Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

There He Goes Again. . .

Jimmy Carter turns up in the pages of the New York Times this morning to pat himself on the back for having "solved" the NorKo nuclear crisis back in 1994. Of course, Carter implies that the whole thing is George W. Bush’s fault for having called the Norks bad names ("axis of evil"). It is a classic example of Carter’s delusional state of mind.

Just deconstruct this graph, for example:

Responding to an invitation from President Kim Il-sung of North Korea, and with the approval of President Bill Clinton, I went to Pyongyang and negotiated an agreement under which North Korea would cease its nuclear program at Yongbyon and permit inspectors from the atomic agency to return to the site to assure that the spent fuel was not reprocessed. It was also agreed that direct talks would be held between the two Koreas

Where to start. "an invitation from Kim Il Sung." Yes, and why do you suppose he wanted Carter so badly? ". . . with the approval of Bill Clinton. . ." Accuracy demands that it read "with the reluctant approval of Bill Clinton." Carter actually presented Clinton with a fait accompli--Carter told the White House was going to go hold hands with the Norks whether Clinton approved or not. Clinton, by the way, was furious with the outcome, which Carter announced on CNN before he told the White House. Clinton told Warren Christopher that Carter was to be stopped from making any further freelance trips of this kind. "It was also agreed that direct talks be held between the two Koreas." The Norks demanded a multi-million dollar payment from the South Koreans just to show up for the talks. In other words, the Norks turned it into a Jesse Jackson-style shakedown operation.

But remember--Jimmy is our best ex-president ever.

Discussions - 16 Comments

Great last line Steven, even though it cannot diminish the collective achievement of Habitat for Humanity.

Proposed for debate: Jimmy Carter’s behavior as ex-presidential self-appointed diplomat has been more shameful/harmful than Bill Clinton’s behavior while president with Ms. Lewinsky.

If you can stomach food for thought on this, just go to NRO and search for Jim Nordlinger’s classic piece "Carterpalooza."

Oops, its Jay Nordlinger, not Jim. To make amends here’s CARTERPALOOZA!!!!

Here’s a funny video made by the Democrat-turned-Republican producer/director of Airplane, The Naked Gun, et al, on what the Clinton administration did to stop North Korea. It’s pretty funny.

Several of the authors cited in this Power Line article describe how Carter was duped by the NorKs. (Note, if you will, the dates of the articles). Carter’s problem used to be that he was so gullible, he’d believe anyone. He’d accept anything told to him as the truth. Now one of his problems is that he believes everyone except Republicans. Another of his problems is that he just can’t admit, even to himself, that the NorKs lied to him, accepted his carrots in consideration of not continuing their nuke program and continued the program serupticiously. To him,

IT’S ALL BUSH’S FAULT!

It’s entirely understandable that his psyche will not let him admit the truth to himself, but this is not good for his legacy. (Yeah, I know, he has no legacy). Neither is it good for Clinton’s legacy, as Carter did this to us on Clinton’s watch (I’ve got a mental image of Clinton shaking a finger at Chris Wallace, saying Ah tried ta stop thuh North Koreans, but Jimmy Carter wouldn’t certify it).

The question is not whether the Democrats, if reinstated as the majority, can fix this (their plan would be to go back to sleep and perpetuate the mess). The question is can anyone, even the Republicans, fix the mess Carter, and vicariously Hillary’s hubbie, let happen?

"The question is not whether the Democrats, if reinstated as the majority, can fix this (their plan would be to go back to sleep and perpetuate the mess). The question is can anyone, even the Republicans, fix the mess Carter, and vicariously Hillary’s hubbie, let happen? "

This is laughable crap, and embarrassing to read even from an outsider’s perspective.

Pay no attention to the most recent 6 years during which Bush attacked the WRONG country for a pack of LIES which WOULD have been true if he had applied them to North Korea. Pay no attention to the fact that North Korea’s escalation in nuclear capability (in addition to 9/11, in addition to this most recent test) occurred on George Bush’s watch. What kind of security do you idiots have in mind when you ignore the hand at the helm for the last 6 years, and go searching through your magic bag of hated Americans for scapegoats? Where did Sun Tzu write THAT as an effective tactic?

The sudden emergence of the Swift Butt Veterans for Truth demonstrates that the Democrats would prefer to talk about anything other than national security.

Unfortunately for them, the psychotic Kim Jong-Il seems to be setting off nukes, raising the embarrassing issue of the Clinton administration’s 1994 "peace" deal with North Korea.

Ann Coulter

Just when I was feeling sorry for using the term "idiots" you invoke Ann Coulter. Saved again!

Another brilliant argument from Fung the moral gnat.

Pay no attention to the most recent 6 years during which Bush attacked the WRONG country for a pack of LIES which WOULD have been true if he had applied them to North Korea. Pay no attention to the fact that North Korea’s escalation in nuclear capability (in addition to 9/11, in addition to this most recent test) occurred on George Bush’s watch.

Now hold on a minute here, Fung. Let’s for the sake of argument assume that you’re right, and that the invasion of Iraq has left us unable to deal with the greater threat of North Korea. This might well be the best argument against the Iraq War that I’ve heard yet, but here’s the thing--it only works if you would support handling North Korea differently than the administration has. Based on what I’ve seen from your comments, I don’t believe that this is the case. Assuming North Korea has really detonated a nuclear weapon (which may not have actually happened, of course) in violation of repeated UN resolutions, should the U.S. take a tougher stand against Kim Jong Il’s tinpot tyranny? Are you accusing GWB of being "soft" on North Korea? China and Russia are now standing in the way of any meaningful sanctions, and they have vetoes in the UN Security Council. Does that mean that we should bypass the UN and act as part of a "coalition of the willing," as Bush did in Iraq?

If you really are a hawk in dove’s clothing, and wish that the administration would take a hardline stance against North Korea, then good for you. But I don’t believe for a minute that you really think that. If Bush hadn’t invaded Iraq, and was talking tough about North Korea now, you would be giving us all the reasons why we should understand Kim Jong Il’s need for nuclear weapons.

You’re right, J.M., by saying Iraq was the "wrong" war, Fung is implying there was a "right" war and N. Korea was it. We should have invaded N. Korea instead of Iraq. Surely Fung will concede, based on this that the Iraq campaign in the GWOT was the right campaign after all. Hmm. The Iraq campaign did have the (unintended?) consequence of splitting Syria and Lebanon, hence Hezb’allah, off from Iran, making it more difficult, if not impossible, for Iran to rearm Hezb’allah. Hmm.

Kim Jong Il’s rather embarrassing flopperoos of late would tend to indicate that we can pick him off at a more leisurely pace and then proceed with a reunification plan with the south. Hmm. Now where have I heard that before? "Mr. (whomever) tear down that...bobwar." I don’t think any Muslims are going to be buying any nukes from Kim anytime soon, so maybe the Carter/Clinton fiasco in North Korea can be fixed after all.

I am not sure about N Korea either way, yet. I would say this: given Bush’s many and often changing, reasons for invading Iraq, North Lorea should have gone to the head of the line, and Iraq should NOT have been invaded.

Kim is a much greater threat( in my view, right now) to the world than Saddam ever was. If anyone needs to be preempted, it is Kim. Again, I am not sure that we are there yet, but I am not closed to the idea of taking out his military/industrial capabilities.

So, I am not accusing Bush of being soft right now. I am accusing him of invading Iraq for reasons that were not real. North Korea poses a much more authentic threat to global and U.S. stability than Iraq ever did.

Really? So Saddam was a GOOD guy? How many Iranians has Kim killed? Kuwaitis? Kurds? Shiites? How many suicide bombers of Israelis has Kim sponsored? How many Filipino Muslim terrorists? What was Kim’s involvement in the thwarted 20 ton WMD attack on Jordan (that was in 2004, by the way)? Kim’s a wannabe bad guy but Saddam was far worse. We need to take Kim out before he succeeds, but Saddam had been succeeding in mass murder, by use of WMD and other means, for over 20 years. His WMD did fall into the hands of terrorists in 2004 and, but for the grace of the Holy Trinity, 80,000 Jordanians would be dead today.

I’m going to leave you with another great quote, Fung.

Damn that Bush! If only he had ignored the crazy Muslims and dedicated himself to sending flowers (and more nuclear reactors!) to North Korea, we could be actively helping Kim develop his nukes like the Clinton administration did.

Ann Coulter. (She DOES have a way of making leftists look silly doesn’t she FMG?)

Yes, Guido, that is exactly what I said: Saddam was a good guy. Are you playing at cognitive concreteness, or is it a true deficit that you suffer? If something is not black, then it must be white. If a country should not be invaded, that makes its leader a "good guy." Welcome to the world of two-year-old reasoning.

IF Kim has nukes, then we must take him seriously as a global threat, is that not true? He has threatened the U.S., and he has thumbed his nose at the UN, and IF he has nukes, then he is a threat.

There are lots of bad guys in the world, but we cannot be the world police. I thought you understood that.

Welcome to the world of two-year-old reasoning.

You’re right Fung, I should not have lowered myself to your level.

"Ann Coulter. (She DOES have a way of making leftists look silly doesn’t she FMG?) "

It must seem dismal, indeed, after the dizzying heights of the intellecutal humor of Ann Coulter!

The only thing SHE makes look silly are the morons who sniff after her leavings. Congrats, Guido. You’re a Coulter jackal. Maybe later, you can sniff Rush’s bicycle seat.

Wow. We’re watching Fung descend into mental illness. You are a sick puppy sir. Get some help.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/9140