Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Charlie Brown Democrats

  1. #1

    Charlie Brown Democrats

    [quote]Special Report
    The Charlie Brown Democrats
    By Jeffrey Lord
    Published 10/10/2006 12:08:43 AM
    They never learn, do they?

    Return with me now to those days of yesteryear, the days when Bill Clinton was in the White House and the Democrats controlled the House and Senate.

    The date: October 22, 1994.

    The headline in the liberal bible, the New York Times, read as follows: "U.S. and North Korea Sign Pact to End Nuclear Dispute: Many Details are Kept Secret." Said the story confidently: "Under the broad agreement concluded here late Monday, North Korea will freeze its nuclear activities, [and] renounce any ambition to become a nuclear power..." In addition, the Times trumpeted what the North Koreans would get in return for these two concessions. "In exchange, an international consortium will replace North Korea's current graphite nuclear reactors, which are considered less dangerous because they produce little weapons grade plutonium."

    Said the North Korean chief negotiator of the deal: It is "a very important milestone document of historic significance" that would resolve his country's nuclear dispute with the United States "once and for all." Kang Sok Ju went on some more about this new agreement he had negotiated with the Clinton Administration, and it's worth reprinting in full. Reports the Times:


    He said the agreement, once put into effect, would resolve "all questions of the so-called nuclear weapons development by North Korea" that have raised "such unfounded concerns and suspicions. We have neither the intention nor the plan to develop nuclear weapons," Mr. Kang said.

    And Bill Clinton believed him. The Times reported it this way: "At a news conference in Washington, President Clinton said the treaty 'was a good deal for the United States.'"

    There was one other player in all of this as well. The Times took care to say that "former President Jimmy Carter held talks in Pyongyang with North Korea's dictator Kim Il Sung, that defused the crisis and led to new negotiations with the United States." For his part, Carter went on record earlier in the year in meetings with the North Koreans to say that "I personally believe the crisis is over." What did the North Korean leader (the current dictator's father, Kim Il Sung) think of Carter's efforts? "He told me," said Carter, that "he was very grateful I had gone [to North Korea], and thought it [Carter's effort to make peace and help give the North Koreans light-water reactors] was a very fine accomplishment."

    The Times concluded that "Bill Clinton will be the biggest winner, a master negotiator on a critical security issue." Five days later, when the North Koreans expressed skepticism the United States would really give them what they wanted, the Times headlined this story: "Clinton, in Letter, Assures North Koreans on Nuclear Reactors." Said the President in a letter to Kim Jung Il: "I will use the full powers of my office" to assure that the dictator got what he wanted.

    Clinton, the "master negotiator" of "a good deal" did just that. And on October 8, 2006, the world learns that in spite of everything that Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and their respective Democratic national security teams believed, the North Koreans have just exploded their first nuclear weapon.


    IN SHORT, WITH A WIDE-EYED, the best and the brightest the Democratic Party had to offer went down the road of appeasement with North Korea. Like Charlie Brown always believing Lucy will hold the football, Clinton and Carter raced to the kick-off of peace with a murderous dictator -- only to find out that they had (surprise!) been lied to.

    The Clinton legacy, already shredding because of his inability to deal with al Qaeda and terrorism, has just been dealt yet another -- perhaps mortal -- blow by Clinton and Carter's foolish trust in the North Korean father and son dictators. But more importantly, the problem now is that Democrats are running for House and Senate seats all over the nation supporting some version of this very same appeasement policy towards Iraq, the War on Terror, and critically, Iran.

    From one end of this country to the other this fall, Democrats are campaigning on pledges to trust them on national security issues. These are Democrats in Senate races with names like Bob Casey, Jr. in Pennsylvania, Sherrod Brown in Ohio, James Webb in Virginia, Claire McCaskill in Missouri, and Jon Tester in Montana. In House races they are people like Pennsylvania's Jack Murtha (who wants to get out of Iraq and redeploy in Okinawa), Illinois' Tammy Duckworth (who pledges to leave Iraq "sooner rather than later"), Indiana's Brad Ellsworth (who is so tight-lipped about Iraq his website simply doesn't list the issue at all) and, again in Pennsylvania, Patrick Murphy ("we need to start bringing our men and women home now"). All of this before we get to Connecticut's famously pacifist Senate candidate, Ned Lamont.

    Page scandal or no page scandal, the reason not to entrust Democrats with a majority in Congress again has just been vividly illustrated with an underground nuclear explosion by a North Korean dictator who was trusted by Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter for his fervent promise never to do what he has now just done.

    The question Americans who are understandably furious over the page scandal must now ask is a simple one.

    Should America's national security be turned over to a Congress full of Charlie Browns?


    Jeffrey Lord is the author of The Borking Rebellion. A former political director in the Reagan White House, he is now a writer in Pennsylvania.[/quote]

    .............................................................................................

  2. #2
    how long can bush supporters STILL blame Clinton for every one of Little Bush's failures!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Under Team Little Bush:
    9/11 attacks after being warned
    Failure to capture Bin Laden
    Allows Taliban to resurrect
    Lies to the US public in order to get an Iraq War.
    Bungles the war aftermath
    Allows N Korea 6 years of unobstructed Nuclear development
    North Korea Tests Nuke
    Iran will soon...

    BUT, Little Bush got Saddams's gun for his office!!
    well done little bush

  3. #3
    6 years in office with full control of both houses and N. Korea has test fired missiles, restarted their Nuke program and have now started testing.

    We made Musaraff our No. 1 partner in the war on terror and he has effectively signed a treaty with the Taliban and Al Qeada on the Pakistan border with Afghanistan to allow them to operate if they stop attacking Pakistani troops. He is building a Plutonium reactor and developing long range missiles. He also pardoned his chief Nuke scientist who admitted to helping both Libya and Iran develop Nukes.

    The Bush administration gave up on containment of Nukes day 1. They are committed to a defense shield. They have no serious policy on Nuclear proliferation and we are where we are because of it.

    Clinton policy failed but to argue that Bush has in any substantive way been better regarding Nuclear proliferation is a joke. The Bush administrations foreign policy has been nothing short of a disaster which is going to play out not only in the US elections but in Great Britain as well.

  4. #4
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]6 years in office with full control of both houses and N. Korea has test fired missiles, restarted their Nuke program and have now started testing.

    We made Musaraff our No. 1 partner in the war on terror and he has effectively signed a treaty with the Taliban and Al Qeada on the Pakistan border with Afghanistan to allow them to operate if they stop attacking Pakistani troops. He is building a Plutonium reactor and developing long range missiles. He also pardoned his chief Nuke scientist who admitted to helping both Libya and Iran develop Nukes.

    The Bush administration gave up on containment of Nukes day 1. They are committed to a defense shield. They have no serious policy on Nuclear proliferation and we are where we are because of it.

    Clinton policy failed but to argue that Bush has in any substantive way been better regarding Nuclear proliferation is a joke. The Bush administrations foreign policy has been nothing short of a disaster which is going to play out not only in the US elections but in Great Britain as well.[/QUOTE]

    Blaming Bush for Nuclear Proliferation - when the Chicoms/Russians pass out the technology like Christmas Cookies - is like blaming heterosexuals or the GOP for the spread of AIDS

  5. #5
    Clinton = Massive Failure on all counts regarding our security. Ignored AQ, helped N.Korea, ignored Iran.

    Bush = Massive failure in policy and tactics in trying to deal with the mess he inherited from Clinton (i.e. AQ, N.Korea, Iran)

    So why should EITHER party really think they deserve another chance at things? Really?

    Both are more worried about THEIR power, rather than the safety and well-being of America. I don't trust either party for a second.

    But if I have to, I still vote Republican, becuase if nothing else, at least they are TRYING to change things, to be proactive, to make a difference, to stop our enemies. I refuse to support appeasement, and I refuse to bow to the corrupt failure that is the U.N. Democrats seem to truly believe it'll all be ok if they just talk to our enemies, try to understand them. They are so wrong it isn't even funny anymore.

    The world is headed in a bad direction, and the saddest part is that none of the people in power truly appear to be able to do anything to stop it. :mad:

  6. #6
    one reason to vote out any pro bush people..IRAQ..
    The US troops will be in Iraq LONGER than they were in Vietnam..WIth the same outcome..
    YOU DO NOT invade a country that hadn't done anything in a decade. They lied..look at their mess now..Did they ever get OBL? Is Karzai in countrol of anything but Kabul? N Korea? Iran?
    This admin. has accomplished NOTHING in almost 7 years..NOTHING.

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Both are more worried about THEIR power, rather than the safety and well-being of America. I don't trust either party for a second.
    [/QUOTE]

    I don't disagree with this statement, but think about it.

    If you think Republicans are doing a much better job with security and they are the party in power, why on Earth would they want to give it up? And without a viable alternative, why would any rational American want them to?

    It's a rhetorical question. And I'm confident it will be answered correctly next month.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=Spirit of Weeb]I don't disagree with this statement, but think about it.

    If you think Republicans are doing a much better job with security and they are the party in power, why on Earth would they want to give it up? And without a viable alternative, why would any rational American want them to?

    It's a rhetorical question. And I'm confident it will be answered correctly next month.[/QUOTE]

    I agree..But hopefully the rational American will see that there's NO real difference...
    Just get good leadership in the white house in 08..No more career politicians or rich lawyers..politicians fail...there should be a draft for congress from all walks of life..I guarantee you a teacher, a house wife, an engineer, a scientist would all get 100% more done than these career politicos..

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us