President Bush argued this week that his multilateral approach to North Korea was better than Bill Clinton’s bilateral dealings. “You have a better diplomatic hand with others, sending the message, than you do when you’re alone,” he said. But as the Washington Post reported, the reality is more complicated than that. The Bush administration policy would include bilateral negotiations on some issues, while the Clinton negotiations were more multilateral than Bush and conservative critics suggest.
Columnist Tom Teepen argued in our Opinion pages that “blame Clinton” has become the administration’s new North Korea policy. He wrote: “Here is Bush, almost six years into his presidency, nearly three-fourths through his two terms, and it’s the guy who hasn’t been president for six years who is supposedly to blame.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- DorisKing on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
57 Comments
Well, what did you expect?
Did I miss something somewhere?
Could someone please show me where Bush actually blamed Clinton and is using this as his North Korea Policy?
You call this journalism Phillip?
You might have a future with the Tabloids at this rate…
So let me figure this out. North Korea gets nukes from Pakistan. The money for the nukes is provided by Saudi Arabia. Bush tells the CIA that investigating the Saudi money trail is off limits. Therefore it’s Clinton’s fault.
Or Clinton signs a deal with North Korea requiring nuclear inspectors to monitor North Korea’s use of nuclear materials. Bush alters the agreement saying nuclear inspectors are no longer required. Therefore it’s Clinton’s fault Bush altered the agreement.
Only the weak minded continue to buy the Clinton excuse.
“Could someone please show me where Bush actually blamed Clinton and is using this as his North Korea Policy?”
So, Nathan, do you agree that blaming Clinton for the current debacle (and everything else) is the last refuge of the weak-minded?
I’ll gladly give the man his share of blame for anything that he actually did, but the constant rightwing chorus of blame-shifting gets a little old.
Well, Nathan. It may seem you did miss something somewhere, namely the current news analysis, from pundits like: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20061012/cm_ucac/clintonsnewglowjob;_ylt=AhVw.5wSuxoMxe_JJGT34tb9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-
I know, as a foot soldier, questioning the will of the Emperor is tantamount to mutiny, so I don’t expect it from you.
I always said for the last four years, the Bush administration won’t be able to blame Clinton ad infitum, and will some day have to accept responsibility for the state of the nation, guess I stand corrected!
Thanks Roo. I had also heard much the same thing from Hannity on his radio shoe.
After all, if they can blame Clinton for Foley they can blame Clinton for anything!
Everyone see todd’s article. Playing the fear card, fight em there, so they won’t come here (guess bush unequivocally told them the rules), lip service to border security. He’s a dyed in the wool bushie.
Some Reps deserting their sinking ship:
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/10/13/bush-is-said-to-have-no-plan-if-gop-loses/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawstory.com%2Fshowoutarticle.php%3Fsrc%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.usnews.com%2Fusnews%2Fnews%2Farticles%2F061013%2F13bush.htm&frame=true
Bush Is Said to Have No Plan if GOP LosesBy Kenneth T. Walsh
Posted 10/13/06
Some Republican strategists are increasingly upset with what they consider the overconfidence of President Bush and his senior advisers about the midterm elections November 7–a concern aggravated by the president’s news conference this week.
“They aren’t even planning for if they lose,” says a GOP insider who informally counsels the West Wing. If Democrats win control of the House, as many analysts expect, Republicans predict that Bush’s final two years in office will be marked by multiple congressional investigations and gridlock.
“The Bush White House has had no relationship with Congress,” said a Bush ally. “Beyond the Democrats, wait till they see how the Republicans–the ones that survive–treat them if they lose next month.” GOP insiders are upset by Bush’s seeming inability to come up with new ideas or fresh approaches. There is even a heightened sensitivity to the way Bush talks about advisers who served his father.
At the president’s news conference on Wednesday, allies of his father complained that the president seemed dismissive of former Secretary of State James Baker, who remains close to his dad and is cochairman of a bipartisan panel studying the war in Iraq.
“I think it’s good to have some of our elder statesmen–I hate to call Baker an elder statesman–but to go over there and take a look, and to come back and make recommendations,” Bush said. Baker fans felt this made the former secretary seem part of a bygone era. There is also considerable criticism of Bush for making little or no news in his 63-minute encounter with the press.
“He had nothing to say at the press conference,” says a prominent GOP insider. “My question is, why call it?”
And a linked article from that one …
GOP’s conservative and liberal wings at war heading into ‘06 campaign
President Bush has been trying to maintain a united Republican Party amid flagging conservative support and a split with the GOP’s liberal wing.
The two wings are so far apart that party strategists no longer envision a united front for the November congressional elections. The strategists said many of the liberals, already alienated from the White House, have been campaigning as opponents of the president in an effort to win re-election as part of an expected Democratic Party sweep of Congress.
”I think we’ve lost our way,” said Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican and possible presidential contender in 2008. ”And I think the Republicans are going to be in some jeopardy for that and will be held accountable.”
The key leaders of the GOP’s liberal wing have been Mr. Hagel and Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut. Mr. Shays, who faces a tough Democrat challenge for re-election, has told supporters that he would become one of the most powerful members of Congress should the Democrats win.
“If I’m in the minority,” Mr. Shays, chairman of the House Government Reform subcommittee on national security, emerging threats and international relations, said earlier this year, “I’ll be one of the most powerful members of Congress.”
As a result, Mr. Shays, who concluded a visit to Iraq last week, has broken with Mr. Bush and supports a Pentagon withdrawal timetable from Iraq.
He has blamed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for the Iraq war amid plans to hold three House hearings titled “Iraq: Democracy or Civil War.”
“I haven’t had faith in the secretary for a long time,” Mr. Shays said. “I believe huge mistakes were made in disbanding the [Iraqi] army, the police and the border patrol.”
Ryan Sager, a New York Post columnist, has published a book that argues that Mr. Bush’s agenda has split the GOP. Entitled “The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party,” Mr. Sager says Mr. Bush’s promotion of bigger government combined with evangelical Christian values has separated Republican support in the traditional South from what he termed “leave me alone states” such as Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico and Nevada.
Mr. Sager said Mr. Bush has attracted a new breed of Republicans, whom he termed big government conservatives. He said this group is mostly female, southern, religious, and seeks solutions from government.
“If the Republican Party is no longer the party of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, limited government, or fiscal restraint, then what is it?” asked the Cato Institute, which hosts Mr. Sager next week. “And what’s a self-respecting, small-government, fiscally conservative, socially liberal voter supposed to do?”
In 2006, the GOP’s liberal wing has so far joined with the Democrats in blocking conservative-drafted legislation that would bolster the U.S. military presence in Iraq, halt illegal immigration, and aim at energy independence and health care reforms. Republican liberals also joined with Democrats against a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.
“The dirty little secret is the liberal faction on Capitol Hill already outnumbers the conservative forces on many crucial issues, including immigration reform, energy independence, reasonable environmental regulation, health reform and federal spending,” Mike Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, wrote in a recent analysis.
In the House, about 35 Republican members have joined the Democratic minority to block the conservative agenda. The GOP liberals have been effective in maintaining the moratorium on drilling for oil and natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf and in expanding the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency at a time when the United States remains threatened by a gasoline shortage.
“Republicans need to step forward and regain the conservative wing of the party that stands for fiscal responsibility, individual freedoms and protection of America’s reputation and its borders,” Newt Gingrich said in a report entitled “Thinking About November.” “The party has been an abysmal failure on all points for the last 12 years. The only reason they have not lost is due to the inability of the Democrats to come together as centrists.”
As a result, conservatives have become increasingly suspicious of GOP sincerity. A Pew Research Center survey reported that 47 percent—an eight percent drop—regard the Republican Party as friendly to religion. Christian evangelists and Catholics have been the GOP’s leading constituents.
“The Republicans had done a good job of mobilizing those two groups in 2004 and that may be cooling a bit now,” Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center said.
Mr. Bush has acknowledged the split in the GOP. On Aug. 21, the president said he was troubled that so many U.S. House and Senate candidates were calling for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.
“There are a lot of good decent people saying ‘Get out now. Vote for me, I’ll do everything I can to cut off money,’” Mr. Bush said.
Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican and expected 2008 presidential candidate, has determined that the November elections will mark a referendum on the administration’s policy on Iraq. Mr. McCain, who has been campaigning for a range of GOP candidates, said the administration underestimated the U.S.-led military mission to stabilize Iraq and end the insurgency war.
”Most of the time we know these elections are local, but it’s beginning to look more like some of them may be global as far as they are impacted by Iraq,” Mr. McCain said. ”We’ve got to fight hard. We’ve got to win. We need to keep both houses of Congress. This is a very tough election coming up.”—–
It is a shame that we have an administration that will never accept responsibility for any thing that happen under their watch. This administration has six years to come up with something tangible assuming the last administration failed. I guessed what we see is what we get, better luck at the poll next time.
How many among us said after the infamous Axis of Evil SOTU speech, that Iran and N.K. would get the message that it is better to have the Nukes, than be invaded. I know I did, of course Bushies will just call “Monday Night Quarterbacking”, but did they actually expect Iran and N.K. to take a number and wait for their turn to be “freed”?
Clinton = no North Korean nukesBush = North Korea with nukes
Yep, it’s all Clinton’s fault.
The party of responsibility.The adults are in charge.
Ad Nauseum.
And don’t forget that in 2002 Bush removed the requirement for inspections for US aid.
I won’t blame this all on Clinton even though the first 3 articles here are less than favorable. The fourth points out this goes back to 1980.Was it Phillip who asked the other day what will the world look like or what will our problems be in 25 years with a stance of indifference.My point being that in the Middle East as well as N. Korea that is what we are paying for and dealing with now. 20-25 years at least of indifference and/or failed policy.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/7/164846.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/18/192530.shtml
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5368
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/91-141.htm
You people are hilarious.
Appeasers = No war with Hitler
Non-appeasers = War with Hitler
Capitulation = Peacemaker
Clinton capitulates to NK and appeases their extortion as such he gets to appear as a great peacemaker.
You have already seen the appeasers posted here. Well Kim wants bilateral talks, we should give it to him. Kim didn’t want nukes, he hated them, wanted no part of them but WE FORCED THEM UPON HIM, when Bush called him a tyrant and part of the Axis of Evil.
Yep ol Kim had no nuke ambitions till Bush showed up. The day of the Axis of Evil speech, that was when Kim started on his nuke research, started from scratch THAT VERY DAY. Pretty good work accomplished in 5 years for a country that lets its people starve and has no electricy after 9:00 pm.
By FORCING the food on Kim, we MADE him feed his military while his people starved.
Clinton decimates the Military, decimates the CIA, keeps high taxes and has a surplus in the budget, oooohhhhh that must have been REAL difficult.
If I decided not to have some of the expenses in my budget, I wonder if I’d have a surplus too? Hhhmmmm
I’ll say it again, since I have yet to see any response.
Bush had 7 months, to deal with OBL, Clinton had 7 YEARS! 7 YEARS!
Will I be seeing the same posting from you all, when in September of 09, something happens on Billary’s watch or will it all be, well Bush should have done this and Bush should have done that.
And Yes, they are both part of an axis of evil. Give the President credit for calling a spade a spade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea
Wikipedia? The encyclopedia anybody can write anything in? Richard Crowson’s cartoons have more credibility, and that’s no slight to Richard. Hell, you might as well quote Ann Coulter.
Prefer the UN?Or how about Amnesty International?
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/7/a/mira.htm
http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/prk-summary-eng
N Korea is a horrible despotic regime. So what else is new? US ally Saudi Arabia ain’t really great either. The fact is that only one president in recent history ever cared about Human Rights in his international dealings; the Right crucified him for it.
Gene: thanks for proving yet again that the right has nothing, NOTHING to offer other than “Clinton’s Fault! Clinton’s Fault!”
Its actually quite pathetic that the people who have run the country as a one-party state for the last five years are reduced to blaming a guy who has been out of office for five years for EVERYTHING. This tactic serves as confirmation that the right-wing is utterly bankrupt, and deserves to be run out of Washington on a rail.
ddub – they do have something other than “Clinton’s Fault! Clinton’s Fault!” They have “Monica! Monica!”
THE TRUTH FROM A GUY WHO WAS ACTUALLY THERE:Behind Enemy ReactorsBy JON B. WOLFSTHALWashington
I CELEBRATED New Year’s in 1996 by drinking cheap sparkling wine at the Yongbyon nuclear center, where North Korea produced the plutonium for its first nuclear test. Like dozens of dedicated civil servants, I served as an “on-site monitor” under the 1994 United States-North Korean nuclear agreement known as the Agreed Framework.Those of us who served as monitors are proud of what we accomplished. I am not alone in being concerned that many commentators and government officials are trying to lay the blame for at least some of the current nuclear crisis at the feet of the previous administration’s efforts to end North Korea’s nuclear program. These allegations have little bearing on the facts and minimize the contribution of the Americans who served their country in dangerous circumstances.In 1994, the situation with North Korea had become so fraught that the Clinton administration was considering military strikes to prevent North Korea from extracting plutonium from spent nuclear fuel at Yongbyon. At the time, North Korea might have had enough plutonium, produced in 1989, to build one or two nuclear devices. The fuel being discharged contained enough plutonium for five to six additional weapons.Last-ditch talks between former President Jimmy Carter and President Kim Il-sung of North Korea defused the crisis and led to the framework. The deal, which helped us avoid a military conflict that could have destroyed Seoul, froze Pyongyang’s plutonium program; eventually, it could have led to North Korea abandoning its nuclear efforts in exchange for diplomatic recognition by the United States and economic incentives.In 2002, however, American intelligence agencies confirmed that North Korea was trying to acquire a uranium enrichment program in violation of the deal. But instead of working within the framework to get North Korea to abandon its nuclear efforts, the Bush administration terminated the agreement altogether. It also began arguing for regime change.In jettisoning the framework, the administration jettisoned something of great diplomatic value. A key part of the agreement was the willingness of North Korea to let Americans — with whom they were legally at war — into their nuclear center to secure plutonium-bearing fuel rods for internationally monitored storage. In other words, the framework put Americans behind enemy lines.As you might imagine, the daily circumstances were nothing short of insane. Assigned to North Korea for a month or so at a time, we were put up in a hastily constructed cement “guest house” a half-mile from the most secret nuclear site in North Korea. The 10 people on each rotation were watched by armed guards; our rooms were monitored at all times. No phone calls home or outside communication was possible. When I was there in the winter of 1996, temperatures at night hit 30 below. To get to work every day, we would pass through no fewer than four police and military checkpoints, some with machine-gun nests. The site itself was highly unsafe and radioactive and would have been shut down by safety officials in seconds had it operated in the United States.Those who took the assignment left families and friends behind and bounced between acute stress and extreme boredom. Some read to escape the monotony, some played cards. I “borrowed” an International Atomic Energy Agency VCR to watch movies. We all knew that at any moment, should the political winds change, we would be hostages deep in hostile territory with no American embassy to protect us. But we took the job to make our country more secure and to pursue an end to North Korea’s nuclear program.Now that North Korea claims to have tested a nuclear device, administration supporters and commentators are seeking to blame the framework for all our problems.They should look elsewhere. Without the framework’s freeze, North Korea would have immediately acquired enough plutonium to produce more nuclear weapons and would have completed construction of two much larger weapon production reactors. By now, North Korea would have been capable of producing 20 nuclear weapons per year.The prolonged freeze on North Korea’s production and nuclear construction delayed the acquisition of nuclear materials — and it appears to have prevented North Korea from completing the larger reactors. The testing of a nuclear device by Pyongyang was pushed back at least a decade.
Those of us who served in North Korea risked our personal safety and comfort for our country. We protected America from danger and our efforts delayed the onset of the nuclear crisis we now face. To argue otherwise is to play politics with history.
Jon B. Wolfsthal, who monitored North Korea’s nuclear program for the United States, is a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Gene, you claimed Clinton crippled the military and the CIA. This is despite Clinton upgrading the US military with modern hardware. This despite the US military easily winning a decisive victory in the former Yugoslavia. However Bush has lost two wars to Afghanistan that only had a militia, and Iraq that was already occupied and didn’t have much of a military. It was Bush who fired any general who wouldn’t do what the administration wanted, namely go in with a weaker force than necessary.
The CIA was left relatively untouched under Clinton. However under Bush the people in charge were either fired or demoted while Bush placed his yes men in position. The CIA was told to avoid investigating anything that trailed back to Saudi Arabia, the main source for funding anti-american terrorism. Clinton increased the counter terrorism funding for the CIA, Bush cut it.
I have no idea where you get your information from, probably from the same place Paul does. Are you just Paul posting under a different name or are all you shrills just playing from the same bag of misinformation?
Did you say we’ve lost the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Doug, see the 911 commission report ref CIA.
Ddub, you still have made no response to my posting. The only response you have is that YOU HATE BUSH.
That will be why the Dems will not gain the majority this year. That is why John “effen” Kerry lost in 04.
If the Dems had spent the first 4 years of Bush’s administration spelling out EXACTLY what they would have accomplished or done different, then Kerry might have stood a chance, instead of WE HATE BUSH, WE HATE BUSH, so you should to.
Don’t tell me that you are going to do things different and better then say, but I’m not going to tell you, unless you vote for me, that was just plain stupid.
As much as I despise Bella Pelosi, I at least have the respect for her pointing out what the Dems plan on doing the first 100 hours, even though I don’t agree with it.
Don’t just say Bush is wrong and leave it at that. At least I point out the items when I say that I DO put the OBL and NK problem in Billy’s lap.
So what has Bush done wrong in regards to NK? Other than stop bilateral talks and insisting on bringing NK’s neighbors in for the talks AND stopping the extortion.
With your line of thinking about the Axis of Evil speech, then Venezuala would have been wiped off the map by now for what Chavez had to say about OUR president. But no, all you see is that he bad mouthed a president that you don’t like, so that is okay.
What is the Dems plan for NK now? What will a majority in congress and Dem president going to do about NK? If it is better than what Bush is doing, I’ll listen and make up my own mind.
Nathan,
“Could someone please show me where Bush actually blamed Clinton and is using this as his North Korea Policy?
You call this journalism Phillip?”——
Instead of attacking Phillip, do some research.
See the WH press release link at,
‘AP, NBC repeated Bush’s claim that Clinton’s North Korea policy “didn’t work,” ignored that it halted plutonium production’http://mediamatters.org/items/200610120017
Analysis, timelines, etc at,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/dear-leader-brings-it-on_b_31455.html
I want to toss out a question that I have been concerned with for years. I favor nuclear power as a substitute for fossil fuels. How can we foster its development whime at the same time preventing things like this? (or Chernobyls)?
Ben,
I’ve read that even light-water reactors pose a weapons risk. Seems to just be the ‘nature of the beast’?
Study at http://www.oilendgame.com (free PDF download) points out that nuclear isn’t cost competitive. See page 258 (PDF pg 282 of 332) thru 260.For example,”In round numbers, electricity from new light-water reactors will cost twice as much as from new windfarms, five to ten times as much as distributed gas-fired cogeneration or trigeneration in buildings and factories (net of the credit for their recovered heat), and three to thirty times as much as end-use efficiency that can save most of the electricity now used.”—-
Also, uranium supply is finite, and mining and transporting it produces greenhouse gases (unless switch to H2 power, or something?)
Sorry Gene, you inability in reading comprehension is not my failure:
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1160100.htm
Clinton had to set up an counter terrorism effort against AlQuada essentially from scratch since the previous administrations had no counter terrorism policies. Clinton did increase the counter terrorism budget, an issue which you just ignored (a sign of lack of an argument). 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch, not Clinton’s and is merely a microcosm of the entire CIA program.
So why not support your claims rather than just dismiss any criticism? Yes, you are like Paul, you make baseless statements without supporting them. Someone find me a conservative with a brain.
Gene–
Thanks so much for posting.
It lets all the folks out there see the difference between the right-wing (”nothing is ever our fault!”) and the left-wing which is rational.
Clinton made a number of stupid blunders as president. One was getting involved with Monica Lewinsky obviously. Even that didn’t have to be such a huge mess if she hadn’t been illegally tape recorded by the worst “friend” ever, Linda Tripp. Remember, Monica never wanted to go public with the affair, she was sold-out by a winger that she trusted.
Typical.
Clinton also failed miserably by supporting NAFTA which directly led to the immigration problems we have today.
He kept US troops in Saudi Arabia which continued to infuriate what would become Al Qaeda.
BTW, Gene, it is totally unfair of you to blame Clinton saying he had “7 years” to get Osama. Osama was a minor figure when the first WTC occurred. Nobody knew about him then.
Bush has had just as much time to “get Osama” as Clinton had.
And at least Clinton tried. Bush isn’t even trying anymore.
Bush has never tried anything but push his greed through whenever he could. He has helped his oil rich buddies – that’s for sure.
I don’t know that we can trust a president who can’t pronounce the word “nuclear” to do anything about a problem involving weapons of that variety. I imagine the ‘football’ they carry around is a fake, just in case he decides to play Cowboys and Islamofascists down on the ol’ Crawford Ranch. That’s on the days they don’t play “Bushies and Clintons.”
I find it interesting that Americans blame a particular party for action or inaction, yet do not hold the rest of the world accountable for anything.
We are after all, not the only house on the block. We don’t even live in that part of the World neighborhood.
Maybe we should let the North Koreans die from exposure of Global Warming. That is what is going to happen, isn’t it? I mean they have no enforcement of pollution control devices. All those gases escaping from such a small space on the planet’s surface is liable to create some hole in the ozone layer correct?
Do you think they have someone that monitor’s their water supply as well? I mean, besides the raw sewage trickly along sides their roadways and in their towns.
I bet the North Koreans don’t have much of a terrorist problem with Muslims. Perhaps we should ask them about what they do for border control. You don’t suppose they racially profile do you?
How far does one have to drive from Pyongyang, North Korean to get to a McDonald’s or a Walmart?
If North and South Korean were divided up during the Cold War era and that era has ended, has anyone told the North Koreans the Cold War is over?
I wonder if Americans knew about the forced abortion camps in North Korean if they would still feel the same way about abortion in the U.S.?
What would really trouble Americans about North Korea is that the TV’s and Radio’s don’t have any tuners, there are just on and off switches.
And of course, we wouldn’t be blogging in North Korea because they have not Internet access.
Capn,”Bush has had just as much time to “get Osama” as Clinton had.”
And a hell of a lot more reason. Bush said we’d get him. Dead or alive. Now all we hear from the whiners is that Clinton didn’t get Usama.
Bush I and Ronnie didn’t get him either.
Shut up all of you! It’s painfully obvious that it’s George Washington’s fault for not getting Bin Laden!!!
This is so typical of American culture, when sh*t happens, blame somebody else!
I do blame Clinton, so do an awful lot of people.The agreement that Korea ignored, from the beginning, was brokered by Carter for Clinton.What was Bush supposed to do when he came to office? We were fairly certain that North Korea was cheating on the agreement, but how could we prove it and why would anyone listen to America after Clinton and Carter cut the legs out from under a UN response favored by Hans Blix?
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
A very large number of international observers blame Clinton for the North Korea mess, but, again, I don’t hear George W. Bush or his cabinet members saying, directly, “It was Clintons fault.”How is ANY President supposed to change a deal brokered by a former President?Not until now, when North Korea proved to the world that they had been lying, were we really in a position do do anything.
I am no great fan of John McCain, but I think he should be listened to on Asian policy:http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/10/mccain.clinton.ap/index.html
“What was Bush supposed to do when he came to office? We were fairly certain that North Korea was cheating on the agreement, but how could we prove it.”
Oh, let’s all have a big pity party for W . . . Clinton got him into such a bad bind that THERE WAS NO WAY OUT.
Clinton’s plan had inspectors. Bush’s plan got rid of the inspectors. No inspectors–make plutonium.
Pretty simple really . . .
You lie so consistently that Satan wears a bracelet: WWPRD . . .
Priceless …
This is so typical of American culture, when sh*t happens, blame somebody else!
Posted by: Will | October 14, 2006 at 07:35 PM
I do blame Clinton, so do an awful lot of people.
“The council’s go-ahead for the inspection of cargo gave broader global scope to the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative launched in 2003 which urges countries to stop banned weapons from suspect countries including North Korea and Iran.”Who was President in 2003? It looks like Bush DID try to address the NK Nukes:http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061015/D8KOOE9G0.html
CapnI have always told the truth here. To you, those who disagree must be “lying” or stupid, since you think yourself so damn smart.
And Capn, the North Koreans would not let the inspectors do their jobs. You act like you have a legal pad in front of you with several “to do” lines on it.Next to “Inspectors in North Korea” you wish we had a check mark.That the inspectors were castrated, completely unable to do their jobs, makes no difference to you.North Korea made a fool out of Jimmy Carter, Carter forced Clinton go along with the deal because Carter let his lips flap about it before consulting Clinton.Clinton did not want to publicly go against Clinton.North Korea violated the “framework” from the very beginning.
sorryClinton did not want to publicly embarrass Carter.
Hehe, not even a nice try, Paul.
Even if true, 5 years and 10 months after Bush took office, NK tests their first bomb.
And what is Bush going to do about it, now that he has unambiguous proof that NK is building a bomb?
Uh . . . Paul? What’s he going to do now?
Besides blame Clinton that is . . .
When a Bush supporter uses Ann Coulter as their fact source, I’m sorry but that is just wrong.
Either come up with some REAL facts or just shut your piehole.
Mega dittos, Suza!
Annthrax Coulter isn’t a “source.” She’s a carrier, like Typhoid Mary.
Suza, Ann Coulter is smarter than you, and she makes far fewer mistakes than you. I will also add that Ann Coulter has given George W. Bush a tongue lashing on several occassions, she is not an apologist for the current White House by any means.This thread started by claiming Bush was blaming Clinton. —-In politics, this is called “Innoculation” — the liberals have protected Clinton by claiming Bush has already blamed Clinton.Now, Bush is forced to either blame Clinton or explain that he never blamed Clinton.The truth is, Bush probably DOES blame Clinton but he has not said so publicly.The belief that Clinton screwed up on North Korea is widespread.That belief predates the North Korean nuclear test by many years.
Liberals can’t make up their minds.Bush has demanded “multilateral” talks with North Korea, demanding that Russia, Japan, China and South Korea be involved.The liberals say Bush should agree to “unilateral” talks, and that Bush should snub our allies and agree to a crazy dictators demands.In Iraq, Bush is criticized for being “unilateral” even though many other countries have been involved in helping the U.S. led effort.”Loyal opposition” means that you oppose Bush no matter what he does, even if he does what you previously said you wanted him to do.
Paul Rosell: “I’ve always told the truth here.”
Uh Paul? With help from fellow observers of you, I can provide ample evidence that you are a demonstrable liar.
The thread?
It’s REAL simple. N Korea CAN develop nukes. We can order them to stop and try to make that stick. Or we can give them reasons not to develop nukes. Clinton did the latter, bush did the former. Who got the best results?
N Korea during Clinton’s term 0 nukes
N Korea during bush’s term proliferating nukes.
JRYou just posted one of your most simplistic posts ever.It takes time to develop nukes.Clinton was aware of the Norths intentions, and Clinton simply kicked the can into the next administration.
Go away Rosell you lie for a living.
Nukes DO take a great deal of time and energy and industry to develop. I invite readers to research the Manhattan project that developed Amierican nuclear weapons. It came at tremendous cost. We tend to think of nukes as simple things since we are live in a country on the cutting edge of 60 years of research, development , and testing. The reality is vastly different. Nulear weapons are NOT easy.
The truth is this is a non story as it seems the N Korean bomb was a poor first attempt. It will likely take many attempts before N Korea develops a viable weapon much less the means to deliver it. bush only encourages them by his threats.
China is holding N Korea’s leash. Restrict trade with China if you REALLY care about sending a message.
Oh that’s RIGHT! bush granted China most favored nation trading status. And there IS that attendant matter of how deep in trade and thus fiscal debt deficit bush caused.
Stay the course???? It’s the only course Bush knows…..That is blaming Clinton.
Paul, it sure does take time to develop nukes, but the process can be sped up faster when nuclear materials are gathered from the U.S. or our allies. Saudia Arabia donated plenty of cash so North Korea could get some nuclear material with the approval of George Bush (Bush told the CIA to back off from investigating the Saudi/nuke connection). Bush aids North Korea by telling them that we’ll allow them to use the nuclear material that they received from Rumsfeld’s company and without supervision from nuclear inspectors.
How can Clinton be blamed for the actions of Bush? He can’t, and you can’t quote that racist, she-male Coulter for an excuse either.
Paul, do you ever get sick of spewing your anti-American rhetoric, or is the pay too good?
PFR: “Liberals can’t make up their minds.”
Hey, it’s better not to have one at all, other than one duly provided by Ann. Like the radios in NK, no tuners to occasionally change the station, just on/off switch.
Instead of economic sanctions, let’s open WalMart in Pyongyang. That will definitely be the start the collapse of that country.
Is it Clinton’s fault that I hate Bush?
Nah, it’s his own doing…