Interesting Guardian link supplied by McGoH, the whole article is well worth the read and covers the story, as opposed to the rather selective passages quoted above.

In another thread regarding President Bush - Lies, Political or Pathological? NicoleC came out with the following:

"Bush has been priviledged, pampered and protected almost all (all?) of his life. Money or friends or Daddy's connections have always bailed him out. I don't think he's ever had to face the consequences of lies or half-truths. And while I don't doubt that intellectually he thinks falsehoods and untruths are wrong, it just doesn't sink in that it applies to HIM."

Substitute Kim Jong-il for GWB and it would fit like a glove.

Nicole, in the same post goes on to liken politicians lying to teenagers lying. First total denial, etc, through to justification for the lie they have been caught out in.

Again it fits the North Korean situation like a glove. The one exception was that having originally denied everything the NK Government owned up knowing that if they didn't their lie would be laid bare to the world. How? - The Guardian article tells us:

"Washington's first step towards getting confirmation of North Korea's weapons programme - during an October 3 visit to Pyongyang by the assistant secretary of state Jim Kelly -was to despatch its envoy to Seoul and Tokyo, and he is presently on his way to Beijing.

Although Mr Kelly arrived armed with US intelligence of North Korea's efforts to produce enriched uranium, it had been expected that Pyongyang would respond in the traditional fashion: by stonewalling and denial.

On the first day of consultations the North Koreans did exactly that, but they returned the next morning and acknowledged the programme, evidently with the approval of their leader, Kim Jong-il."

Now I expect that this US Intelligence has been gathered by the same organisations that gathered the US Intelligence somewhere else, the same intelligence that so many in this forum have been pouring cold water on from the minute it was published???? Hmmmmmm?? as Bobert would say.

The Guardian article also defines the agreement as follows:

"North Korea is acknowledged to have grounds for complaint about the slow implementation of the 1994 agreement to supply two light water nuclear reactors for peaceful use in return for a freeze on its own programme.

The first reactor was due to be completed next year, but 2008 is now thought to be the earliest feasible date.

But the delay cannot justify the open breach of non-nuclear commitments made repeatedly to other countries as well as to the US."