Bush policy lead to N. Korean nuclear test!

LadyT said:
Actually, as Cypress very clearly and articulately explained earlier in this thread, Clinton's administration stopped the korean's from developing plutonium weaponry. The Uranium enrichment happened under bush's watch. But at this stage placing blame gets us no where, we need to focus on what we plan to do about it.
Click to expand...
LOL. No, he articulately attempted to say that them getting stuff from Pakistan in 1998 was Bush's fault. It takes special partisanship to ignore one failure to attempt to blame all of a shared failure on one person. Considering that they were working toward getting the information as the payola scam was going on and were ultimately successful in 1998 it clearly wasn't the unqualified success that the Ds are pretending it was in this thread. That payola scam allowed them cover for their efforts right up until the moment they needed the material.
 
As if Prissy even knows the difference between Plutonium and Uranium enrichment, much less "clearly and articulately explained" something to the rest of us! LOL! You crack me up, Tiana!!!
 
Damocles said:
LOL. No, he articulately attempted to say that them getting stuff from Pakistan in 1998 was Bush's fault. It takes special partisanship to ignore one failure to attempt to blame all of a shared failure on one person. Considering that they were working toward getting the information as the payola scam was going on and were ultimately successful in 1998 it clearly wasn't the unqualified success that the Ds are pretending it was in this thread. That payola scam allowed them cover for their efforts right up until the moment they needed the material.
Click to expand...

Dixies and other apologists are trying to pin the blame on Clinton for this one and they are trying to say that negotiations don't work. Clearly they did when the N.K.'s were trying to weaponize plutonium. In hind sight it would have been nice if Clinton had a crystal ball, however he didn't. But that's the last time I'm getting suckered into a blaming session. I think we ALL need to be focused on finding solutions.

Note dixie:

A solution does NOT entail your old-west styled hollywoodian delusions of grandeur of Bush riding in on his horse and in his tight jeans you seem so keen on. The US is not Clint Eastwood, a happy ending isn't guaranteed, and we need our allies more than ever.
 
Dixie said:
Is this really the kind of irresponsible leadership America is looking for? The kind of people who will make such a blatant policy mistake
Click to expand...


You mean the kind of leadership that got us into a quagmire in Iraq when N. Korea and Iran are the real threat?
 
and whether Dixie cares to admit it or not, there IS a difference between the process of weaponizing plutonium and uranium.... and the Clinton treaty had nothing whatsoever with NK doing a deal under the table with Pakistan. What is particularly noteworthy is the fact that Bush considers Pakistan to be an ally - even though we KNOW that country was dealing under the table with NK and even though we KNOW that OBL and the Taliban get to hang out hassle free on Pakistan's western border. With allies like that.... who needs enemies?
 
Damocles said:
According to earlier posts in this thread by Ds, they got the stuff from Pakistan in 1998, two years before Bush even started to run for President. Hence the reason I asked how the Governor of Texas was supposed to stop that from happening. So, if you want to pretend otherwise talk to your friend.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was bush's fault that in 1998, Pakistan helped North Korea with uranium enrichment techonolgy.

I'm saying its Bush's fault for not doing anything about it after we found out in 2002

Likewise, I've never blamed Poppy Bush for not doing something about North Korea's plutonium program in the early 1990s. He obviously didn't know much about it then. When, the threat became clear in 1994, Clinton addressed the plutonium enrichment program.

No Democrat in 1994, ever sat around and blamed poppy bush or reagan, for north korean nuclear activities that happend under thier watch. Because the evidence of an imminent threat apparently wasn't there, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, on republican president's watch.
 
Once again Cypress. It is patently ridiculous to think he could have done anything at that point. The idea that we could pay them off and that would end their nuclear ambitions was retarded to begin with. They did exactly what I predicted, continued under the table, until they had what they needed to get the job done except material. They then kicked the UN out and took what they needed. At that point, in 2002, it was already too late.
 
Payola didn't work. And if I were a leader of a third world nation I'd be looking for that same deal. You would pay me to become a nuclear power? Fantastic!
 
LadyT said:
Actually, as Cypress very clearly and articulately explained earlier in this thread, Clinton's administration stopped the korean's from developing plutonium weaponry. The Uranium enrichment happened under bush's watch. But at this stage placing blame gets us no where, we need to focus on what we plan to do about it.
Click to expand...

I'd get rid of the people who have failed, and bring back competent leadership.

I'd fire Condi Rice and Rumsfeld. And the entire NSC. And I'd bring back the foreign policy teams of Poppy Bush's and Clintons adminstration: James Baker, Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft, Richard Holbroke. for example.
 
Damocles said:
Once again Cypress. It is patently ridiculous to think he could have done anything at that point. The idea that we could pay them off and that would end their nuclear ambitions was retarded to begin with. They did exactly what I predicted, continued under the table, until they had what they needed to get the job done except material. They then kicked the UN out and took what they needed. At that point, in 2002, it was already too late.
Click to expand...

Well, you voted to put the failed Chimp in charge in 2000. Obviously, he failed to address the uranium enrichment once we found out about it.

And this is a common theme for people who fail: "But, but....there was nothing we could do about it! NOBODY could have succeeded!

;)
 
Last edited:
LOL. I don't get insulted that easily.

I think that when you are paying somebody NOT to become a nuclear power and during the time you are paying them they buy the technology and work to become a nuclear power right under your nose it cannot be called a "successful" negotiation. That has to be the worst "success" we have ever been through.
 
WE are going to show those North Koreans ! According the Drudge homepage The USA has proposed banning luxury items to them. Wow that will hurt ;)
 
Dixie: "Here's a plan... Bush should just say, what the fuck... they all want to call me a cowboy, they all want to blame everything on me, anyway... I'm going to send the B-2's to the capital of Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Venezuela, armed with 1m nukes, and inflict a little collateral damage, as a final warning. If they are so eager to get involved with the big dog, in a nuclear confrontation, let's get it on!"


What a retard.
 
uscitizen said:
WE are going to show those North Koreans ! According the Drudge homepage The USA has proposed banning luxury items to them. Wow that will hurt ;)
Click to expand...
Terribly painful for them... Now they can't sell them to get even more technology...
 
"Bush' Blunder In North Korea"

by David Gregg
Former National Security Advisor to Poppy Bush
and Former Ambassador to South Korea

Former U.S. National Security Advisor Donald Gregg First: Don't panic. Kim Jong Il's objective is survival and eventual change in North Korea, not suicide. The diplomatic situation in Northeast Asia will be immensely complicated by the North Korea test, which I think was a huge mistake on their part, but missiles are not about to start flying.

The test may indicate the rise in influence of a hard-line faction in the KPA, which is holding sway, at least for now, over others more interested in transformational change in NK. The initiation of a strong bilateral dialogue between NK and the US would strengthen the moderates, and ease the situation in general, but that is not at all likely to happen.

Second: Why won't the Bush administration talk bilaterally and substantively with NK, as the Brits (and eventually the US) did with Libya? Because the Bush administration sees diplomacy as something to be engaged in with another country as a reward for that country's good behavior. They seem not to see diplomacy as a tool to be used with antagonistic countries or parties, that might bring about an improvement in the behaviour of such entities, and a resolution to the issues that trouble us. Thus we do not talk to Iran, Syria, Hizballah or North Korea. We only talk to our friends -- a huge mistake.



http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2006/10/bush_made_a_big_mistake.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top