President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Looking at today's Wall Street Journal, I could think of some ...

I doubt the Saudi government are too worried about the things going on in Iraq, nor are they getting pissed off at the way things are going.

I agree, but they are Muslims as well .

"Who cares if we piss off more Muslims?" What a quote! I think you better think about that again, McGentrix. We are not the arbeiters of the World. We are powerful, yes, but we must use that power judiciously, and we have not. We will have more problems now because of our actions, not less. Bush is to blame for going to war unnecessarily and not caring what the world thinks. This is the far right wing view. Dangerous.

If the rest of the world is not afraid of pissing of Americans, why should we be afraid of pissing of Muslims or anyone else. Our foreign policy can not be based on who might get pissed off.

McG has the temerity to write:
If the rest of the world is not afraid of pissing of Americans, why should we be afraid of pissing of Muslims or anyone else. Our foreign policy can not be based on who might get pissed off.

I wonder if he reads what he posts on a2k? Makes you wonder how their heads are screwed on. McG and his cohorts are good at projection and ridiculous expansion of what is said. They must have all gone to the same dumb-down republican school.

Why should we care who wants to fly planes into buildings or who has nuclear weapons? We's the meanest mfs on the block. No one will mess with us. We got no worries at all. Lets piss everybody off because there will be no consequences at all.

Yes, Clinton played it safe and as a result terrorists attacked the US, N. Korea has Nukes and we are at war in 2 countries... playing it safe and appeasing people has sure worked...

I love the rewrite of history there McG. Great stuff if you can get other people to believe it.

North Korea seperated enough plutonium for 2 possible weapons prior to 1992 the core it removed in 1989. It processed no more plutonium from 1993 until 2003. The IAEA witnessed the core removal in 1994. In 2003 it produce enough plutonium for another 4-13 weapons.
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/dprk/dprkplutonium.pdf

There is no evidence that Clinton allowed N Korea to get any nukes. It created no material capable of being used in nukes from 1993-2001 when Clinton was in office.

North Korea didn't restart its nuclear processing until 2003, after Bush declared them part of the axis of evil. Boy, it worked great calling them names. It only allowed them to get another 4-13 nukes. Lets piss off some more people while we are at it. Then let's blame Clinton without any facts on our side.

I challenge you to find any intelligence assessment that claims North Korea attained any nuclear material from 1993-2001 capable of making a nuclear weapon. Any at all McG? I won't hold my breath waiting for you to produce any evidence.

Parados, I quite agree with you and had our dear leader known or cared that in the Orient, respect is everything, we might be in a better bargaining situation. We badly needed a leader who would use diplomatic means...a carrot along with the club. It is so obvious the man wants to talk to the US and he is trying in his crude way to get respect. That doesn't mean we have to give in, it means we need someone to start talking.

Bush can't do it. It ain't in his marrow....or Cheney's. I think Condi wants to do it, but she has to listen to them. She has started some good trends in that direction though. Remember when Bush first was "selected"? He first dissed the South Koreans, and then the North Koreans. By making Iran, Iraq, and North Korea the Axis of Evil, he has made events worse for the US. Clinton didn't mess this up....the worst president in history did.

Remember this?

Thursday, 23 January, 2003, 18:15 GMT
Outrage at 'old Europe' remarks


Chirac and Schroeder continue to oppose war

French and German leaders have reacted angrily to comments by the US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld describing the two countries as "problems" in the crisis over Iraq. Our position is not a problem, it is a constructive contribution


German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer

while a former employment minister described the US as arrogant.
French Finance Minister Francis Mer said he was "profoundly vexed" by Mr Rumsfeld's remarks - which branded France and Germany "old Europe -

And German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said that the word "problem" was inappropriate.

"We should try to treat each other sensibly," he said.

"Our position is not a problem, it is a constructive contribution."

'Old' Europe

Mr Rumsfeld made his remarks in response to a pledge on Wednesday by French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to work together to oppose war in Iraq.


Rumsfeld: "Vast numbers of countries are with the US"
"Germany has been a problem and France has been a problem," Mr Rumsfeld told Washington's foreign press corps on Wednesday.

"But you look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe, they're not with France and Germany... they're with the US.

"You're thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don't," he said. "I think that's old Europe."

On Thursday, the French and German leaders reiterated their opposition to war as they continued celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Elysee Treaty between their two countries.

Rumsfeld is not exactly a diplomat and it is not very wise to say something like that


Former German Defence Minister Volker Ruehe

"We are both of the opinion... that one can never accept it when it is said that war is unavoidable," Chancellor Schroeder said in an address to hundreds of French and German students in Berlin attended by Mr Chirac.

"War may never be considered unavoidable."

A spokeswoman for Mr Chirac called for calm in the dispute.

"Polemics have no place in this debate," Catherine Colonna said.

'Eastward shift'

Mr Rumsfeld expanded on his remark about "old Europe" by pointing to the planned eastward expansion of Nato as far as the three Baltic republics.

If you knew what I felt like telling Mr Rumsfeld...



Roselyne Bachelot, French Environment Minister

"If you look at the entire Nato Europe today, the centre of gravity is shifting to the east," Mr Rumsfeld said.

But the conservative former German Defence Minister Volker Ruehe, normally a strong US supporter, said it was unfair to play off Eastern and Western Europe against each other.

"Rumsfeld is not exactly a diplomat and it is not very wise to say something like that," he said.

European divisions
The BBC's James Coomarasamy, in Paris, says the divisions between Europe and the US over Iraq are growing more public and the rhetoric more pointed by the day.

The French Environment Minister, Roselyne Bachelot, told one interviewer: "If you knew what I felt like telling Mr Rumsfeld..."

She then stopped herself, saying the word was too offensive.

Europe is deeply divided over the possibility of war with Iraq. France and Germany are opposed to early military action, while the UK is sending massive troop deployments to the Gulf.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell has questioned the commitment of France and Germany to disarming Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

However, he has described the disagreements with France as a "blip", saying he hoped "the French would come to the understanding" of the need to use the threat of force to compel Saddam Hussein to disarm.

Even in hind sight, we know Germany and France were right; Saddam didn't have any arms that needed removal.

Bush first planted the roots of the argument for pre-emptive self-defense in his address to the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 12, 2002, when he said, "The first time we may be completely certain [Saddam Hussein] has a nuclear weapon is when, God forbid, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming."

Five days later, he spelled out the case for pre-emptive self-defense more fully and forcefully in his National Security Strategy, now known as the "Bush Doctrine," in which he vowed to defend:

"The United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders. While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense But critics of Bush's argument point out that the notion of pre-emptive self-defense is not mentioned in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter and is therefore illegal under international law. Moreover, some have noted, Article 51 allows for self-defense "until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." This suggests that the right to self-defense exists only when there is no time to take the issue before the Security Council, and that if there is time for deliberation, the use of force is not justified. In the case at hand, the threat posed by Iraq has neither occurred nor is imminent, and time clearly exists to take the case to the Security Council. Thus, many claim, there is currently no legal justification for using force against Iraq in self-defense.

From thinkprogress.org:


President Bush likes to sell his tax cuts for the rich by saying, "We want our families to have more money in their pocket."

And the White House reported in August 2004, "Real after-tax incomes are up 11 percent since December 2000."

But Bush's economic statistics have no basis in reality. The Federal Reserve Board reported today that the "average income of American families, after adjusting for inflation, declined 2.3% in 2004 compared with 2001."

Bush says U.N. must challenge Iraq

By Ron Fournier (Associated Press)
Posted: 2/14/03
WASHINGTON - On the eve of a showdown over Iraq, President Bush said Thursday the United Nations must help him confront Saddam Hussein or "fade into history as an ineffective, irrelevant, debating society."

McGentrix- You are correct that Clinton gave North Korea an advantage. As usual, Mr. Parados is ignorant of the situation in the nineties.

Note Below:

Search: The Web Angelfire VforVendetta
Share This Page Report Abuse Build a Site Browse Sites
« Previous | Top 100 | Next »

Clinton and North Korea




Mona Charen

Town Hall, October 18, 2002



"North Korea Says It Has a Program on Nuclear Arms" -- New York Times, Oct. 17, 2002.
President Bill Clinton will be remembered by history for only one thing, which is a bit of a shame since his record is so thoroughly shabby and dishonorable that it deserves closer study.

Clinton's contribution to our vulnerability to terror has been well documented, and now comes news that another of his foreign policies has come to fruition. The North Koreans have admitted what close observers have suspected all along -- that they have a nuclear weapons program and may have already produced a number of bombs. (Oh, and by the way, worshippers of arms control treaties kindly note: North Korea is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.)

The only mystery is why Pyongyang has now chosen to admit it.

In the early 1990s, North Korea, even more than other communist states, was drowning in the consequences of its system. People were starving. A congressional study estimated that as many as 1 million died of starvation by 1998. But the regime was no less belligerent for that. Pyongyang continued to build up its military and was aggressively pursuing nuclear capability. Though its facilities were supposed to be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency, North Korea persistently delayed inspections. Meanwhile, its aggressive posture and rhetoric toward South Korea continued, as did its development of long-range missiles.

President Clinton, observing this situation, saw what needed to be done: Pyongyang would have to be appeased. As former defense secretary William Perry put it, the administration thought it "necessary to move forward in a more positive way with North Korea." In exchange for a temporary freeze on its nuclear program and a mere promise to refrain from developing such weapons in the future, the Clinton administration extended nearly $1 billion in foreign aid for food and fuel oil, as well as promising to build two light water reactors for the North Koreans.

Certainly the administration must have attached conditions? Surely it insisted that the regime provide proof that the aid was not being used for military purposes, and it must have insisted on some form of political and economic liberalization? The Clinton administration must have tied this aid package to guarantees that the North Koreans would cease exporting ballistic missiles to nations like Iran and Pakistan? Actually, no. As Perry explained, "The policy team believed that the North Korean regime would strongly resist such reform ..."

The North Koreans, rewarded for their belligerence, naturally continued down the same path. (And the lesson was probably not lost on other dangerous regimes that seeking nuclear weapons can bring goodies from Washington.) In 1998, they tested a new, three-stage ballistic missile. Did the Clinton administration at last learn the lesson that appeasement does not work? Not quite. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and William Perry held a press conference to announce that the United States was continuing to pursue good relations with North Korea: "We must deal with the North Korean government as it is, not as we wish it would be."

Accordingly, the Clinton administration proposed to lift economic sanctions on North Korea if it promised -- but this time really, sincerely promised -- to stop development of long-range missiles. The North Korean government didn't even deign to respond for a full week -- but the Clinton administration relaxed sanctions anyway.

The Clinton administration officials believed their policies toward North Korea were a success. By "engaging" Pyongyang, they believed, they had avoided war. Neville Chamberlain thought the same. Instead, the appeasement merely emboldened the North Koreans. A Republican study group concluded in 1999 that North Korea "is a greater threat to international stability" than it had been five years before, "primarily in Asia and secondarily in the Middle East." Is it conceivable that the Clinton foreign policy team really believed North Korea could be bribed into decency?

Edmund Burke warned, "There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men." That includes assuming that they will lie, cheat and betray. The liberal attachment to treaties is thus laid bare for the chimera it is. When strength and resolve were required, Bill Clinton supplied weakness and legerdemain. And in this, as in the war on terror, he has bequeathed a more dangerous world to his successor.

***********************************************************

Clinton provided a substantial aid package to North Korea in 1995 AND LIFTED ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AND BUILT TWO LIGHT WATER REACTORS IF THE NORTH KOREANS REALLY REALLY REALLY PROMISED NOT TO DEVELOP MISSILES IN THE FUTURE.

NORTH KOREA TESTED A THREE STAGE MISSLE IN 1998!

McClintock- Mr. Parados, as usual, does not know what he is talking about!

Note:



North Korea Nukes Clinton Legacy
Charles R. Smith
Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2003
Asian Arms Race Result of Appeasement Policy


The leftist media spin is that the current crisis in North Asia is the result of George W. Bush calling Pyongyang a member of the 'axis of evil.' In reality, the soft-line appeasement policy taken by Clinton against North Korea and China is what has led us to this point.

For example, former Clinton adviser Paul Begala, now serving as a talking head on CNN, claimed that the Clinton administration contained the threat from North Korea. Clearly, Mr. Begala missed the 1990s.

Of course, Mr. Begala simply forgot that Clinton's military chief of staff testified in 1998 that North Korea did not have an active ballistic missile program. One week later the North Koreans launched a missile over Japan that landed off the Alaska coast.

During the early Clinton years, hard-liners and so-called conservative hawks advocated a pre-emptive strike to halt North Korea's nuclear weapons development before it could field an atomic bomb. Instead of taking the hard line, President Clinton elected to rely on former President Jimmy Carter and decided to appease the Marxist-Stalinist dictatorship.

Carter met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang and returned to America waving a piece of paper and declaring peace in our time. Kim, according to Carter, had agreed to stop his nuclear weapons development.

The Clinton appeasement program for North Korea included hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, food, oil and even a nuclear reactor. However, the agreement was flawed and lacked even the most informal means of verification.

In return, Kim elected to starve his people while using the American aid to build uranium bombs. The lowest estimate is that Kim starved to death over 1 million of his own people, even with the U.S. aid program.

Axis of Evil and Friends

North Korea was not left all alone in its effort to obtain nuclear weapons. North Korea relied heavily on China, its closest ally, to assist in its all-out effort to obtain the atomic bomb.

Beijing elected to covertly aid its North Asian ally by proliferation. China allowed Pakistan to send nuclear technology purchased from Beijing to North Korea in exchange for No Dong missile technology.

Beijing provided Pakistan with its nuclear weapons technology, including an operational atomic bomb design. Pakistan is now providing North Korea with equipment and engineering to assist in its bomb-making efforts.

The fact remains that North Korea acquired some key equipment for its nuclear weapons program from Pakistan in 1998. The key equipment, including a working gas centrifuge used to enrich uranium, was shipped to Pyongyang in the coffin of the murdered wife of a North Korean diplomat.

Beijing's indirect assistance includes allowing Pakistani C-130 cargo flights over China to Pyongyang that carry key equipment for nuclear weapons production. The flights return to Pakistan with North Korean No Dong missile parts.

Missiles for Nukes

Pakistan also benefited from the trade in weaponry. The missiles-for-nukes trade gave Pakistan an operational means to deliver its atomic bombs.

Pakistan has since successfully test-fired and deployed its own version of the No Dong missile, called the Ghauri. The North Korean-designed missile has a range of nearly 900 miles and can cover virtually all of India, Pakistan's rival in Southwest Asia.

The ultimate irony here is that the North Korean No Dong and Tae Po Dong missiles are based on technology given to Pyongyang by China. In 1994, the Wall Street Journal revealed that Chinese-made CSS-2 missile technology had found its way into North Korean hands.

China has also allowed North Korea to ship SCUD missiles through its territory for Middle Eastern customers. According to a Canadian undercover operative, North Korean agents moved dismantled SCUD missiles through China into Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran.

The allegations proved to be correct because U.S. satellites were able to follow Chinese-made M-11 missiles bound for Pakistan over the same land route in 2000. The illegal export of M-11 missiles brought swift sanctions against Beijing by the Bush administration.

In recent months China has been much more overt about assisting Pyongyang with its nuclear weapons program. In 2002, China sold Pyongyang a large shipment of tributyl phosphate, a key chemical used to extract plutonium and uranium from spent fuel rods for atomic bombs.

U.S. Pressure on Asian Allies

In contrast, the U.S. repeatedly told India, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan that they should not develop nuclear weapons. The U.S. position was that the no one had the right to bring a new arms race to Asia.

The U.S. also backed up this policy by placing severe restrictions on the export of nuclear and ballistic missile technology to India, Taiwan, Korea and Japan. The trade agreements also had teeth built into them in case U.S. technology was abused.

For example, when India developed and tested its nuclear bomb, the U.S. responded with hefty sanctions and a diplomatic freeze that is just now beginning to thaw.

Compared to the strict U.S. policy, China did not discourage its client states, North Korea and Pakistan, from developing nuclear weapons. Instead, China has overtly and covertly assisted both nations to develop and deploy active weapons upon working delivery systems.

Nature abhors a vacuum, especially in the case of nuclear weapons. The whole equation of Asian defense has changed overnight. As a result of China's nuclear proliferation, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan may now have to follow Pyongyang's lead and begin their own atomic weapons programs. That decision will be made in Tokyo, Seoul and Taipei, not in Washington.

It should shock no one, including the China lobby and DNC apologists, that Beijing will continue to support North Korea's nuclear weapons program.

However, some fools continue to be suckered by Beijing's obvious ploy to dominate Asia. The fools' hope that China will restrain Pyongyang continues to echo off the lips of the leftist media, as if by simply wishing it were true will make it so.

The fact remains that Bill Clinton's legacy is an unstable world filled with hungry dictators and nuclear weapons. The result of the Clinton appeasement policy toward China is a new arms race.

I don't really want to interrupt you, BernardR, but could it be that you are posting on the wrong board?

Mr. Walter Hinteler-

Please be so good as to read

Mr. Parados--post # 2137041 JULY 10, 2006 on this thread.

Mr. Parados does not know what he is talking about. I am attempting to inform him of the actual situation vis a vis Clinton and North Korea in the 1990's.


But, thank you anyway for trying to help!!!

Sullivan is a guy I don't have a lot of use for. But even he has finally twigged about the constant and important deceits of this administration...


http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/07/suskind_again.html