Macswain

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Condi's Definition of "Failure"

Condi called the Clinton era approach to North Korea that included bi-lateral talks and the Agreed Framework a failure.

Josh Marshall, for the second time in as many days, breaks it down so simply that even a Bushie might understand:

"Failure" =1994-2002 -- Era of Clinton 'Agreed Framework': No plutonium production. All existing plutonium under international inspection. No bomb.

"Success" = 2002-2006 -- Bush Policy Era: Active plutonium production. No international inspections of plutonium stocks. Nuclear warhead detonated.

Face it. They ditched an imperfect but working policy. They replaced it with nothing. Now North Korea is a nuclear state.

Facts hurt. So do nukes.

4 Comments:

  • Let's see...

    Lose 2 wars at once.
    Screw up the economy.
    Unbalance the budget.
    Valerie Plame.
    FEMA in New Orleans.
    North Korea.
    Drunkenly shooting an old man in the face.
    Tom Delay, Trent Lott, Foley, Abramoff...
    I'm sure I'm forgetting about some.

    Numer of time admitting that you're wrong and taking responsibility for all the f#@#$ ups: 0

    That's showing great leadership, strong character, and values.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:17 PM  

  • yeah, but I'd prefer all that--hands down-- to a president who gets sucked off in the oval office.

    By Anonymous webhub, at 8:36 PM  

  • Webster-you are just trying to be so republican. Like when Clinton trounced Dole. Come on now, you know bush and dick have been fucking the country since day one. How does that compare to a blow job in the oval office?

    The one difference I note is he got fucked by one person, and now, about 300 million are getting fucked by those two, hum, what is the greater sin??? Such a storm in my brain trying to figure it all out!

    By Anonymous ykwhia, at 11:15 PM  

  • maybe webster's comments were a little tongue-in-cheek but consider the following:

    assume that Gore was allowed to serve as president following the 2000 election. Assume also that 9/11 still happened. Can you IMAGINE
    the hue and cry from the right? The Fox News crowd screaming that "Clinton Gore" is to blame for sacrficing the nation's security because of Clinton's personal behavior?

    I submit the outcry would have been unending, and make anything we've seen recently pale by comparison. Such that Gore would have been defeated in 2004 so that R's could bring "morals and integrity" back to the White House.

    The silver lining in all this is that Bush's abysmal failures as president has purged this notion forever. The nation can move on. But the effect of Clinton's indiscretions on recent American history should not be understated. Is it just a coincidence that Rove's "values voter" (which many think gave Bush the edge in 2004) emerged as a force only after Clinton's impeachment?

    By Anonymous webhub, at 11:50 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home