Posted on 01/12/2003 1:50:24 AM PST by clintonbaiter
It's inevitable like death and taxes. Should some murderous tyrant or other appear on the world scene and flaunt his dirty deeds in front of the international community, then the "negotiate an agreement" crowd crawls out from under the rocks to denounce any talk of using military force to reign in the aggressor.
You know all the mindless slogans by now: "Give peace a chance," "Negotiations not war," "Diplomacy not threats," "Peace in our time," "I never had sex with that woman!" Well, maybe not the latter. But speaking of America's orally-fixated ex-president, the Clinton presidency unadmirably demonstrates all the wishful thinking, procrastination and irresponsibility involved in depending on diplomats to "negotiate" the pages and pages of high-fallutin' hot air called "international agreements" these days, as well as the dire consequences of such foreign-policy sophistry.
This reflexive "negotiate an agreement" sensibility is just another bi-product of today's liberal mind set, shaped and formed by the experience of coming up with last-minute settlements in labor negotiations, engaging in legal horse trading in plea bargaining for guilty criminals, and negotiating "non-partisan" political compromises (translated sellouts) in today's legislatures.
The problem is that what works in a democratic domestic context may not work quite so well in the pursuit of international peace. Reigning in ruthless rogue states requires anything but the endless bargaining, compromise and sellout of principles that works so well in negotiating with labor unions to buy "labor peace," in hammering out plea bargains to clear the courts of expensive trials, and in forging political "compromises" to pander to special interest groups.
Negotiating... and negotiating... and then negotiating even more, to generate agreements filled with lofty language, obfuscating legal terms and hidden "incentives," may be appropriate for settling a truckers' strike. Allowing the latest billionaire business felon caught with his hand in the cookie jar to cop a plea may allow the courts to run more efficiently. And political compromise may help the trains run on time, as well as insure re-election. But it simply will not suffice when the safety of entire civilian populations is at stake, when the basic principles that underlie our way of life are under attack, or when the forces of evil threaten to rum amok.
Which brings us back to the bungling Clinton administration where talk, talk, talk -- and meaningless written words (and then more written words) in the form of accords, frameworks and treaties -- was the solution for every international crisis (unless the president was under threat of impeachment, in which case a quick missile attack on a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan might be justified to deflect public attention away from presidential misdeeds).
So under the inept foreign-policy reign of Bill Clinton, we had the much-ballyhooed negotiated agreements for "peace" in the Middle East, Northern Ireland and the Korean peninsula. And of course, as we know now, all these negotiated settlements totally unravelled, along with a lot of Nobel Peace Prize-winning diplomatic sleight of hand.......
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtondispatch.com ...
Exodus 34
6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
Yup.
So under the inept foreign-policy reign of Bill Clinton, we had the much-ballyhooed negotiated agreements for "peace" in the Middle East, Northern Ireland and the Korean peninsula. And of course, as we know now, all these negotiated settlements totally unravelled, along with a lot of Nobel Peace Prize-winning diplomatic sleight of hand.
Snip>
The bottom line? Bill Clinton obsequiously deferred to the vociferous "negotiate a treaty" crowd and indeed gave peace a chance. And now we're a lot closer to war in the Middle East, sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, a nuclear conflagration in the Korean peninsula, and -- the bonus prize! -- decimation of Hawaii and Alaska by nuclear-tipped long-range missiles launched from Pyongyang.
So much for the lofty "peace in our time" diplomatic rhertoric of weak-kneed internationalists such as Bill Clinton (and Jimmy Carter). So much for the healing powers of engagement, negotiation and international diplomacy.
Thanks to such futile "peacemaking" efforts, the world is simply a more dangerous place.
This guy doesn't give Clinton sufficient credit. Anyone who believes that Clinton, the lying master of realpolitik, did not know that he was kicking real problems down the road to build and explode on someone else is a moron. Clinton was not merely engaging in wishful thinking and innocent procrastination. He was more than irresponsible; he knew that ultimately the issues that he was kicking down the road with the phony deals he had with North Korea, the idle threats and impotent gestures he made at bin Laden and his refusal to accept bin Laden when offered to him on a silver platter, and the worthless promices of the Palestinians that he forced on Israel would return with vengence on someone else's watch and at someone else's expense.
Clinton is not stupid; he is malicious. He understood the "dire consequences of such foreign-policy sophistry". He not only engaged in such sophistry he wallowed in it and spewed it. Twice Clinton placed his hand on the Bible and swore to defend this Counrty against enemies, foreign and domestic. He took that oath no more seriously than he did the oath to tell the truth that he took in the Paula Jones deposition. As far as I am concerned Clinton was an accessory before the fact in the murder of 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001 and the murder of many Israelies.
This guy may be apt in describing Jimmy Carter,who any thinking person knows is a fool, but he ignores the malice of the knave we had as our last president.
Really, what good does a treaty do with a regime like North Korea's? They've proved willing to inflict the most appalling torture on their own people -- and they're going to honor a one-sided giveaway agreement with a country whose leaders don't even admit to the existence of evil? What good does an agreement do with Yassir Arafat? He's been endlessly willing to commit the worst atrocities imaginable on civilians, women, and children -- and we expect him to honor an agreement in which he's given everything he demands in exchange for untimed, unenforceable promises to do something to quell terrorism?
Treaties and accords are for honorable men, not for the sort of scum that rule gangster-states and practice the slaughter of the innocent for political gain.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://www.palaceofreason.com
A very accurate observation. Now that it is clearly apparent that Clinton's appeasements failed, he is being let off the hook as just another starry-eyed idealist. In reality, he was a cynical, ego-obsessed man who had absolutely no concern for his country, and knew perfectly well that his agreements were going to imperil that country somewhere down the line.
Truer statement was never made. He is the only President who I honestly believe deserves to be put up against a wall and shot for treason.
Twice Clinton placed his hand on the Bible and swore to defend this Counrty against enemies, foreign and domestic. He took that oath no more seriously than he did the oath to tell the truth that he took in the Paula Jones deposition.
Well put, THE Clinton legacy.
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.