Bolton was not successful at the UN because he does not really believe in the power of diplomacy to solve problems. He is Cheney with a broomstick mustache! It comes down to whether you believe that the US should bully other countries into submission, or try the diplomatic route. We can see today which one gets results that voters care deeply about– Remember that Reagan rode into office on Jimmy Carter's failed diplomatic initiative to free the hostages in Iran.

Its not the most important issue, but it certainly beats listening to nonstop coverage of the Michael Jackson funeral and custody battles. The journalists were just released today- so I'm not getting the point of overhyping the story in the media.

Actually, nobody should overreact to Bolton (much less insist on the opposite of what he is saying that is correct), but ponder to what extent it is a legitimate objection (Bolton was the object of constant idiotic, unwarranted, wrongful attacks by aging “peace” fools, earlier, don't forget) and to what extent it is, say, like what Charles Krauthammer might still say in a neo-con sense. Also bear in mind that when the two journalists were first arrested, there was nauseating hype, and there was overreaction at their release that involved additional hype.

I still wonder what other, far more serious and deserving, issues are being discussed secretly.

What we should take home as a lesson from all this is that the world's most insane faction at present, N. Korea, is merely a reflection of the overall general opinion of other countries less likely to have the balls to confront us like N. Korea does. They are like the teenage rebel in a large family of folks that have the same opinion. That opinion is: the enemy is not America, it is the GOP. As long as we elect the GOP into positions of power, we should expect costly wars, loss of life and general strife among the world community with its various predictable and unpredictable members. To put it in terms Wallstreet can understand: GOP leadership means hard time$ on the world scene. The days of allowing unfettered plundering of other country's resources at their expense by american fatcats are rapidly coming to an end. Diplomacy and courtesy are the new trends that will win friends and profitable economic ties. Invading countries like drunken cowboys rustling cattle will be tales we will tell our grandchildren who will sit in awe that we lived through such times.

Clinton wasn't negotiating with an “almost” terrorist- but with a moronic maniac!

So the alternative, not negotiating with terrorists (or “almost” terrorists, in this case) and having US citizens in hard labor is better?

I guess it's a matter of perspective. I'm sure that many in the Kim Jung Il regime would find any place OTHER than North Korea the scariest place on the planet.

I would agree that is absurd. First it wasn't Clinton negotiating. As someone said he lent his “Star Power” to it and capped it off but there was a done deal before Clinton arrived. Sure there is an issue with looking weak and almost inviting people to take advantage but you can't let the concern for that trap you into doing nothing. There has to be a middle ground and here it looks like the NK's got some attention and press, and a little respect, and that's all. No big payout which would/could be considered detrimental to US interests

But Bill Clinton has always been one of my heroes- despite his womanizing and his narcissism. He looked at what he didn't accomplish in his presidency and has tried to remedy that in his ex-presidency. I would like to see him used in other situations which demand high-level diplomatic skill.

They probably know that, but they have their own preferences and objectives, as do, say, the Iranians.