« About That Lead-Head Named Frisch | Main | War Porn: Fast Insertion »
July 11, 2006
Dems Need a Dictionary
I was accused in the comments for Clintonianism because I suggested there was a difference between "Threat" and "Risk." Anyone who works in the government knows that there is a big difference between the two terms.
Again, leftist Democrats in this country need to check the dictionary. Check out this quote from James Carville:
"I'm saying that the president's foreign policy is failed. Cowboy diplomacy is an utter failure and now he's trying some kind of engagement, trying to replace failure with something. As an American, you look around the world and see American foreign policy collapsing. Of course cowboy diplomacy is over."
The only evidence of "collapsing" foreign policy the Dems can cite are opinion polls.
What is he confusing here? He is confusing "diplomacy" with "popularity." Step back and marinate on that for a second.
Popularity is not the same thing as diplomacy. World diplomacy is not a popularity contest.
This confusion is exactly why we are in these messes in the first place: the Clinton Administration's need to be loved brought us a nuclear NoKo.
CLINK!
UPDATE: Looks like the White House agrees...
WASHINGTON - The White House belittled former President Clinton's policy of direct engagement with North Korea on Monday, saying efforts to shower North Korean leader Kim Jong Il "with flowers and chocolates" failed.
White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters that Bill Richardson, who served as United Nations ambassador and Energy Secretary under Clinton, "went with flowers and chocolates, and he went with light-water nuclear reactors ... 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."
Snow added, "We've learned from that mistake."
Look at this response:
Jay Carson, a spokesman for the former president, responded, "This is a serious issue for global security, and it's unfortunate that the Bush administration's TV spinmaster is manufacturing excuses for North Korea's transgressions instead of looking at the last six years of inaction and the abandonment of diplomacy."
First, do the Democrats have a computer that just makes up responses? "This is a serious issue X and instead of X, Bush instead does X" or "There are more important issues like X, but instead Bush chooses to focus on X, instead of working on the REAL problems facing America like X and X."
The Clinton's always love to try to rewrite history or argue things of which there is no evidence. For example, take FEMA. Sure, FEMA sat in with Clinton during his staff meetings, but can you name one disaster during the Clinton Administration that even came close to Katrina/Rita/Wilma? So to say that the agency was so great is not based on any evidence I can see.
Second, I guess Condi has been lollygagging around Foggy Bottom like Dean said our troops were lollygagging around Afghanistan.
Posted by Aaron at July 11, 2006 08:21 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.lifelikepundits.com/cgi-bin/mt3/mt-tb.cgi/2565
Comments
Bush is doing the right thing holding talks with to NK instead of threatening them in SOTU addresses and ignoring them the rest of the time. I think his new policy of multilateralism and diplomacy should be encouraged. I'd be even more impressed it he'd done it 5 years ago while he still had a usable military option and NK didn't have a bomb.
But you're getting back to Repug talking point #3 "It's Clinton's Fault!" and it just isn't so.
In 1999 NK had agreed to abandon it's nuclear research program in exchange for fuel oil and financial aid from the US. In 2001 Bush reniged and NK restarted their program. In 2003 Bush made it clear to the whole world that if you did disarm and Bush didn't like you you would be invaded. For what ever excuse could be manufactured at the time. NK rushed their program to completion. And now that NK has the bomb and is testing long range missiles and our military is bogged down in an unwinnable occupation, NOW Bush want's to talk. I hope he succeeds. But he's put us in a much poorer bargaining position than we were in 6 years ago.
Feul oil and ecconomic aid does not equate to flowers and chocolates. And given the chioce between an administration that wants the world to love America and one that systematically make the world hate us, I'll take the flowers and chocolates. They seemed to work better than gratuitous threats and spurious invasions.
Posted by: IaintBacchus at July 11, 2006 01:12 PM
That simply makes you look like a sucker.
First, Bush didnt just start multilateral negotiations with NoKo. Remember, "six party talks" was and is his position--this even came up during the debate.
The spent fuel rods would not have been possible without us giving them the nuclear material in the first place!
And what made Bush label NoKo as part of the Axis of Evil was that NoKo was supplying arms and technology to wonderful countries like Iran and Syria (and don't forget all the weapons we commandeered of a ship headed for Syria from NoKo). You remember Iran, don't you? That's the regime Kerry wanted to give uranium and technology to to "test" them.
That's exactly what Clinton did. And when Bush came into office, we found out that not only did NoKo start to reprocess all that spent PLUTONIUM that we helped them create, but that they were secretly also enriching URANIUM!
Bush didn't just call them names. He called them out for their treachery, proclaimed that the US is no longer a fool like under Clinton and demanded multilateralism with 6 party talks with people in the region.
I am glad you agree with Bush's approach to NoKo. It's the same one he outlined during the 2004 campaign. The only concession was an off the record meeting to massage NoKo ego.
Posted by: aaron at July 11, 2006 07:28 PM