Whatever drugs President George Bush was taking yesterday at his press conference, I wish to hell I knew so I could specify never, ever to be administered any.
Just before the possibly failed North Korean nuclear test over the weekend, supposedly even core Bushies were telling Lunkhead (sorry, Commander in Chief Lunkhead) that they had to engage with North Korea instead of insisting on bizarre six-party talks where the Bushies wouldn't have to talk to Kim Jong-Il's people directly.
Yet today, Bush proclaims it's Clinton's fault for North Korea,*correction of url, see below* even though Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld sat high on the board of the American Bush-loving corporation that sold Kim Jong-Il much of its nuclear power just before the Bush's took (oh boy, did they) office.
~~~~~~Sweetest Smiles~~~~~~
*Sorry about placing the wrong url for 'Bush proclaims it's Clinton fault for North Korea'. I have corrected that error, thank you for your understanding.*
Posts
12 comments:
I don't see where Bush blamed Clinton's administration.
Why aren't I surprised that the little neonuts anonymouses are not commenting on this thread. I guess they just can't handle the truth slapping them in the face.
~~~~~~Forever A Facetious Pain~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~SMILES~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eff, it has made national news on how Bush and Rice blames Clinton for North Korea.
President Bush said that's why his administration changed course and moved away from face-to-face (bilateral) negotiations with North Korea. In his explanation, Bush was careful not to mention the word "Clinton."
Bush, however, referred to a Clinton-era agreement with North Korea in 1994, in which North Korea agreed to stop pursing a nuclear weapons program in exchange for U.S. aid.
"And yet, we came into office and discovered that they were developing a program - unbeknownst to the folks with whom they signed the agreement, the United States government" [the Clinton administration].
I will check and make sure I did not put in the wrong url, thank you Eff.
Thank you for your comment hun LTNS
Eff, again thank you for if you hadn't have pointed taht out I would not have known I placed the wrong URL. I have corrected that error. Thank you again
:o)
Sure.
Then you're saying he is blaming them by implying incompetence on their part, is that right? I can see that, but I don't know the extent of the Clinton administration's awareness of the North Korean regime's violations, therefor there could be some validity to Bush's claim, for all I know.
Bush's reference to the 1994 agreement as a failed strategy can be debated more readily, given that the markers of success are often subjective, with some defending Clinton on the basis that his administration stalled, as I understand it, the development of N. Korea's nuclear weapons program, which seems to me a more realistic expectation on any government facing that closed country and its belicose manner.
I think, having looked over the October '04 Lancet published study, although apparently performed by much if not the exact same group as the latest study, there is reason to doubt the latter study. Mostly because the extrapolated data from the death rate in the first study, as my miniscule math knowledge can figure, would make the death toll nearly 2.7 times less than 650,000, at 242,000. I don't know why Bush says it's not credible, but with an average death rate of around 500 a day with the 650,000 total figure, compared to around 180 from the first study, I must admit that I have my doubts.
Exactly Eff, now as far as Bush playing the blame game he is very coy about it and for that I give him credit. Rice & McCain, come out strongly blaming North Korea on Clinton, but study shows that if in fact it was the policy adopted to handle North Korea, it being at fault goes back futher than Clinton, in fact it goes back a couple dozen years. I will look and see if I still have that info to share.
As far as the amounts of deaths in Iraq, I couldn't agree more with you. Also it seems that Ramadi is not in the news although Ramadi has as many attacks out there in the west as Baghdad. Yet, Baghdad has 7 million people, Ramadi having just 1.2 million. Per capita, al-Anbar province is the most violent place in Iraq by several orders of magnitude.
With the knowledge of this fact, futher doubts are placed into my mind. Why wouldn't the media be covering what is going on in Ramadi? So many seem to either not know or forget that Ramadi is the city the Marines were sent to in 2003.
I also couldn't agree more with your thoughts about the markers of success are often subjective. Also Clinton's admin was indeed stalled.
My biggest issue with how North Korea is being handled by the US, is the fact it seems that more time and energy is being put into who's to blame, instead of a solution. It isn't hard to sort of understand those that say North Korea is becoming a nuclear state out of feeling it is the only way to keep them from being invaded. Now do I believe this? Hell no, I think the invading of Iraq gave North Korea an easy excuse/reason for delvolping nuclear arms.
Eff as always it's a pleasure, you keep me on my toes :o)
Thanks. Just to be clear, I meant stalled as in Clinton's admin stalled N. Korea, or is contended o have.
true Eff, but why did they stalled, do you know? I need to look into that.
You might have a point, Jay, but remember that criticisms of Jefferson and Washington are usually academic or not contrasted with a specific person, whereas criticisms against Clinton tend to be used, especially in the current context, to divert criticisms and issues of responsibility on Bush (or has that effect), any defensive whom can be done without solely refering to the actions of Clinton. It's not only about what is done, but what will be done. A fair person is also realist, so critics of Bush should not expect what is beyond what they would have expected of Clinton
is as in has been or was done
Well Said Eff
I guess how soon people forget Reagan's policies on N. Korea. Here is an article by the Brookings Institute from March 2001 written by Joel Wit. After much reading I think this study, history and analysis of future dialogue with N. Korea, if it had been pursued by the Bush administration ,is right on target. Evidently Bush did not really know the true meaning of "stay the course," in N. Korea or Afghanistan.
The United States and North Korea
The Historical Record
It has become fashionable to associate engagement of North Korea with the Clinton administration. But in fact, its historical roots can be traced back to 1988 and President Reagan's "modest initiative," which allowed unofficial non-governmental visits by North Koreans to the United States, easing of stringent financial regulations which impeded travel to North Korea by American citizens, permission for limited commercial export of U.S. humanitarian goods to Pyongyang, and permission for U.S. diplomats to engage in substantive discussions with North Koreans in neutral settings. Leaving aside the debate over the Clinton Administration's policy towards the North, U.S. engagement policy should be evaluated in the context of four key objectives:
Enhance regional stability. The prospect of a potentially unstable North Korea, armed with a large nuclear weapons stockpile and a growing long-range missile force, has been forestalled and hopefully avoided. Also, by buying time and helping to keep a lid on tensions, U.S. policy has served as a bridge from difficult times to today's more promising atmosphere.
Thwart weapons proliferation. A nuclear North Korea would have threatened the international non-proliferation regime, led to pressures in the Republic of Korea (ROK) and perhaps Japan to develop nuclear weapons, and possibly sold nuclear weapons material or technology abroad. All of those outcomes have been avoided so far. As for missiles, U.S. efforts secured the North's announcement of a long-range test moratorium in fall 1999, although there has yet to be a deal curbing the North's exports or its own indigenous deployments.
Encourage South-North dialogue. U.S. policy has had mixed results, not entirely due to its own efforts, but also because of domestic and inter-Korean politics. President Kim Young Sam's inconsistency—a product of his own style of policymaking and domestic political pressures—had a lot to do with his lack of success with Pyongyang. President Kim Dae Jung's consistent pursuit of improved relations—in spite of various domestic political pressures—has been an important factor leading to the nascent rapprochement between the two.
Maintain close U.S.-ROK cooperation. Periodic differences between the United States and the Republic of Korea over policy towards the North have not undermined the overall bilateral relationship. Working out these differences through consultation is what counts and, on that score, the United States has done well.
Post a Comment