fidget wrote: 
 
Making an accusation like that to a Guardian reader is fighting talk, mister 
 
 

Perhaps I should've expressed myself more clearly....

 hobiejoe wrote: 
Ah, I see, you read the Daily Mail, that explains everything. I like a balanced view

 fidget wrote: 
 
No, that would be the Daily Mail 

 hobiejoe wrote:

Yup, The Grauniad has it too:
 

 
 

"Tensions on the Korean peninsula are surging tonight after a South Korean navy ship with 104 crew members on board sank off the coast of North Korea following an unexplained explosion, according to the South Korean Yonhap news agency.

A second South Korean ship reportedly fired at an unidentified vessel sailing away from the area towards North Korea. The South Korean government convened an emergency meeting of security chiefs, as Seoul investigated whether the stricken vessel had been struck by a torpedo from a North Korean craft...more

If the stories that are circulating that N Korea was involved in this are true, this could really spell big trouble for a lot of people.


Link

 hippiechick wrote: 

 kurtster wrote: 
My mother used to say "Those Zylberbergs are such social climbers!"

 hippiechick wrote: 

Ya, Joel is the late Sen. Howard Metzembaum's son in law.  He founded Hyatt Legal Clinics here in Cleveland, one of the first of its kind. He got big time and boogied from Cleveland. 

 Zep wrote: 
 musiclife wrote: 
If Kim stated terms where the presence of Bill Clinton was mandatory, and the hostages then asked for the presence of Bill Clinton, does Clinton's presence serve the will of the hostages at least as much as that of Kim?  From what I can see, the mission (getting the hostages home) was accomplished without giving a tyrant (Kim) one inch.  I'm fine with that.  From what I see, this was done correctly...ethically, morally and legally, every bit as much as Iran/Contra was done wrong.

 cc_rider wrote: 
  I calls 'em as I see 'em...

 Servo wrote: 

I've read several articles that say that Kim specifically asked for Bill Clinton..
That's the version I believe.... from the sources that I've read..
 Of course, you can believe any version you choose. Whatever...

 Servo wrote: 
I read that Dear Leader himself asked for President Clinton.

 Servo wrote: 
Fair enough. Sounds reasonable to me. I just hadn't read anything about the process. Nice Rev. Jackson reference though!

 Servo wrote: 
Hey Servo! Nice to see you again.

My former childhood next door neighbor, Joel Zylberberg, now Hyatt, is his partner.

 musiclife wrote: 
I was proud to see Al Gore by Bill Clinton's side.  Great Symmetry there!

(FYI— for those who don't know, the hostages work for Gore's TV network.)

 cc_rider wrote: 
First of all, the hostages requested Bill Clinton.  That came directly from the captive hostages, not the White House, and not Bill Clinton.

Although President Clinton was quoted as saying that he went "because President Obama asked" him to do so, there is no evidence that Clinton was in any way an official US emissary.  His plane did not come from the SAM inventory.

When it comes to matters of protocol and hot-button international affairs, I would expect a former POTUS to discuss the matter with the sitting POTUS, and only go with the sitting President's blessing.  (ie. Bill Clinton is not Jesse Jackson )  But it's pretty clear from the news that Obama didn't send Clinton to make a deal.  In fact, all parties were mighty emphatic that nothing whatsoever was traded for the hostages.  (ie. Barack Obama is not Ronald Reagan.)

 steeler wrote: 
While I do not question the tactic or the results, I wonder how involved Pres. Obama was in the process. Did he go to Bill and ask him to do it, or did Bill just jump on a plane and go? Ex-Prezzes have been known to 'go rogue', for better and for worse, I'm just wondering. Obviously I have not read any of the media about the incident.

Regardless, stiller's analysis seems pretty much on target. Give the spoiled brat KJI just enough attention to keep him from throwing a dangerous tantrum, but not enough to make him think he's a serious player.

Sending Bill, instead of, say, Joe, gives the situation just the right amount of credibility.

There are some back story details reported today.

The two journalists were allowed to periodically call home from their prison in North Korea.  Before one of those calls, the Koreans told the women that they would be granted amnesty if Bill Clinton would come get them.  That was passed along, eventually to Al Gore, then to Clinton, who coordinated the trip with the White House.  Apparently, Kim specifically asked for the former president.

The Americans had to work with the Chinese, Japanese, and Russians to provide assurances that Clinton's trip would not turn into a bilateral discussion on Kim's nuclear program.  There would have been precious little time and no preparation for such talks anyway.  Clinton did bring up the topic of South Korean citizens who have been kidnapped to the north. 

For now, it looks like very little political capital was spent.  Photos of a former US president and the current North Korean dictator were no doubt spread across the world, and domestically, Kim can pretty much do or say anything he wants with it.  He has not yet asked for any quid pro quo, although resumption of the six-party talks is high on the list of potential considerations.

As Kurt mentioned below, the trip provides a fascinating peek behind the door into North Korea, and everybody who went along will have much to report.  No doubt Kim realised this, and considered that his gain, whatever that may be, would outweigh that.

 musiclife wrote: 
He is DA MAN!!!!!!!!