See No Evil

The Chimperor in Chief gives the Axis of Evil speech. All hat, no cattle; all talk, stupid action.
The US gave North Korea $95,000,000 dollars (95 million) in 2002 to build nuclear reactors, but waived a requirement that those nuclear reactors be open to inspectors. And yesterday North Korea exploded a nuclear weapon. The incompetence, it burns, it burns, arggggggggggggh.

firedoglake: Why Did Bush Drop Ball On Inspectors in N. Korea?

...I'd like some answers as to why the Bush Administration failed to require any inspectors in North Korea before we handed over a big, fat chunk of our money. And why we failed to initiate any real diplomacy in the four years since we handed over that big chunk of American fundage. And why it seems like we are always on a reactionary footing in our foreign policy under the Bush Administration, instead of taking a pro-active, problem solving approach? And I hope to hell someone asks Tony Snow about this today, since the President scuttled out of the room without taking questions after his speech this morning.

Heckuva job, Bushie.

BBC, April 3, 2002: US grants N Korea nuclear funds

The US Government has announced that it will release $95m to North Korea as part of an agreement to replace the Stalinist country's own nuclear programme, which the US suspected was being misused.

Under the 1994 Agreed Framework an international consortium is building two proliferation-proof nuclear reactors and providing fuel oil for North Korea while the reactors are being built.

In releasing the funding, President George W Bush waived the Framework's requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors.

President Bush argued that the decision was "vital to the national security interests of the United States".

[]

The head of the Non-proliferation Policy Education Centre in Washington, a critic of the Agreed Framework, has warned that even when the new reactors are completed they may not be tamper-proof.

"These reactors are like all reactors, They have the potential to make weapons. So you might end up supplying the worst nuclear violator with the means to acquire the very weapons we're trying to prevent it acquiring," Henry Sokolski told the Far Eastern Economic Review.