Bloodless Coup

I saw this today as well, and was thinking about blogging on it, but you beat me to it. One of the hardest things to discuss in international politics is the idea of "credibility". It's not easily measurable, nor is it easily clear what having a lot will do for you (and, conversely, what having none will do for you). I can't prove that continued US "mis-statements" (or "lies" if you prefer a more loaded term) will make it harder for the US to achieve it's stated goals (less nukes; in particular, less North Korean and Iranian nukes). However, that same article noted that:

The United States briefed allies on North Korea in late January and early February. Shortly afterward, administration officials, speaking to The Washington Post on the condition of anonymity, said North Korea had sold uranium hexafluoride to Libya. The officials said the briefing was arranged to share the information with China, South Korea and Japan ahead of a new round of hoped-for negotiations on North Korea's nuclear program.

But in recent days, two other U.S. officials said the briefings were hastily arranged after China and South Korea indicated they were considering bolting from six-party talks on North Korea. The talks have been seen as largely ineffectual, but the Bush administration, which refuses to meet bilaterally with Pyongyang, insists they are critical to curbing North Korea's nuclear program. (Emphasis added)

The key here is that the present US policy (six party talks) were in danger of collapse (Korth Korea walked out and South Korea and China were threatening to), so the US showed China and SK that North Korea was even more dangerous (sold material to Libya). Now that everyone knows that we were not telling the truth, what are the odds that the six-party talks will ever start up again? It's about credibility. We have very little with respect to this issue, and it clearly hurts our ability to push our prefered policy.