The Left's Diplomacy Pays Off

[Voegelin]

By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com
October 9, 2006

SCORE ONE FOR BILL CLINTON and Jimmy Carter.

As of this writing in the early morning hours of October 9, President Bush is expected to announce that North Korea has conducted an underground nuclear test . . .

The Left quickly attempted the shopworn tactic of pinning the blame on the Bush administration’s rhetoric or unwillingness to bribe Kim Jong-il. Early this morning, Joseph Cirincione of the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress told CNN, “They had numerous opportunities to negotiate a deal…They did not.” . . .

. . . Within two months of the Taepo Dong missile scraping across Nippon in August 1998, President Clinton sent North Korea a multi-million dollar aid package and reopened bilateral negotiations.

The Dear Leader’s nuclear test could not have occurred without Bill Clinton’s decade of dalliance. Clinton could have obliterated the Yongbyong reactor with one strike when he first learned of North Korea’s covert nuclear program in 1994. Instead, he allowed Jimmy Carter’s private foreign policy to preempt him. Upon completing the “Agreed Framework” in 1994, Clinton stated, “This agreement will help achieve a vital and long-standing American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula.” We now know the $4.6 billion bribe gave the Communists the two nuclear reactors they used to create their current arsenal . . .

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24826

 

[jamesrwright3]

I think they should revoke his Nobel prize

 

[notto]

9/11 during Bush's term = Clinton's fault.
North Korea restarting nuclear program after Bush is elected and getting the bomb after 6 years of Bush's term = Clinton's fault.

Smells like desperation.

Also seems like an admission that Rice is a failure.

 

[jamesrwright3]

9/11 during Bush's term = Clinton's fault.
North Korea getting the bomb after 6 years of Bush's term = Clinton's fault.

Smells like desperation.

No, both are Clinton's fault

 

[notto]

No, both are Clinton's fault

So you are admitting that the Bush administration and the Republican congress are inneffective and worthless in international and foreign relations?

If Clinton could create the problem in 8 years, don't you think the Republicans should be able to clean it up in 8 or at least do something about it?

Why has Rice been such a failure? Why has this administration allowed another military nuclear power to come about?

Why didn't Bush destroy the program if Clinton is criticized for not destroying it? Where was Bush's action?

 

[Vylo]

Yes, 9/11 is Clinton's fault because he never told anyone how much of a threat al queda was.

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[ballfan]

Maybe now everyone will realize how useless talking without action can be.

Is the world a safer place today?

Do we now just let Iran have a bomb too?

The leftists now have to face reality.

 

[ballfan]

So you are admitting that the Bush administration and the Republican congress are inneffective and worthless in international and foreign relations?

If Clinton could create the problem in 8 years, don't you think the Republicans should be able to clean it up in 8 or at least do something about it?

Why has Rice been such a failure? Why has this administration allowed another military nuclear power to come about?

Why didn't Bush destroy the program if Clinton is criticized for not destroying it? Where was Bush's action?

The left would have coniptions if Bush had invaded NK and you know it.

 

[Vylo]

Oh, just an FYI the "bribe" you speak of. Not a penny of money was spent until 2000, and the construction of the reactors didn't start until 2002.

Also most of that money didn't come from the US. And only 1.5 billion was ever spent.

But don't let facts get in the way.

 

[notto]

The left would have coniptions if Bush had invaded NK and you know it.

So Bush is innefective and is making political decisions, not the right ones.

Is that what you are saying?

By your reasoning, Clinton should have invaded North Korea to stop their program even if 'the left' would have a problem with it but that is an adequate excuse for Bush not doing it?

Bush had no problem invading Iraq with less evidence of any thread and with a great deal of opposition. He now wants to 'stay the course' in defiance of that opposition.

Why is his Korean action not as hard?

I guess the GOP and Bush should no longer be surprised by numbers like this. If the defense of Bush and Rices failure is that they were scared of the liberals, their party should abandon them.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/10/8/143545.shtml?s=ic

 

[reverend B]

if we want to look at truth, the left has been begging the administration to enter into unilateral negotiations with n.k., but the administration has continually refused and will only be involved in bi-lateral discussions which the koreans are having nothing of. it is a power play and it is costing us dearly.
but don't let that get in the way of a meaningless snipe at the left. the facts have not gotten in the way before.

 

[ballfan]

So Bush is innefective and is making political decisions, not the right ones.

Is that what you are saying?

By your reasoning, Clinton should have invaded North Korea to stop their program even if 'the left' would have a problem with it but that is an adequate excuse for Bush not doing it?

Bush had no problem invading Iraq with less evidence of any thread and with a great deal of opposition. He now wants to 'stay the course' in defiance of that opposition.

Why is his Korean action not as hard?

I guess the GOP and Bush should no longer be surprised by numbers like this. If the defense of Bush and Rices failure is that they were scared of the liberals, their party should abandon them.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/10/8/143545.shtml?s=ic

Clinton should have. Bush should have too. But be realistic for a change. Politics affects our actions and in the case of NK the politics of the left had to be satisfied. We now see it was the wrong course. Will we repeat with Iran? Or does the left now favor a more militaristic approach?

 

[ballfan]

if we want to look at truth, the left has been begging the administration to enter into unilateral negotiations with n.k., but the administration has continually refused and will only be involved in bi-lateral discussions which the koreans are having nothing of. it is a power play and it is costing us dearly.
but don't let that get in the way of a meaningless snipe at the left. the facts have not gotten in the way before.

NK played this like a drum. They played the left against the right.

What amazes me is that after years of complaining about "coalition building" that anyone on the left would suggest that we should have taken any sort of unilateral action.

 

[JustOneWay]

if we want to look at truth, the left has been begging the administration to enter into unilateral negotiations with n.k., but the administration has continually refused and will only be involved in bi-lateral discussions which the koreans are having nothing of. it is a power play and it is costing us dearly.
but don't let that get in the way of a meaningless snipe at the left. the facts have not gotten in the way before.

Amen reverend.
Bush's failure at diplomacy has led us to NK testing nuclear weapons. To see the repubs blame this on Clinton just proves they don't want to take a hard look at the failures of this republican administration.

NK has been playing Bush, and they have made him into the fool.

 

[jamesrwright3]

No, the Repubs have taken the right approach
Clinton gave up too much, and required too little
Bush was hampered by Clinton's faulty agreement
He couldn't just throw out the agreed framework which was signed by Clinton

Clinton should have taken action against NK's nuclear facilities back in 1994, not necessarily an invasion
If NK would have tried to invade SK, then we could have used a tactical nuke to take out their invading forces

 

[JustOneWay]

If NK would have tried to invade SK, then we could have used a tactical nuke to take out their invading forces

lead by example? This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard, TODAY....but the day is still young

 

[Guttermouth]

No, the Repubs have taken the right approach
Clinton gave up too much, and required too little
Bush was hampered by Clinton's faulty agreement
He couldn't just throw out the agreed framework which was signed by Clinton

Clinton should have taken action against NK's nuclear facilities back in 1994, not necessarily an invasion
If NK would have tried to invade SK, then we could have used a tactical nuke to take out their invading forces

Now. I haven't been posting here for long, but I have been reading on this board for quite a while.

I distinctly remember you posting time and again about how military action against the north would be impossible because the north has artillery that can reach all the major urban centers in the south, and that they could obliterate the south before we could do much about it. And that wasn't all.

So, we have an administration that has done NOTHING, not one thing. Result...Blame everyone else. You guys really are desperate.

Can anyone tell me what Bush is actually respnsible for? Is it stagnating middle class wages, the growth of poverty and the lower class, huge deficits, torture prisons, failed foreign policy, violations of individual rights of citizens and non-citizens, tens of thousands dead....???

Do you remember that night when Bush got drunk and drove his car through a hedge? pssst.... Clinton did it... Roofies in the vodka...

 

[jamesrwright3]

lead by example? This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard, TODAY....but the day is still young

You can't negotiate with a dictatorship, especially one like NK. That would have really been the only option to get rid of NK's nuclear capabilities

 

[kermit]

if we want to look at truth, the left has been begging the administration to enter into unilateral negotiations with n.k., but the administration has continually refused and will only be involved in bi-lateral discussions which the koreans are having nothing of. it is a power play and it is costing us dearly.
but don't let that get in the way of a meaningless snipe at the left. the facts have not gotten in the way before.

Actually the left wanted Bush to take a bi-lateral approach and Bush wanted a muli-lateral approach.

Bush's idea was wrong for two reasons.

1. He never followed through on it; no talks took place.
2. When you have a madman while Kim with a nukes the last you want if for him to feel trapped. If we had multi-lateral talks with the whole world against him he'd fire the nukes out of desperation. Even a rabbit can be dangerous when cornered.

This whole idea of trying to blame Clinton and Carter for a weapons program that didn't start until after Clinton was out of office is ridiculous and reeks of desperation. The RNC is doomed as long as they refuse to accept responsibilty for the mistakes they have made while in power.

 

[JustOneWay]

1. Even a rabbit can be dangerous when cornered.

Not if one posesses the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch