies, making it hard for the G-8 alone to come up with solutions.

"The emerging markets have become a much more important part of total economic activity, but the monetary policies they are running are too easy. That is spurring inflation in these countries, and that tends to push up commodities prices," said Peter Morgan, chief Asian economist at HSBC in Hong Kong.

"In the 1970s it was the developed economies that were running too easy monetary policies, so they could address it. But now they are passive receptors of the inflation burst from emerging markets."

A Major Economies Meeting on Wednesday will bring together the G-8, the G-5, and Indonesia, South Korea, and Australia, which account for about 80 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming.

The United Nations opened talks last year on a climate change agreement to replace the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol, which the United States has not ratified, when it expires at the end of 2012. Negotiators face a deadline of December 2009, when some 190 nations will meet in Denmark.

President Bush is reluctant to sign on to targets to cut emissions without big developing countries such as China and India on board.

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France is among those who advocate formally expanding the G-8 to include China and others, although Japan for one is not keen to see its Asian rival join the group.

Sarkozy repeated the call for expansion yesterday in Paris.

"I think it is not reasonable to continue to meet as eight to solve the big questions of the world, forgetting China - 1 billion, 300 million people - and not inviting India - 1 billion people," he said.

The problems to be tackled have also become increasingly complex and intertwined, further limiting what G-8 leaders can do to solve them in three days of meetings and socializing.

At last year's summit in Germany, the leaders declared that the global economy was in "good condition."

Since then, oil costs have continued to rise and the US subprime mortgage crisis roiled credit markets and battered major financial firms.

Efforts to reduce dependence on oil and cut greenhouse gas emissions have led many countries, the United States in particular, to turn to biofuels. That has, in turn, helped push up food prices, (Bloggers Note: Where’s the praise from the environmentalists for President Bush?! Over nad over I read about rising food prices because of President Bush's push for increased biofuel usage yet I can find no praise from the liberal extremists.) as has rising demand from emerging countries and volatile weather that many attribute to climate change. (End of Reuters article.)

Except for Those Who Experienced the "Horrors"

Before I get to today's letter to the Boston Globe, given the dust-up Sen. McCain found himself in when one of his politcal advisors answered a question about how a terrorist attack would help Sen. McCain's Presidential campaign, is it any wonder that the extremist who control the media are not ever going to ask anyone from the Obama campaign if a failing US economy will help Sen. Obama?

Today, the Boston Globe published a letter suggesting that no one with any combat experience is responsible for the decision to go to war in Iraq. This was my letter in response:

Editor,

Recently, the Boston Globe published this from a delusional hate-Bush letter-writer, “But Iraq was entirely a war of choice, decided on by men and women who had experienced not one single day of the horrors of war (Letters, July 6).”

I cannot list all of the men and women who were central to the decision to exercise the Clinton Administration’s call for regime change in Iraq but let me identify at least three of the most prominent figures.

First, Secretary of State Colin Powell had over thirty years as an active duty soldier. He has a Purple Heart and commendations for his bravery in Vietnam.

Second, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld also had over 20 years of active and reserve service in the U.S. Navy as a combat pilot and flight instructor.

Finally, Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), whose heroism in Vietnam is well-known, “chose” war. I do not know what impact Sen. Kerry’s vote for war had on Congressional members who did not serve but I guess it was substantial.

Excpet for all the men and women who did experience the “horrors of war”, I do not doubt the hate-Bush crowd will believe the decision for war in Iraq was made by men and women without such experience. (End of letter.)

Dr. Condoleezza Rice on North Korea

First, please pause for a moment and consider today is Independence Day.

Second, below, pulled from the United States State Department web page is a column Dr. Condoleezza Rice prepared for the Wall Street Journal; the column appeared on June 26, 2008. It gives yet another perspective of our efforts to denuclearize North Korea.

Diplomacy Is Working on North Korea
Secretary Condoleezza Rice
The Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2008

North Korea will soon make a declaration of its nuclear programs, facilities and materials. This is an important, if initial, step and we will demand that it be verifiable as complete and accurate.

Amidst all the focus on our diplomatic tactics, it is important to keep two broader points in mind. One, we are learning more about Pyongyang's nuclear efforts through the six-party framework than we otherwise would be. And two, this policy is our best option to achieve the strategic goal of verifiably eliminating North Korea's nuclear weapons and programs.

North Korea now faces a clear choice about its future. If it chooses confrontation – violating international law, pursuing nuclear weapons, and threatening the region – it will face serious consequences not only from the United States, but also from Japan, South Korea, China and Russia, as it did in 2006 after testing a nuclear device.

If, however, North Korea chooses cooperation – by fulfilling its pledge from the September 2005 Joint Statement to "abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs" – a path is open for it to achieve the better and more secure relationship it says it wants with the international community. That includes the U.S. We have no permanent enemies.

Any effort to denuclearize the Korean peninsula must contend with the fact that North Korea is the most secretive and opaque regime on the planet. Our intelligence is far from complete. Despite these inherent limitations, consider what we have achieved and learned thus far through the six-party framework, and how much more could still be possible.

North Korea is now disabling its plutonium production facility at Yongbyon – not freezing it, as before, but disabling it for the purpose of abandonment. U.S. inspectors are monitoring this process on the ground.

In its declaration, North Korea will state how much plutonium it possesses. We will not accept that statement on faith. We will insist on verification. North Korea has already turned over nearly 19,000 pages of production records from its Yongbyon reactor and associated facilities. With additional information we expect to receive – access to other documents, relevant sites, key personnel and the reactor itself – these records will help to verify the accuracy and completeness of Pyongyang's declaration. North Korea's plutonium program has been by far its largest nuclear effort over many decades, and we believe our policy could verifiably get the regime out of the plutonium-making business.

Getting a handle on North Korea's uranium-enrichment program is harder, because we simply do not know its full scale or what it yielded. And yet, because of our current policy, we now know more about North Korea's uranium-enrichment efforts than before, and we are learning more still – much of it troubling. North Korea acknowledges our concerns about its uranium-enrichment program, and we will insist on getting to the bottom of this issue.

Similarly, we know that North Korea proliferated nuclear technology to Syria, but we do not know whether that is the end of the story. Rather than just trying to address this threat unilaterally, we will be more effective in learning about North Korean proliferation and preventing its continuation through a cooperative effort with Japan, South Korea, China and Russia.

And in return for these steps, what have we given thus far? No significant economic assistance. No trade or investment cooperation. No security guarantees or normalized relations. And our many sanctions on North Korea, both bilateral and multilateral, remain in place.

Because of its history of illicit activities, North Korea is still isolated from the international financial system, despite the fact that the matter of Banco Delta Asia was resolved and the money returned to North Korea. All we have given up is 134,000 tons of heavy fuel oil, which cannot be used in cars, or trucks, or tanks, or high-performance engines of any kind.

When North Korea makes its declaration, President Bush will lift the application of the Trading with the Enemies Act with respect to North Korea, and notify Congress that, in 45 days, he will remove North Korea from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. No other sanctions will be lifted without further North Korean actions.

North Korea now meets the statutory criteria for removal from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. However, nearly all restrictions that might be lifted by ceasing application of the Trading with the Enemies Act will remain in place under different U.S. laws and regulations. We and the other four parties will expect North Korea to cooperate with us in verifying the accuracy and completeness of its declaration. And if that cooperation is lacking, we will respond accordingly.

Considering North Korea's track record, verification is essential, but still it must be asked: What if North Korea cheats? The answer is simple: We will hold North Korea accountable. We will reimpose any applicable sanctions that we have waived – plus add new ones. And because North Korea would be violating an agreement not only with us, but also with all of its neighbors, those countries would take appropriate measures as well.

It may be the case that North Korea does not want to give up its nuclear weapons and programs. That is a real possibility. But we should test it, and the best way to do that is through the six-party framework. Is it right to proceed cautiously? Absolutely. But in the final calculation, do we think our current policy is better than the alternatives? Yes, we do. We believe that the six-party framework is the best way to learn more about the threat posed by this closed and opaque regime, and ultimately, together with partners, to eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons and programs. (End of column by Dr. Rice.)

Another Opinion on Bush and North Korea

So readers here are completely aware of what is going on in (with) North Korea, I reproduce a column that appeared in the June 30, 2008 Wall Street Journal. The column was written by John R. Bolton, formerly President Bush's recess appointment as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, so someone the President obviously admires and respects very much.

The Tragic End of Bush's North Korea Policy

Maskirovka – the Soviet dark art of denial, deception and disguise – is alive and well in Pyongyang, years after the Soviet Union disappeared. Unfortunately, the Bush administration appears not to have gotten the word.

With much fanfare and choreography, but little substance, the administration has accepted a North Korean "declaration" about its nuclear program that is narrowly limited, incomplete and almost certainly dishonest in material respects. In exchange, President Bush personally declared that North Korea is no longer a state sponsor of terrorism or an enemy of the United States. In a final flourish, North Korea has undertaken a reverse Potemkin Village act, destroying the antiquated cooling tower of the antiquated Yongbyon reactor. In the waning days of American presidencies, this theater is the stuff of legacy.

North Korea has consecutively broken every major agreement with the U.S. since the North's creation. The Bush administration provides no reason why this one will not be added to that long list except the audacity of hope. Where have we heard that recently? Barack Obama and John Kerry both announced support for the deal, and Mr. Obama said he intended to apply Bush's policy to other rogue states, thus confirming the early start of the Obama administration.

The Feb. 13, 2007, agreement states explicitly that North Korea was to provide "a complete declaration of all nuclear programs" within 60 days. This it manifestly did not do, either in timing or substance. The declaration, more than 14 months overdue, and which is not yet public, has long been forecast not to include information on weaponization, uranium enrichment, or proliferation activities such as cloning the Yongbyon reactor in Syria. Although the North provided less than it agreed 16 months ago, we compensated by giving up more than we agreed, which is typical of decades of U.S. negotiation with the North.

The extent to which Yongbyon's aggregate plutonium production has been weaponized and concealed is one critical unresolved issue. Moreover, analysis of the much-touted 18,000 pages of Yongbyon documentation previously turned over has uncovered significant gaps in information, especially concerning the reactor's early years of operation, that preclude making a truly accurate calculation. This is essentially the same problem that the International Atomic Energy Agency faced during its years of monitoring Yongbyon under the failed 1994 Agreed Framework, showing that the North is nothing if not consistent in its cover-up strategy.

Ironically, the documents themselves are contaminated with particles of highly enriched uranium, probably from that enrichment program North Korea still denies. This program's extent is crucial, because if it is production scope, the North will still have a route to fissile material no matter what Yongbyon's ultimate fate, proving yet again that leveling those aged facilities was a nonconcession.

Bush administration officials contend on this and other unresolved issues that they will insist on verification, but inside the government there is little or no planning on what that means precisely, let alone agreement on the details with North Korea. Given the North's record of maskirovka, the extent of open and intrusive verification we should demand would likely undermine the very foundations of the regime itself, which Kim Jong Il will obviously not accept.

The North's proliferation, such as the now-flattened Yongbyon twin in Syria, are important not only for what they prove about the North's ongoing duplicity, but for their potentially central place in the North's continuing nuclear weapons program. This is emphatically not, therefore, merely a matter of filling out the historical record, but rather an avenue of inquiry that focuses directly on the North's current capabilities and intentions. Pooh-poohing proliferation in this way, as the administration has done, is evidence of its desperation not to allow the deal to come unstuck.

The administration argues that these criticisms are unwarranted because it has always contemplated that the North's denuclearization would play out in phases. This is no answer at all. Instead, it graphically reveals one of the deal's central problems. There is no advantage to the U.S. in proceeding by phases. To the contrary, North Korea alone benefits by phasing, by stretching out a process that enables Kim Jong Il to stay in power and to maximize the political and economic benefits he can extract through each excruciatingly lengthy and painful phase.

Consider, moreover, the deal's corrosive impact on the very concept of the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. Removing North Korea from the list for political reasons unrelated to terrorism simply provides ammunition for those who argue that the existence of the list itself is purely political. Critically, since the North's nuclear and ballistic missile programs materially assisted Syria and Iran, two other states on the terrorism honor roll, it is hard to see what remains of President Bush's doctrine that those who support terrorists will be treated as terrorists.

Consider also the palpable damage our mishandling of the terrorism issues has caused to our alliance with Japan, whose citizens, along with many South Koreans, were abducted by Pyongyang's agents. One might quibble that this is not state sponsorship of terrorism, but rather direct state terrorism. (Perhaps we should create a new list for North Korea.) It is hardly a reason to remove Japan's most effective leverage to get a straight accounting from the North about its citizens. Of course, why should we expect North Korea to be any more honest on the abductee issue than on anything else?

The only good news is that there is little opportunity for the Bush administration to make any further concessions in its waning days in office. But for many erstwhile administration supporters, this is a moment of genuine political poignancy. Nothing can erase the ineffable sadness of an American presidency, like this one, in total intellectual collapse. (End of Bolton column.)