William R. Richardson
The Public Record
It's a good thing. It's a good, important first step, because what it basically means is that North Korea will not be able to harvest any new plutonium for nuclear weapons.
Well, it says that, if you negotiate with the United States -- now, I wish the United States would negotiate with Iran and with Syria and with others -- that you might get a decent deal.
Look, I'm an insurgent candidate. You've got to do things differently. I'm also positive. You know, politicians take themselves too seriously. I am trying to get over the fact that this should be an election not necessarily based on…
Let's focus on a major crisis which is occurring in the Korean Peninsula. They're detonating nuclear weapons. They're shooting missiles. And there's no diplomacy.
Well, that is so absurd. But we shouldn't concentrate on the blame game. The reality is, is, had we not had the agreed framework with North Korea on nuclear weapons, they would maybe have 50 nuclear weapons today.
Having direct talks is not a concession. Having direct talks is -- you can deliver a very tough message by having direct talks.
We need to talk to them about stopping their nuclear weapons development but do it directly. Carrot and stick, not necessarily giving anything up, but by isolating ourselves and saying we're not going to talk to you because you exhibit bad…
It's important that we have a strong sensible policy to deal with it rather than continue refusing to negotiate and talk to North Korea.
Well, they've been hinting at it for a while. I'm really worried about it because I believe that they have hunkered down. They feel that diplomacy is not working. Six-party talks are not working. That the U.S. won't talk to them. It's…
Well, it's awfully dangerous now because what this nuclear weapons test is going to produce is an arms race.
Look, Lebanese government, we're behind you, but you have got to take some steps to either expel Hezbollah or disarm them, that the situation is -- is out of control, and you have to step up.
I wish the administration would have had a permanent presence, a peace envoy. But she's there. And -- and I think it's very important to recognize that the leverage of the United States in that region is very important.
So what you want to do is strong diplomacy backed by an international coalition.
Now the next step is to go to Israel and basically say to the prime minister of Israel in a cooperative fashion, we've got to have a multinational force to at least bring some kind of stability and end to the hostilities and the fighting…
Well, I sure hope so, because what we don't want is continued fighting, instability. The last thing you want is for Syria and Iran to get drawn in.
Well, the reality is what's the alternative? We have not engaged in talks. There haven't been six-party talks. They're shooting missiles. They're destabilizing the region.
I believe that gesture, although undeserved, would get at least some kind of negotiation going on because this is not a military crisis. This is a diplomatic crisis.
I believe we need to -- the United States needs to take the lead. I think we're doing the right thing, going to the security council, getting a statement of condemnation, looking eventually at potential sanctions.
But at the same time I do think they have two or three nuclear weapons. They have the fourth largest army in the world. They have missiles pointed at South Korea.
Well, they are a threat. I saw their nuclear reactor when I was there for talks eight months ago. It's dilapidated. It's not in good shape. I'm not sure their technology is the best. Witness the failure of the long range mission.
I wish they'd consulted with us because what I would have said is, I would have said accelerate the number of Border Patrol agents that you promised us.
I think what you have to do is be realistic. This is going to be a messy problem to resolve, but let's do it efficiently and let's do it in a humane way with a bunch of benchmarks.





