( Update II: Matthew Yglesias has responded to my updated post. I disagree with his assessment for many reasons but nonetheless thought it only fair to post his response here (scroll down to the March 3 posts). Be sure to also read the comments section for some interesting debate.) (Update: Some now claim (I'll leave aside the ridiculous remark related to Sen. McCain's Castro comment) that North Korea absolutely didn't have nukes during the Clinton administration. This must come as news to the Clinton folks and just about every other official involved in the North Korean nuke debate in the 1990s. Here's what Amb. Robert Gallucci had to say at a May 2003 Senate hearing.
In 1994, the intelligence community, our intelligence community assessed that North Korea more likely than not had wanted two nuclear weapons. That was based on an assessment that they had reprocessed or could have reprocessed as much as eight or 10 so kilograms of plutonium, in that range in any case and so, we had that assessment and we didn't in the agreed framework provide for the immediate inspections that would help us determine how much plutonium they actually had.
In addition, Sen. McCain, in October 1994, stated, "the accounting for the plutonium that was diverted, that could have, and in the view of the CIA, did result in the construction of two nuclear weapons." On October 20, 2002, the New York Times reported: "Several years ago the Central Intelligence Agency estimated that North Korea already had reprocessed enough plutonium at Yongbyon to make one or 2 nuclear weapons, and that the fuel in storage could be fabricated into 5 or 10 more." There are many other similar examples. About those fuel rods "in storage" that were supposed to be transferred out of North Korea during the Clinton years under the agreement, Pyongyang never gave them up. And, yes, these would be the same rods that the North has likely extracted plutonium from during the Bush years. Oh, at least since 1996 North Korea was also running a secret uranium enrichment program while getting lots of free oil under the deal. Finally, I'm still waiting to hear if Howard Dean wants a North Korean-style "Framework Agreement" for Iran. Given the Bush administration's lack of progress and incoherence on North Korea, you would think at least one heavyweight Democrat would make the case for such an agreement to the American people.) Posted on February 28, 2006: During a speech today accusing President Bush of being weak on defense, Dean stated that,
under no circumstances will a Democratic Administration ever allow Iran to become a nuclear power.
What is Dean exactly saying here? Why use the phrase "nuclear power"? Is this a "no tolerance" policy that Democrats would not allow Iran to acquire a single nuclear weapon? Or, is Dean saying Democrats would allow Iran to build nuclear weapons so as it didn't build enough of them to qualify as a "nuclear power"? Also, let's remember that it was the Clinton administration that rewarded North Korea -- see here -- by letting that government keeps its nuclear weapons and cheat on the "Framework" it signed. Republicans should ask Dean if he has something similar in mind for Iran.