enuff said
Posted on 04/30/2005 1:16:10 PM PDT by BJungNan
A North Korean Nuclear Egg Laid
Who to blame now that it has hatched?
"They couldn't do that when George Bush became president, and now they can," - Senator (D-NY) Hillary Clinton speaking to the New York Times about N. Korean nuclear weapons capabilities.
The world is indeed a far more dangerous place as we learn North Korea now has the capability to strike the U.S. with nuclear missiles. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) blames this development on the Bush administration, saying the North Koreans did not have this capability when Bush took office. But just how did North Korea acquire the the nuclear technology?
For Clinton to say this threat is one hatched under the Bush Administration conveniently ignores when the egg was laid.
In October, 1998 this column chronicled revelations about North Korea having embarked on a nuclear arms program - a program made possible by a deal the Clinton administration struck with North Korea to provide technology for a nuclear reactors on the promise that the technology would not be used for nuclear weapons production.
The deal represented a reversal of nine previous U.S. administration's policy towards North Korea. The Clinton administration committed to $6 billion dollars of foreign aid to North Korea, earmarking it as primarily for the construction of nuclear reactors. This deal made a hostile and belligerent nation the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid in Asia .
Defenders of the Clinton administration will tell you it is easy to be critical of the deal in hindsight. But for Hillary Clinton to now use this as a issue against the Bush administration represents the grossest distortion of the issue imaginable. Hillary Clinton is blaming Bush for one very ill-conceived deal and one heck of a dangerous egg
But it is worse than that. The Clinton administration was warned at the time it embarked on this gesture of trust. Those warnings having now proven to be exactly correct. It was not a case of Monday morning quarterbacking when the deal was confirmed to have been the start of a significant risk to the United States. The call was sent to the huddle, the call was don't run that play.
According to a 1999 congressional study and warning by the House North Korea Advisory Group, that deal, those reactors, provided North Korea the capacity to generate enough nuclear fuel to produce almost 100 nuclear bombs per year.
Imagine this stupidity. On a promise not to build nuclear weapons, the U.S. provided the funds and the technical know how to do just that. American taxpayer handed over billions of dollars on a promise.
Given the gravity of the situation and the direct responsibility of her husband's administration in creating it, we'd expect Hillary Clinton to keep quiet on the subject, to do all she could to keep the issue out of the news. The honorable thing would be a humble admission to participation in a very serious error of judgment.
Sam Donaldson, liberal talk radio host and Clinton supporter, when confronted with the issue by Sean Hannity on his nationally syndicated show in 1998 asked, "What would you have to talk about if you did not have Clinton?"
As we write this, the furthest thing for our minds was that we would be talking about Hillary having raised the issue of North Korean nuclear missile capabilities.
That's where someone that is both a good speaker and knows the subject well can effectively deal with a situation like that. We've all had moments when we reflect back and say, I wish I had thought to say that at the time. Bush is just not quick in situations like that.
An obvious PhotoShop job by a radical fundie. This could never happen, an American SoS toasting with a communist dictator.
Jimmy Carter went to North Korea and made a deal with them: promise not to build nuclear weapons, and we'll give you everything you need to make them. Kim Il-Jung (or was it Kim Il-Song?) promised. Klintoon sent the equipment. One did not require 20-20 hindsight to see that it was an incredibly stupid and short-sighted deal--it was obvious from the start.
IIRC, helping the Chinese with their missile technology came later.
Admiral Jacoby: "The assessment is that they have the capability to do that, yes ma'am.”
Friday;
Jacoby handed Hillary this supposid "new" piece of information. Well it turns out the capability is still theoretical or not proven. Same assesment as it has been no thanks to the Clinton's and their N.K policy of the 90's. We all know what's wrong with the Clinton's. We all know that it's hypocritical for her to start blaming Bush on this. The question is, what's up with Jacoby??
CLINTON: "With all due respect, it is troubling beyond words that we have testimony like that at this time."
Ahhh, you are good with the punch line. Very good.
Stand by-- the Hermit Kingdom is about to test a nuke underground-- and that will mean they have both the delivery vehicles and viable warheads.
"You'd think Hillary would have enough sense not to highlight the deficiencies in her own husband's record."
You or I would think so, but just ask a female Dimocrat if Hillary is well qualified to be President. Now, in my case, I'm retired and the day that b***h gets the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is my first day in Mexico or some other country. And, as oposed to the idiots with a (D) after their name, I can afford to do the traveling both money-wise and time-wise.
I like your line of thinking. What happens to us when we are young, has a great deal to do with how we shape our worldview. I think liberalism has been around for many years, with different labels applied to it.
I believe in the omnipotence of nature, good or bad, and that we were always meant to be in conflict (war) and struggle. That's how all species survive, including us.
Many liberals are essentially lazy from birth, and consequently do not want adversity in life. Their imaginations lead them to believe that they can create a peacful world through intellectual persuasion (theirs, of course) and "negotiation". They dream of an idyllic paradise where no one has much responsibility or commitment. This is most certainly against nature.
We were meant to be in constant "flight". If not, we begin to collapse. Evidence the deterioration of our country since WWII.
And yes, theirs is a condition that could be corrected early in life, if their cultural environment reflected a more sane understanding of nature's imperatives.
A Clintoon, honorable, humble. or even admission... impossible.
Sanity BUMP!
I've thought about moving to Australia if Hillary socializes the health care system. The problem is that they've already got socialized medicine everywhere else. The American conservatives are either going to have to fight to the death here, or they are going to have to reform some other country that is currently a basket case.
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.