When former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was on Larry King’s show, she blamed the Bush Administration for North Korea’s launching of seven missiles:
“Frankly, Larry, I think the problem here is that we are watching the failure of five years’ worth of American diplomacy,” Albright said Wednesday night. “I’m very worried about it, and I hope very much that we do have a review of our North Korean policy.”
Investors Business Daily caught Ms. Albright’s rewrite of history and outlined how it was the Clinton Administration that dropped the ball on North Korea, bringing us to the problem we have today:
• 1993: North Korea threatens to leave the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. After conducting U.N. inspections there for a year and a half, former International Atomic Energy Agency chief Hans Blix warns he can’t provide “any meaningful assurances” North Korea isn’t making nuclear weapons.
• 1994: Under the “Agreed Framework” negotiated by the Clinton administration with help of ex-President Carter, North Korea agrees to stop building nuclear weapons. In exchange, it gets billions in aid, including food, oil and modern nuclear reactors.
By 2000, according to a congressional report, North Korea would become the “largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid” in Asia. North Korea immediately starts cheating on the deal, acquiring nuclear know-how and material from Pakistan and China.
• 1998: A U.S. government report finds at least 1 million North Koreans have died of starvation as aid is used to kick-start the nuclear weapons program.
• 1998: Clinton’s military chief of staff tells Congress North Korea has no active ballistic missile program. A week later, North Korea shoots a Taepodong-1 missile over Japan and toward Alaska.
• 1999: Clinton eases sanctions against North Korea. U.S. signs a $5 billion deal to build two nuclear reactors. North Korea diverts aid to speed WMD program. Mass starvation reportedly continues.
• 2000: Despite continued breaches of the “agreed framework,” Albright travels to Pyongyang, where she cheerfully clinks glasses with Dear Leader Kim Jong-Il. Media hail the meeting as a diplomatic masterstroke by Clinton.
• 2002: New York Times headline: “North Korea Says It Has A Program On Nuclear Arms.”
For years, the Clinton Administration appeased Kim Jong-Il, refusing to take any action that could risk Clinton’s approval rating or injure his legacy. All the while, North Korea was building its weaponry. Now that Kim Jong-Il is test-firing missiles he acquired during the Clinton Administration, Secretary Albright criticizes with self-righteous indignation President Bush’s failed diplomacy.
Other former Clinton Administration officials have criticized Bush’s handling of North Korea. Recently Ashton Carter, Clinton’s assistant secretary of defense and William Perry, Clinton’s secretary of defense, said this in their June 22 Washington Post editorial:
Therefore, if North Korea persists in its launch preparations, the United States should immediately make clear its intention to strike and destroy the North Korean Taepodong missile before it can be launched. This could be accomplished, for example, by a cruise missile launched from a submarine carrying a high-explosive warhead. The blast would be similar to the one that killed terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq. But the effect on the Taepodong would be devastating. The multi-story, thin-skinned missile filled with high-energy fuel is itself explosive — the U.S. airstrike would puncture the missile and probably cause it to explode. The carefully engineered test bed for North Korea’s nascent nuclear missile force would be destroyed, and its attempt to retrogress to Cold War threats thwarted. There would be no damage to North Korea outside the immediate vicinity of the missile gantry.
Suddenly, when they aren’t the ones responsible for the consequences, these men are hawks on North Korea. It’s easy to demand an airstrike against a madman possibly armed with nuclear weapons when they’re on the sidelines and not subject to any of the risk.
But when they were the ones minding the store and had the chance to make the tough choices and deal with Kim Jong-Il’s defiance and missile buildup, they balked.
“And just where would we have based this invasion of Iran out of?”
Careful Cybrludite, the liberals have already stated where we could invade Iran from. Their elite, ex-Marine military expert Murtha has already explained how we can invade the Middle East easuly from……Okinawa.
MikeSC: It’s been a real pleasure watching you take Matt apart.
Oh, and Lee:
“He had six years to fix things and he botched it.”
How long have you been commenting here now? And you haven’t won a single convert. You’ve had all this time and you’ve botched it.
Don’t mind Lee, he’s the village idiot.
It seems that shamelessness was a communicable disease in the Clinton administration. Albright is a disgrace.
Oyster, who died and made you the “Siskel & Ebert” of Wizbang threads? TM wins on logic and reason. Nice try MikeSC, but you are way too partisan dude.
Honest question; would you prefer if America was pretty much a one party state? It seems that most of your comrades that post here would, so I want to ask you, because you seem to be somewhat sagacious in your thinking.
BTW, unlike oyster who just throws out proclamations based on whose views are similar to his. I will tell you why TM wins. He wins because of this statement by you my man:
“And that Stalin guy was a pretty loathsome human. Just beneath Mao for most detestable human in history”
Now that statement alone shows what an extreme ideologue you are. And extreme ideologues can’t win arguments based on logic. For you to use Mao, and Stalin, two communist who deserve to be on the list-but not one and two- and leave out a certain fascist with a funny mustache, because he is closer to you ideologically, is insane. You know what, don’t answer that question I asked you. I think I already know your answer 🙁
So Clinton fans didn’t get out and vote as much as Bush’s supporters, probably because they were sitting back enjoying the prosperity.
Wow. That might be the single most illogical argument ever made. Reagan got more votes and he had more prosperity under his watch.
I may as well assume that, because the guy did have a consistently high job approval rating.
Or that people liked him when there was no direct alternative, but the moment an alternative arose, they didn’t support him nearly as much?
Could be?
See, people “hate” Bush, until they’re given an alternative. Then they support Bush more than they supported Clinton when he had an alternative.
And don’t tell me that Clinton managed to manipulate polls. You’re giving him too much credit. He’s not Karl Rove.
Clinton, clearly, wasn’t bright enough to do it since he was unaware of the definition of the word “is”. But I’ll but guarantee you that if they wanted to, Republicans could question A LOT about his elections.
Why?
Because every election has problems.
Bush ran against Al Gore when he was the most boring man on the planet, and against John Kerry who was a gift to the incumbent.
Clinton ran against Bob Dole and George Bush who had no desire, whatsoever, to win.
Are you trying to claim that Bush faced weaker opposition?
Disappointed, yes. But I’m a happy, well-adjusted, very well paid young man with a great girlfriend and a wonderful family. Kinda softens the blow.
That’s a good thing. I have the same.
The Democrats are opposed to gay marriage, but they’re opposed to the constitutional amendment banning it too. It’s a politically safe position.
Wow, that is pure courage.
We won’t be going into North Korea, because we can’t. Don’t have the means to do it. But KJI most certainly does have WMDs.
Until it turns out he didn’t. We all thought Saddam had them as well.
I don’t doubt for a moment that he does — but we have less intel about N. Korea than we had about Iraq.
Just saying.
I wasn’t saying you’re guilty by association of shaking Saddam’s hands via Rumsfeld’s. I was saying that a neo-conservative was an apologist for a war criminal, and then helped orchestrate his removal.
Nobody was a Saddam apologist. At his apex, he was “our son of a bitch” — not somebody we REMOTELY liked or wished to tolerate. WE didn’t praise him the way, say, Albright praised Kim Jong-Il.
This war, whatever its merits and motivations, has not been executed competently or honestly. I would never vote Democrat again if they refused to make this a campaign issue, because a president-as-such deserves absolutely NO loyalty whatsoever. He has to earn it through his performance, and Bush hasn’t.
Dems fired missiles into Iraq for the identical reason Bush went in there.
You support THAT?
There is not a war that Republicans “started” that Dems supported. Not one. Dems seldom have that problem with the GOP, who tries to support the military.
(Anyone who’s curious: MikeSC lost a debate about gay marriage in a previous comment because he expressly denied that the Court should ever, under any circumstances, supercede the will of the people to protect minority rights. Kudos to none of you for defending this lunacy.)
Again, the person who has to tell everybody he “won” is simply trying to convince himself.
Oyster, who died and made you the “Siskel & Ebert” of Wizbang threads? TM wins on logic and reason. Nice try MikeSC, but you are way too partisan dude.
Wow, an uber-partisan finds TM’s whiny emotionalism compelling. Color me stunned.
Now that statement alone shows what an extreme ideologue you are. And extreme ideologues can’t win arguments based on logic. For you to use Mao, and Stalin, two communist who deserve to be on the list-but not one and two- and leave out a certain fascist with a funny mustache, because he is closer to you ideologically, is insane.
Feel free to continue with your idiotic babble.
Why are Mao and Stalin #1 and #2?
Because they killed MORE people — by a huge margin — than Hitler. It’s not like this is even a close competition. Mao killed about 60M. Stalin killed 20-30M. Hitler killed 10M. On that scale ALONE, Hitler pales in comparison to leftist darlings Stalin and Mao.
You know, you could have ASKED why they were #1 and #2. I’d have been glad to explain it — but hey, since all Republicans are Nazis to you, you didn’t feel any need to do so.
If you want to believe that Hitler is “closer” to be politically, it’s because you are, to be generous, a complete moron.
Just because YOUR side has never come to grips with what Communism caused the world — hell, YOUR side apologized for Mao and Stalin’s humanity crimes on a regular basis while my side has condemned Hitler, unequivocally, for many years.
-=Mike
And then Big Bad Bush was smacked down again.
Brought to his knees by a lunatic with a really bad haircut. What a putz.
China (and Russia) refused to go along with GWB’s plan to keep tensions high (which GWB wanted in order to help republicans get re-elected), and George was slapped down. North Korea will get the talks they’ve been demanding all along, and the world learns that the US foreign poilcy is just so much noise …
Albright was right.
All of the missile’s were shot down by a laser beam from a 747. It’s simply the star wars that the dim-wits also made fun of at work. They can also explode the NK nukes in country with no trace that anyone did a thing. Listed as just another failure by the dim-wits best friend Kim the donkey lover. LMAO
Yeah Scrapiron! Jumbo jets with frickin’ laser beams on their foreheads! Man, you need to post more frequently. I learn so much from you.
Mike, while I would hate for someone to accuse me of being un>emotional in my arguments, the rejection of your view that the Supreme Court = totalitarianism is not “emotionalism”. You lose, dude.
Consider some of the principles of sowing and reaping:
1. What you sow you reap.
2. You reap MORE than you sow.
3. You reap LATER than you sow.
What Bill Clinton sowed, George Bush reaped, in spades.
nice try Sylvan – but lame, just like your party. All your party can accomplish is feeding the defense industry, tax cuts for the rich, trying to spin religious doctrine into domestic law, and licking the genitals of lobbyists.
You’re a disgrace to this country – and Bush’s latest failures in N Korea are a prime example. This administration declared North Korea among the “axis of evil” in 2002 (?) and they FIRED A MISSLE AT US last week, and now we have to follow China and Russia’s orders to sit down at the table.
Glad the republicans are on top of this war on terror! THEY FIRED A MISSLE AT US, and GWB was willing to let the people of the state of Hawaii be held as a psychological hostage to a madman, until China and Russia intervened ON OUR BEHALF, and set a plan in motion.
Pathetic.
Insofar as this is a genuine national security issue, Sylvan, that sort of comment is unhelpful within the context of this discussion.
But I’ll tell ya what. If L’il Kim levels Seoul in response to a preemptive attack, you can fly yourself to S. Korea and explain to the survivors that it’s actually Bill Clinton’s fault.
This administration declared North Korea among the “axis of evil” in 2002 (?) and they FIRED A MISSLE AT US last week, and now we have to follow China and Russia’s orders to sit down at the table.
Stop being such a chickenshit, Lee. If you are advocating we nuke North Korea, come out and say it. Or are you just gonna fling shit and waffle like your heroes Dean and Kerry?
B Moe, I think Lee is expressing the reasonable disgust that we should feel right now. The U.S. cannot do anything about N. Korea militarily without jeopardizing millions of S. Koreans.
Lee isn’t being a chickenshit. He’s as pissed off about this as we all should be (and hopefully are). It’s an actual threat posed by a guy who wants people to think he has WMDs and nuclear weapons, and Commander Codpiece has to suck up to the Chinese and that snake Putin to try and settle things down.
Are you happy with the American bargaining position right now?
Hmmm…revealing reactions to three clear and simple principles as applied to two principals.
One principal’s charismatic exterior masks a less principled interior; the other’s exterior reflects a more principled interior.
Some seem to have lost the ability to perceive the distinction and would sacrifice principles for a principal, no matter his ilk.
Long after principals are gone from the scene, the principles will continue in force. We ignore them at our peril.
Sylvan, the issue is American security, not loyalty to either Bush or Clinton.
I think it behooves everyone to treat this as a bipartisan problem that requires a creative solution. Politicizing this situation is crass and stupid. But of course Democratic and Republican congresspeople will do it anyway.
Mike Mike Mike. No buddy, I am not a big fan of Mao or Stalin. Che, on the other hand, I like. But yourt facts again are wrong-as usual- But you know the old saying about letting facts get in the way of a good argument. I think Mao was responsible for the deaths of 40 million, Stalin more like 13 million and your buddy 12 million. Mr. Funny mustache man killed about 6 million jews, and about six million others, such as other minorities, the weak, the handicapped, Catholics, communist,trade unionist, you name it; he took them out. “It’s not like this is even a close competition…Hitler pales in comparrson to your leftist darlings..” Really? Just what bizarro world do you live in? I mean if we take this thing by size of their countries alone and percentages of those killed, it would be funny mustache man way out front.
Anyway, I am going to vote funny mustache man number one, certainly over Stalin. Who, by the way, helped the allies defeat said mustache man-the hero to the “brown shirt” movement- in World War II.
But let me give you a quick history lesson, because I can see that you are not as smart as I thought you were -Gee see how people can fool you on the web?- Stalin did not directly gas and have his SS murder people like funny mustache man because of their race. Yes, millions od Kulaks starved because of famine, and yes, he took their land and oppressed them when they started slaughtering live stock and animals in Russia. So he was a bad man, but I think any -and this is where it gets tricky for you- reasonable person would argue that he did his bad deeds out of political expediency. Hitler, on the other hand, was just pure evil, and his “final solution” program is unmatched in human history in terms of it’s brutality. Read Mein Kampf again-I am sure you have a copy somewhere.
So again genius, this isn’t about left and right, dem and repub. It’s about who was truly evil, and Hitler was number one. Period! Which leads me back to my original point. You coulddn’t see that, because all of your thinking is so colored by ideology. You claim your side condemned Hitler, yet given all that he has done, you chose to not mention him number one or two on your list. That’s classic.
BTW, you still didn’t answer my question about doing away with the democratic party in America. The last part of my previous post was purely rhetorical, so I was expecting an answer. But maybe you won’t answer it, because you might have a good trait left in you after all. Honesty.
It’s an actual threat posed by a guy who wants people to think he has WMDs and nuclear weapons, and Commander Codpiece has to suck up to the Chinese and that snake Putin to try and settle things down.
We don’t have to do shit, we could incinerate North Korea right now. The question is would you rather do that than negotiate with the people involved.
Are you happy with the American bargaining position right now?
No. I would prefer that Clinton had not given North Korea nuclear capabilities, but he did and we have to deal with it. I am also not happy with disingenuous partisan fuckwads who bitch because we didn’t negotiate in the middle east and are now bitching because we are negotiating in se asia.
nice try Sylvan – but lame, just like your party. All your party can accomplish is feeding the defense industry, tax cuts for the rich, trying to spin religious doctrine into domestic law, and licking the genitals of lobbyists.
Says the party whose last President sold WH stays to campaign contributors on a regular basis, took money from the Chinese in utter violation of the law, and gutted the military and utterly made the intel community impotent.
You’re a disgrace to this country – and Bush’s latest failures in N Korea are a prime example. This administration declared North Korea among the “axis of evil” in 2002 (?) and they FIRED A MISSLE AT US last week, and now we have to follow China and Russia’s orders to sit down at the table.
Because traitors such as yourself would bitch and moan if we went over there and did anything.
But I’ll tell ya what. If L’il Kim levels Seoul in response to a preemptive attack, you can fly yourself to S. Korea and explain to the survivors that it’s actually Bill Clinton’s fault.
Hmm, he gave them the nuclear material in exchange for them “promising” not to make bombs — promises they broke the day they made them.
Yup, it’s Bush’s fault. Of course.
Lee isn’t being a chickenshit. He’s as pissed off about this as we all should be (and hopefully are). It’s an actual threat posed by a guy who wants people to think he has WMDs and nuclear weapons, and Commander Codpiece has to suck up to the Chinese and that snake Putin to try an
Wow, this is different than Saddam…how?
Che, on the other hand, I like.
You support murderous, authoritarian thugs? Gee, that’s nice.
I think Mao was responsible for the deaths of 40 million, Stalin more like 13 million and your buddy 12 million.
Yes, me calling somebody the 3rd most loathesome in history is him being my “buddy”.
And Stalin killed far more than 13M. The man used FAMINE as a weapon.
Mr. Funny mustache man killed about 6 million jews, and about six million others, such as other minorities, the weak, the handicapped, Catholics, communist,trade unionist, you name it; he took them out.
As did Stalin.
As did Mao.
And they killed more.
Care to tell me how they’re BETTER than Hitler, since that is PRECISELY your argument here My argument for them being worse is that they killed considerably more people.
Really? Just what bizarro world do you live in? I mean if we take this thing by size of their countries alone and percentages of those killed, it would be funny mustache man way out front.
Actually, Pol Pot would be #1 by a huge margin. He only killed about ONE QUARTER OF HIS ENTIRE COUNTRY’S POPULATION.
Study a little history.
Anyway, I am going to vote funny mustache man number one, certainly over Stalin. Who, by the way, helped the allies defeat said mustache man-the hero to the “brown shirt” movement- in World War II.
…only because Germany attacked him after he signed a non-Aggression Pact and helped Hitler execute a mass genocide in Poland.
Really, your side has a hard-on for Communists. It makes no sense.
Stalin did not directly gas and have his SS murder people like funny mustache man because of their race.
Stalin killed them because he thought they MIGHT be “unfaithful” to him. He starved millions to death for NO reason.
Again, I’m going with the totals killed to make my list. You’re going with “Well, I side with Mao and Stalin more than I side with Hitler”, which is beyond contemptible.
Yes, millions od Kulaks starved because of famine, and yes, he took their land and oppressed them when they started slaughtering live stock and animals in Russia. So he was a bad man, but I think any -and this is where it gets tricky for you- reasonable person would argue that he did his bad deeds out of political expediency.
Well, gee, I suppose that makes it OK then, huh?
I’m supposed to care WHY somebody slaughters untold millions?
Jesus, have you no decency?
Hitler, on the other hand, was just pure evil, and his “final solution” program is unmatched in human history in terms of it’s brutality. Read Mein Kampf again-I am sure you have a copy somewhere.
Yes. Again, because calling somebody the third-most loathesome man in history means I approve of him.
Unlike you, I studied Hitler and Mussolini in depth back in school. I know precisely what those two men did. Hitler was an evil, evil man.
The “Great Leap Forward” of Mao alone DWARFS the sheer magnitude of mass slaughter than the Holocaust. Stalin’s forced famine of his opponents equalled the Holocaust.
Stalin and Mao were worse.
So again genius, this isn’t about left and right, dem and repub. It’s about who was truly evil, and Hitler was number one. Period!
Stalin and Mao were markedly worse. Killed far more people.
Which leads me back to my original point. You coulddn’t see that, because all of your thinking is so colored by ideology. You claim your side condemned Hitler, yet given all that he has done, you chose to not mention him number one or two on your list. That’s classic.
I am going with numbers killed.
By YOUR OWN NUMBERS, Stalin and Mao were worse.
But since you have a hard-on for Communist thugs, you don’t MIND that. You don’t have a problem with that.
In any rational sense, it is impossible to say Hitler is “worse” than Stalin or Mao.
Worse than Pol Pot? Yup.
Castro? Yup.
Khomeini? Yes.
Saddam? Easily.
Milosevic? Please.
Lenin? Yup.
Mao? Nope.
Stalin? Nope.
BTW, you still didn’t answer my question about doing away with the democratic party in America. The last part of my previous post was purely rhetorical, so I was expecting an answer. But maybe you won’t answer it, because you might have a good trait left in you after all. Honesty.
I want 2 parties.
The Dems have proven themselves to be in opposition to the US, so they should disband and allow a competent party to take over.
Finding somebody so blinded by utter evil because you LIKE Communists doesn’t think highly of me is something I’m proud of. If you liked or approved of me, I’d know I was wrong, fundamentally, on everything.
-=Mike
So he was a bad man, but I think any -and this is where it gets tricky for you- reasonable person would argue that he did his bad deeds out of political expediency. Hitler, on the other hand, was just pure evil, and his “final solution” program is unmatched in human history in terms of it’s brutality.
Intentionally starving millions of people to death in the name of “political expediency” isn’t evil? What kind of vile sack of corruption are you? That is truly dispicable.
“…reasonable person would argue…”
haha. Anyone who starts off a comment saying they “like” Che would be immediately suspected of having a total lack of reason. Here’s where it gets tricky, dude; Che was a cold blooded murderer. He personally signed the death warrants of thousands and pulled the trigger himself on a significant number of those occasions then happily paraded their family members by the carnage that was once their loved ones. He destroyed the Cuban Peso when Castro made him Minister of Economics. Then within a year of being named Minister of Industries Cuba was rationing food. The only thing he excelled in was being Chief Executioner. He was an amoral, immoral blood-thirsty thug.
That is all he was.
Yet people like you would gleefully romanticize his bloody soaked insanity. Why, I’ll bet you’d proudly wear a shirt emblazoned with his picture.
Here’s my advice to all those who wear such clothing. If you want to wear something that really embodies “revolution”, get a shirt with Ben Franklin on it.
Intentionaly starving millions of people to death in the name of political expediency …what kind of vile sack of corruption are you” I don’t know, I think I come from the same sack with the people who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of native Americans, in order to open up the frontier for their own. And I think the people that forced hundreds of thousands of people to work for free for them, while causing the deaths of countless more on their way to do said work, was in that sack too. That sack of corruption!
Oyster, Che was a physician, who also saved the lives of many poor peasants in the hills of South America.-Have you ever saved a life?- And was one of the first to actually call for the fighting of imperialism in Africa-Congo-(That will always be good in the field-negro’s book- He was also executed without a trial. Which might explain why many people see him as somehwat of an icon. I mean, even the most wicked and immoral among us, have gotten the benefit of a trial. But he did not, so regardless of what you might think about him, I think you will agree that he deserved that much.
Oh, and I don’t wear Ben Franklin t-shirts, but I work on Ben Franklin Parkway; does that count?
“Che was a physician, who also saved the lives of many poor peasants in the hills of South America.”
Stalin loved his dog, too.
Che was not a physician. That’s the most preposterous of his adorers claims. He was a medical school dropout. Looks like he never got as far as the part where he was supposed to take the Hippocratic Oath. Shame he didn’t use that wounderous talent on the people who died by his hand, huh?
I took some accounting classes. Does that make me a CPA? Whether or not I’ve saved a life has no bearing on the matter.
Che KNEW how to save lives, I doubt if you KNOW how to balance the books of a dollar store.
Therein my nescient republican friend, lies the difference.
Ouch. Your attack on my intelligence really hurts. I happen to to run the accounting department for a 3 million dollar a year business. And what makes you think I’m a republican? Is that supposed to be an insult too? Please advise. I’m not sure if my feelings should be doubly hurt.
Che KNEW how to save lives, eh? I guess that makes up for all the ones he killed. Nice logic there, pal.