Clinton didn't do us any favors with Korea

In 1994, the N.Y Times had an article titled "Charlie Brown Democrats." The article was essentially set around the agreements between N.Korea and Mr.Clinton.

Anyway, in 1994, Clinton worked out a bunch of "deals" detailing that N.Korea would not pursue nuclear technology.Well, apparently all of that fluffy talking that Mr.Clinton did was not enough.

Since this is in polotics.... Pray tell, what has Bush done? Except go after the wrong threat? At least Clinton had these so called "talks". What has Bush done?

Originally posted by Griff
Since this is in polotics.... Pray tell, what has Bush done? Except go after the wrong threat? At least Clinton had these so called "talks". What has Bush done?

Nothing, absolutely nada, and what did Kim do in response, go nuky, and why? Because Bush is ignorant of Kim, and Kim is like deny ignorance to Bush.

You know what amuses me? People are oh so quick to defend Mr.Clinton, when in fact, he sold us off to Red China!! Yeah, that's rigt. When everyone was making a big deal over his "sexual conquests," he was making "deals" with China.

As far as the criticism that Bush hasn't done anything; well, that cannot be denied either.

[edit on 11-10-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

Sorry to confuse. I definately wasn't defending Clinton. I agree that he sold this nation down the tubes when it came to our nuclear intellegence.

I will say that in Bush's defense I think one has to be aware that it wasn't the Koreans that rammed two airliners into the WTC. Therefore, to say that he is not going after the right people,Islamo fascists,is quite contrary to reality.

Although, one could get into all of the conspiracy stuff surrounding 9/11,but that is for ATS, not here in the political section. By the way,I have many questions about the administration's involvement in the whole 9/11 evet, but like I said, that is not for here.

I'm sure glad we are going after the perpetraters of 9/11. Saddam sat long and hard to come up with that attack.

BTW, the FBI has come out and said that there is no evidence linking Islamic Fascists to 9/11. How do we know it wasn't NK?

Griff, one thing about the Asians that cannot be denied; they are not cowards. If it would have been the Chinese,Japanese,Korean, they would have flown their own planes over here and rammed the world trade centers. You can be rest assured of that much.

I can not argue with that. The point was that we went into the Middle East and now the FBI is saying that they don not have enough evidence to link the Middle East with 9-11. Anyway, I am getting off topic.

The thing is, all of that is even contrary to what Mr.Clinton preached during his Presidency. He let it be known that Osama was a threat. It was no secret. Yet, what did Clinton do? Not much. I mean, in 1993, there was the bombing of the WTC and nothing was really done. Who did that?

[edit on 13-10-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

Actually, I believe it has come about that the FBI (I think) was watching the terrorists and even had a part in the bombing. The operative was suppossed to give the bombers "fake" explosives I believe. So, it wasn't just Middle Easterners involved.

Also.

In October 1995, the militant Islamist and blind cleric Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, was sentenced to life imprisonment for masterminding the bombing. In 1998, Ramzi Yousef was convicted of "seditious conspiracy" to bomb the towers. In all, ten militant Islamist conspirators were convicted for their part in the bombing, each receiving prison sentences of a maximum of 240 years.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

So, you can see that there was actually something done. 1995 and 1998. Years when Clinton was in office.

This is absurd.

This is absurd and crazy.

Rush Limbaugh must be at it again. '

Clinton DID do something! He worked out an incentive/aid package for Kimmy JongJong which basicly said "Here is a bribe to not go nuclear"! At least Bush lead the way for sanctions once he did go nuclear. Kerry or the like would probably have showered him with more gifts in exchange for not lighing up S. Korea, Japan, or.........the US.

Yeah, lets trip Kim's trigger and do something brash, like invade or bomb his facilities

Bush had a chance to act militarily against North Korea, in 2003, when Kim Jong Il withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and announced that it would go ahead with its weapons program. A strike might have been successful because it was believed that all of North Korea’s nuclear weapons were in one known location. What did George Bush do?

He invaded Iraq instead.

You don't hit N. Korea with China sitting next door. You let China feel the heat of Nuclear NK and let them do something. What? We will never know. Those Commie's don't tell us much.

Also look at the UN sanctions that China signed on for.

BTW, why should the US Taxpayer feed NK? When most of the food will go to the military.

Roper

OK so Clinton screwed up...6 years ago. What point in history does our current Pres get to take charge of the country? I mean all this is happen on Bush's watch and not Clintons. Clinton made mistakes ok lets get past that now and lets discuss how Bush has done nothing to correct Clintons mistakes and has only made more mistakes that is now this minuet costing American soldiers thier lives.

I hate to tell you Bush lovers this but some time in the near future Bush will need to be responcible for the world events happening to the country he is leading today.

What if anything is Bush doing to make things better?

What is the mission in Iraq? Er?? anyone? I think its stay the corse or something like that?. That is not a military mission or objective you cant win without a mission or objective.

How is Bush going to stop the next NK test they are preparing right now? I do not think he can convince Kim is Ill to stop by blaming Clinton on the first one can he? Er.. nope.

How is Bush going to stop Iran? He is not. In fact his actions have all but handed Iraq to Iran. I suppose someone will find a way to blame Iran's first nuclear test on Clinton also.

Bush biggest problem I think is he does not think he can be wrong. Well he could not have been more wrong, and it is the Presidents ultimate responcibility to ensure intelligence is correct before sending our American boys and girls into war based on flakey intel.

If your going to commit american soldiers lives to a war you need to know beyound doubt that you have perfect intel espeically when even the faulty intel barely measures up to clear and PRESENT danger to America.

America was not in immenant danger from Iraq and all the intel Bush believed in was flaky at best. If I was president I would want some pictures before commiting our men and womens lives to a war. Bush did not do that. I would hope any American President would be absolutely sure of his facts before engage in a war of premption. Bush did no do this.

Thank god his time is near up and we will vote for a new president in a few short years. Near anyone would be a better president for us on either side.

He got us into a lot of mess with no clear way out and sadly more soldiers will pay the price before it is resolved one way or the other.

Our Borders and ports are still wide open to terror. The guys and money who could be inspecting and guarding our borders and ports are bogged down in an Iraqi civil war.

It would seriously be hard to dream up a better way to screw us up than he has.

Xeven, there are two points that I agree with you on.

1. Bush doesn't think that he can be wrong

2. Our borders are wide open for terrorists.

While the second one is being "worked" on; I think it is imperative to realize that anything short of putting military personnel on the borders is not likely to help much. Yeah, you can put fences up and heat seeking technology and yada,yada, but until you get more feet on the ground on both the Canadian and Mexican borders, it's not likely to do much.

George W. Bush does think he is incapable of being wrong. He has even, somewhat offhandedly, admitted that much.

However,it's important to understand who had the power to nip it in the bud. Who was it? William Jefferson Clinton. He had the chance to nip it in the bud and he didn't. All he did was say in his accented impedimented voice, "If you do something, we're going to come after ya." Did we ever really go after anyone during his presidency? Other than his "wag the dog" scheme, I think not.

[edit on 17-10-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 17-10-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]