Make no mistake
Thank George W. Bush for the situation in North Korea. Failure to open bilateral talks with the nation is the reason they tested a weapon today. Remember Kerry during the Presidential debate?
"With respect to North Korea, the real story: We had inspectors and television cameras in the nuclear reactor in North Korea. Secretary Bill Perry negotiated that under President Clinton. And we knew where the fuel rods were. And we knew the limits on their nuclear power. Colin Powell, our Secretary of State, announced one day that we were going to continue the dialogue of working with the North Koreans. The president reversed it publicly while the president of South Korea was here. And the president of South Korea went back to South Korea bewildered and embarrassed because it went against his policy. And for two years, this administration didn‘t talk at all to North Korea. While they didn‘t talk at all, the fuel rods came out, the inspectors were kicked out, the television cameras were kicked out. And today, there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea. That happened on this president‘s watch. Now, that, I think, is one of the most serious, sort of reversals or mixed messages that you could possibly send."
Is there anything else left for them to screw up?
"With respect to North Korea, the real story: We had inspectors and television cameras in the nuclear reactor in North Korea. Secretary Bill Perry negotiated that under President Clinton. And we knew where the fuel rods were. And we knew the limits on their nuclear power. Colin Powell, our Secretary of State, announced one day that we were going to continue the dialogue of working with the North Koreans. The president reversed it publicly while the president of South Korea was here. And the president of South Korea went back to South Korea bewildered and embarrassed because it went against his policy. And for two years, this administration didn‘t talk at all to North Korea. While they didn‘t talk at all, the fuel rods came out, the inspectors were kicked out, the television cameras were kicked out. And today, there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea. That happened on this president‘s watch. Now, that, I think, is one of the most serious, sort of reversals or mixed messages that you could possibly send."
Is there anything else left for them to screw up?
posted by mochi at 6:59 PM
18 Comments:
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
“We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today," Kerry said Wednesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” "Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, I would not have gone to war. That's plain and simple."
But on Aug. 9, 2004, when asked if he would still have gone to war knowing Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, Kerry said: “Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have.” Speaking to reporters at the edge of the Grand Canyon, he added: “[Although] I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has."
Kerry Said He Will Fight To Keep Tax Relief For Married Couples. “Howard Dean and Gephardt are going to put the marriage penalty back in place. So if you get married in America, we’re going to charge you more taxes. I do not want to do that.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 10/23/03)
Said Democrats Fought To End Marriage Penalty Tax. “We fought hard to get rid of the marriage penalty.” (MSNBC’s “News Live,” 7/31/03)
But, In 1998, Kerry Voted Against Eliminating Marriage Penalty Relief For Married Taxpayers With Combined Incomes Less Than $50,000 Per Year, Saving Taxpayers $46 Billion Over 10 Years. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea)
Of course we could go on.
John Kerry--not exactly the prophet I would quote, nor use to support my assertions.
But that's just me, Mochi
-Jack
I'm tempted to delete this comment since it has absolutely nothing to do with the post...
Great Republican technique: ignore the issue and push an unrelated topic to confuse the issue.
Kerry was right in this case. Bilateral talks would have worked.
Here's an article that blames the problem on Presidents Clinton and Carter:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/10/9/132140.shtml?s=sp&promo_code=26C9-1
Newsmax??? I'm shocked that a right wing publication would blame Clinton. 6 years into a presidency is he not responsbile for anything? If I tried to blame someone who was doing my job 6 years ago for a situation I'm in now I have no doubt I would be fired.
Ha! I figured it to be as credible a source as John Kerry :)
-Jack
Oh, Mochi, I'm sorry about the first comment--I thought you would understand that I was putting instances in about Kerry that challenge your source as being far from credible. Kerry starts out his quote "the real story"--I didn't think that I would need to explain that.
But...I have no idea how you can say with certainty that talks would have worked with Korea--that view is so...American...
-Jack
We obviously can't say with certainty that talks would have worked. We CAN say that doing nothing didn't work. That's the biggest problem our President has: no leadership skills. True leaders can negotiate; can be diplomatic. The Bush whitehouse is simply incapable of this. They only know ignorance and aggression.
Hi Smorg,
Having lived in the orient and having middle eastern friends, (Mike Bashur is a long time friend from Syria), I just want to make a point. The western mind is different than the eastern mind on many levels. Americans have an idealistic view that is based on our own history of pampered security--the rest of the world doesn't live with that. Because of this we think that everyone will listen to "talks" that everything can be "negotiated". It comes from our capitalistic/democratic mindset and we project this upon other cultures. While our optimism is good, our view of reality is often skewed by it. Mike and I have had many discussions about this naivete in America--he finds it charming, I find it sometimes disquietening.
For example, one cannot negotiate with a terrorist whose cause is just (what they define as...). You either convert to their way of thinking or you die. No amount of talking would have prevented 9/11 or the thousands of terrorist attacks in history. Jong is a powermonger/despot/dictator who likes to posture--entering the nuclear power "ranks" gives him a degree of prestige and self-respect--makes him perceive himself and his domain as being strong. The "crisis" that everyone is worried about will never come about. Jong may be crazy, but he ain't stupid, and there is little chance he would invite a thousand Chinese (or any nations') nuclear missles into his backyard.
The middle eastern situation is a little different. We have people like Bin Laden who would gladly sacrifice the lives of an entire nation to bring a nuclear weapon to bear. Iran is a concern, but N.K.? I won't have any problems sleeping tonight.
Couple other things. I remember back when Clinton was under attack for his screw ups. The Republicans that attacked him were both omniscient and judgemental. Has the "tolerant" left become what they hated at one time? I still maintain, for the Bush Administration, what I did for the Clinton Administration and the Bush, Reagan and Carter administrations before that--we have a nation full of armchair quarterbacks who are good at second-guessing and hindsight, without a clue about the issues that face our leadership on a daily basis. It is so easy to say what we "shoulda' or coulda'", but in all reality you, me and most of the people we know would have not done 1/2 the job even Bush has done. President Clinton just recently lost it on national television attacking a reporter for his failures with Bin Laden--I somewhat agree with President Clinton, everyone can sit there in judgement in hindsight, but had Clinton known that Bin Laden would blow up the WTC he would have taken him out when he could--but he didn't. There were many variables at play then that we weren't aware of, and Pres. Clinton used his best judgement. All of us exercise poor judgement at some point in our lives, and it we don't enjoy others standing in judgement of us on a daily basis. While we can critique policy decisions, it is awful mean-spirited of one to be so judgemental of the individual.
Is it true? Are the left the new mean-spirited ones they so vocally criticized during the Clinton years?
Just wondering.
-Jack
I dont belive Kerry when he proposes ideas, but he just states what happened. I mean if you want to bring in Kerry quotes, we can trot out all the garbage George Bush/Dick Cheney have spiewed over the years. I mean, even after we learn things to be true, they will still go on stating the opposite, the falsehoods, when we already know what is and isnt! They are propagandists even when their propaganda is proven false. And people believe them!
Still I dont know what cameras would do watching things in North Korea, because our intelligence doesnt need cameras, I think we have enough satellites and equipment to know where anything is whenever we want (except in Iraq it seems). I am not scared of Kim Jong Il at all- I saw Team America World Police and he is nothing. But at the same time, our savior George Bush should just cease his Karl Rove-rhetoric, grow up and start thinking for himself- even though he has out-read Karl Rove this year- kudos. His rhetoric is obnoxious, meaningless and impactless. Its pathetic and disturbing- George Bush, I am willing to bet, is the laughingstock of political leaders around the world. But you know what, this country gets what it deserves. We are ignorant, apathetic, clueless, mis-educated and gullible.
What has this president done right since he got elected? I can't think of much. He has a flawed foreign policy, well, we havent had a foreign policy for as long as Ive been alive, and has done nothing on domestic issues. Its pretty disgusting how they use Christians for votes as much as possible- not that Christians should trust Democrats either. I dont think George Bush is too stupid- I dont think for a second he thought he would actually get that marriage amendment passed.
You say that none of us would have done 1/2 the job Bush has done- but I disagree, Jack, because there is no such thing as half of nothing. I just dont know what that means- what has he done for this country? Bill Clinton was no prize, but I approve of the job he did more than Bush- pretty much because he didnt come off as TOO much of an arrogant _____ whenever he opened his mouth (not because of the economy- our economy would have boomed under Stalin in the late 90s).
I could have been ultimately won over on this whole military operation if they had a clue what they were doing- which they obviously never did. How many Republicans did you hear say "Just Imagine What A Free Iraq Would Do For the Middle East!" And I imagined, I imagined a lot, and every time, I came up with the same conclusion: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! We already tried and failed at invading a country and using that logic in Vietnam. I guess the Republicans wanted their try at it, using reverse domino theory. A little too ethno-centric, ignorant and having the wrong people making the wrong decisions. Like Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle- I just have a big problem with people who so overzealously and rabidly pursue these operations, yet have no issue chickening out of conflicts that they were able to fight in, allthewhile talking down to, and acting threatened by dissenters and those who disagree, or DARE question any decision they make- like they're God or something.
I will agree- Americans do have an idealistic mind that is based on our own history of pampered security- and it starts right at the top. These guys apparently didnt pay any attention to what these scrubby bunch of misfits did to the Soviet Union in the 1980s when we played the Iran to their Hezbollah- and for some reason decided to deify Ronald Reagan. Its like giving Ahmadinejad 100% credit for Hezbollah's recent stand-against Israel.
And this is all a shame, because our military has done a fine job, despite our "leaders." We have Marines occupying a war-torn country fighting for their lives, when the Marines AREN'T EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE AN OCCUPYING FORCE. THAT IS THE ARMY'S JOB, but there aren't enough Army forces of course. And its not like Captain America Dick Cheney and crew were never told this, they were, plenty of times. But they were hellbent on this, I just will never be able to understand it. But what would war veterans with military experience who have spent their lives serving their country know that some oil tycoon that shoots his own friends in the face in a sectioned off hunting area doesnt?
I know what we can do, vote out as many Republicans as possible, and elect those.... principled... Dem...o....crats. Riiiiiight.
Mochi is right in a sense, and so is Jack in a sense. George Bush has been a horrible president BUT our problems certainly did not start with him. And they will not end with him.
So:
Vote Perot 2008
Hi CH & WSC,
Really enjoy discussing things like this with you gents. I guess the reason I often choose the role of "advocate" (and therefore "instigator") is because of the way I was raised. I grew up being taught, "Judge not, that you be not judged", and the "walk a mile in their shoes" quote. I also try very hard to give people, no matter how they appear or even treat me, the benefit of the doubt. I look for positives--even though I am critical--I try to be fair. That often requires one to remove their emotional investment from the situation, and that is something that many can't do. For example, I know people who hate President Clinton and I know people who hate President Bush--first of all, I can't find it in myself to hate anyone, so that often puts me at an advantage in terms of objectivity. (not bragging, just indicating the way I was raised).
I have NO idea what the job of the president of the United States is like. I can imagine that it is a 24 hour job. I DO know that anyone who becomes president ages exponentially, and I saw that in every president I have observed so far. I am sure that it is no easy task. The problem with many people is that they fail to see all variables that are being faced and make evaluations based on the data available to them. I have to teach my supervisors the hard job of considering all variables when evaluating their employees. Not only do the quantify errors, but they have to look at them as a percentage of overall productivity. They have to consider increased output demands and system changes, etc. I had one supervisor who only kept track of what her employees were doing wrong. That was wrong and indiscriminate. CH, you ask what President Bush has done right and you can't answer that because you have only quantified what he has done wrong. Notice the media isn't talking about the economy--why? Because it is the best it has ever been, unemployment is at its lowest point in many decades, and median incomes are once again rising. One thing that affects the economy is fiscal policy, and so there are elements of the Bush Administrations' that are working.
When one reads only the negative, they think that way, and that is their perspective.
Is Perot running in '08? :)
WSC, I grew up as a missionary kid and so traveling is in my blood. I have lived in grass huts, the outback of Australia, and eaten dinner with the prime ministers of several African countries. When I grew up and was able I continued to travel--it is one of the most educational things I engage in. I feel that I lived the life of a rich person-even though we grew up in relative poverty. Living overseas I finally understood why many in the world look down/up at us--even the poor in this country live at a standard much higher than many country's rich--they envy that, but they judge us for our ingratitude and how much we take for granted.
I agree 100% with your statement: "Unfortunately that same naivete is our government's foreign policy today. It is totally based on corrupt idealism and capitalistic gain." because it is the philosophy of us all.
Btw, I am working on two articles I hope to post within a week or two--I mentioned it to Mochi in a previous post comment. The first is essentially going to be titled "Why WHO you vote for is the least important decision you will make in 2006" and the other is "George Bush and our infatuation with the word Fascist"
I am NOT being a blog HO to get you to come to my blog, but I would appreciate your thoughts when I do post.
Regards,
-Jack
There's really no need for me to add another comment here, but I want to make one quick point.
Blogging IS armchair quarterbacking. That's pretty much the definition of it. We can say all day "it's easy to judge..." but that's not the point at all. We are discussing politics. We are analyzing political decisions. We are Monday morning QB'ing. It is what it is. If we stop "back seat driving" our driver may steer us off a cliff.
Sorry, WSC, I was considering jobless claims and illegal hires into that. I took that from a website that figured those factors into it--if there were not illegals in the country unemployment would be sitting at its lowest point.
I too disagree with the debt--government spending has been at an all time high for decades, but it is congress that sets both the budget and the spending. Can't completely lay that at his door.
Good points all, though!
-Jack
I honestly havent heard if Perot is running. I doubt he is. I just love bringing his name into the chat, I just think hes great.
Jack, if you think my pessimism of Bush is bad, you should hear me rant about Deval Patrick! Kerry Healey too, but Deval Patrick is running away with the MA governor's election, and the best man as far as Im concerned- Christy Mihos- doesnt have a chance in hell of winning. So I am bitter. And also, to be quite honest, the best one in the debates so far has been the Green Party candidate- Grace Ross. Combined, her and Mihos will get about 12% of the vote. Now, I am sure all 4 are all good people, dont get me wrong, I know people who know people and have not heard a bad word about any of them as people- but as for the two major party candidates we have running, neither are fit for governor. Deval just talks a great game, he'll trot out Clinton and Kennedy and Kerry, and Healey brags(lies) about things she never did, but Mitt Romney did with her just looking over his shoulder.
So I am just as bitter on a state level as I am the federal level. I would like Bush about 90% more if he was more of a free-thinking person. He is so overly coached it drives me nuts.
And yeah, presidents definitely age so fast. I only vividly recall Clinton's presidency, and when he ran the first time, he was just a strapping young lad and looked like he could bench about 3 volvos. Since, he has had heart problems, infidelity issues, his body shrank and he looks like he has the biggest head! George Bush, whose workout regimen I do admire, still looks like he has aged quite some and the man is in great shape. So it is a stressful job and you will never win no matter what, it seems.
I read an interesting article in the Boston Herald today regarding the economy:
http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=161760
I wont say the economy is bad though, and I wont say the job market is bad. I just got a job in town that is increasing my pay 33%- a job that def would not have been available 3 years ago. I happened to graduate college right when the job market started turning around. One thing I def have noticed though, there are tons of jobs in the financial sector, its what everyone seems to be going into recently.
(as an aside, Kennedy is up for re-election, he will obviously win. But I refuse to vote for this guy. I honestly like the Republican Kenneth Chase more but hesitant- I may not be voting for senator. This all drives me nuts.)
Jack Ill see you at the Bereans, where we all just get along.
Hi CH!
I hurried your article along. :)
-Jack
I agree with you to an extent, Helen, but how about those nations that don't want to follow "good examples"? Does anyone seriously believe that if America were to throw away our nuclear weapons tomorrow that KJI would? I hold by my original statement :)
-Jack
You know what we could do that would be more realistic (although still would never happen) is give more power to an international organization. Jack will love this - he hates the UN desperately. But what if the UN (or some similar body) had all the nukes of the free world and it took a consensus of member states to use them? That would be pretty cool.
While it's true that the US will never be safe enough to just give up our weapons cold turkey - if we transition the power to a more democratic system, who knows. The United States is democracy, but the world is not. Giving more power to an international democratic body would, in theory, result in better decisions made for the entire world, and help to lighten the weight of squabbling between autonomous nations.
...just a theory I came up with this second.
Smorg,
I don't hate the U.N. I just see it for the corrupt anti-semitic anti-U.S. organization it is. Are you advocating global control by a singularity?
I think that utopian theory has always been admirable--but I wouldn't characterize it as realistic. Orwell painted a very drab picture of what you suggest.
-Jack
Chickenhawk can you email me your new email? My emails to you keep bouncing.
Post a Comment
<< Home