Shocker! They're incensed.
Here's John Bolton, who will most certianly be indictive of how all the toher little neo-cons will react -- ahem Bill Kristol.
This was Bolten yesterday, just before & after news came that Euna Lee and Laura Ling would be released (via ThinkProgress):
In an interview with AFP today, super-hawk John Bolton attacked Clinton for “negotiating with terrorists” and “rewarding bad behavior“:
He was also spewing his failed neo-con mentality on Fox "news" after news of their impending release (also via ThinkProgress):
“It comes perilously close to negotiating with terrorists,” Bolton told AFP when asked about Bill Clinton’s trip to secure the release of journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee. [...]
“I think this is a very bad signal because it does exactly what we always try and avoid doing with terrorists, or with rogue states in general, and that’s encouraging their bad behavior,” Bolton said.
This was Bolten today in a WaPo Editorial (via Jason Linkins & Salon.com):
While the United States is properly concerned whenever its citizens are abused or held hostage, efforts to protect them should not create potentially greater risks for other Americans in the future. Yet that is exactly the consequence of visits by former presidents or other dignitaries as a form of political ransom to obtain their release. Iran and other autocracies are presumably closely watching the scenario in North Korea. With three American hikers freshly in Tehran's captivity, will Clinton be packing his bags again for another act of obeisance? And, looking ahead, what American hostages will not be sufficiently important to merit the presidential treatment? What about Roxana Saberi and other Americans previously held in Tehran? What was it about them that made them unworthy of a presidential visit? These are the consequences of poorly thought-out gesture politics, however well-intentioned or compassionately motivated. Indeed, the release of the two reporters -- welcome news -- doesn't mitigate the future risks entailed.
The point to be made on the Clinton visit is that the knee-jerk impulse for negotiations above all inevitably brings more costs than its advocates foresee. Negotiating from a position of strength, where the benefits to American interests will exceed the costs, is one thing. Negotiating merely for the sake of it, in the face of palpable recent failures, is something else indeed.
Salon's Alex Koppelman had this to say about Bolton:
Though Clinton secured the two journalists' release, and as of Wednesday morning, they'd been reunited with their families in the U.S., Bolton went even further in other comments. He told Agence France-Presse, for example, that Clinton's trip "comes perilously close to negotiating with terrorists" and adding, "I think this is a win-win for North Korea."
This has been Bolton's stance for some time now -- and it hasn't worked. Indeed, negotiations have. But Bolton wouldn't really know that, because he got himself kicked off the team that took part in six-party talks with North Korea in 2003.read more...