Full Version: Bush blames Clinton for N. Korea
Bush is the ultimate loser. He has no diplomacy and when things fall apart he blames Clinton for being a diplomat while he was in office. Let's see...Israel is Clintons fault. Just look at the increased casualties that have occured since Bush took office.
Brinkmanship with Korea is also Clinton's fault. Not that Bush recognizes his own failures even when they are spelled out. This article is typical Bush blame.
link
some excerpts:
This is not to say that N. Korea has ever been the good guys. But this should be a wakeup call to the kind of backlash Bush is creating with his foreign policy (or lack of).
Brinkmanship with Korea is also Clinton's fault. Not that Bush recognizes his own failures even when they are spelled out. This article is typical Bush blame.
link
some excerpts:
QUOTE
Bush team blames Clinton for crisis
Says 1994 N. Korea agreement left `the difficult things' for next leader
WASHINGTON -- A senior Bush administration official suggested Saturday that the nuclear crisis with North Korea was the predictable result of a flawed 1994 agreement signed by the Clinton administration with Pyongyang that "frontloaded all the benefits and left the difficult things to the end" -- for the next president.
The comments marked a sharp change of direction from the administration's insistence in recent weeks that only North Korea was to blame for the crisis. As recently as last week, Secretary of State Colin Powell said he gave "great credit" to the Clinton administration for freezing North Korea's plutonium enrichment program with the 1994 Agreed Framework.....
snip
North Korea's ambassador to China, Choe Jin Su, issued the threat at a news conference in Beijing in which he defended his impoverished nation's right to possess "devices to save us from a nuclear attack" and accused the United States of adopting "hostile policies."
The Bush administration's new formulation of blame coincides with a spate of accusations, some from strong administration supporters, that President Bush may have antagonized North Korea by labeling it part of the "axis of evil" and helped provoke the crisis.
That sentiment appeared to be echoed by North Korean officials meeting Friday and Saturday in Santa Fe with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat and former Clinton-era official. Sources involved in those talks said North Korea's deputy ambassador to the United Nations, Han Song Ryol, had said the Bush administration's tough policy toward North Korea was motivated primarily by Bush's desire to do the opposite of what his predecessor had done on foreign policy.
The North Korean asserted that Pyongyang had been developing a working relationship with Washington toward the end of the Clinton era -- indeed, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright visited Pyongyang just before President Clinton left office -- but then faced a reversal of policy under Bush.
"They think the Bush people have closed the door on them just because Clinton had opened it," said a source involved in the Santa Fe talks.
Says 1994 N. Korea agreement left `the difficult things' for next leader
WASHINGTON -- A senior Bush administration official suggested Saturday that the nuclear crisis with North Korea was the predictable result of a flawed 1994 agreement signed by the Clinton administration with Pyongyang that "frontloaded all the benefits and left the difficult things to the end" -- for the next president.
The comments marked a sharp change of direction from the administration's insistence in recent weeks that only North Korea was to blame for the crisis. As recently as last week, Secretary of State Colin Powell said he gave "great credit" to the Clinton administration for freezing North Korea's plutonium enrichment program with the 1994 Agreed Framework.....
snip
North Korea's ambassador to China, Choe Jin Su, issued the threat at a news conference in Beijing in which he defended his impoverished nation's right to possess "devices to save us from a nuclear attack" and accused the United States of adopting "hostile policies."
The Bush administration's new formulation of blame coincides with a spate of accusations, some from strong administration supporters, that President Bush may have antagonized North Korea by labeling it part of the "axis of evil" and helped provoke the crisis.
That sentiment appeared to be echoed by North Korean officials meeting Friday and Saturday in Santa Fe with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat and former Clinton-era official. Sources involved in those talks said North Korea's deputy ambassador to the United Nations, Han Song Ryol, had said the Bush administration's tough policy toward North Korea was motivated primarily by Bush's desire to do the opposite of what his predecessor had done on foreign policy.
The North Korean asserted that Pyongyang had been developing a working relationship with Washington toward the end of the Clinton era -- indeed, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright visited Pyongyang just before President Clinton left office -- but then faced a reversal of policy under Bush.
"They think the Bush people have closed the door on them just because Clinton had opened it," said a source involved in the Santa Fe talks.
This is not to say that N. Korea has ever been the good guys. But this should be a wakeup call to the kind of backlash Bush is creating with his foreign policy (or lack of).
Maybe Bush should blame William Henry Harrison for the budget deficits. 
Bush is far more than that.
He's a wealthy under achiever who was given a 'big stick'.
It is'nt Dubya who is calling the shots, he's far too mentally incapeable.
Just WHO IS calling the shots?.
WHO IS telling the slow learner what to say and for what reason?.
He's a wealthy under achiever who was given a 'big stick'.
It is'nt Dubya who is calling the shots, he's far too mentally incapeable.
Just WHO IS calling the shots?.
WHO IS telling the slow learner what to say and for what reason?.
QUOTE(Danya @ Jan 12 2003, 08:58 PM)
Bush is the ultimate loser. He has no diplomacy and when things fall apart he blames Clinton for being a diplomat while he was in office. Let's see...Israel is Clintons fault. Just look at the increased casualties that have occured since Bush took office.
Brinkmanship with Korea is also Clinton's fault. Not that Bush recognizes his own failures even when they are spelled out. This article is typical Bush blame.
link
some excerpts:
Bush team blames Clinton for crisis
Says 1994 N. Korea agreement left `the difficult things' for next leader
WASHINGTON -- A senior Bush administration official suggested Saturday that the nuclear crisis with North Korea was the predictable result of a flawed 1994 agreement signed by the Clinton administration with Pyongyang that "frontloaded all the benefits and left the difficult things to the end" -- for the next president.
The comments marked a sharp change of direction from the administration's insistence in recent weeks that only North Korea was to blame for the crisis. As recently as last week, Secretary of State Colin Powell said he gave "great credit" to the Clinton administration for freezing North Korea's plutonium enrichment program with the 1994 Agreed Framework.....
snip
North Korea's ambassador to China, Choe Jin Su, issued the threat at a news conference in Beijing in which he defended his impoverished nation's right to possess "devices to save us from a nuclear attack" and accused the United States of adopting "hostile policies."
The Bush administration's new formulation of blame coincides with a spate of accusations, some from strong administration supporters, that President Bush may have antagonized North Korea by labeling it part of the "axis of evil" and helped provoke the crisis.
That sentiment appeared to be echoed by North Korean officials meeting Friday and Saturday in Santa Fe with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat and former Clinton-era official. Sources involved in those talks said North Korea's deputy ambassador to the United Nations, Han Song Ryol, had said the Bush administration's tough policy toward North Korea was motivated primarily by Bush's desire to do the opposite of what his predecessor had done on foreign policy.
The North Korean asserted that Pyongyang had been developing a working relationship with Washington toward the end of the Clinton era -- indeed, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright visited Pyongyang just before President Clinton left office -- but then faced a reversal of policy under Bush.
"They think the Bush people have closed the door on them just because Clinton had opened it," said a source involved in the Santa Fe talks.
This is not to say that N. Korea has ever been the good guys. But this should be a wakeup call to the kind of backlash Bush is creating with his foreign policy (or lack of).
Brinkmanship with Korea is also Clinton's fault. Not that Bush recognizes his own failures even when they are spelled out. This article is typical Bush blame.
link
some excerpts:
QUOTE
Bush team blames Clinton for crisis
Says 1994 N. Korea agreement left `the difficult things' for next leader
WASHINGTON -- A senior Bush administration official suggested Saturday that the nuclear crisis with North Korea was the predictable result of a flawed 1994 agreement signed by the Clinton administration with Pyongyang that "frontloaded all the benefits and left the difficult things to the end" -- for the next president.
The comments marked a sharp change of direction from the administration's insistence in recent weeks that only North Korea was to blame for the crisis. As recently as last week, Secretary of State Colin Powell said he gave "great credit" to the Clinton administration for freezing North Korea's plutonium enrichment program with the 1994 Agreed Framework.....
snip
North Korea's ambassador to China, Choe Jin Su, issued the threat at a news conference in Beijing in which he defended his impoverished nation's right to possess "devices to save us from a nuclear attack" and accused the United States of adopting "hostile policies."
The Bush administration's new formulation of blame coincides with a spate of accusations, some from strong administration supporters, that President Bush may have antagonized North Korea by labeling it part of the "axis of evil" and helped provoke the crisis.
That sentiment appeared to be echoed by North Korean officials meeting Friday and Saturday in Santa Fe with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat and former Clinton-era official. Sources involved in those talks said North Korea's deputy ambassador to the United Nations, Han Song Ryol, had said the Bush administration's tough policy toward North Korea was motivated primarily by Bush's desire to do the opposite of what his predecessor had done on foreign policy.
The North Korean asserted that Pyongyang had been developing a working relationship with Washington toward the end of the Clinton era -- indeed, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright visited Pyongyang just before President Clinton left office -- but then faced a reversal of policy under Bush.
"They think the Bush people have closed the door on them just because Clinton had opened it," said a source involved in the Santa Fe talks.
This is not to say that N. Korea has ever been the good guys. But this should be a wakeup call to the kind of backlash Bush is creating with his foreign policy (or lack of).
LMAO. Talk about no clue.
Back to lurking,
Darcaine
Yes, Bush has no clue. I'm so glad you agree.
QUOTE(Alan Wood @ Jan 12 2003, 10:07 PM)
Bush is far more than that.
He's a wealthy under achiever who was given a 'big stick'.
It is'nt Dubya who is calling the shots, he's far too mentally incapeable.
Just WHO IS calling the shots?.
WHO IS telling the slow learner what to say and for what reason?.
He's a wealthy under achiever who was given a 'big stick'.
It is'nt Dubya who is calling the shots, he's far too mentally incapeable.
Just WHO IS calling the shots?.
WHO IS telling the slow learner what to say and for what reason?.
Aye bloke!
Put another shrimp on the barbie?
Heck, didn't you know Bush is the anti-christ?
Bill Clinton...heck he got a BJ AND walked on water...any even funnier lied to the American people on National TV. Not only THAT but, we are such stupid people up here...they didn't even CARE! LMAO. So alan...keep right on saying things man because we are STUPID in this country.
Back to lurking,
Darcaine
Darcaine, instead of slamming everyone else's opinions, why don't you share yours?
QUOTE(Jaime @ Jan 12 2003, 10:44 PM)
Darcaine, instead of slamming everyone else's opinions, why don't you share yours?
Jaime..why bother. I will just sit back and watch and make comments every now and then. I will be what they want to hear, I will support their views on GWB being the anti-christ and Clinton being the messiah of all Presidents. I will let them believe what they want...and even reinforce it.
Back to lurking,
Darcaine
QUOTE(Danya @ Jan 12 2003, 10:41 PM)
Yes, Bush has no clue. I'm so glad you agree.
Yep Danya, and North Korea is a good and wonderful country! Heck, what are we thinking...they have MILLIONS of people starving. What are we thinking trying to enforce a treaty we signed in good faith..geesh with GWB in office..heck he doesn't have the people nor the faculties to handle something like this. You know, mabe we should get Jimmy Carter back over there and have them sign a paper, heck we won't even monitor them anymore...I mean...heck GWB is the anti-christ...I mean isn't everything in the world Americas fault after all? And, as long as we are at it, lets impeach GWB for all the bad things he's done for our country. After all this recession was all his fault TOO! Heck, Enron only started business the day he took office! OF COURSE it was his fault for the lack of supervision...and 911 IT"S ALL A CONSPIRACY! They knew it was coming and they let those people DIE ON PURPOSE! You know...it must be the end of the world now too...all republicans now.....
Back to lurking,
Darcaine
But if a country really is dangerous (read North Korea here) then why bluster about and threaten actions. We are threatening by the nature of our incredible military and economic lead over the rest of the world. Why not speak softly and apply pressure precisely instead of bluntly?
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Jan 12 2003, 11:03 PM)
But if a country really is dangerous (read North Korea here) then why bluster about and threaten actions. We are threatening by the nature of our incredible military and economic lead over the rest of the world. Why not speak softly and apply pressure precisely instead of bluntly?
Because, you and many people on this board make ONE of the singlemost mistakes in dealing with someone. You ASSUME you can deal RATIONALLY with them. You can see how the US giveaway went with N. Korea. Oh well, GWB is stupid for enforcing that sheet of paper we agreed too...heck.
Back to lurking,
Darcaine
And in case blustering does not work, the GWB administration always has the fall back position that it was a stupid piece of paper in the first place.
Don't take life so seriously Darcy, you won't get out alive. 
Madtown
Madtown
QUOTE(Darcaine @ Jan 12 2003, 10:49 PM)
I will be what they want to hear, I will support their views on GWB being the anti-christ and Clinton being the messiah of all Presidents. I will let them believe what they want...and even reinforce it.
Darcaine, you ask "why bother?" and then you bother...what gives?
Anyway, the members that disagree with you on this forum don't want you to roll over and submit. They want to debate you in a civil fashion. They don't want to be yelled at (as much as one can yell on an internet forum).
I admit Danya was just as dramatic as you have been in her original post here and it is hard to refute "Bush is a loser" and "This article is typical Bush blame." Perhaps, Danya, you would like to help us focus this debate this a little better? Whether or not Bush and/or his administration blames Clinton for the N. Korea problems is very worthy of actual debate.
Well what else is new? The Republicans take credit for all the good stuff, even the good economy during the Clinton years and blame Clinton for all the bad stuff happening during the Bush years. 
Madtown
Madtown
And that will go on as long as America does, MT. Just put replace the names of Clinton & Bush with those that come after them and the story will be the same. Funny thing is, I see little difference between Republicans and Democrats...but that's another topic altogether 
Maybe, but I have never known a party to be SO obsessed with a previous president as the Repubs are with Clinton.
Madtown
Madtown
QUOTE
Because, you and many people on this board make ONE of the singlemost mistakes in dealing with someone. You ASSUME you can deal RATIONALLY with them.
A very interesting observation that provides a little insight.
Back to lurking.
Regards...Alan
QUOTE(Madtown @ Jan 12 2003, 11:33 PM)
Well what else is new? The Republicans take credit for all the good stuff, even the good economy during the Clinton years and blame Clinton for all the bad stuff happening during the Bush years.
Madtown
Madtown
Yeah! I mean look at all the wonderful things Clinton did for the Presidency! Bush came in and (being the anti-Christ) and the entire country took a nose dive! Must be that DNC magic. Heck, Bush even did another booboo he gave back my tax money..WHAT WAS HE THINKING OMG!!!
Heck, I should quit working and vote for the next DNC candidate...I can live off government cheese and live off the backs of the other 49% of the country and if I want more money and services I will bitch until I get them! Why should I bother busting my rear end when I can vote for the DNC and watch them create money for magically out of thin air! Thank you MT...I see the light now...what have I been thinking!?Back to lurking,
Darcaine
QUOTE(Alan Wood @ Jan 12 2003, 11:57 PM)
QUOTE
Because, you and many people on this board make ONE of the singlemost mistakes in dealing with someone. You ASSUME you can deal RATIONALLY with them.
A very interesting observation that provides a little insight.
Back to lurking.
Regards...Alan
Alan, it's called common sense...unfortunately there is a real lack of it in this country for quite sometime.
Back to lurking,
Darcaine
PS..I saw your "Lurking"
OK. I don't even know where to start. The reason I was so dramatic is because this is the very same thing he said about Israel. It's the same thing he says about the economy. It's the same thing he said about Bin Laden. It's the same thing he says about Iraq. He blames Clinton for everything that is rightfully his own doing.
When Clinton was in office we had peace. We SAW him work hard diplomatically for it. Since Bush is in office he has done the exact opposite of Clinton simply out of spite. Whatever Clinton did...he will do the opposite because he hated him so badly.
What has that gotten us? Just look around. The Bush years are truely the very worst years in my lifetime that I can remember. With the possible exception of the chaos that rained during Jimmy Carter's term.
I would agree that a tax cut was a brilliant idea. IF the man wasn't spending money that no longer existed. IF we could still afford it. We can't.
The 'loser' title was just the best description for what I can see out of Bush. He is no leader. He is a spoiled child with a big stick. I don't know if I'm more disgusted with Bush or the ones that think he is doing a great job for this country.
When Clinton was in office we had peace. We SAW him work hard diplomatically for it. Since Bush is in office he has done the exact opposite of Clinton simply out of spite. Whatever Clinton did...he will do the opposite because he hated him so badly.
What has that gotten us? Just look around. The Bush years are truely the very worst years in my lifetime that I can remember. With the possible exception of the chaos that rained during Jimmy Carter's term.
I would agree that a tax cut was a brilliant idea. IF the man wasn't spending money that no longer existed. IF we could still afford it. We can't.
The 'loser' title was just the best description for what I can see out of Bush. He is no leader. He is a spoiled child with a big stick. I don't know if I'm more disgusted with Bush or the ones that think he is doing a great job for this country.
Bush blames Clinton for the crisis, criticizing him for giving aid to North Korea... Well, guess what? Now the Bush administration is using aid as a bargaining tool with North Korea. Story Here from Guardian.co.uk
Now call me silly if you'd like, but is this not exactly the sort of thing that Bush claims is wrong with Clinton's policy, and the 1994 treaty? If it was so wrong for Clinton, what makes it right for Bush? IMHO, it is time for Bush to stop passing the buck, and to begin taking responsibility for his own administration.
Now call me silly if you'd like, but is this not exactly the sort of thing that Bush claims is wrong with Clinton's policy, and the 1994 treaty? If it was so wrong for Clinton, what makes it right for Bush? IMHO, it is time for Bush to stop passing the buck, and to begin taking responsibility for his own administration.
Thanks, Danya. I knew there was more on your mind 
QUOTE
When Clinton was in office we had peace.
I suppose 'peace' is a relative term, but I happen to remember Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Khobar Towers, and I was on an Air Force C-130 minutes out from jumping into Haiti before we got turned around.
Fortunately, the number of American casualties were low, but the possibilities were there for them to be much greater.
QUOTE
Whatever Clinton did...he will do the opposite because he hated him so badly.
Bush isn't 'my guy', but I think this is a rather simplistic analysis. Bush has an agenda, or vision (depending how you see it), and I don't think the fact that Clinton was in office terribly affects that.
DTOM, I agree. I think I read somewhere that Clinton engaged US troops more often than any previous president.
I think that it is a facile argument to blame Clinton for North Korea. Using this logic, the blame could go back and back. Is it Truman's fault? Maybe if he had nuked NK into a parking lot, we wouldn't have this problem...
Cause and effect has no clear beginnings. The global arena is so complex an equation, it makes no sense to blame a previous president for this. The factors of such an equation are far too widespread. It's like crediting Reagan for the fall of the USSR. Way too simplistic.
I think that it is a facile argument to blame Clinton for North Korea. Using this logic, the blame could go back and back. Is it Truman's fault? Maybe if he had nuked NK into a parking lot, we wouldn't have this problem...
Cause and effect has no clear beginnings. The global arena is so complex an equation, it makes no sense to blame a previous president for this. The factors of such an equation are far too widespread. It's like crediting Reagan for the fall of the USSR. Way too simplistic.
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Jan 13 2003, 12:11 PM)
DTOM, I agree. I think I read somewhere that Clinton engaged US troops more often than any previous president.
I think that it is a facile argument to blame Clinton for North Korea. Using this logic, the blame could go back and back. Is it Truman's fault? Maybe if he had nuked NK into a parking lot, we wouldn't have this problem...
Cause and effect has no clear beginnings. The global arena is so complex an equation, it makes no sense to blame a previous president for this. The factors of such an equation are far too widespread. It's like crediting Reagan for the fall of the USSR. Way too simplistic.
I think that it is a facile argument to blame Clinton for North Korea. Using this logic, the blame could go back and back. Is it Truman's fault? Maybe if he had nuked NK into a parking lot, we wouldn't have this problem...
Cause and effect has no clear beginnings. The global arena is so complex an equation, it makes no sense to blame a previous president for this. The factors of such an equation are far too widespread. It's like crediting Reagan for the fall of the USSR. Way too simplistic.
Interesting post. I would argue that Reagan "hastened" the fall of the Soviet Union. Blaming Clinton...hmmm thats a hard one. One thing we HAVE learned is turning a blind eye or appeasement doesn't work. It generally end up biting you in the arse.
Back to lurking,
Darcaine
Madtown,
You hit the nail on the head. This is a musty, mouldy old political trick. It is obvious to everyone who has been following the news that the N. Korea problem is directly the result of GWB's incompetence with international affairs. It would be funny if it wasn't so dangerous to have this administration promoting WW III.
If that happens, then yes, GWB is the Antichrist. He will go down in history as such, and it won't be much of a stretch. GWB will have the blood of millions, perhaps billions, on his hands. May his god forgive him. I won't.
You hit the nail on the head. This is a musty, mouldy old political trick. It is obvious to everyone who has been following the news that the N. Korea problem is directly the result of GWB's incompetence with international affairs. It would be funny if it wasn't so dangerous to have this administration promoting WW III.
If that happens, then yes, GWB is the Antichrist. He will go down in history as such, and it won't be much of a stretch. GWB will have the blood of millions, perhaps billions, on his hands. May his god forgive him. I won't.
BTW, the lurking bit is getting old too.
I agree the blame game is silly. But for different reasons, there is plenty of blame to go around.
Clinton:
1. Left the inspections totally up to the IAEA (I like them, but they're extremely slow to action which hurts the situation in this case.) This caused us not to have proof of North Korea cheating on the non-proliferation treaty until they outright told us...
2. Left 27,000 American troops on the border, pretty much at the mercy of North Korea if they care to strike, they are in BIG trouble if talk of "re-unification" gets too popular.
Bush:
1. Made useless inflammatory comments, this is certainly not why this started this mind you, North Korea just saw its chance and took it. But it didn't help and it makes him look stupid, which I am not totally convinced he is.
2. Did not re-enforce or remove the troops from Korea, he may not have considered it but he's president that's what we pay him for.
In short ...
Clinton: All talk in enforcing the treaty.
Bush: No foresight of the potential problems the lack of enforcement noted above could cause.
Clinton:
1. Left the inspections totally up to the IAEA (I like them, but they're extremely slow to action which hurts the situation in this case.) This caused us not to have proof of North Korea cheating on the non-proliferation treaty until they outright told us...
2. Left 27,000 American troops on the border, pretty much at the mercy of North Korea if they care to strike, they are in BIG trouble if talk of "re-unification" gets too popular.
Bush:
1. Made useless inflammatory comments, this is certainly not why this started this mind you, North Korea just saw its chance and took it. But it didn't help and it makes him look stupid, which I am not totally convinced he is.
2. Did not re-enforce or remove the troops from Korea, he may not have considered it but he's president that's what we pay him for.
In short ...
Clinton: All talk in enforcing the treaty.
Bush: No foresight of the potential problems the lack of enforcement noted above could cause.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jan 13 2003, 05:45 PM)
It is obvious to everyone who has been following the news that the N. Korea problem is directly the result of GWB's incompetence with international affairs.
I wouldn't be so quick to speak for everyone who watches the news, AM
I agree with turnea on this issue. If the blame-game must be played, then we need to go back to the end of WWII when the US assumed responsibility for rebuilding and protecting the southern half of Korea. This is all Truman's fault
I found a fascinating document by US Military historian James F. Schnabel with a very detailed account of our early participation in the Korean War: United States Army In The Korean War. I am still working my way through it but it does serve to explain the origins of the evolution (or devolution) leading to the current situation.
Simply, this can't be blamed on one president alone. We've been meddling over there WAY too long.
QUOTE
It is obvious to everyone who has been following the news that the N. Korea problem is directly the result of GWB's incompetence with international affairs
It is unbelievable to me how the fact that N.Korea violated the terms of the treaty during the last administration is somehow the fault of the current administration. It's a vicious political attack with no basis in fact. Bush's axis of evil speech came after they restarted their nuclear program.
As others are mentioning in posts, this problem started in 1945. But I guess we can keep making Bush our whipping boy since we don't care to look back that far into history.
QUOTE(Madtown @ Jan 13 2003, 04:33 AM)
Well what else is new? The Republicans take credit for all the good stuff, even the good economy during the Clinton years and blame Clinton for all the bad stuff happening during the Bush years.
Madtown
Madtown
THis particular arguement has been bugging me for years. I don't give credit for the economy, good or bad to whomever the President may be. People, we live in a capitalist economy. The government has very little input, and rightly so, in the business of well, business. For those who claim Clinton was the reason the economy did well from 93-99, well, I can say that the Congress and Senate were controlled by Republicans. Republicans forced CLinton to sign welfare reform, shot down his inept medical bill, inept stimulus package. If Bill Clinton were still President today, the economy would be exactly the same as it is now. Bill Gates, Ruper Murdoch, GE, Dell, Ross Perot. These are the men, the companies that are responsible for the ups and downs of the economy. It is their business. Clinton's, Bush's, every president since Ol' George, their business is to keep our country safe, through strong national security measures. The president is the point man for negotiating treaties with other countries. He is responsible for ensuring education standards are kept high through the Department of Education. Reponsible for maintaining natural forest and woodlands through the department of the Interior. No President ever created a private sector job, no president decided to invest capital in new equipment or more efficient technologies. The small business owners of America did those things. Wake up people and give credit where it is do. The government do not run the economy in America!!!!! We are a capitalist country. DANG!!!!
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jan 13 2003, 06:41 PM)
Bush's axis of evil speech came after they restarted their nuclear program.
And following a meeting in June 2000 between NK and SK in Pyongyang where a tentative agreement was signed outlining plans for unification and peace.
His little tirade effectivly put the stops on it.
This topic is about Bush's administration blaming Clinton for the North Korea problems.
Stay on topic.
Stay on topic.
Clinton's, Bush's, every president since Ol' George, their business is to keep our country safe, through strong national security measures. The president is the point man for negotiating treaties with other countries. He is responsible for ensuring education standards are kept high through the Department of Education. Reponsible for maintaining natural forest and woodlands through the department of the Interior.
Think about that for a minute and think about the current administration.
Think about that for a minute and think about the current administration.
QUOTE(HeatherRob @ Jan 13 2003, 08:09 PM)
QUOTE(Madtown @ Jan 13 2003, 04:33 AM)
Well what else is new? The Republicans take credit for all the good stuff, even the good economy during the Clinton years and blame Clinton for all the bad stuff happening during the Bush years. :wacko:
Madtown
Madtown
THis particular arguement has been bugging me for years. I don't give credit for the economy, good or bad to whomever the President may be. People, we live in a capitalist economy. The government has very little input, and rightly so, in the business of well, business. For those who claim Clinton was the reason the economy did well from 93-99, well, I can say that the Congress and Senate were controlled by Republicans. Republicans forced CLinton to sign welfare reform, shot down his inept medical bill, inept stimulus package. If Bill Clinton were still President today, the economy would be exactly the same as it is now. Bill Gates, Ruper Murdoch, GE, Dell, Ross Perot. These are the men, the companies that are responsible for the ups and downs of the economy. It is their business. Clinton's, Bush's, every president since Ol' George, their business is to keep our country safe, through strong national security measures. The president is the point man for negotiating treaties with other countries. He is responsible for ensuring education standards are kept high through the Department of Education. Reponsible for maintaining natural forest and woodlands through the department of the Interior. No President ever created a private sector job, no president decided to invest capital in new equipment or more efficient technologies. The small business owners of America did those things. Wake up people and give credit where it is do. The government do not run the economy in America!!!!! We are a capitalist country. DANG!!!!
All I know is life was good when Clinton was president. Bush blames Clinton for every bad thing that is happening during his presidency and tries to take credit for all the good things Clinton did. It's a joke! You people are obsessed with Clinton. Most of your post is baloney as far as I'm concerned.
Madtown.
This topic is a mess.
I'm closing it.
It's becoming very frustrating that so many people are consistently off-topic.
Mike
I'm closing it.
It's becoming very frustrating that so many people are consistently off-topic.
Mike
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.