It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sen. McCain Criticizes Former President Clinton

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   

SOUTHFIELD, Mich. - Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) on Tuesday accused former President Clinton, the husband of his potential 2008 White House rival, of failing to act in the 1990s to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons



"I would remind Senator (Hillary) Clinton and other Democrats critical of the Bush administration's policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure," McCain said at a news conference after a campaign appearance for Republican Senate candidate Mike Bouchard. The Koreans received millions and millions in energy assistance. They've diverted millions of dollars of food assistance to their military," he said


Its about time someone speaks the truth. I mean its like our country has their eyes shut. If your a democrat then a democrat president can do no wrong. If your a republican then a republican president can do no wrong. I think people need to realize what people stand for and what they believe in. Not wether they are a republican or democrat but who they are. Cause if we don't were going to lose our country.


[edit on 10-10-2006 by Shar]




posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   
heres the link

news.yahoo.com...




posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Very nice, stereotypical I love it.

What am I then?
Im neither, but I thnk clinton was an excellent president.
And Bush, well his time in office speaks for its self.

Im pretty sure time will judge me correct here..

Give it a few more presidents to completley F-up the american way off life.. ill be interested to see how many of you call clinton a failure..


[edit on 10-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Hmmm North Korea had 0 nukes during the Clinton years. Now North Korea has 10 to 11 nukes. So whos presidental policy is a failure??

year 2000 N. Korea = zero nukes
year 2006 N. Korea = 10 to 11 nukes

Clinton was not president during this time...duh



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
Hmmm North Korea had 0 nukes during the Clinton years. Now North Korea has 10 to 11 nukes. So whos presidental policy is a failure??

year 2000 N. Korea = zero nukes
year 2006 N. Korea = 10 to 11 nukes

Clinton was not president during this time...duh


Thats funny...since North Korea admitted in 2002 that they been secretly enriching uranium for years, even after Clinton made a deal with them in 94.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Yes North Korea was messing with nuclear weapons during the Clinton adminstration. He even had funds for him millions of dollers for food but instead he used in for the military.




In U.S.-North Korea relations, the initial breakthrough occurred in October 1994 when U.S. negotiators persuaded North Korea to freeze its nuclear program, with onsite monitoring by U.N. inspectors. In exchange, the United States, with input from South Korea and Japan, promised major steps to ease North Korea's acute energy shortage.



The Koreans received millions and millions in energy assistance. They've diverted millions of dollars of food assistance to their military," he said.


news.yahoo.com...




posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   
I found an interesting Comparison of Bush and Clinton Foreign Policy towards North Korea.
Definitely worth a read.

You can try a search for "clinton reactors north korea". It seems pretty obvious that NK has been doing as it wishes for many, many years.
I am no fan of Clinton, but as this point, what difference does it make whether he did or did not do something. NK did set off some sort of nuclear device.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Thankyou, Don'tThreadOnME--

I learned alot from that read. You know I had no idea that way back in 1953 that former President Eisenhower threaten N. Korea. See it sheds some light on things doesn't it now?

I'm wondering if Clinton did right in the first place given N.K. so much. Seems to me everytime we try to help another country that doesn't care for us much they turn it against us. I'm also wondering if Bush is doing right taking it away. Everytime a different President comes in I'm sure the other countries get confused cause one year were friends or acting nice and then the president changes and so does everything else. Its probably confusing the other countries pretty bad and make them feel insecure wondering if they are going to get along with the next president or not. Wondering if the agreements they set up will stay the same or is it going to change just because of a new President for the United States.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shar
Yes North Korea was messing with nuclear weapons during the Clinton adminstration. He even had funds for him millions of dollers for food but instead he used in for the military.


I would point out that it not your news agency that says Kim Jong Il diverted food aid money to the military.



The Koreans received millions and millions in energy assistance. They've diverted millions of dollars of food assistance to their military," he said.


I would also point out that the WFP traditionally ships whole food, usually in the form of grain or rice, to its recipients, not funds to purchase the food with.

Therefore, to divert funds you actually have to divert the food and sell it on the local market to make money. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (that's not a joke) has no market on which to sell it, they would have to re-export the lot.

And what McCain appears to be saying is that the food was given to the military, not the civilians it was intended for.

To this I would point out the size of said miliatry and just how many people would still be being fed by this food.

I would also, at this juncture, like to point out that I am in no way an apologist for the lunatic dwarf in Pyongyang or his regime ( You are worfress, Arec Bardwrin...). For a good laugh, read today's Slate, particularly the link to KCNA communiques. It's priceless!

So, perhaps you should do a little further analysis before you begin ranting.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Where are the adults in politics?

As it turns out, China couldn't stop North Korea from detonating a nuke, and now we are supposed to believe the US would have been able to if it wasn't for leader X, Y, or Z? Republicans and Democrats, and their supporters who buy into this 'blame them' mentality don't impress me much.

I think the 6 party talks have worked, not in the sense they prevented North Korea from going nuclear, nothing short of war would have prevented that... but in the sense now it is a truly regional problem and everyone is involved in the solution, I think the 6 party talks have been successful.

Had the US been engaged alone like we were in the 90s, we would be in the boat by ourselves. As a result of the 6 party talks, China and Russia are in the boat too.

The quarentine idea could end up being the best diplomatic agreement out of the UN since 1991, and the most important diplomatic achievement of the US since the cold war if implimented properly. There is something to be said about a naval quarentine that includes the JMSDF, PLAN, and USN, because Russia and South Korea would jump onboard to stay relivent in Asian politics.

Now the challange for the US is getting the PLAN onboard. Can it happen? I don't know, but it is a lot easier to negotiate with China than it is North Korea, and the ramifications of standing up against nuclear weapons development on the larger scale could extend beyond North Korea, because military cooperation has always been a solid foundation for building good relations between nations.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
I would point out that it not your news agency that says Kim Jong Il diverted food aid money to the military.


The Koreans received millions and millions in energy assistance. They've diverted millions of dollars of food assistance to their military," he said.


I would also point out that the WFP traditionally ships whole food, usually in the form of grain or rice, to its recipients, not funds to purchase the food with.

Therefore, to divert funds you actually have to divert the food and sell it on the local market to make money. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (that's not a joke) has no market on which to sell it, they would have to re-export the lot.


I think you need to read what DontThreadonme posted. That will tell you alot. So I think you should do a little further analysis before you begin your ranting. My ranting was that we the people need to stand up for what we believe in. Not just go and vote one way or another. Its time to leave the R and D out of the names of those we vote for and find out what they stand for.

[edit on 11-10-2006 by Shar]

Mod Note: Trim Those Quotes - Please Review this link



[edit on 11-10-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Why can't this just be what it is, you have a crazy man in NK and everyone has tried to deal with him in the best way they thought they could. I could not stand Clinton but I think it is wrong for anyone to blame it all on Him or Bush because their are a lot of other factors involved. China has been a very big factor and we are stepping lightly because we need their help. Blame will not solve this issue.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 04:43 AM
link   
It never seizes to amaze me how Clinton keeps popping up as the guy to point the finger to...

In any case, the current president, whats his name, had better come up with a solution in this matter. Will he? I highly doubt it- It was his terminology of "Axis of Evil" who peeved them off to begin with.


But that's what he wanted...being the warmonger that he be....


Everything he touches turns to crap.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Clinton started out, as mentioned before, trying to altogether ignore some eminent problems brewing in North Korea. In his Essay "Clinton's Foreign Policy in Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, and North Korea", Thomas H. Henriksen gives a detailed account of the events that shaped Clinton's early policy towards North Korea. He mentions that Clinton never made any talk about North Korea during his first presidential campaign in 1992. However, Clinton very quickly figured out he would have to deal with North Korea when fears starting to arise that they were generating materials for nuclear weapons with their small nuclear reactor in Yongbyon. Clinton, in response to these fears, decided to start military training exercises, known as Team Spirit, in South Korea. This flexing of military muscle prompted North Korea to threaten to pull out of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT).



The events that transpired between the United States and the DPRK early in Clinton's administration are rich in Foreign Policy decision making. One can pick out many examples of ideas such as bilateral diplomacy. In his book, American Foreign Policy: Past, Present, and Future, Glenn P. Hastedt mentions that bilateral diplomacy is, "[a] form of diplomacy in which two states interact directly with one another" (291). From this definition it is apparent that in fact much of the dealings with North Korea during the Clinton years were of a bilateral-diplomatic form. Additionally, a form of military coercion is also apparent, although the effectiveness can be debated. This apparent coercion came in the form of Clinton's resumption of the Team Spirit training exercises.



As a result of the failure of a coercive approach, the United States had to turn to different approaches. Namely, the United States would have to move away from military unilateralism and more towards economic multilateralism. The United States did just that. As Henriksen reports, the United States along with Japan and South Korea persuaded the DPRK to not consider dropping the NPT. The United States then rewarded North Korea for this decision by not imposing any trade sanctions (31).



Just as Clinton began his presidency, George W. Bush also started out with a policy of indifference towards North Korea. When the 2000 elections rolled around in November North Korea was not an issue at all. It was not a thought in anyone's mind, and the first 9 months of Bush's administration seemed to be no different from his campaign as far North Korea is concerned. That all changed on September 11, 2001 when terrorists crashed large jets into the both towers of the World Trade Center and also into the pentagon.


www.people.umass.edu...

This is the some of what is said on here. Just like DontThreadonMe said its a good read.



Mod Note: Trim Those Quotes - Please Review this link




[edit on 11-10-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Sorry to do this, everybody...


Originally posted by Shar

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by Shar
Yes North Korea was messing with nuclear weapons during the Clinton adminstration. He even had funds for him millions of dollers for food but instead he used in for the military.


I would point out that it's not your news agency that says Kim Jong Il diverted food aid money to the military.


The Koreans received millions and millions in energy assistance. They've diverted millions of dollars of food assistance to their military," he said.


I would also point out that the WFP traditionally ships whole food, usually in the form of grain or rice, to its recipients, not funds to purchase the food with.


For exactly this point: Therefore there are no millions of dollars to give to the military.



Therefore, to divert funds you actually have to divert the food and sell it on the local market to make money. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (that's not a joke) has no market on which to sell it, they would have to re-export the lot.

And what McCain appears to be saying is that the food was given to the military, not the civilians it was intended for.

So, perhaps you should do a little further analysis before you begin ranting.


I think you need to read what DontThreadonme posted. That will tell you alot.


Has nothing to do with your mis-appreciation of the news report.


So I think you should do a little further analysis before you begin your ranting.


Wasn't ranting. Was pointing out the facts and your misreading of and simple failure to understand them.


My ranting was that we the people need to stand up for what we believe in. Not just go and vote one way or another.


No. You were talking about corruption in North Korea. Go back and read what you posted.


Its time to leave the R and D out of the names of those we vote for and find out what they stand for.


Gladly. And as an Aussie I suggest we do the same with Liberal and Labour.

bold (and spelling) mine.

[edit on 11-10-2006 by HowlrunnerIV]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I have no idea what your talking about. I did not misunderstand anything. But what are you arguing about. Yes he toke the money and put it to the military it tells you that black and white. Why do you keep saying he didn't?

Where in my first post did I say anything about corruption in North Korea. I'm talking about Presidents here in our country in the US and how people should not vote just because its their party but vote because of what that person stands for. What that person can do for our country. You missed everything I said.

[edit on 11-10-2006 by Shar]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar
I have no idea what your talking about.


That much is obvious.


I did not misunderstand anything.


Not from where I'm sitting. Let's take a look.


But what are you arguing about. Yes he toke the money and put it to the military it tells you that black and white.


No, he didn't.


Why do you keep saying he didn't?


>I would point out that it's not your news agency that says Kim Jong Il diverted food aid money to the military.<

It is, in fact Senator McCain who says it.

>I would also point out that the WFP traditionally ships whole food, usually in the form of grain or rice, to its recipients, not funds to purchase the food with.<

Which leads us to:

>Therefore, to divert funds you actually have to divert the food and sell it on the local market to make money.<

However, that's not what McCain is saying happened, thus I gave you:

>And what McCain appears to be saying is that the food was given to the military, not the civilians it was intended for.<

The proof of this is:


External Source

"They've diverted millions of dollars of food assistance to their military," he said.


Note carefully: "of food assistance". Not "millions of dollars". If you put the word "worth" between "dollars" and "of" you might begin to understand what McCain is saying.

"They've diverted millions of dollars worth of food assistance to their military,"


Where in my first post did I say anything about corruption in North Korea.


Umm, in your second post it's right here:


He even had funds for him millions of dollers for food but instead he used in for the military.


Which you misunderstood as Kim Jong Il taking actual cash and giving it to his military. Which is corruption. As is taking the food and selling it on the open market and giving the resultant cash to the military. As, also, is what he actually did, which is give food to his military, food that was food aid that was meant for civilians.


I'm talking about Presidents here in our country in the US and how people should not vote just because its their party but vote because of what that person stands for. What that person can do for our country. You missed everything I said.


If you're talking about your last and current Presidents, why, then, did you mention Kim Jong Il's theft of food aid? If you're talking about Presidents in the US, why did you highlight the incredibly generosity to North Korea by the international community without putting any of it in context.

No, you were talking about the crimes of the lunatic dwarf without any corollary.

As I said originally, a little analysis goes a long way. As does some prior knowledge of the situation of which you speak. Hell, following the news of the Six-Party talks for the last three years would have been a good start.

Even better would be a well-thought out post that puts your arguments cogently to the reader. I understand your argument: That each president is equally culpable for the foreign policy failures regarding NK and that now a Republican is using a false example to get cheap points by bashing his Democrat opponents, but that isn't what you presented.


edit: damn quotes, grrr

[edit on 11-10-2006 by HowlrunnerIV]



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by Shar
I'm talking about Presidents here in our country in the US and how people should not vote just because its their party but vote because of what that person stands for. What that person can do for our country. You missed everything I said.


I understand your argument: That each president is equally culpable for the foreign policy failures regarding NK and that now a Republican is using a false example to get cheap points by bashing his Democrat opponents.


Now Slate are getting in on the action. I don't know how many people read Slate, but this article:

www.slate.com...

doesn't do a whole lot of good for McCain's credentials as the lone voice of truth in the GOP.

its sources are noted here:

www.slate.com...

This is the author's juicy intro to the analysis of previous events:


McCain's version of history goes beyond "revisionism" to outright falsification. It is the exact opposite of what really happened.


and this is the concluding comment:


And while we're on the subject of Bushes doing nothing, George H.W. Bush, the president's father, had just moved into the White House in 1989 when the CIA discovered that the North Koreans were building a reprocessing facility near their nuclear reactor at Yongbyon—the facility that could manufacture plutonium from the fuel rods. Five years later, Bill Clinton stopped them from moving the rods into this facility. Eight years after that, George W. Bush let them go ahead.

The rest is history. John McCain would do well to read up on it sometime.


I always did like McCain from his first tilt at the nomination. After learning a little of his (and his family's) history I liked him even more.

To see the events of this week is just disheartening. Cheap politics at its worst.

Say it ain't so, John.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join