Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Brilliant refutation of anyone who blames Clinton for North Korean nukes.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 03:38 PM
Original message
Brilliant refutation of anyone who blames Clinton for North Korean nukes.
FACT CHECK: A Tony Snow-Job on North Korea

Today, Tony Snow Repudiated the Clinton North Korea Policy He Characterized as Bringing Flowers and Chocolates to Pyongyang. This is not the Clinton Administration policy. I understand what the Clinton Administration wanted to do. They wanted to talk reason to the government of Pyongyang, and they engaged in bilateral conversations. And Bill Richardson went with flowers and chocolates and he went with light water nuclear reactors, and he went with promises of heavy oil and a basketball signed by Michael Jordan, and many other inducements for the Dear Leader to try to agree not to develop nuclear weapons, and it failed. But there was at least a good faith effort on the part of some very smart people to use that as an approach. We've learned from that mistake. One reason not to go bilateral with the North Koreans is what we're seeing right now, which is that you need to have concerted pressure especially from those who are very close ties with the government of North Korea so you can get results. So this is not a continuation of the Clinton program.

FACT: Under Bushs Watch, North Korea Has Increased its Stockpiles of Plutonium Under Clinton, No Plutonium Was Produced. A study by the National Security Advisory Group drew upon the analysis of the Groups chairman, former Defense Secretary Bill Perry, and more than a dozen national security experts including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and former Assistant Secretaries of Defense Ash Carter, Graham Allison, Michele Flournoy, and found that the amount of plutonium produced by North Korea under the last three presidents to have been:

Bush I: one to two bombs worth of plutonium

Clinton: zero plutonium

Bush II: 4-6 nuclear weapons worth of plutonium and counting

FACT: While Other Presidents Had Problems with North Korea, Bushs Policies Have Made the Problem Worse. Dealing with North Korea has frustrated every president since Truman. But it has proved particularly vexing for Mr. Bush because his administration has engaged in a six-year internal argument about whether to negotiate with the country or try to plot its collapse it has sought to do both, simultaneously and because America's partners in dealing with North Korea each have differing interests in North Korea's future.

FACT: Questions Have Been Raised about the Evidence on which the Bush Administration Decided the Clinton-Era Policies Werent Working. Much has been written about the North Korean nuclear danger, but one crucial issue has been ignored: just how much credible evidence is there to back up Washington's uranium accusation? . . . Relying on sketchy data, the Bush administration presented a worst-case scenario as an incontrovertible truth and distorted its intelligence on North Korea (much as it did on Iraq), seriously exaggerating the danger that Pyongyang is secretly making uranium-based nuclear weapons. This failure to distinguish between civilian and military uranium-enrichment capabilities has greatly complicated what would, in any case, have been difficult negotiations to end all existing North Korean nuclear weapons programs and to prevent any future efforts through rigorous inspection.

http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=2584...

These facts were pointed out before the recent testing. I'm not sure if anyone has posted this here within the last week, but it definitely needs to be shouted out loud and often!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
IChing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. Just nominated and kicked it because: you know this, I know this
and the American people should know this. Bob Dole



maybe put this in the research area also
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Good idea!
I'll crosspost it. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. Or as Josh Marshall put it yesterday, after Condoleezza Rice said that
Clinton's policy had "failed"


"Failure" =1994-2002 -- Era of Clinton 'Agreed Framework': No plutonium production. All existing plutonium under international inspection. No bomb.

"Success" = 2002-2006 -- Bush Policy Era: Active plutonium production. No international inspections of plutonium stocks. Nuclear warhead detonated.


http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conscious evolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
4. Did you hear baker on the Daily Show last week?
He said NK had nukes when he was "in goverment".Sounds like reagon and bush1 are to blame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. No kidding! He admitted that?
That basically confirms what Reid is saying, that 1 to 2 bombs worth of plutonium was produced while Poppy was on watch.

Like father, like son.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orwell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
6. Want to help defuse the NK "problem"...
...get the hell out of South Korea...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I believe they were getting out of South Korea...
...through a transfer to Iraq!

Reminds me of a George Carlin joke where he explained exactly what Nixon's plan was for getting troops out of Vietnam: putting them in Cambodia!

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Freedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
7. Added to the DU Debunker
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
9. kick!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
senseandsensibility Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
10. Here's hoping some Dem strategists are reading this
tonight! :kick: I KNOW the whitehouse lapdogs, I mean press, will never point this out to snowjob on their own. But would it be too much to expect some Dems to bring it up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TroubleMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
11. Didn't the bush adminstration break the agreement with NK first?
Edited on Thu Oct-12-06 09:52 PM by TroubleMan
I remember reading that in the forums a few years ago, but I can't find it now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamesinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 05:51 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. I believe they used the word "blackmail"
They were not going to be blackmailed by NK. Give us oil or we will build nuclear reactors to produce electricity and what ever else. I believe that in his astronomical approval ratings after 9/11 he put B-52 bombers in Guam, as a show of force, and stopped negotiations with NK because they were trying to blackmail the US for oil. He also named them as part of the axis of evil. At least this is how I remember it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teryang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. Yes
dimson and the PNACers were dissing and effectively repudiating the agreement (the Agreed Framework of 1994) before they even came into office. One of them Donald Rumsfeld sat on the board of directors (coincidentally enough) of the entity ABB which had the contract to build the light water reactors, under the agreement. They never met their milestone deadlines for construction and the delays and untimely performance constituted an anticipatory breach of the agreement by the US.

The issues between the US and N.Korea and Iran are about interfering with economic development which leads to political power and the increased capacity to build out infrastructure and accumulate capital. The weapons issue is really a red herring. By interfering with N.Korea's nuclear development with false promises never delivered upon, the US harmed N.Korea seriously. The US has done nothing but screw up the pressure on N.Korea ever since.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JWS Donating Member (298 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 03:49 AM
Response to Original message
12. But will anyone listen?
The problem with this analysis is that it is full of facts, and will take the average American more than 12 seconds to digest. Sure, we liberals have the facts on our side; from Katrina, to fighting al Quaeda, and to the safeguarding of the Constitution, but it seems the only way voters will support divided government is if a gay GOP congressman is caught in a sex scandal.

All it takes to get people to ignore these facts is for Rove and Faux News to inundate the media with misinformation.

Cynicism aside, great job, lets hope the GOP spinners can't dodge the bullets this time around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chchchanges Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 03:53 AM
Response to Original message
13. Its easier than that.....

Rumsfeld was in the board of ABB, the company that sold the generators to NK that they are likely using in the initial fuel production for weapon grade nuclear materials. All they can say is that Albright gave NKs dictator a signed basketball, Rumsfeld gave him a whole reactor. So it is as simple as STFU repugs. However, yes I am sure that the Dems will use a 3 page argument in very neat and polite terms... sigh...

Of course, no dem attacked Rumsfeld on lacking the moral authority of commanding any sort of attack against Iraq, since he personally armed Hussein to the teeth in the 80s. Fer christ sake, there is a picture of Rumsfeld and Hussein shaking hands. They could have run that as an election ad, however I guess that would make too much sense and may not be the polite thing to do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JWS Donating Member (298 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 03:56 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. True
Dems seriously need to take a look at their game plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 05:26 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Busholinin Regime plan for NK.
Do everything possible to bring the NK Regime to colapse. Now they are blatantly lying about this as they do about all of their failures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Felix Mala Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 08:18 AM
Response to Original message
17. Those darn Clintons -- they make it impossible for Chimpster to have
a successful presidency...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oc2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
18. It does not matter how many facts prove the administration is wrong or lie

They control the media, and thereby control or create their own facts or truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jed Dilligan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
19. All true. But why refute something
that was designed for people with no interest in facts? He's basically pandering to male chauvinists by characterizing Clinton's approach as effeminate. That's what freepers hear--they are deaf to facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Aug 28th 2014, 06:39 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC