Reply With Quote
Yep, Iran and North Korea began their nuclear programs the day after Bush declared them a part of the Axis of Evil.
Pyongyang's test -- although possibly a distraction from the Mark Foley mess -- undeniably represents "a failure of U.S. policy
President Bush denounced the Axis of Evil five years ago and promised that he would do everything to keep its members from getting nukes.
Well, North Korea just detonated one.
Iran is well on its way to getting one.
And Iraq, well, that's not quite the bright spot we hoped it would be." Not quite indeed, particularly with former pal Bob Woodward now denouncing the president for concealing the truth about Iraq from the American people and himself.
A little louder Yoni
Yep, Iran and North Korea began their nuclear programs the day after Bush declared them a part of the Axis of Evil.
As much as I hate to say it, he's got a point.
I think Irish's point is that Bush was ing around in his little sandbox called Iraq, while China was finishing up their Frankenstein, North Korea.
Now even the Chinese are scared of this Frankenstein. Could Bush at least have tried to negotiate a looong time ago along w/chinese? yes. but then again, he ain't that bright
While conceeding that he has valid point, I hope he remembers and concedes that Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden and Saddam, all started before the Clinton Administration.
But the fact does remain that the Bush Administration, IMO, has not done well in preventing NK to get to the point they are today.
He has tried to negotiate with them. However, the Chinese really don't want to do anything about North Korea. North Korea is their "junkyard dog" and they're letting Kim Jong Mentally Ill do their dirty work.
But let's not forget - the North Koreans were given the green light for their nuclear program from the Clinton Administration. Remember Madelyn Halfbright clinking champagne glasses with the little nutjob? Even she now says that the North Koreans tricked her - but it's all Bush's fault, right?
I'm not saying it is Bush's fault but the blame on the Clinton's excuse won't fly either.
And I see you've seen the ads being put out by republicans.
And the nuclear progam was not to create WMD and you know that.
Remember the picture of Rummy and Saddam shaking hands?
With any luck they'll be shaking hands again, as co-defendants.
What dirty work? What does China get out of this particular move?However, the Chinese really don't want to do anything about North Korea. North Korea is their "junkyard dog" and they're letting Kim Jong Mentally Ill do their dirty work.
So everybody has a junkyard dog? Who is our junkyard dog? Israel? What is their dirty work for us, besides constant tension in the region?
NK is China's junkyard dog? They guard China's junk? So what?
Their dirty work? Is China supposed to be gleeful about the prospect of an armed-to-the-teeth nuclear Japan?
Are you capable of independent thought?
Actually, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda became prominint during the Clinton Administration. Yes, their born on date, predates Clinton but, their global terrorism didn't really get started until after Clinton was elected and, as Osama has stated, they were emboldened by Clinton's inaction and retreat in places like Mogadishu.
I don't think there is much either the Clinton Administration or the Bush Administration could have done to prevent North Korea from getting to the point they are today short of declaring war.
However, while the Clinton administration depended on engagement and bilateral negotiations that only bought NK time and gave them money, to boot; the Bush administration has embargoed and tightened the noose so that North Korea was forced to show their hand -- probably prematurely if the dud explosion and boost phase missile failures are any indication -- to the world and wake everyone, including China, up.
Clinton enabled. Bush exposed. Now the world has to deal with a threat that has existed since before the current administration but of which stupid people were ignorant because of people like Jimmy Carter and Madelaine Albright.
Bush exposed it? Funny. From a classroom full of children? Bush ignored it. nice try.
I think we all know now where Bush was when the reality occured.
We all know something could have been done. Jimmy Carter hahahahaha.
Saying Al Queda became "prominent" is just a cop out to appease your belief in Bush. There were always there. If that is your argument then North Korea has become "prominent" under the Bush administration since they are a much bigger threat NOW than they were under the Clinton administration and that is a simple fact that I don't understand why you cannot agree with.
That is just your view of things. Bush is being critized for his refusal to have direct talks with NK. It is clear that policy didn't work and you cannot deny that. You can point the finger at Carter and Albright all you want but it doesn't change the FACT that NK threat of today did NOT exist during their administrations. A plain FACT Yonivore that again, I cannot see why it is so hard for you admit that your beloved Bush is not perfect.
Come on guy. You're a libertarian anyways.
Are you referring to the reaction Bush had after 9/11 while reading to those children? If not, let me know and I will not continue.
I was thinking the same thing. Not sure what that has to do with Yoni's statement about exposing NK???
i'm referring to the fact that bush is being touted by yoni as the great man that finally exposed the dangers of obl.
The man let the opportunity of doing something that resembled anything slip through his fingers before 9-11. He squandered the greatest oppotunity to unite the world and chose to bully the world after 9-11 instead.
In the end, bullys limp home black-eyed and bloody. (see Iraq)
What do mean expose NK? NK came out on their own. Bush had nothing to do with any efforts regarding NK.
If your the leader of another country, and you saw Bush lurking around your neigborhood, wouldn't you attempt to get your weapons in order?
Hey Clam - try reading Yoni's post again. He said Bush exposed the danger of North Korea - not OBL.
He didn't expose anything. If Pakistan hadn't kowtowed, they too would have been included in his "axis of evil" speech.
Well, aside from the fact you can't point to any Somalias, or Coles, or Kenyas, or '93 World Trade Centers, or Tanzanias perpetrated by the North Koreans, your argument is still full of .
Stop right there. You're correct -- the Clinton/Albright/Carter policy of bilateral direct talks with North Korea didn't work. That's why Bush refuses to engage them bilaterally except under the framework of the six-party talks. To do so only gives Kim Jong Mentally-Ill a level of respect he doesn't deserve and will only use to engage in further extortion.
Sure it did. North Korea has already admitted, confessed, revealed -- put it however you want -- that they continued their nuclear program the moment Jimmy Carter boarded his plane after reaching the "agreed framework."
I've never said he was perfect. I just happen to agree with this policy of confronting North Korea; it's obvious the policy of engagement didn't slow him down one bit.
I think it's better to confront him, and to drag the rest of the world with us to confront this very real danger, now -- while his missiles still fail in the boost phase and his nuclear explosions still resemble .5 KT conventional explosives than when he has real missiles and real nuclear weapons.
Last edited by Yonivore; 10-13-2006 at 12:24 PM.
Crookshanks, you've been called out three times to explain yourself.
What are you afraid of?
No, the fact that you cannot come up with something better than that means your arguments are full of .
They were working. They did NOT have nuclear weapon capability and that is a fact. Bush's refusal to engage them bilaterally has done nothing to deter NK from continuing their nuclear program and we saw the results of that when NK conducted their nuclear testing.
We already knew that but they were not at the level they are today. Again, Bush's refusal to talk has not been any deterent to NK at all. none.
Nor has the Bush policy.
Remember that Reagan at one time refused to have one-on-one talks with the Soviet Union but once he was won over by Nancy and Schultz did things changed.
I also think Bush's refusal to go with bilateral talks is so that any failures will not be directly link to his beloved "legacy".
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
