July 12, 2006
North Korea: Another Can Kicked Down The Road By The Clinton Administration
Lee P. Butler
Norah O'Donnell said recently on an edition of the MSNBC show, Hardball, "It’s been a week of rising tension between
the United States and North Korea, but unlike the march to war with Iraq in 2003, this time it’s a drumbeat for diplomacy.
Today, President Bush made his case on the road to Chicago where his plans to tout economic news were overshadowed by tough
questions about a potential nuclear threat from North Korea. The president put the pressure on Kim Jong-Il."
new liberal media mantra that President Bush is on a 'drumbeat for democracy' or as Time magazine has touted, it's the end
of 'cowboy diplomacy'.
As liberal media pundits synchronize their talking points with the Democrat party political
machine, they have returned to the old attack Bush line that he led a unilateral march to war with a country that never did
anything to us and Saddam was just a harmless little totalitarian, torturous, terrorist dictator.
According to the
Left's thought process, why Saddam was never as crazy as that North Korean dictator who wears shoes that make him look taller,
Kim Jong Il.
In the Time article, they completely misrepresented Bush's foreign policy position by writing, "They aimed
to lay the foundation for a grand strategy to fight Islamic terrorists and rogue states, by spreading democracy around the
world and pre-empting gathering threats before they materialize. And the U.S. wasn't willing to wait for others to help."
the first place, what the Left has constantly promoted as Bush's 'march to war' in Iraq was actually longer than a decade
in the making where the United Nations Security Council eventually passed seventeen resolutions sanctioning Saddam Hussein
for his many violations, including the last resolution which threatened serious consequences if Saddam didn't comply and passed
Secondly, the Bush doctrine is that America will take the fight to the terrorists, not wait until they
come to the United States to strike us first. That's the policy against terrorists.
Rogue states on the other hand
can find themselves in preemptive strike territory if they pose an imminent threat... Saddam had already displayed his intention
to strike the U.S. in one manner or another through his actions towards building weapons programs, his boisterous rhetoric,
and the fact that he was aiding and abetting terrorists who were specifically attacking our allies in Israel and members of
The President has said from the very beginning starting with his announcement that North Korea was one of
the three members of the 'axis of evil' that his administration would do everything possible to handle the situation through
diplomacy well before any military actions would even be considered.
There has been no change what-so-ever in the policy
of the President concerning North Korea... or Iran, for that matter... but the Left is once again trying to draw a line in
the sand themselves, then steps over the line as if they are defying the exemplar they created to clarify the President's
foreign policy positions.
A reporter recently told the President, "A lot of people here in Chicago tell us that they
see an incongruity in your foreign policy." Meaning that's what the liberals and the media want to portray the situation,
then he asked, "Is your -- is your policy consistent between the way you have dealt with Iraq, the way you have dealt with
The President's response was clear, "I have always said that it's important for an American president
to exhaust all diplomatic avenues before the use of force."
He added, "All diplomatic options were exhausted as far
as I was concerned with Saddam Hussein. Remember that the UN Security Council resolution that we passed when I was the president
was one of 16, I think. Sixteen, 17? Give me a hand there. More than 15. Resolution after resolution after resolution saying
the same thing, and he ignored them. And we tried diplomacy. We went to the UN Security Council, 15 to nothing vote that said
disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences.”
Then addressing the policy actions with North Korea, President
Bush said, "And so the choice was Saddam Hussein's choice. He could have, you know, not fooled the inspectors. He could have
welcomed the world in, he could have told us what was going on, but he didn't. And so we moved. And we're in a diplomatic
process now with North Korea. That's what you're seeing happening."
The only thing that has changed, is the liberal
media's attack position. They want to assert that we moved too fast with Iraq, but that we are moving too slow with North
Which is it?
The problem that exists in North Korea presents the Left with a major stumbling block.
Il Kim decided that it was time to show the world his military acumen by launching several missiles under the guise of a 'test',
which apparently failed miserably and prompted Democrat Bill Richardson to say, "The North Koreans are like little kids."
point was that since they weren't getting the attention they felt they deserved, the spoiled brat decided to pitch a temper
tantrum and shoot off a few missiles. Now the Left are concerned about Il Kim because he was touted as one of Clinton's biggest
foreign policy successes.
But just like the Jersey Girls asinine assertion that 9-11 was Bush's fault because 'it happened
on his watch', the Left are trying desperately to paint North Korea as Bush's problem, because they know that Il Kim is Clinton's
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, George alluded to this by saying something he soon retracted, "I think
at this point, there's nothing to do but to learn to live with it. But you can dial the clock back to 2003. What if in 2003,
instead of invading Iraq, President Bush takes out the reprocessing facilities in North Korea, which according to [former
Defense] Secretary [William] Perry, President Clinton was willing to do back in 1993 before they started the negotiations.
We would be in a far different place."
After George Will pointed out the obvious, George said, "So I take it back,
you're right. Retaliation would be far too great." Add to that the fact that not only didn't the Clinton administration decide
to take out North Korea's nuclear facilities, they assisted them with the technology that improved their nuclear capability
so now Il Kim could possibly have nuclear weapons.
The problem isn’t that a child has matches to light the fuses
of fireworks. You address the fact that the child has fireworks in the first place.
It was Jimmy Carter and Madeleine
Albright, along with others from the Clinton administration who negotiated the 'deal' with communist Il Kim and assured him
he could have the 'fireworks' as long as he promised that he would only use the 'safe' kind.
Defending the Clinton
debacle while attacking the Bush family, Wendy Sherman said, "At the beginning of the Bush administration, six years ago,
North Korea had enough plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons, plutonium that was created during father Bush's term in office.
No plutonium was created during the Clinton administration. And now, six years after the beginning of George W. Bush's presidency,
North Korea has enough plutonium for six, eight, or ten nuclear weapons."
When she was called out on the open fallaciousness
of her comment, she retorted, "Intelligence sources tell me that they [North Korea] were attempting to getting -- getting
centrifuges at the end of the Clinton administration, but the full-fledged highly enriched uranium program didn't begin until
Naw, Il Kim didn't do nothing during the Clinton years but play real nice cause he said he would and them centrifuges
weren‘t for plutonium enrichment, Il Kim just like to watch ‘em spin real fast!
But Albright told Tim Russert
in 2004 that Il Kim and his gang, "What they were doing, as it turns out, they were cheating."
And the reason they
were allowed to 'cheat', was because they weren't being watched, which led Congressman Tom DeLay to withhold funding until
it could be proven that North Korea wasn't 'cheating' in 1998.
So now, the Left wants to know what Bush is going to
do about Il Kim, who Richardson says is 'crazy like a fox', since it is now Bush's problem because Clinton's spoiled brat
is throwing temper tantrums on Bush’s watch.
The real question is, how many cans kicked down the road by the
Clinton administration will the Bush administration have to clean up?