Posted on 09/10/2016 3:13:45 PM PDT by Kaslin
At a time when Mrs. Bill Clinton is running a race for president and suggesting husband Bill will play a role in her administration “in charge of revitalizing the economy, because, you know, he knows how to do it,” the media has been happy to cover he story as seen here in The New York Times.
But there has been a curious silence in the liberal media as news arrives that North Korea has tested yet another nuclear bomb. What kind of silence?
Here are a sampling of the front page headlines from The New York Times of September 9th on this latest news out of North Korea:
North Korea Tests a Mightier Nuclear Bomb, Raising Tension
North Korea’s Nuclear Blasts Keep Getting Stronger
Over at The Washington Post the front page, also from September 9th, featured these headlines:
N. Korea conducts fifth nuclear test despite global condemnation
These North Korean missile launches are adding up to something very troubling
When Donald Trump flirted with a 2000 campaign, he proposed bombing North Korea
Now. One can read all of these stories in the two print outlets of the liberal media and never find these two words: Bill Clinton.
Over at CNN, the words “Bill Clinton” can be found — in this opinion piece on North Korea’s news written by one Adam Cathcart, identified as “a lecturer in Chinese history at the University of Leeds (United Kingdom) and the editor of Sino-NK.com. The views in this article are those of the author.”
Writes Mr. Cathcart: “The Clinton campaign has loads more experience (then the Trump campaign) in dealing with North Korea -- as Bill Clinton's 2009 trip there to spring two noteworthy hostages suggests.”
Ahhhh yes. There is the first hint that, yes indeed, Bill Clinton can be tied to North Korea. Alas Mr. Cathcart doesn’t even begin to suggest the relevance of that Bill Clinton-North Korea tie. For that, we must turn to Bill Kristol’s Weekly Standard in this April 2015 article by Daniel Halper. That headline? “When Bill Clinton Praised the Virtues of the Nuclear Deal With North Korea.
Halper cites this from then-President Bill Clinton on October 21, 1994, bold print for emphasis supplied:
“Before I take your questions, I'd like to say just a word about the framework with North Korea that Ambassador Gallucci signed this morning. This is a good deal for the United States,” Clinton said at the press conference.
North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.
South Korea, with support from Japan and other nations, will bear most of the cost of providing North Korea with fuel to make up for the nuclear energy it is losing, and they will pay for an alternative power system for North Korea that will allow them to produce electricity while making it much harder for them to produce nuclear weapons.
The United States and international inspectors will carefully monitor North Korea to make sure it keeps its commitments. Only as it does so will North Korea fully join the community of nations.
Hmmm. Something seems amiss. There is the President of the United States — William Jefferson Clinton — assuring his fellow Americans that "North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program.”
And yet, if one reads today’s liberal media, somehow — some way, in some quite mysterious fashion - there on the front pages today we find the news that, well, golly gee, North Korea not only did not “freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program” as guaranteed by Hillary’s husband but that, per the Times, North Korea’s “Nuclear Blasts Keep Getting Stronger” and appear to be married, per the Post, to “something very troubling” — that troubling something being missile launching technology.
Quote The Post, bold print again supplied:
“It seems like North Korea is trying to qualitatively improve its missiles and develop options to evade or fool U.S. missile defenses,” said Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association.
"If this continues unchecked, they could develop an intercontinental ballistic missile that could pose a threat to the United States in the next decade.”
Why is mentioning Bill Clinton important? Who cares about something that happened back in 1994?
Because this piece of Bill Clinton handiwork with North Korea, formally titled the Agreed Framework between the United States of America and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, is utterly typical of the liberal approach to dealing with America’s enemies. And to the point today, it is the same naive thinking that is behind the Obama assurances — supported by Hillary Clinton — that the agreement with Iran will guarantee Iran will not gets its own nuclear weapons.
Take a look, to pick but one liberal venue, over here at The Guardian’s story on Hillary Clinton’s views on the Obama nuke deal with Iran. The headline: “Hillary Clinton makes forceful case for Iran nuclear deal.
Reported The Guardian, bold print supplied:
Hillary Clinton offered her most robust endorsement yet of the nuclear deal negotiated under the Obama administration between Iran and six world powers.
The former secretary of state made her case in a speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington DC on Wednesday, as the US Senate formally begins its debate on the accord in anticipation of a vote to disapprove the deal. Clinton, who stated her support for the agreement shortly after it was reached, elaborated on her position while emphasizing continued skepticism of the Iranian regime.
Clinton said the US faces a choice to either ‘move forward on a path to diplomacy or turn down more dangerous path leading to a far less certain and riskier future’.
The former secretary of state said the deal “blocks every pathway for Iran to get a bomb” and that it was ‘unrealistic’ to get a better deal, as some opponents claimed was possible.
Like Bill, like Hillary.
Here is Bill on North Korea: “North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program.”
Here is Hillary on Iran: The Obama nuclear deal “blocks every pathway for Iran to get a bomb.”
And the media reporting on all of this? Zero. There is one story after another headlined on the front pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post about North Korea and its nukes and nary a word that President Bill Clinton, whom Hillary assures will have some kind of role in her administration, personally assured the American people the day when North Korea had nukes would never arrive.
Why is this? Why the oh-so-subtle media black out of the Bill Clinton role in this latest news out of North Korea? One can easily suspect that the liberal media has no intention of reminding the American people that the liberal world view of dealing with steadfast — and fanatic — American enemies has produced repeated and spectacular failure.
Thus the best way to deal with the Bill Clinton assurance that “North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program” — on a day when the headlines illustrate in vivid terms what baloney this Clinton agreement actually was?
Disappear the words “Bill Clinton” and indeed, that is just what The Times and Post have done.
If Hillary wants to talk about the Russians, have her husband explain that.
HuffPo: Too Bad Ukraine Didn’t Keep Its 2,000 Nuclear Weapons
Excellent suggestion.
You’ve got it. Wrap Kim Jong Un around the Clinton’s neck and squeeze. The nuclear threat the Koreans present to the world in their fault ALONE.
Another example why one party control of the media is a serious national security threat to the nation.
Just think, if we had an objective Press, Bill Clinton would have long ago been held accountable for his lies and double dealings.
As a matter of fact, if we had an objective Press, we would have never had a Bill Clinton presidency.
It's long past time we dropped a hammer on this one party control of all news and entertainment.
These examples of liberal "thought" only add more support to my belief that leftists actually have their logic circuits switched. So the more rational and logical an idea is, the less they understand it and the more they reject it. But the more illogical and crazy an idea is, the more they find it sensible and rational.
It has always been my contention that Jimmy Carter flew off on his own mission, and actually short circuited Clinton’s movement toward hostilities with North Korea.
I don’t know how it is spun today, but back in they day Clinton was declaring openly that something was going to have to be done to stop North Korea.
All of a sudden Jim Carter as in North Korea announcing some sort of deal. Carter had conducted foreign policy on behalf of the United States without being assigned to do it.
All announcements came from Carter, not the Clinton White House. Rather than letting history portray him as being preempted as CIC, Clinton over time began to spin it that Carter was working at his behest. I don’t for a moment believe it.
So when the media leaves Bill out today, I think they have a point. They should trash him for allowing Carter to assume the powers of the CIC and State Department at the same time, but blame him for the nuclear deal he was no part of, I’m not convinced he should be blamed.
Carter screwed us big-time. Not content with destabilizing the Middle-East via Iran, Carter screwed up this side of the world too.
Clinton was an ass-hat clown that got played, just as we did.
That’s what happens when you let incompetents assume the office of the presidency.
When you look at the Carter, Clinton, and Obama years, it should be enough to have any sentient being refuse to vote Democrat again.
Thank ny slimes & washington pest for being such incompetent and traitor “journalists”...thanks a lot.
Jimmah Carter was complicit in the deal but this was all Clinton. Bubba lectured the American public that the U.S. should not have a right to withhold nuclear technology from any nation. Remember that the Los Alamos break-in and ensuing debacle was also done under Clinton’s watch.
The decision to do the N.K. deal was signed on by Clinton. It is his legacy, as are Bosnia and Waco.
I think Clinton signed on after the deal, but I don’t think it was his deal. I don’t mind taking him to task for accepting what Carter agreed to.
Remember, Carter had his global strategic planning group long after he was president. He thought he was a real statesman. He sniffed a military option and decided to short circuit it.
I’m not defending Clinton, because I detest him and his wife. If he was intimately connected to Carter from the get go, so be it. His own Leftist media sycophants at the time said Carter went on his own.
I know that’s a great comfort, but I still believe Carter did this on his own.
I’ll try to look around and see if I can find more dated descriptions of what took place during Carter’s first visit.
I spent some time just now trying to nail it down, but a number of the descriptions I found only talked in vague terms about the deal, leaving Carter’s name barely mentioned.
Thanks for your earlier comments Navin.
great info on slicks arming NORKs
If he took credit for it, and signed his name to it; he owns it.
I agree with that to a point.
If he did see need for intervention and Carter undercut him, he’s still culpable, but there are times in life you get stuck doing things you don’t want to.
Does that exonerate him? No.
I just don’t want Carter getting away from this scott free.
Clinton has plenty to answer for, and ultimately even this too. I agree with that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.