but first, some stipulations
Let's get this out of the way up front: I'm sure Bush's defenders are going to be all, "It's Clinton's fault, because he appeased them in 1994, yadda yadda yadda." Maybe--maybe--they have a point. But that isn't really the question anymore. Dubya has been in charge for two years now, and it's time to ask what his administration is doing. In short, debating the origins of a particular situation is all fine, but that debate tends to obscure scrutiny of how the Administration is addressing it. And as we'll see, I think the Bush administration's Korea policy--or perhaps more accurately, its conspicuous lack of one--is a national embarrassment and profoundly damaging to the interests of the United States and the world.
And I'm going to draw another line, an echo of a sentiment I've seen expressed in the lefty blogosphere. While I think Bush's policies are ripe for criticism, I'm not happy the Administration is screwing up so I have more to grouse about. I don't want the Administration to enact bad policy so I have something to criticize--I don't want the Administration to enact bad policy. I have little doubt that the next two years will do much to lower the public's opinion of Bush, but I'm genuinely distressed at the bad policy his team is going to enact in the process.
Should the Democrats be "obstructionist"--that is, do all they can to block a Bush agenda that they, and a substatntial number of Americans--oppose--in the meantime? You betcha.