Tuesday, October 10, 2006

It's official: North Korean nukes all Clinton's fault

White House PS Snow:

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 [former U.N. ambassador and Clinton secretary of energy] 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.

UN Ambassador John Bolton:
Mr. Bolton dismissed the notion that Pyongyang was driven to carry out a nuclear test by being labeled as part of the "axis of evil", saying those who believed this should "get a life". "The North Koreans have been pursuing nuclear weapons for at least 10 to 12 years," he said. "They signed the agreed framework in 1994, promising to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons, and then began violating the agreement almost before the ink was dry. This has nothing whatever to do with the 'axis of evil' statement."
Various and sundry BushCo yes men:

"The Clinton administration didn't do much and, even while they were negotiating with the North Koreans, the North Koreans were continuing to develop nuclear weapons," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.

"During the Clinton administration we set up a policy and it was continued during the Bush administration, of subsidizing this lunatic regime in North Korea," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., referring to food aid programs that he says allowed Pyongyang to divert its resources to its weapons systems. "That regime would have collapsed a long time ago had we not been subsidizing it. And we should immediately cut off that stipend."

But the Carpetbagger Report begs to differ:

The 1994 Agreed Framework wasn't perfect, but it did represent progress. Clinton offered North Korea light-water reactors for electrical power, and Kim Jung Il agreed to allow full monitoring and inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. When Bush took office, Colin Powell endorsed a continuation of the Clinton administration policy, but was quickly overruled (and rebuked) by the White House. Bush ended negotiations, scraped the Agreed Framework, called Kim Jung Il names, and gave up on having any kind of coherent policy whatsoever.

After the Bush White House ratcheted up the rhetoric, North Korea, as Fred Kaplan explained, "pulled out of the Nonproliferation Treaty, kicked out the IAEA's inspectors, unlocked the fuel rods, reprocessed them into bomb-grade plutonium — and that's where things have stood for the past three years." The crisis, exacerbated by the Bush administration's incompetence, has grown considerably worse.

Consider the bottom line today when the right starts blaming Clinton for this
mess.[P]rogress of North Korea's nuclear program during the last three administrations:

1. George H. W. Bush: one to two bombs' worth of plutonium
2. Bill Clinton: zero plutonium
3. George W. Bush: 4-6 nuclear weapons' worth of plutonium

And a missile test. And a nuclear test. It's quite a success story, if you're anxious to make the world more dangerous.

11 comments:

Grant Miller said...

Worst President Ever.

FYI - It is the Carol J. Adams of Politics of Meat (which I've yet to read).

Garry said...

"Kim Jung Il agreed to allow full monitoring and inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency"

Sure, he agreed to full monitoring, but in practice never permitted such - and the Clinton administration did nothing in response. So the Bush administration should have kept pretending that the Agreed Framework hadn't become a farce?

Let the rewriting of history begin.

michael said...

Grant: You read my mind, brah.

Garry: That's a big leap, from 'inconclusive findings' to 'farcical agreement.' The document you linked to says the IAEA wasn't able to prove North Korea's initial claim of materiel, but did in fact monitor the agreement-sanctioned use of its facilities. I don't know about you, but resorting to name-calling and trashing the agreement sounds infantile and provocative. Or were you applauding those actions? Lord knows we don't have enough war on our hands...

vikkitikkitavi said...

Grant: So I'm googling her, and is "Living Among Meat Eaters: The Vegetarian's Survival Handbook" the book you were talking about?

Garry: No matter what you think about the agreement and North Korea's compliance, it was the expulsion of the U.N. inspectors and the revival of activity at that nuclear plant in 2002 that led us directly here.

Speaking of 2002, your rhetoric sounds a lot like what was being said about Saddam's lack of compliance with U.N. inspectors. And, well, you know what they say about those who don't learn the lessons of history...

Michael: Thanks, bro. You rule.

RandyLuvsPaiste said...

Can the Republicans call themselves the party of personal responsibilty when they keep blaming Bill for every fucking thing?

Who the Hell has been steering the ship the last six years?

Phil said...

To Randy's point. Is it also Bill Clinton's fault Bush has done nothing about this for six years. I suppose if there was oil there...

Chris said...

Garry is absolutely right! You worthless liberals want to rewrite history. Not like me and my boy GW - the most historically astute president of our time. We all know Clinton was the one going around telling us, Russia, Germany, and everyone else, that Saddam had WMDs and that he had an army of killer camels with rabies ready to invade our shores. Why do you morons hate freedom so much?

*sarcasm is fun!

Grant Miller said...

Dear vikkitikkitavi,

Yes, that sounds about right. I read it not long after going 100 percent veggie. Great thing read when living in a carnivore world.

Sincerely,
Grant Miller, Esq.

Megan said...

How come we get to have nukes and North Korea doesn't? Kim Jung Il is crazier than a shithouse rat, but our guys aren't exactly paragons of sanity.

Jess said...

Grant, I think you're talking about "The Sexual Politics of Meat". I found it when I looked up "Living Among Meat Eaters" because I'm flirting with the idea of "going" vegetarian. (meaning we've made out a couple of times, but I'm not ready to let vegetarianism pop my cherry until I know it will respect me in the morning)

I gotta say, though, "Living Among Meat Eaters" sounds very... strident and defensive. Just the "about" stuff on Amazon.com makes it sound like the book was written by a very angry vegetarian. And there's nothing scarier than an angry vegetarian.

I would like a book entitled something like "How to become a vegetarian without having to eat gross 'meat-like' substances (like SmartDogs) or tofu" or "How To Exist On Pie".

Oh, and Bush=Bad. Clinton=Slightly Better. Gotta love those Republicrats! If "Big Business" decided that there was money to be made in North Korea, would we be there in a heartbeat? You bet yr sweet ass we would, baby!

vikkitikkitavi said...

Randy: Is there ONE THING that the Republicans call themselves that isn't a complete and utter sham?

Phil: Bush didn't do NOTHING. As I recall there was some rather pointed name-calling.

Chris: Well, I have to admit that I WOULD like to re-write history. For example, the part where the Supreme Court hands the 2000 election to a pumped-up frat boy with an Oedipus complex and an enormous sense of entitlement.

Grant: I'll check it out. I read the first few pages on Amazon and the stories made me laugh. I've been a vegetarian for 25 years (except for 2 years off the wagon) so I got a few stories of my own.

Megan: Well, I think that is always the elephant in the room in global nuclear matters, isn't it? I think we'd be better off shutting down the club, but I'm sure that about 0% of American politicians would agree with me.

Maybe Kucinich.

Jess: I can think of something scarier.