North Korea 2; Democrats 0
by Big Dog on Sep 12, 2009 at 22:22 Political
The North Koreans play the Democrats like a cheap fiddle. First Bill Clinton negotiated with Lil Kim and ended up giving him all the things he needed to make nukes. With a wink and a nod Clinton gave Kim all the stuff he needed on a promise from Kim that he would not use them to make nuclear weapons. The ink was not dry on the paper when Kim began developing a nuke. The left likes to blame the nuclear weapon development on Bush because it was tested when Bush was in office but it began when Clinton was there and the NorKs used the tools that Clinton let them have.
There have been talks with North Korea for a number of years now. These six party talks are on again and off again depending upon what mood Kim is in and which of the voices in his schizophrenic head is doing the talking. We have tried these six party talks and we have tried sanctions when Kim detonates a nuke but nothing seems to work because it is difficult to get international support. The Chinese have a great deal of influence but they seem uninterested in intervening.
George Bush did not help things when he decided we could remove North Korea from the state sponsor of terrorism list. North Korea is dangerous and poor. That country will do anything for money and that includes selling nuclear components to terrorists. The idea that sitting down with them and discussing the issue will help is ridiculous because each time we engage in diplomacy it is after we have done something to appease them and it gives them more time to work on their weapons. We always end up in a stalemate with North Korea because once it gets what it wants it goes back to developing nuclear weapons.
The Obama administration has done an about face and said that it will now engage directly with North Korea.
The US shifted its policy today, saying it is now willing to meet one on one with North Korea if that is helpful to bring Pyongyang back to the nuclear negotiations. ABC News
Evidently, the six party nations have given the go ahead because they are not doing well in their attempts to negotiate. If these six nations cannot effectively negotiate with Kim what makes anyone believe the US can do any better?
Obama said he was willing to meet our enemies face to face and without preconditions. His lack of experience in foreign affairs was evident when he made that statement on the campaign trail but it made no difference. So now the US will meet with North Korea in order to get it to stop making nuclear weapons.
Good luck with that. North Korea will demand something and the US will give it and then the negotiations will fall off, or stall, or be dragged on to provide time while the NorKs refine their weapons.
I would hope that we could negotiate with North Korea but the leader has demonstrated that he is mentally unstable and that he is not interested in capitulating to the demands of others.
How will it look if we give them more of what they want and they still test a nuke or send one in the direction of Japan?
Will the left discuss the failed polices of Obama like it did Bush? We will have to wait until the next nuclear detonation (and there will be one) but I doubt it will be viewed through the same lens that was used when liberals watched George Bush.
Time will tell but I think the US already appears weak. We blinked and gave in and now Kim has the upper hand. I know Obama is Mr. Charm and all that but he is being played like a fool.
This might come back to bite him in his tail and that is just fine.
The problem is, it might bite the rest of us as well.
I would like to see successful negotiations and if it works out then good for Obama and his team. I think history has shown us that this will not have a good outcome and we will regret the decision.
Of course, Clinton was there not too long ago. He might have greased a few skids (no, skids are not North Korean women) so that the path for Obama would be easier. Maybe Kim already got his payoff and will make Obama look good.
Until he makes him look bad…
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Bush, Clinton, north korea, nuclear weapons, Obama
Your same old lies about Clinton providing nukes, and of course you don’t even bother to try to back it up.
Reality: Bush broke with Clinton’s method of talking to the loon, and broke agreements, and refused to talk until 2006 (when they popped off their nuke). This is when Bush sets aside his “My Pet Goat” and suddenly realizes hmmm… this idiotic method isn’t working so well.
Then Bush went back to the Clinton plan.
Too late.
Of all the failed diplomacy conducted in the GW Bush (WPE) years, Korea stands out as a particularly stark failure. And in the Bush years, that’s rather hard to do.
D.
My Pet Goat was read in 2001 not 2006 and he was reading your life story to school children.
Newsmax
I like how you claim I did not try to back up my claims and then went on to make claims you did not attempt to back up.
I did not say Clinton provided the nukes, just the material to make them.
Bush broke with Clinton’s method because it allowed Kim to build a nuke. He returned to this idea of appeasement and Kim got more brazen. He popped off his nuke to draw attention and make demands. He did it with a weapon he built with Clinton provided reactors.
Bigd: “My Pet Goat was read in 2001 not 2006”
DAR
Obviously. I was being metaphorical. I’ll try to dumb it down even more.
Bigd: “I did not say Clinton provided the nukes, just the material to make them.”>>
DAR
Same thing. Both false.
Bigd: “allowed Kim to build a nuke.”>>
DAR
They didn’t build a nuke until Bush ignored the problem, idiotically, for six years.
Then he went back to Clinton’s method.
Do you wonder why? It’s because Bush’s method was a complete and utter failure.
D.
——————
“Nothing can erase the ineffable sadness of an American presidency, like this one, in total intellectual collapse.”
–John Bolton,
“The Tragic End of Bush’s North Korea Policy,” WSJ
The entire rant above is totally false.
Clinton was a serial enabler for the NorKs- kind of like giving a child a gun- and the libbies argue that Clinton didn’t pull the trigger.
Absolutely laughable, Dar.
Much of the failed policy comes from the left side of the aisle, you know- the invertebrate side. All of those people must have forgotten their manhood, including Boxer, Feinstein, and pelosi.
Or here
Interesting thing. In one of those articles a Dem is tired of the Clinton bashing and says that there is a new administration. Seems that now it is OK to keep going back and blaming the other guy.
You mean like you are doing? Blaming Clinton after your guy had been in and screwing the pooch for 6 years?
Blaming Bubba the sex addict is totally right- he’s the one who made Bush’s failures possible with the famous “Gorelik Wall” between intel agencies, and his prosecution of OBL needed some serious viagra- I guess he was too busy doing interns.
So yes- blaming Clinton puts the blame where it goes properly.
Speaking of Clinton, and “Bush’s failures,” this just in:
***
Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy
Excerpt:
“On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush’s two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country’s condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton’s two terms, often substantially.
…today’s report shows that Bush flunked on every relevant dimension…”
LINK.
But it’s all Clinton’s fault of course.