http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentSe...012571727 088

Financial Times London

North Korea warms to Kerry presidency bid

By Andrew Ward in Seoul and James Harding in Washington
Published: March 4 2004 20:24 | Last Updated: March 4 2004 20:24


North Korea's state-controlled media are well known for reverential
reporting about Kim Jong-il, the country's dictatorial leader.


But the Dear Leader is not the only one getting deferential treatment
from the communist state's propaganda machine: John Kerry, the
presumptive Democratic candidate, is also getting good play in
Pyongyang.

In the past few weeks, speeches by the Massachusetts senator have been
broadcast on Radio Pyongyang and reported in glowing terms by the
Korea Central News Agency (KCNA), the official mouthpiece of Mr Kim's
communist regime.

The apparent enthusiasm for Mr Kerry may reflect little more than a
"better the devil you don't know" mentality among the North Korean
apparatchiks. Rather than dealing with President George W. Bush and
hawkish officials in his administration, Pyongyang seems to hope
victory for the Democratic candidate on November 2 would lead to a
softening in US policy towards the country's nuclear weapons
programme.

But both Mr Kerry and Mr Bush are committed to North Korean
disarmament. Mr Kerry, however, would renew bilateral negotiations
between Washington and Pyongyang, while Mr Bush has sought to manage
the conversation with North Korea through multilateral talks. Mr Kerry
has also been more forthright about setting out the economic rewards
for North Korea if it disarms.

The Bush administration appears in no hurry to tackle the North Korea
issue before the election, aware that a US compromise with Pyongyang
would represent an embarrassing climbdown, while confrontation would
risk a bloody - and electorally disastrous - war.

If North Korea is hoping that a Democratic victory would herald a
return to Bill Clinton's policy of engagement with Pyongyang, then
Gordon Flake, head of the Mansfield Centre for Pacific Affairs in
Washington, cautions Mr Kim against expecting too much from Mr Kerry.
"It would be harder for a Democratic president to do a deal because
there would be a lot of pressure on him not to be a soft touch," he
says.

Either way, the North Korean media is a constituency Mr Kerry could do
without. Second only to the warm words Mr Kerry has enjoyed from Jane
Fonda, the actress and antiwar liberal who is still a bugbear of the
American right, a signal of support from the Dear Leader will delight
conservative talk-show hosts and Republicans eager to paint Mr Kerry
as soft on national security.

A small group of Vietnam veterans has already branded Mr Kerry as
"Hanoi John" - a reference to his antiwar activities in 1971 after he
returned from serving in Vietnam.

Mr Kerry was first introduced to North Korea's information-starved
people in early February, when Radio Pyongyang reported that opinion
polls indicated he was likely to defeat Mr Bush.

A few days later, the station broadcast comments by Mr Kerry
criticising Mr Bush for deceiving the world about Iraq's elusive
weapons of mass destruction. Later in February, KCNA welcomed Mr
Kerry's pledge to adopt a more "sincere attitude" towards North Korea
if elected.

"Senator Kerry, who is seeking the presidential candidacy of the
Democratic Party, sharply criticised President Bush, saying it was an
ill-considered act to deny direct dialogue with North Korea," said the
news agency.

Pyongyang's friendly attitude towards Mr Kerry contrasts with its
strong anti-Bush rhetoric.



Scott in Florida

In article <v96h401hhjlflfnuri67ii1nabi7ii9bh2@4ax.com>,
Scott in Florida <NotInThisLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote:

Good reason not to vote for Kerry, he'd throw cream puffs at them and
they'd raid the coop.

Dale
--

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 17:18:01 GMT, <dalea@nsp.com> wrote:

I'm a believer in speaking softly and carrying a big stick as American
policy.

I guess you guys like big talk and no action. Like Bush and Korea.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 17:18:01 GMT, <dalea@nsp.com> wrote:


Exactly.

There are a LOT of bad guys around the world wishing Kerry would
win...


Scott in Florida

"Scott in Florida" <NotInThisLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
news:fvrh40t7ufdi127pfa0tej8bn4bqn4dcf9@4ax.com...
Not Ken Lay. He'd lose his protector.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 15:20:55 -0600, will
<will@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:

LOL

You'll see our big stick in Korea soon....


Scott in Florida

"Scott in Florida" <NotInThisLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
news:2hsh401f8pnaahj388tsi3b3fqfsoefn3l@4ax.com...
Shows how stupid you guys are. We will never use military action
in N Korea. Doing so would be devastating to S.Korea. A
crazy man who thinks he's a God with nukes and one of the
largest armies in the world lined up on the S Korea border is looking
for a reason to use them. Seoul would be leveled.
Even Bush is smart enough to know that.

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 13:51:34 -0800, "TomH" <tlhumm@Nospamotmail.com>
wrote:


You, obviously, don't have a clue about the US Military...

North Korea would be about a month war...at best...



Scott in Florida

Scott in Florida wrote:

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 18:05:48 -0500, "Jonathan" <jsmerk@aol.com> wrote:

this group is for toyota related subjects how about posting this stuff
in the group it should be in.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 18:24:16 -0500, LeNoXx <spamtrap@nomail.org>
wrote:

How about pounding sand...??


Scott in Florida

Scott in Florida wrote:

Yeah about a month, then "Mission Accomplished!"

In article <nmrh401vhrm8pqu75sas69hmtg7i6mm401@4ax.com>,
will <will@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:

I'd like to think that way too, but trouble is it doesnt work, sad, but
true. All these folks know is force. Talk does not carry weight. I
really wish they would be reasonable with the whole world, not just the
U.S.

One exception, Libya. I'm impressed with what they have done. They
will be an example, I hope.

Dale
--

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 23:49:45 GMT, Tom <sg7188@snet.net> wrote:

You bet!!!

Now you are starting to get the picture...


Scott in Florida

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 18:05:48 -0500, "Jonathan" <jsmerk@aol.com> wrote:

nope... the only way it would last a month is if we stopped for a week
or so to enjoy ourselves...


Scott in Florida

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 13:28:07 -0800, Eric Dreher <ericd|@cox.net>
wrote:

Idiot.

Gee, it's REAL surprising that the "bad guys" dislike a president who
thinks he's the "tough guy" who is free to invade anyone he wants,
EVEN THOUGH the United Nations and world at-large agree it's a BAD
idea.

People who think that's the basis of electing a president are just not
worth spit.

It's NOT OUR JOB, NOR OUR RIGHT, NOR A GOOD IDEA, to invade every
stinking place in the world where a "bad guy" is in charge!

Anyone for Muslim extremists ruling in Iraq once we leave? Oh no,
THAT will never happen. Good job, Bush!

Who
Would
Osama
Vote
For
?

Never forget 9/11/2001

Everything changed after that day. If you are not American and hate us,
that is fine. If you are American and hate us, that's treason.

An American President must have the well-being of his people first, not the
political games played by UN and one-world advocates.

Whether John Kerry and his ilk are capable or willing to pursue those who
attacked us is debatable. What is not debatable is the necessity to show
the terrorists they picked on the wrong people. To stop now would bring
them back with more furor. Once you've got your enemy down you don't let
them back up. That would be suicide.

badgolferman wrote:

There was only one terrorist in Iraq, now there are hundreds.

Scott in Florida wrote:

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 20:42:05 -0500, "badgolferman"
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@yahoo.com> wrote:

Get it through your head, dimwit. There's other criteria for who
makes the best president besides "let's vote for whomever Osama
dislikes the most". If someone came along who was even more of a
war-monger than Bush, would he suddenly become the guy to lead our
country?

What's 9/11 got to do with invading other countries? Unless you want
to make a case for invading Saudi Arabia, where most all the 9/11
attackers came from?

"Gee, we were lax-enough to let a bunch of assholes with box cutters
hijack some airliners. What should we do? I know, let's invade Iraq!
Duuuuuhhhhhh"

This isn't about hate. It's about doing what's best for America.

Then why isn't he doing something that actually makes us safer against
terrorism, instead of expending all our resources in Iraq?

The 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. What the HELL does our
invading Iraq got to do with deterring future acts of terrorism?

Nonsense. You're just an idiot pulling crap from your rear end.
Yeah, it's SO obvious that "the terrorists" won't mess with us now.
After all, there hasn't been any acts of terrorism in Iraq lately, has
there? The FACT is that we are causing MORE furor, MORE hatred of our
country.

Go after criminals, fine. Get OBL and people like him, fine. But
don't delude yourself into thinking that invading Iraq makes us ANY
safer from terrorist attacks.

We don't have our enemy down. You are delusional.

Your opinions are worthless and wrong.