| 0 |
Subject: Kerry, the 1960s, China, and North Korea
Posted by: madman
- [43410119] Mon, Sep 13, 2004, 15:27
Kerry gives his first interview since I don't know when and makes the following statement:
Mr. Kerry argued that it was the Bush administration's refusal to follow Mr. Powell's advice in March 2001 and continue the Clinton administration's direct diplomacy with North Korea that created the conditions for the current crisis. Mr. Kerry has said for months that the United States must deal directly with the North Korean government - just as it dealt directly with Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis, and directly with China as it became a nuclear power in the 1960's.
So, the way we dealt with China in the 1960s is a model for Kerry and how we should deal with North Korea. Further, he is calling for direct negotiations.
Does anyone have a clue what Kerry is talking about here? First off, our non-proliferation policy with China in the 1960s seems to me to have been a dismal failure (although maybe only failure was an option).
Second, what about this? As this indicates, we didn't even recognize them as a government. There were some meetings, but I don't see a successful model for non-proliferation anywhere in sight.
Kerry's knowledge of history apparently far surpasses my own.
For future reference (I haven't read yet):
Some good documents regarding our 1960s policy vis a vis China |
| 1 | Toral
ID: 22731114
Mon, Sep 13, 2004, 16:59
|
As with everything Kerry, it would be interesting to know what exactly he would do vis-a-vis North Korea. He might even have a good idea!
But apparently not. I have no reason to believe that Senator Kerry has thot more about North Korean issues than ordinary members of this board.
And as Zell Miller said again today (WSJ), the idea of trusting your country's and family's existence to this man is scary.
Toral
|
| 2 | sarge33rd
ID: 52827922
Mon, Sep 13, 2004, 19:01
|
Actually Toral, what I find scary, is the fact that anyone listens to a word Z Miller has to say.
|
| 3 | James K Polk
ID: 51010719
Mon, Sep 13, 2004, 19:23
|
First interview since Aug. 9, Madman.
|
| 4 | Toral
ID: 22731114
Mon, Sep 13, 2004, 19:52
|
I think all Democrats ought to listen to Zell. Especially you, Sarge. Go herefor Zell's article in the WSJ (registration required) today: "I Will Never Trust John Kerry With My Family's Safety."
He's a former Marine. If you weren't being so partisan, you wouldn't trust Kerry either.
Cordially,
Toral
|
| 5 | Pancho Villa
Sustainer
ID: 533817
Mon, Sep 13, 2004, 19:56
|
So, you trust Bush with your security concerning North Korea?
Gee, Dad, do I have to flip flop?
Yes, son, the Carlyle Group needs a sense of stability in the region for this KorAm Bank deal.
OK, Dad.
|
| 6 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 217351118
Mon, Sep 13, 2004, 21:02
|
At the suggestion of Toral, I signed up to likely receive email spam from WSJ's sponsors so that I could read Zell's column.
I noticed that Zell starts it off by devoting his first three paragraphs to explaining his furious demeanor at the RNC. This is an interesting flip flop from his previously stated position that he was not angry and did not know why people thought he appeard as such.
Then he continues on with what he liberally refers to as facts.My critics tripped over themselves to point out that Dick Cheney opposed some of the same weapons systems when he was defense secretary.
But, like with so many things in life, timing is everything. Mr. Kerry was proposing the cancellation of many of these weapons systems at the height of the Cold War--the worst possible time to weaken our military strength. OK, lets clear this up once and for all.
According to factcheck.org, Cheney proposed the cancellation of the Apache within the next two years. In 1991, Cheney proposed the termination of 81 Pentagon programs, including the F-14, F-16 and Bradley.
Now, we know that Kerry called for cancelling numerous programs in 1984, but he has since conceded that such was a mistake. Given Zell's former anti-civil rights positions, surely even he knows that our political positions can change for the better with experience and maturity. So, Toral, do enlighten us as to which weapons systems Kerry supported cancelling during the Cold War that he has not already is a 20 year old mistake. Please.I also charged that John Kerry and his fellow Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator, and that nothing makes this old Marine madder. My critics pounced on that one, too. Aren't you aware, they sneered, that President Bush has used the term "occupiers"?
Do they mean when the president said this in April?--"As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation--and neither does America. We're not an imperial power, as nations such as Japan and Germany can attest. We are a liberating power." Are the people of Iraq not liberated from a terrible dictator? Did we not transfer sovereignty over to the Iraqi people exactly when we said we would? I cannot imagine that any foorum regulars this side of Baldwin and CCP support this potion of Zell's column and RNC speech. He's playing pointless word politics. The fact is, Kerry has never denied that the Iraqi people were indeed liberated. Respected conservatives at this forum have argued that it is silly to think that Kerry want to see the occupation mission completed any faster than Bush.And my critics love to point out that I had nice things to say about John Kerry when I introduced him to a Georgia Democratic dinner in 2001. That's true and I meant it. But, again, timing is everything. I made that introduction in March 2001--six months before terrorists attacked this country on Sept. 11. As I have said time and again, 9/11 changed everything. OK WAIT JUST A MINUTE. 2001 was after the end of the Cold War, right? So, according to Zell, Kerry's voting record - Zell's primary argument for why Kerry is unfit to protect his children - was just fine in a pre-9/11 world, but should be looked at again with new scrutiny post-9/11. However, pre-9/11 support of Kerry (and presumably his voting record) deserves no such scrutiny in post-9/11 America!!
What a waste of my time.
|
| 7 | Baldwin
ID: 40826115
Mon, Sep 13, 2004, 21:09
|
A conservative in the south who is stuck in the Democrat party is going to have to prostitute himself in that manner. He will have to say nice things about other Democrats, that he really shouldn't say.
|
| 8 | Pancho Villa
Sustainer
ID: 533817
Mon, Sep 13, 2004, 21:10
|
And there you have it, folks. Zell is a prostitute.
|
| 9 | Baldwin
ID: 40826115
Mon, Sep 13, 2004, 21:16
|
Conservatives should flee that party or be tainted by it. He wouldn't have these issues if he had left when the party left him. I guess he did prostitute himself for the comfort and security the strong state party structure afforded him.
|
| 11 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 217351118
Mon, Sep 13, 2004, 21:17
|
Are you nuts, Baldwin? Zell turned his back on the whole party. The man defends and stands by his support of Kerry in 3/01 (a maneuver to avoid a flip flop charge, I'm sure). Towing the line at this point (as you claim) is like Saddam claiming to still be running Iraq.
|
| 12 | Toral
ID: 22731114
Mon, Sep 13, 2004, 21:58
|
But why did Zell turn his back on the party? He's no "prostitute" (shame on you, PV -- BTW, have you watched his RNC speech? It might be archived on cspan.org). Do any of you libs have any evidence, even suggestions, that he did it for material gain? He turned his back on it because he concluded that it was more interested in sniping at the Prez than defending America.
Zell is a real man. With all respect, you probably weren't around when Zell make his keynote speech in 1992. Listening to it, I thought, "Where did this guy come from? I thought all the populist leaders in the South were now Republicans! Are we going to lose the South back?"
The most popular governor in Georgia history, Zell turned off the dems when after being elected senator he attended Dem caucuses and discovered for himself how left-wing and partisan they are. Some Big Media types have said "Well d'oh -- you didn't realize that until you got there?" No, he didn't -- he had to listen to them talk confidentially to realize how far-outish they were.
Zell has been with the President on the stump this week, and will be again. Ohio is a "northern" state but its Appalachian areas have always followed 'southern democrat' trends, even back to Jimmy Carter in 1976.
The quiche-eaters didn't like Zell's speech and conservatives were unsure how it would go over(check NR's blog the Corner for details) but it is clear it has gone over great.
Kerry can forget any hopes he had in southern states (NC, Ark, he originally had hopes even in VA!) Edwards might as well not show up in the south (where is Edwards, anyway?) because one Zell visit blows away any 4 dem visits.
What a speech. hey! I think I'll watch it again!
Toral
|
| 13 | Razor
ID: 46834713
Mon, Sep 13, 2004, 22:04
|
Short of saying you run over kittens in your spare time, I don't think you could've done anything to tarnish your rep more than glorifying Coot Miller's speech.
|
| 14 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 217351118
Mon, Sep 13, 2004, 22:11
|
Tellingly, Toral doesn't bother to defend Zell's pathetic attempt to explain his disingenuous venom, much less acknowledge my request to explain to us the specifics of how Zell reconciles his criticism of Kerry's voting record (seeing as how Zell, himslef doesn't bother to do it). This in spite of Toral's pimping the column here.
|
| 15 | Toral
ID: 22731114
Mon, Sep 13, 2004, 22:27
|
Razor, I don't have any good rep to tarnish, but I just watched it again. Did you watch it, I mean really ever? It's archived at cspan.org. Or look at a transcript.
We disagree strongly again, I guess. walk called it "so lowbrow" but if that's 'lowbrow', I don't want ever to be highbrow.
It was a beautiful, moving speech, with many more lovely, poetic lines than in any speech I've recently heard.
As a political speech, it is the most effective since...when...a long time? As a work of art, of brilliant thoughts put into writing, I can't think of any better since Ted Kennedy's masterpiece in 1980.
Watch it (again). Archived at cspan.org
Happy to discuss the issue again with anyone, so long as you have watched the speech.
Toral
|
| 16 | Toral
ID: 22731114
Mon, Sep 13, 2004, 22:55
|
Kowabunga.
Zell, talking about his relations with George.
I have knocked at his soul, and I found somebody home.
Look at the transcript if you like, and find me a better speech.
Toral
|
| 17 | madman
ID: 43410119
Tue, Sep 14, 2004, 08:53
|
Back to my original question ... does this trouble anyone else? That our policy vis a vis China in the 1960s is to be our new standard, or at least model? That doesn't scare the whoopie out of anyone?
|
| 18 | sarge33rd
ID: 52827922
Tue, Sep 14, 2004, 09:23
|
re 15: it was a beautiful moving speech?!?!?!? lmao
Yes Toral, I watched it. The venom spewing forth from Zell's lips was almost visisble. This intelligent, articulate individual, then stopped juuuuuuuuuuuust shy of challenging a national reporter (Crossfires host) to a duel! Ah yes, what a fine example of leadership Zell provides. NOT.
|
| 19 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 2824911
Tue, Sep 14, 2004, 09:34
|
Your're right on that Kerry needs to be called on this, Madman. It sounds to me like your implication is that you fear that Kerry may see non-recognition as a viable diplomacy tactic with a fellow nuclear superpower. I think that more likely it is/was an historical misconception on Kerry's part. Or perhaps it's just that his history is a decade off. Or maybe he mispoke, and meant to say something like, "...and directly with China after it became a nuclear power in the 1960's. The history section of your link does state that, "Despite this official non-recognition beginning in 1954 and continuing until 1970, the United States and People's Republic of China held 136 meetings at the ambassadorial level, first in Geneva and later in Warsaw." But of course that hardly sounds like what should be refered to as 'direct diplomacy'.
In any case, I have trouble believing that Kerry looks to our actual policy vis a vis China in the 1960s as a model for dealing with NK today. I think the worst likely case is that he thought he could get away with faking an understanding of history that he does not possess.
|
| 20 | Pancho Villa
Sustainer
ID: 533817
Tue, Sep 14, 2004, 09:47
|
Madman,
Your extrapolation that the 60s China policy be used as a standard from we should deal directly with the North Koreans is really too much of a stretch, since the statement was a generalization without specific policy recommendations.
I'm more scared that a president can be influenced by his father's business dealings in shaping foreign policy as referenced in #5.
|
| 21 | Perm Dude
ID: 19740257
Fri, Aug 25, 2006, 21:12
|
This is an old thread, but I came across this excellent piece which directly backs up the point Kerry was making and which Madman mocked in the first post.
Really good stuff.
|
| 22 | Seattle Zen
ID: 46315247
Fri, Aug 25, 2006, 22:56
|
Over the next two weeks, U.S. spy satellites detected trucks pulling up to the site where the fuel rods were stored, then driving away toward the reprocessing facility. When Kim Il Sung threatened to take this step back in 1994, Clinton warned that it would cross a "red line." When Kim Jong-il actually did it in 2003, George W. Bush did nothing.
In short, Bush took no serious military action because, in a sense, he couldn't. And he took no serious diplomatic action because he didn't want to. In April, in the flush of the U.S. military's lightning victory over the Iraqi army and the toppling of Saddam Hussein (or at least his statues), Rumsfeld wrote a memo to Bush, calling for "regime change" as a policy toward North Korea. Bush seemed to agree. In a public speech in May, the president said, as if he were addressing Kim Jong-il, "You're hungry and you can't eat plutonium."
In the game of highway chicken, North Korea is the shrewd lunatic who very visibly throws his steering wheel out the window, forcing the other, more responsible driver to veer off the road.
Outstanding article, PD. Let's see Madman defend his stance after reading that.
|
| 23 | Pancho Villa
ID: 366352418
Sat, Aug 26, 2006, 00:31
|
PD, obviously you've been fed some faulty information. I know that because I happen to have this transcript:
From the July 6 edition of Your World with Neil Cavuto:
ASMAN: Well, if anyone's to blame for this mess with North Korea, my next guest says it's President Clinton's fault. With us now, NewsMax columnist Charles Smith, and a familiar face around here, Ann Coulter, author of Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Ann Coulter, so it's all Bill Clinton's fault, huh?
COULTER: Well, it's the fault of the Stalinist dictator. But the point is liberals always have the same reaction to dangerous enemies, which is be nice to them, and that's what Bill Clinton did in his famed 1994 peace deal, giving the North Koreans $4 billion, chocolates, their favorite, you know, flowers, and it was hailed in The New York Times as, you know, the greatest thing since the Peace of Westphalia. But, needless to say, immediately the North Koreans set to work feverishly building nukes, and now we have to deal with that. We're kind of in a pickle here. I mean, North Korea shows why you have to deal with [former Iraqi dictator] Saddam Hussein before he has nukes --
So now you have the fair and balanced version.
|
| 24 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Sat, Aug 26, 2006, 00:36
|
now, now PV. We all know (cause Boldy keeps tellin us so), that AC "hits it out of thepark" everytime she steps up and opens her mouth.
Looks to me, like this time she opened her mouth and puked all over herself. *shrug* Of course, I'm a bleeding heart liberal athiest satanic worshipping mason supporting jew loving gay rights advocating socially destructive democrat. WTF would I know? (oh, and self loathing too!)
|
| 25 | Jag
ID: 14849321
Sat, Aug 26, 2006, 02:49
|
I have heard many here ridicule AC and Bush, yet no one has given even a hint of a feasible solution.
Sure North Korea wants to talk to us, they want more money. What is the difference between Clinton giving 4 billion to an insane dictator and Iran arming Hezbollah? There sould be outrage over Clinton's passing the buck and creating the problem we have today. Someone please tell me what we can talk to North Korea about that does not involve paying them billions every time their crazy dictator wants to saber rattle.
|
| 26 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Sat, Aug 26, 2006, 07:45
|
me thinks reading comprehension on your part jag, is lacking.
|
| 27 | Perm Dude
ID: 40733267
Sat, Aug 26, 2006, 08:36
|
Yeah, it's pretty standard issue: What is your solution to this mess? It's the wrong question. If you can't learn from mistakes (or even admit them, as will be this Administration's legacy) you aren't going to solve them. This Administration is so polarized against Democrats (and Clinton in particular) that it has no clue how to deal with the problem at all.
Jag: Let me be clear: We are where we are because Bush is dealing with NK inappropriately. And while I would have loved for Clinton to continue to work on the problem, unfortunately the Constitution limited him to two terms, so stop blaming this on Clinton's "passing the buck."
|
| 28 | Jag
ID: 14849321
Sat, Aug 26, 2006, 16:08
|
He gave NK 4 billion, for all we know IL used every bit of it to build a nuke. Talk about not learning from history or our mistakes, it sounds like you guys want Bush to pull another Clinton. Give me something more, an idea or a hint of what you think Bush should do.
|
| 29 | sarge33rd
ID: 257222410
Sat, Aug 26, 2006, 16:19
|
Its what he should HAVE DONE a few years ago. He screwed the pooch, and now its pay-back time.
|
| 30 | soxzeitgeist
ID: 36626317
Sat, Aug 26, 2006, 16:29
|
I'm curious as to how all the Far Right leaning folks here manage to reconcile the facts, and still blame blame Clintons policy (favoring engagement and diplomacy - when did that become a dirty word anyways? - with the North) for the crisis. They claim Clinton, Carter and other "Liberals" misguidedly sought diplomatic means to defuse the nuclear threat begun when Ronald Reagan reversed US commitment to nonproliferation as "none of our business."
|
| 31 | Jag
ID: 14849321
Sat, Aug 26, 2006, 18:17
|
I am unaware of Reagan's reversal on nonproliferation, but I do know on Hezbollah's bombing of our embassy, he screwed the pooch and admitted as much. Reagan had alot of fleas, his immigration policy was another failure. That doesn't make Clinton's actions any better.
|
| 32 | Boldwin
ID: 46651516
Sat, Aug 26, 2006, 18:26
|
and still blame blame Clintons policy (favoring engagement and diplomacy
You actually think Clinton's 'diplomacy' deserves any positive marks?
I thot Reagan's went rather well. Haven't heard much about 'mutual assured destruction' in a while.
|
| 33 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Sat, Aug 26, 2006, 19:00
|
read the link PD provided and take your friggin dems-bad/reps-good, blinders off for 10 minutes while you do so.
Clinton was ready to move 50,000 troops into SK,
Clinton set up the channel for talks,
Clinton chose the one guy (Carter) Kim would talk to,
Clintons leadership brokered a peaceful resolution.
Bush...blew the deal.
Bush wouldnt talk.
NK got nukes under Bushs watch.
Bush says hes tough on WMD, but the one nation that has them, hes done nothing about and the other nation where he tried to convince they had them but they didnt, he invaded.
Try to at least be honest.
Clinton did this one RIGHT. Bush didnt.
Clinton halted the NK nuke program. Bush didnt.
Clinton didnt allow NK to have nukes. Bush did.
|
| 34 | Perm Dude
ID: 40733267
Sat, Aug 26, 2006, 19:35
|
Sarge, don't even try. Anti-Clintonism is a drug to them and they don't want to be weaned from it.
|
| 35 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Sat, Aug 26, 2006, 22:41
|
I have to try PD. Its the liberal in me wanting to reach out and help those who are unable to help themselves.
|
| 36 | J-Bar
ID: 32719270
Sun, Aug 27, 2006, 02:42
|
Sarge, let's review some history
|
| 37 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Sun, Aug 27, 2006, 03:06
|
Lots of stuff at that link, J-bar. Off the topic, but have you ever read through this one: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/iraqdossier.pdf
It was from your link. Crazy stuff.
|
| 38 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 51627168
Sun, Aug 27, 2006, 09:35
|
He gave NK 4 billion, for all we know IL used every bit of it to build a nuke.
Possible, I guess, but I'm not too sure on how likely. To the best of our knowledge NK became a nuclear power in 2002. Tracing the money spent on proliferation to a $4 billion donation to the starving communist nation 8 years prior would be a rather difficult task and to just assume that this is where the greater funding for the project came from seems like a stab in the dark at best. For example we know that NK has also received aid from China and South Korea as incentives for non-proliferation.
There should be outrage over Clinton's passing the buck and creating the problem we have today.
I think the rather obvious fact that some have failed to consider is that a nation that is determined to become a nuclear power - especially one with a neighbor and friend like China has been over the past few decades - is going to eventually become a nuclear power. There is no "solution". All we can do is try our best to stave this off for as long as possible. And that's exactly what Reagan and Clinton did. Bush chose to not face the problem head-on when this weed popped up again under his watch.
For those who respond to criticism of Bush's NK policy with a demand for a better course of action, I'll point to the diplomatic efforts of Reagan and Clinton. For those who say that Clinton's efforts are a failure, I'll point out that if Clinton had employed the current Bush policy, NK probably would have become a nuclear power before the end of the 1990s.
|
| 39 | Pancho Villa
ID: 366352418
Sun, Aug 27, 2006, 11:03
|
Nowhere in J-Bar's link in #36 could I find where Clinton had given the North Koreans chocolates and flowers, as claimed by Ann Coulter in my #23.
Nowhere could I find evidence that after the 1994 treaty, immediately the North Koreans set to work feverishly building nukes. The opposite is true.
My only conclusion is that Ann Coulter knowingly lies to the American public, Fox News allows her the platform to spread these lies, and stating that Coulter always "hits it out of the ballpark" is the same as promoting steroid use and corked bats.
|
| 40 | Perm Dude
ID: 20753279
Sun, Aug 27, 2006, 11:09
|
I was about to write, essentially, the same thing. There is nothing substantially different in J-Bar's link than in my own link in #21.
The major deficiency in my own link is that it doesn't flog Clinton or Carter. And that is a major failing in any analysis that the Right will buy into.
|
| 41 | Pancho Villa
ID: 366352418
Sun, Aug 27, 2006, 11:43
|
This may be more of a scolding than an actual flogging from that link:
Carter went way beyond his instructions, negotiating the outlines of a treaty and announcing the terms live on CNN, notifying Clinton only minutes in advance.
|
| 42 | Jag
ID: 14849321
Sun, Aug 27, 2006, 11:58
|
I love all this conjecture, to be honest, we really don't even know if NK even has a nuke. They say they do, but as far I as I know it has never been tested, so to set a timeline is ludicrous.
Does any of the Ann Coulter detractors know what hyperbole is. I really don't think chocolates and flowers were in the NK deal, with 4 billion dollars, I am sure they could buy their own.
Considering the Criticism of Bush and the accolades of Clinton, I can only assume some here think we should again pay NK for their aggressive behavior.
|
| 43 | Perm Dude
ID: 20753279
Sun, Aug 27, 2006, 12:32
|
Yes, and we should have made them pay when doing so would have the maximum effectiveness.
Instead, this Administration has decided to drag this out into a six-party diplomatic negotiation (the very kind of thing they ridiculed as an option with Iraq). Essentially, they have bought North Korea time to develop nuclear capability.
|
| 44 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Sun, Aug 27, 2006, 12:34
|
To assume Jag, would imply thought processes. Something you should tend away from, since you're obviously not used to that and we'd hate to see you hurt yourself.
Let me explain this in terms you can follow:
See Bill?
Bill is President!
See Bill talk to Jimmy?
Jimmy was President!
See Jimmy go to North Korea?
See Kim?
See Jimmy and Kim talk?
See them sign paper?
Paper is a peace agreement!
Yea PEACE! No nukes!!!
See Bill?
Bill isnt President anymore.
See George?
George is President.
See George wiper his ass with peace agreement?
See Kim?
See Kims new factory?
Kim is building nukes.
See George?
George doesnt seem to care.
George is too busy lying to America about Iraq and 9/11.
Kim has nukes.
:(
See Jag?
Jag blames Bill.
Jag is an idiot.
Shame on George.
Shame on Jag.
|
| 45 | Jag
ID: 14849321
Sun, Aug 27, 2006, 12:57
|
If Clinton raped nuns and molested young children, I think some of the liberals would defend him. Actually, I wouldnt doubt if the first one happened.
Any treaty between the U.S. and NK, you may as well use as toilet paper. The only country Jong Il will listen to and obey is China. This is why Bush demands China be part of the negotiations. This is not complicated.
|
| 46 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Sun, Aug 27, 2006, 13:07
|
Are you making an accusation re Clinton and Nuns? Or are you simply speaking from your fifth point of contact once more?
|
| 47 | Jag
ID: 14849321
Sun, Aug 27, 2006, 13:17
|
I am making the point, that while some accuse me of never swaying from the Republican doctrine, eventhough I am far far away from being a social conservative, the liberals here will back a completely failed and moronic policy, because it was implemented by Clinton. Only the most partisan liberal could justify giving Jong Il 4 billion dollars.
|
| 48 | Perm Dude
ID: 20753279
Sun, Aug 27, 2006, 13:29
|
Only a partisan hack would continue to bleep "Clinton bad" instead of looking at the facts.
I know facts are inconvenient to you on this issue, but I would urge you to read your own link. Puhleeze. Before you go spouting off on how the US was going to give North Korea $4 billion, you might want to do a little background.
While you are at it, perhaps a deeper look at the "why," "how," and "when" would be of some help to you in understanding what went wrong with North Korea. This Administration's skuttling of a treat Carter negotiated for Clinton doesn't mean it was a "moronic" policy. Unless you now believe a country backing up words with weaponry if necessary is moronic.
|
| 49 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Sun, Aug 27, 2006, 13:52
|
$4 billion in foreign aid, vs a war. Our military machine can churn through $1,000,000,000 faster than an Excursion goes through a tank of fuel. And thats not even considering the cost in lives.
Get past the money Jag, it was infitely cheaper than a war.
And as PD said, read your own link. I've been scratching my head trying to figure why you posted it, thinking it had anything derogatory to say re Clinton. Says essentially the same thing PDs link said...Clinton set it up to be handled safely and king george screwed the pooch.
And FTR, I'm not "defending" Clinton. I'm bashing your blind partisan bashing of Clinton, which occurs solely becuase his name is Clinton! You cant even read your own propoganda and comprehend what it says, yet you accuse us of being "blindly partisan". Where am I blindly partisan? Shrub. I'd jump for joy and throw a gddmn party, if that man just up and disappeared from the face of the earth. (Preferably, taking rove, rummy and cheney with him.)
|
| 50 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 374522815
Sun, Aug 27, 2006, 15:10
|
the liberals here will back a completely failed and moronic policy
What failed policy is that? If you refuse to accept any timeline regarding NK's nuclear progress how can you have any stance on who failed and who and who didn't.
Only the most partisan liberal could justify giving Jong Il 4 billion dollars
While I certainly don't agree with that statement, I'm not sure where I stand on Clinton's policy toward NK. I will say that if the mostly corroborating timelines given in both PD's and Jag's links are accurate, I'd side with tossing a few billion to NK every time if it's my only option to keep nukes out of Kim Jong Il's arsenal.
Further, I guess Ronald Reagan's Iraq policy was just as much a moronic failure. How come Ann Coulter never mentions the weapons and billions we sent to Saddam Hussein?
|
| 53 | Perm Dude
ID: 16316187
Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 14:21
|
Butt (to eliminate spam)
|
| 54 | Edgar Bradford
ID: 483492219
Tue, Apr 22, 2008, 21:49
|
saharan pavonine etacist schweizerkase stolist vicarage ogamic lestosaurusSouth Motors Group http://www.crtinfo.com/
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|