....its Clinton's fault, eventhough, he has been out of office for over 6 years.

Peace.

__________________
E.Pluribus Unum

People of power have NO good will and people of good will have NO power.

If you think Education is Expensive try Ignorance.

bRUTHA SAYS SARCASTICALLY Hell I believe that they are still blaming Andrew Jackson for some stuff ..

Of yeh the Democratic Party !!!!

__________________
"the blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl?" -Bill O'Reilly about Spears

Thank goodness there's at least one liberal around here who can actually try a fair discussion instead of the constant inane ad hominems.

Why was it worth a try, raytri? You should look at McCain's vehement opposition to it. He had good reason. It was all give and no take. It was impossible to enforce or verify. Their people are still starving. I don't understand why anyone would believe a man who is already letting his people starve will suddenly change. Who wouldn't make such a deal? It makes about as much sense as letting serial rapists out of jail if they promise to stop raping.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

Show me something credible that says "Bush embraced it." I see no such thing in this timeline by CNN. In fact, I see just the opposite:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapc...eline.nuclear/

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

I disagree. Before they got the fuel oil, they had to stop work on their reactors and shut down a small research reactor. They then had to keep those facilities shut down for the decade or more it would take to build the new reactors. They had to place the spent fuel under IAEA seal.

Those were verifiable steps, and they did them all.

We, in turn, reneged on our pledge to lift economic sanctions, and Congress was often reluctant to provide funding for the fuel oil shipments.

What North Korea did was hide a clandestine uranium-enrichment program -- a violation of both the Framework and the Nonproliferation Treaty. But they observed the other terms of the Agreed Framework, as we were able to verify.

The Agreed Framework failed to resolve the problem. But that wasn't a problem with the Framework; the problem was that North Korea tried to run a secret nuclear program.

And it's not like Bush covered himself with glory in the intervening six years. He killed the Framework and replaced it with, well, not much -- six-party talks that have gone nowhere. If one wishes to blame NK for that, fine -- but to be honest one would then have to let Clinton off the hook as well. At least Clinton got *some* results.

__________________
Man up.

Oh brother. Such defense of Bill Clinton. Will Dems EVER be able to look at anything he did or didn't do objectively????

Six party talks are the way to go. What Clinton did was played right into Kim Jong-Il's plan to blackmail us and get us to "buy him off." He didn't want the other nations involved. Just as he doesn't want the other nations involved today....even though they are far more effected by his actions than we are. He can hit Japan today with a bomb, but not us. And yet, you want Bush to leave Japan out? And the other nations involved???? Bush is doing the absolute right thing in NOT allowing KJI to trick him into making it an issue between us and them. And it's working. We've finally got China firmly on our side. So, there is strenth in numbers. The other 5 nations and us. And Kim Jong-Il knows it. He is free to talk to us whenever he buys a ticket to Bejing. It's him that has boycotted the talks; not us. And not the other countries involved.

What's amazing to me is this: Dems had a fit because they claimed Bush went it alone on Iraq. (Although he didn't) But that's what they claimed. And now......Bush is FIRMLY sticking WITH 5 other nations who have a strong national interest in making North Korea behave involved.....and YOU are complaining.

Clinton's deal was appeasement.....carrots and then more carrots when they wanted more. It failed. Big Time.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Demonstrably earlier than you.

Why, exactly? What have they produced so far? Besides missile tests, nuke tests, a withdrawal from the NPT and reprocessing of fuel rods, I mean.

That's one way to look at it, I suppose. The other way would be to recognize that Clinton got NK to shut down proliferation-friendly reactors and put spent fuel rods under seal for eight years without firing a shot.

I'd leave that up to the other nations, myself. If Japan wants to be part of the talks, fine. If they think their interests would be better served by bilateral talks, fine.

Again, there are six nations involved. Why is this about Bush being "tricked"?

I'd dispute "firmly", but it's encouraging that China says NK must be punished. However, crediting the stalled talks is a stretch. I rather think China has its own reasons to be displeased with NK testing nukes.

Fine. Although I was under the impression we had flatly refused any other venue. Now, if that's what the other parties to the talks want, fine. My point is that being pigheaded isn't something to brag about, whether the nameplate in front of you reads "DPRK" or "USA".

The situations aren't really comparable. Iraq had no patron comparable to China. Invading NK simply isn't an option, so Bush is left with diplomacy.

But his form of diplomacy is to do nothing until the other side meets some rather broad preconditions. That approach only works if there's some reason for the other side to give in, and NK really has no such incentive. They're already isolated and sanctioned, and they know we won't invade; so what stick do we have left?

They overstepped their bounds with the nuke test, irritating China, but as long as they don't keep doing things like that China will protect them. In a situation like that, Bush's "tough love" diplomacy is simply a recipe for stagnation. With the results that we see before us.

Bush has done nothing and thus achieved nothing. If that is his goal, fine; containment, after all, is how we dealt with the Soviet Union for decades. But if the goal is to actually change NK behavior, then doing nothing is the wrong approach.

Nonsense. Clinton actually got results, combining sticks and carrots. Did it work out as intended? No. But it was a good try.

__________________
Man up.

north korea could not invade south korea, so this is only a further deterant. as if their massive chemical and artillery arsenal were not enough. who cares? honeslty. if they wanted to destroy south korea through mutually assured destruction they have enough artillery to shell almost every major population area of s.k. with 300,000 shells an hour; 1 out of 4 are tipped with chemical weapons. their nuclear devices are not nearly as horrendous as this scenario. and as far as them being any threat to the u.s...they shouldnt be. the u.s. should just let asia handle itself. give japan and s.k. nukes, reduce our military substantially (its no good against nukes anyhow) and call it a day. maybe then we could pay off the budget deficit and screw the weapons contractors of america!

an all carrot and no stick approach was doomed to failure. I don't think it took a lot of vision to realize that. Clinton and Carter dropped the ball here. Bush should have overrode the policy, but it also wouldn't have looked good for him to pull the word of the government after our "negotiations."

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

Clinton got results?

LOL
.yeah..

BOOOOM

Theres your confirmation of Cintons "results"


Complete lie.
I expect such ignorant drivel like that from the glue sniffing retards of the far left on this board ...not from you. Have enough self respect that you don't need to resort to such trash.