NYT on N. Korea Deal: What Took So Long

It didn’t take long for the handwringing about the recent disarmament deal to begin from the New York Times. In the typical display of complete left-wing hackery, the Times released an op-ed full of fabrications and the always lackluster condescension for which we’ve become so accustomed.

What took so long”, is the questioned posed by the editorial. The obvious question to ask is: What took so long? And even more important: Will President Bush learn from this belated success? Will he finally allow his diplomats to try negotiation and even compromise with other bad and undeniably dangerous governments?

What took so long for the complicated, multilateral negotiations to work? The editorial calls it the “obvious” question but I call it the predictable question given that I predicted the exact wording last week in a comment posted at Hot Air. But I digress... shall we answer the obvious question with some obvious answers...? Or am I to assume the question was merely asked as a way to downplay the situation and/or blame the administration?

Let’s see: A) North Korea was busy testing its nuclear weapons. B) Kim-Jong-Il is an unstable maniac. C) These were complex negotiations involving countries like China. And D) this isn't a swapping of baseball cards between two kids... this is potential nuclear war, the starvation of tens of thousands, and a matter of positioning with a credible threat of serious consequences.

But that wasn’t the only stupid question as you can see. In the same paragraph the Times piece asked: Will he finally allow his diplomats to try negotiation and even compromise with other bad and undeniably dangerous governments?

How do you like that false premise, huh?. The insinuation is that Iran hasn’t been offered any compromises or hasn’t been negotiated with. We all know that isn’t true. Iran has been offered plenty of incentives and has had ample opportunity to take advantage of UN and Western compromises. -I think the author is trying to say that as long as Iran pinkie-promises not to develop nukes we should let them continue its nuclear program... maybe I'm wrong.

But according to the NYT, the lack of negotiation is not Iran’s fault, it’s Bush’s fault: As for the lessons to be learned, there are a lot of other bad actors out there with whom Mr. Bush is still refusing to speak. Iran is resisting the White House’s saber rattling and bullying.

So we should stop being mean to the Iranian government (a government that is building nuclear weapons, supporting global terrorism, and a country providing sophisticated weaponry to Iraqi insurgents which is killing Americans) becuse if we're less mean... They won't want to wipe out the Jews, they'll stop supporting terrorism and they'll forget about their nuclear ambitions?