All your sucking up to Kim in North Korea and all your talk, talk, talk and actually helping them with their reactor has sure paid off. Maybe you should have just sold him a nuke or two outright.
2006-10-10 07:26:40 · 17 answers · asked by Meow the cat 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Meow you are so cute.
2006-10-10 07:29:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
It was Rumsfeld who worked for the Swiss company that sold the reactors to North Korea you should be thinking about, ya ignorant p*ssycat.
2006-10-10 14:35:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
It's ironic that Jimmy Carter received the Nobel Peace Prize for getting them to agree to discontinue their Nuclear program, when it was discovered that they had not kept their word two years after the agreement.
He deserved the Nobel, but not for his work with NK. :(
2006-10-10 14:40:25 · answer #3 · answered by Souris 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's a little strong to fully blame Clinton, but his attempts at diplomacy and talk inched us closer and closer to this day. There is a notion of respect and weakness that is ingrained in most Eastern Asians. If you make life easier for them, they'll enjoy it of course, but to the same degree, they'll rip into you for being weak and they will never respect you (I learned this from my brother and sister who spent years in Korea teaching English). I think this is precisely what was going on when Clinton et al were playcating to the N.Koreans all those years.
Back in Clinton's day, the CIA came out and admitted that their surveillance tapes in NK's nuclear facilities had run out...when they ran out, they had no idea. And they had no idea how to get another surveillance system into the facilities. So basically, we haven't had a clue as to how advanced NK's nuclear program was coming along-- or not coming along for that matter. We really dropped the reigns on NK when Clinton was in office with all of our niceties and Madeline Albright dancing with Kim Jong Il in Pyongyang. It looked great back in the day...but today, we're paying for it.
2006-10-10 15:12:33 · answer #4 · answered by olliebee 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
OMG. It is truly amazing. Bush has been in power almost 6 years and you still blame Clinton for every failure. Get over it.
And this is the party of "Personal Responsibility"?
2006-10-10 14:38:51 · answer #5 · answered by Wundt 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ha-ha. H'm. I just lost my pencil. Where did it go? Oh, it must be Clinton's fault. Blah. Blah. Blah. No,wait. That is not a good explanation. It is a mystery, one that I cannot seem to answer. Ah, yes, the answer to all that I cannot answer--God--yes, God must have hidden my pencil from me. H'm. Nah, I still like to blame Clinton. He must have taken my pencil. Ah, it is nice not having to think and relying on the Clinton-excuse as the answer for all of the world's ills.
Pull your head out of your @rse.
2006-10-10 14:44:18 · answer #6 · answered by Gin Martini 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Clinton signed an agreement with N. Korea that we would give oil for energy so they would not have to build nuclear plants but when Bush invaded Iraq N. Korea broke the agreement but nice try thanks for playing.
2006-10-10 14:31:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Don't blame Clinton. North Korea is kicking up their heels because Bush refuses to negotiate with them. What they want is a security guarantee that we won't invade them. Clinton has nothing to do with that. What do yuo expect Clinton to have done besides tlak? Bomb them back to the Stone Age? And if you rightists didn't support even his mild strikes against Al Qaeda, would you have supported him here?
2006-10-10 14:31:37 · answer #8 · answered by kreevich 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
This is not a question, buy your thoughts are correct. Clinton was too busy with "other things" to actually devote time to national security.
His lack of action led the Islamic terrorist to be bold and North Korea to be a threat to world peace today.
But, for you clinton supporters, I guess he was nice looking and he cared about people (especially interns).
TX Guy
2006-10-10 14:31:04 · answer #9 · answered by txguy8800 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
How is blaming Clinton going to solve anything? It certainly doesn't make Bush any better able to handle the situation (or any other situation)
2006-10-10 14:34:51 · answer #10 · answered by gambia_joy 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
everything that bad events that happened during bush's presidency was all because of what clinton did or didnt do that he should have. people need to stop blaming bush for everything and look at the facts.
2006-10-10 14:37:06 · answer #11 · answered by beth_6953 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋