PDA

View Full Version : Clinton and the NORKs the real story.


deconstruction
October 12th, 2006, 11:05:01 AM
http://www.slate.com/id/2151354/nav/tap2/


The Slime Talk Express
McCain is dead wrong about Bill Clinton and North Korea.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, Oct. 11, 2006, at 4:32 PM ET
John McCain
Sen. John McCain has skidded his Straight Talk Express off the highway into a gopher's ditch of slime. The moment came Tuesday, when he responded to charges by Sen. Hillary Clinton, his potential rival in the 2008 presidential election, that George W. Bush bears some responsibility for North Korea's newborn status as a nuclear-armed power.

Here, according to the Washington Post, is what McCain said in a campaign speech near Detroit:

I would remind Senator Clinton and other Democrats critical of Bush administration policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated [with North Korea] was a failure. Every single time the Clinton administration warned the Koreans not to do something—not to kick out the IAEA inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from their reactor—they did it. And they were rewarded every single time by the Clinton administration with further talks.


McCain's version of history goes beyond "revisionism" to outright falsification. It is the exact opposite of what really happened. Let's take a look at the plain facts.

In the spring of 1994, barely a year into Bill Clinton's presidency, the North Koreans announced that they were about to remove the fuel rods from their nuclear reactor (as a first step to reprocessing them into plutonium), cancel their commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (which they had signed in 1985), and expel the international weapons inspectors (who had been guarding the rods under the treaty's authority).

Did Clinton "reward" them for doing these things, as McCain claims? Far from it. Not only did he push the U.N. Security Council to consider sanctions, he also ordered the Joint Chiefs of Staff to draw up plans to send 50,000 additional troops to South Korea—bolstering the 37,000 already there—along with more than 400 combat jets, 50 ships, and several battalions of Apache helicopters, Bradley fighting vehicles, multiple-launch rockets, and Patriot air-defense missiles. He also sent in an advance team of 250 soldiers to set up logistical headquarters for the influx of troops and gear.

He sent an explicit signal that removing the fuel rods would cross a "red line." Several of his former aides insist that if North Korea had crossed that line, he would have launched an airstrike on the Yongbyon reactor, even knowing that it might lead to war.At the same time, Clinton set up a diplomatic backchannel, sending former President Jimmy Carter to Pyongyang for direct talks with Kim Il-Sung, then North Korea's dictator and the father of its present "dear leader," Kim Jong-il. (The official Washington line held that Carter made the trip on his own, but a recent memoir by three former U.S. officials, Going Critical: The First North Korean Nuclear Crisis, acknowledges that Clinton asked him to go.)

This combination of sticks and carrots led Kim Il-Sung to call off his threats—the fuel rods weren't removed, the inspectors weren't kicked out—and, a few months later, to the signing of the Agreed Framework.
McCain called the accord a "failure." This appraisal isn't quite as dead wrong as his claim that Clinton did nothing but toss Kim flowers. But it's highly misleading, to say the least.

The Agreed Framework of Oct. 21, 1994—a document that many cite but almost nobody seems to read—actually bottled up North Korea's nuclear program for eight years. Under its terms, Pyongyang kept the fuel rods locked up and kept the international inspectors on-site. In exchange, a multinational consortium, led by the United States and South Korea, was to provide North Korea with two light-water reactors to generate electricity. Gradually, Washington and Pyongyang were to establish diplomatic and trade relations. In an annex to the accord, drafted by the consortium and signed by all parties in June 1995, it was agreed that the nuclear fuel from the light-water reactors would be exported to a third country for recycling. (This, by the way, is what President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin recently proposed that Iran do with its nuclear fuel.)

The accord fell apart, but not for the reasons that McCain and others have suggested. First, the U.S.-led consortium never provided the light-water reactors. (So much for the wild claims I've heard lately that North Korea got the bomb through Clinton-supplied technology.) Congress never authorized the money; the South Koreans, who were led by a harder-line government than the one in power now, scuttled the deal after a North Korean spy submarine washed up on their shores.

Second, when President George W. Bush entered the White House in January 2001, he made it clear, right off, that the Agreed Framework was dead and that he had no interest in further talks with the North Korean regime; his view was that you don't negotiate with evil, you defeat it or wait for it to crumble.

Third, a few months into Bush's term, evidence mounted that the North Koreans had been … not quite violating the Agreed Framework but certainly maneuvering around it. Confronted by U.S. intelligence data in October 2002, Pyongyang officials admitted that they'd been enriching uranium—an alternative route (though much slower than plutonium) to getting a bomb.

It should be noted that the bomb that the North Koreans set off on Sunday was apparently a plutonium bomb, not a uranium bomb. In other words, it was a bomb made entirely in Bush's time, not at all in Clinton's.

After the disclosure about the uranium, Bush hardened his stance against negotiations. The North Koreans tried to replay the events of 1994. They threatened to unlock the fuel rods, expel the inspectors, and quit the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Meanwhile, through back channels (former ambassadors Bill Richardson and Donald Gregg), they signaled a willingness to back off if the Agreed Framework was resuscitated. Bush wasn't interested in playing the game. Everything fell apart.

At the end of 2002, when the North Koreans really did unlock the rods and kick out the inspectors—when they crossed what Clinton had called the "red line"—Bush didn't take military action, he didn't call for sanctions, nor did he try diplomacy. It's Bush, not Clinton, who did nothing.

And while we're on the subject of Bushes doing nothing, George H.W. Bush, the president's father, had just moved into the White House in 1989 when the CIA discovered that the North Koreans were building a reprocessing facility near their nuclear reactor at Yongbyon—the facility that could manufacture plutonium from the fuel rods. Five years later, Bill Clinton stopped them from moving the rods into this facility. Eight years after that, George W. Bush let them go ahead.

The rest is history. John McCain would do well to read up on it sometime.

Meathead
October 12th, 2006, 11:19:33 AM
as much as i dont like kerry he and gore defeated that argument pretty easily. i dont have the quote right now but it was something about clintons admittedly flawed plan having the benefit of inspections while juniors plan didnt. plus of course is the fact that juniors axis of evil posture also enflamed the entire situation

he with a glass plan shouldnt throw stones

btw gore used to make me want to tear my hair out but now i only want to punch myself when he talks. hes changed a lot and has been coming up with some pretty wise stuff from time to time

JLB
October 12th, 2006, 11:27:08 AM
btw gore used to make me want to tear my hair out but now i only want to punch myself when he talks. hes changed a lot and has been coming up with some pretty wise stuff from time to time

Pretty accurate way of putting it.
The wise stuff part I'm not sure thats him.
What is it that you speak of?

JLB
October 12th, 2006, 11:28:23 AM
SLATE ??

They are just as bad as Newsmax!!!!!!

micknaboz
October 12th, 2006, 11:51:21 AM
What? ?Republicans lie !!!! Mislead??? I'm aghast.

:lolhair:

deconstruction
October 12th, 2006, 11:55:54 AM
SLATE ??

They are just as bad as Newsmax!!!!!!

a) Hitchens posts there, as do a variety of other conservatives.
b) What do you think about the article?

Meathead
October 12th, 2006, 12:16:46 PM
What is it that you speak of?
you dont hear it because youve closed your ears. even though gore used to make me want to shove a pencil in mine i still try to always give people the chance to surprise me and he has

i dont feel like looking it up but there will probably be more coming so if you want to listen im sure youll hear it

JLB
October 12th, 2006, 12:20:25 PM
a) Hitchens posts there, as do a variety of other conservatives.
b) What do you think about the article?

Let me re-read it carefully.
I may have jumped the gun when I saw Slate.

JLB
October 12th, 2006, 12:24:44 PM
you dont hear it because youve closed your ears. even though gore used to make me want to shove a pencil in mine i still try to always give people the chance to surprise me and he has

i dont feel like looking it up but there will probably be more coming so if you want to listen im sure youll hear it

He's not my choice as leader of the free world.
He has been making some interesting discussion.
But what I asked you is what is it that you are impressed with.
I've not closed my ears at all.
I just haven't heard anything thats real impressive.
I agree with your description of how you feel when he speaks.
So really what is it that you yourself speak of.
What impresses you about Al Gore?

JLB
October 12th, 2006, 12:30:55 PM
Don't care for their take as they call it the facts as they may see them.
McCain is correct Clinton f'd this up carrots no stick and look where we are now.
I don't know how anybody could believe the article after seeing what is taking place right now.
To defend Bill Clinton is inexcusable.
He was awful when it came to our national security and those are the facts.
This article makes excuses for him and its a joke.
What do you think of this article?

sukie
October 12th, 2006, 12:40:02 PM
I have several problems with the article...

How did he do this ?
He sent an explicit signal that removing the fuel rods would cross a "red line." Several of his former aides insist that if North Korea had crossed that line, he would have launched an airstrike on the Yongbyon reactor, even knowing that it might lead to war

It says it happened in the article but doesn't say how. By ordering a military plan be devised sends no signal since such plans are concocted in secret.

micknaboz
October 12th, 2006, 1:33:52 PM
Don't care for their take as they call it the facts as they may see them.
McCain is correct Clinton f'd this up carrots no stick and look where we are now.
I don't know how anybody could believe the article after seeing what is taking place right now.
To defend Bill Clinton is inexcusable.
He was awful when it came to our national security and those are the facts.
This article makes excuses for him and its a joke.
What do you think of this article?

Was Clinton worse then Bush being forewarned about an al qaeda attack in the summer of 2001 and doing nothing about it?

Was Clinton worse than Bush sitting around and doing nothing at all to stop North Korea from developing "nucular" weapons?

No credibility dude. blaming Clinton for everything is a joke and a sign of a weak mind.

JLB
October 12th, 2006, 1:42:07 PM
Was Clinton worse then Bush being forewarned about an al qaeda attack in the summer of 2001 and doing nothing about it?

Was Clinton worse than Bush sitting around and doing nothing at all to stop North Korea from developing "nucular" weapons?

No credibility dude. blaming Clinton for everything is a joke and a sign of a weak mind.



We can piss on both if you want to.

They both F'd up.

Clinton just had better opportunities.

He admitted his failure for that I give him credit.

Bush didn't connect the dots but that would have been a little tough.

But it did happen under his watch so say whatever you want.

All this still doesn't change a damn thing.

Placing blame as many do just on one or the other is ignorant.

What say you?

micknaboz
October 12th, 2006, 2:35:08 PM
Placing blame as many do just on one or the other is ignorant.

What say you?

So why do you keep slamming Clinton then? I really dont get it. He hasnt been president for 6 years now and North Korea wasnt building nuclear weapons when he was in office.

In fact they would'nt be doing it now if Bush and his state dept, could actually do their job. But they apparently think we can just kick anyones ass who pisses us off, why negotiate. They label North Korea in their "Axis of evil" and then refuse to hold any talks with them. **** me if I was NK and saw what they did in Iraq, and then having them refuse a sit down, I'd sure as hell be building them bombs too.

And Bush and his administration have proven they have no desire to compromise or negotiate with anyone. They are not statesmen.They dropped out of the Kyoto Agreement, they dropped out of a nuclear arms agreement, every piece of legislation he signs he adds signing statements that say the ultimate authority and decision lies in his office so that he may be signing the law but it may not apply to them. WTF

And the way I see it, the reason he feels he doesnt have to compromise or negotiate anything ever is because he's never had to. He's never had to be accountable for anything, just a spoiled little ****wad, who never accomplished a ****en thing on his own. He would'nt be anything without daddy's money, just another oil rig worker with a drinking/drug problem in TX.

We've now wasted over three years, and NK has the bomb apparently, and sooner or later he's going to start shopping it, if not use it . We need to stop the proliferation of nuclear arms, and I am afraid it is going to take someone far wiser than Bush, who has shown no desire to do so.

And it isnt blame. Its reponsibility. Accountability. I for one am not at all pleased that Bush, by refusing to talk to NK, has allowed them to develop the bomb.

notacon
October 12th, 2006, 5:54:29 PM
The simple truth is that even though Clinton’s policy toward NK was not perfect…it got the job done…namely forestalling NK’s nuclear ambitions.

Bush’s policy toward NK is all hot air…and arrogant foolish hot air…over any kind of substance.

With Bush’s bravado meaning absolutely NOTHING, NK is much more dangerous. The nuclear rods that were sealed and under international jurisdiction have not been for several years.

A promise to not develop nuclear weapons has been replaced with the reality that they have indeed developed them during the 6 years of Bush negligence.

Bush cannot leave office fast enough…the damage he has done will take decades to correct…if ever.

deconstruction
October 12th, 2006, 9:20:11 PM
I have several problems with the article...

How did he do this ?


It says it happened in the article but doesn't say how. By ordering a military plan be devised sends no signal since such plans are concocted in secret.

Are we sure that they are secret? Has anybody verified any of the info in this story?

Lets be honest, if its true, than it is a very different view.

Meathead
October 13th, 2006, 6:42:46 PM
clinton was quite pedestrian on foreign relations but that would be a ferrari relative to what this caveman president has done

in fact doing nothing would be greatly superior to the trail of destruction that remains after this disaster took charge