Remember Having a Democrat President?

[ETXhiker]

Rearranging tax structures such that the rich get enormous tax benefits while the lower 90% of the populace pays essentially the same rate isn't class warfare? Gimme a break. By doing so, ensuring that real take home wages for the lower and middle classes stagnate while the wealthy see their incomes skyrocket isn't class warfare?

Huh? The bottom 50% of wage earners pay NOTHING. In fact, with the "earned income credit", lots of people who pay essentially no taxes get a "refund." It is impossible to give the people of this country a tax cut without the "rich" getting most of it, because they are the ones who PAY most of the taxes.

Answer me this: Imagine if everyone had the same tax rate. If I earn $10,000 a year and you earned $100,000 a year, you would pay TEN TIMES what I pay. If you earned $1,000,000 a year, you would pay A HUNDRED TIMES the taxes I pay. Why would that not be enough to be fair?

Famous tax cutter who said, "You cannot tax a nation into prosperity..."
That would be that ultra conservative, John F. Kennedy.

 

[Helmetcase]

Huh? The bottom 50% of wage earners pay NOTHING. In fact, with the "earned income credit", lots of people who pay essentially no taxes get a "refund." It is impossible to give the people of this country a tax cut without the "rich" getting most of it, because they are the ones who PAY most of the taxes.

Nothing you said contradicts what I said--in reality, the bottom 90% by population simply haven't seen their tax rates move very much. How are you defining "rich"? Even if I concede your 50% figure, that leaves the 40% between the top ten and the 50% line who haven't seen any appreciable movement in their tax rates. Sure the "rich" pay more, but they've also got a much larger chunk of the pie as well. The only way they wouldn't end up paying so much would be cutting the govt down to bare bones, doing away with just about all spending, including defense.

Some folks pine for those small govt of lore days, but I think people forget that life wasn't so great back in the middle to late part of the 19th Century for just about everyone. People who think life was groovy in the 1880s need a history lesson.

Answer me this: Imagine if everyone had the same tax rate. If I earn $10,000 a year and you earned $100,000 a year, you would pay TEN TIMES what I pay. If you earned $1,000,000 a year, you would pay A HUNDRED TIMES the taxes I pay. Why would that not be enough to be fair?

It's not really about being "fair", it's about having enough revenue to power our govt. Unless we drastically cut spending more than either Dems or Repubs are willing to do, the rich are going to pay a lot more as a percentage of total tax revenue. A generally progressive tax system is simply fiscal reality until we pare spending by more than is politically feasible for either party.

In any event, if we pay the same rate, and you make 100K and I make 1,000K....I still live pretty comfortably at the end of the day.

For ****s and giggles...I make about $100K a year, give or take, depending on sales. I pay about 36% taxes on that, total. My taxes haven't budged as a percentage of my income under Bush compared to what they were under Clinton. I have the tax returns to prove it. So try selling me something else. For just about ALL of us, your taxes are gonna be the same regardless of party affiliation of the guy at 1600 PA AVE.

 

[ajax]

Lone Gunman correct me if im wrong but did the 11 to 14 million illegals come in to the U.S. in the last 5 years or so, or have Dem's left our borders unprotected also. Just in case you don't know this the N Koreans have been working on enriching uranium for some time. If i recall Carter went their unsolicitied made promises came back and got slick willy to back him. We gave them MONEY to quit and they developed it anyway and that happened on Clintons watch. Go Dem's.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Ajax, you are missing my point.

I am not singing the praises of the Democrats, by a long shot.

My point is that we need to divide power in Washington so no one side has as much control as the Republicans have had the last few years.

If Democrats had controlled either the House or Senate, I suspect that we would not now have Campaign Finance Reform, Medicare Reform, or the Patriot Act. Not because the Democrats are opposed to any of these things, but because party bickering would have resulted in a stalemate from which no new legislation would have emerged. They would have argued over the details to the point that no concensus would be reached.

I would also point out that just because the Democrats do something bad, like leaving the southern border open or letting N. Korea work on nukes, that doesn't mean Republicans should act like Democrats and let those same things happen. Remember in kindergarten when you did something bad and tried to use the excuse that someone else had done the same thing? It didnt work then, and it doesn't work now.

I voted for Republicans because I don't want them to act like Democrats.

 

[Helmetcase]

Ajax,
Nuttin but love....but your analysis of the NK situation is bassackward. They didn't really become a nuke power until our policy became to not talk to them at all under W. Under the Agreed Framework, they knocked it off for about 8 years.

NK was one of the things BC got right.

Let's see...we can do the Bush policy of just ignore them and talk tough and in reality do nothing to stop them from building nukes...or the Clinton policy of engaging them and tossing them a bone (what they really want with nukes isn't to blow us up, but get us to recognize them and give them a little legitimacy) in exchange for not building nukes.

Hmmm...tough call, eh? (Turn off the Hannity and the Savage, it's bad for your brain ).

 

[ajax]

Helmatcase I have to ask. Do you truely believe the N. Koreans held to their side of the bargain. Lone Gunman I personally I can't stand politicians at all, Rep's or Dem's, but it will be a cold day in hell when I think voting for Dem's will fix our problems in this country. A good start to that goal would be be to oust them all and start over not vote more Dem's in. I would like to call myself a Independent but that party is a touch on the weak side at the moment.

 

[ceetee]

Go Dem's.

In other words, "If you ain't with us, you're agin us..."

We (as a nation) need to stop seeing partisan politics as the totality of our government. We need to elect people that share our views, then let them not be beholden to the party structure. Our politicians should only be beholden to us voters, dadgummit.

 

[GoRon]

Nuttin but love....but your analysis of the NK situation is bassackward. They didn't really become a nuke power until our policy became to not talk to them at all under W. Under the Agreed Framework, they knocked it off for about 8 years.

Helmetcase, nothing but love, but you are in fantasy land if you think NK did anything other than get a Monica from President Clinton.

The pertinent part of the link:

The intelligence, the official said, indicated the program was launched in the late 1990s -- several years after North Korea signed the agreement with the United States, Japan and South Korea.
The official said that when Kelly confronted the top North Korean official with information about the nuclear weapons program on October 4, the North Koreans were "belligerent" but did not dispute the U.S. claim and "showed not a hint of remorse."

North Korea admits they lied to Bill Clinton

 

[richyoung]

I and most other normal contemporary people do not give a damn how many interns POTUS bangs,

You OUGHT to care when the POTUS shows such a lack of morality and judgement, AND commits perjury about it to bott: remeber, the Prez is the highest LAW ENFORCEMENT official in the country - when he is preventing ANYONE from getting justice, the whole system has collapsed.

Besides, just like Watergate, its not the crime so much, its the cover-up.

On top of which, if Bush II was "lieing" about National Security, plenty of Dems, including Kerry, Saint Hillery, and Bil hisself told the same "lie"...

 

[Kim]

Good Grief. North Korea came out and said they had been enriching nuke material right around when Bush took office. The media was wondering if there was enough for 2 to 6 bombs.. Albright was on the cable networks admitting they had been lied too. Does everyone forget everything. That was the big talk at the time. Then our spy plane was down in China and that was the big deal. Could Bush handle it? This is the first real test for this president Chrissy Matthews breathed. North Korea pulled the wool over our eyes way before Bush had anything to do with it. But you know what I don't give a dang. I want to know what do we do now? I think this country is so hateful and divided over who is going to get what goodies ie money from the government tit that we just may end up nuked or in WW3 with your children drafted. Think about that as people whine about food stamps, welfare checks and cheap oil from a Commie dictator in South Americia. Me I am just glad I do not live in a city. I can surive if NY, LA, Houston, Chicago are gone in 10 minutes. But I am not sure our Nation would survive. I think there would still be some NOW woman screaming about abortion rights while the ship sinks.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Some politicians simply ignore the problems at hand. Others fix 'em till they're broke. Which one's worse? Damned if I know.

Every administration we've had the last 70 years has been damaging.

The Bush Admin and Congress has done more damage to the fourth Amendment than I ever thought possible. Anyone who hasn't noticed needs to read a copy of 1984. He pushes for legislation on things like gay marriage and abortion, which the majority of Americans really don't consider prudent and are of no real consequence to the country's economy and national security. All the while ignoring the more immediate problems with easier fixes-like illegal immigration.

Clinton was awful. Somehow he managed to pull off most of his crap behind the curtain. And Democrats love the line "nobody died when Clinton lied", seemingly forgetting about three major conflicts, two terrorist attacks and an embassy seizure that went virtually unnoticed during his time.

Bush Sr. did very little at all, besides remind Americans that the middle east is still there and still a cesspool of religious vendetta's and violence.

Reagan's presidency is fairly glorified, and many gun owners seem to forget what he did to us.

The list goes on and on.......

Other than on some social issues that third parties tend not to address, there isn't much polarity within the bulk of the voting public, when it comes to real government issues. It should be no surprise that the two major parties are addressing a more or less homogeneous position, trying to find some way of differentiating themselves on fringe issues. Sometimes its the smoothest talker, better looking on camera, or the better looking tie. Purist political philosophies that rely upon real knowledge of government don't stand a chance.

This pretty much sums it up.

 

[Helmetcase]

Helmetcase, nothing but love, but you are in fantasy land if you think NK did anything other than get a Monica from President Clinton.

The pertinent part of the link:

How quickly they forget: BC actually was ready to go to WAR with NK back in 1994; the Agreed Framework was a compromise that avoided a major, earth shattering confrontation.

Essentially there are two choices, really: try to negotiate a bit and toss them a bone in exchange for something you want (which we did in the 90s) or take a hard line, refuse to acknowledge them as a legit power, snub them, and basically goad them into flaunting their agreement (which happened under W).

You should read your links more carefully:

The North Korean official then shocked Kelly when he looked at him and said "something to the effect of, 'Your president called us a member of the axis of evil. ... Your troops are deployed on the Korean peninsula. ... Of course, we have a nuclear program,'" according to the senior administration source, who was briefed on the meeting.

The NK's more than anything else simply want us to recognize them a legit entity and power; they've made it pretty clear they jumpstarted their nuke program when they saw what we did to SH and we started calling them the Axis of Evil. Hell, they've admitted as much!

North Korea's statement said, "The extreme U.S. threat of a nuclear war, sanctions and pressure compel the DPRK to conduct a nuclear test, an essential process for bolstering its nuclear deterrent as a self-defense measure in response."

Pretty much all the intelligence available makes it clear the worst part of the the NK situation came to pass since 9/11. They produced NO plutonium under Clinton, by way of contrast enough for a couple bombs under W. The vast majority of their fissile material was created under the current administration. They withdrew from the NPF after W rattled the sabre at them.

In short, by engaging them and acknowledging them in the 1990s (with the credible threat of war), they didn't produce fissile material. After we invaded Iraq and then rattled a sabre at them and delegitimized them, they felt the need to restart their program. Under Clinton we fared much better re: NK than we have under Bush.

I know as a Republican you have a compulsion to sling mud at the guy who hasn't been president in almost 7 years, but the reality is even if his policy wasn't perfect, if you look at a timeline, it's obvious that most of the damage has happened under your guy.

March 6, 2001: At a joint press briefing with the Swedish foreign minister, Secretary of State Colin Powell says that the administration “plan to engage with North Korea to pick up where President Clinton left off. Some promising elements were left on the table and we will be examining those elements.”

March 7, 2001: In a New York Times op-ed, Wendy Sherman, former special adviser to the president and secretary of state for North Korea policy, writes that a deal with North Korea to eliminate its medium- and long-range missiles and end its missile exports had been “tantalizingly close” at the end of the Clinton administration.

We were close to getting what we wanted, and then we changed tone and started trying to bully them, and they responded defensively and aggressively. Was Clinton's policy perfect? I doubt it, but I don't see any specifics from you or the GOP about what he should have done differently--he geared up to go to war, got them to back down, and got them to agree to not produce fissile material--which they did. What more would you have wanted? The only alternative would have been war. After five years of a bumbling policy, W has done NOTHING but encourage the development of their nuke program.

Ooops.

If you really wanna persist at slinging mud at Clinton, stick to things that he did screw up on, like guns. But on balance, any mud you sling at him is only coming back at you double, as by even the most lenient standards we've only done worse under his successor re: NK.

The former Secretary of Defense agrees with me.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Helmetcase, you don't see anything problematic with relying entirely on the same crowd that did the negotiation under Clinton to support your argument? Would you let Sarah Brady be the sole source of your information on firearms?

 

[Helmetcase]

Which link you referring to?

The facts are the facts, man: under Clinton they produced NO fissile material, and under W they've gone hog wild with it. They've restarted their program in an effort to buttress themselves against our sabre rattling. They saw what happened with Iraq and fear the same thing, and want to have a bigger stick to wield.

I'm not relying entirely on the same crowd at all--I posted links to various sources, largely bipartisan ones at that. Sure Perry is a biased source, but he largely agrees with the facts of the matter as I've found them from non-partisan sources. I linked to non partisan groups like ACA, Center for Nonproliferation Studies, the same link GoRon used from CNN, the Japan Times, etc.

The facts of the case aren't really in dispute here--even if they did cheat a bit under Clinton, under W nothing's been done to stop them from acquiring a nuke, and in point of fact even the NKs have told us they're moving ahead with producing fissile material in response to our sabre rattling and refusal to recognize their legitimacy and sovereingty.

 

[xd9fan]

I also remember the GOP telling me if they would be put in power that they would:
-Limit the size of Govt
-spend less
-deregulate
-trust us
-inforce the laws, that laws mean what they say (illegal immigration)
-do something pro-gun besides letting the AWB expire (that was built into the law) What about 1968 and 1986 gun laws??????
-OH yeah that contract with America........the only one that did not get done
TERM LIMITS!!! wonder why they didnt get that done

dont give me this life under a Democrat president dome and gloom. At least with a Dem you know what you get. ( I will never vote for one) Plus it may put the spinal cord back in the GOP.....if that is possible. Hate to say it but I agree with others here.....gridlock is the best we can hope for. Because we are not serious about controling them in other ways (ie term limits)

 

[scurtis_34471]

I think picking a party or candidate based on only one issue is a mistake. Gun control is an important issue, but its not the only important issue. I usually find myself in a very uncomfortable position during elections. I loathe the Religious Right and consider them a huge threat to civil liberties in this country. I can't stand the ultra-left socialist liberals either. From my perspective, the most extreme 10% of each party seems to drive the party platforms and that is a huge problem. Our freedoms are being slowly erroded from both ends of the spectrum.

My observation is that the only way this country maintains balance is when power is divided between both political parties and they are forced to compromise. When one party gets all the power, it is nothing but trouble. I would like to see the Democrats get control of one house of Congress, because it would restore the balance of power. I don't particularly like their ideology, but they are the only force available that can curb the out of control Republicans.

As for myself, I am an old-school secular conservative who believes in limited government, minimal taxes and State rights. While I am personally a religious person, I think that blending religion with politics can only lead to disaster. That is an idea that I share with the Founding Fathers and an idea that is very well supported by history.

 

[Lonestar]

I'm too a republican who is disappointed with Bush's overall performance. Both Clinton and Bush set this country back with their antics. I don't know here this Ultra Liberal and Ultra Conservative swing started in politics but it has got to stop. I'm sick of most of the republican and almost all of the Democrats. I like to see a strong 3rd party candidate run for president, someone who follows the constitution and is looking out for the welfare of the America citizens, and not some special interest. That should shake things up a bit.

 

[GoRon]

Helmetcase is right.

We need to send Mdm Albright over to North Korea as a special envoy. She can bring the blueprints for our cruise missles as a gift of goodwill.

Then just maybe they will like us.

 

[Tommygunn]

I think it's a tad irrelevant whether NK produced NO plutonium under Clinton and produced it under Bush.
THEY ALWAYS INTENDED TO ACQUIRE NUKES. IT NEVER MADE MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE WHO WAS THE PRESIDENT.
Whining "under Clinton they produced NO fissile material, and under W they've gone hog wild with it" is like complaining that you tripped before you hit the ground.

I'm too a republican who is disappointed with Bush's overall performance. Both Clinton and Bush set this country back with their antics. I don't know (w)here this Ultra Liberal and Ultra Conservative swing started in politics...

I'm not happy with Bush but I really fear dems like Pelosi a LOT more. I have a hard time, however, thinking of Bush as an "ultraconservative." Most of the things I disdain him for are things liberals are usually associated with -- like spending a great deal and enlarging government.

 

[Helmetcase]

Helmetcase is right.

Most of the time, yes. One of the perks of being me.

We need to send Mdm Albright over to North Korea as a special envoy. She can bring the blueprints for our cruise missles as a gift of goodwill.

She's actually the highest ranking US diplomat ever to go there. Notice that they didn't really break the rules much when we actually spoke to them instead of threatening them. Funny how that works. Interestingly enough, we actually mounted a credible threat of war in early 1994--but it worked because we also had a carrot on the end of that stick.

Since then, we yanked the carrot and the stick really lost its efficacy, bigtime.

Then just maybe they will like us.

I could care less if they like us. I'm a pragmatist, and I look at a situation and say "hmmm, how do we get what we want?" Clinton's way had us a LOT closer to that than your boy's way.

That sort of response on your part is pretty indicative of someone conceding an argument.

I think it's a tad irrelevant whether NK produced NO plutonium under Clinton and produced it under Bush.

Actually, no, it isn't. It's exactly the damn point of all this. Fissile material for powering the bombs is kinda the point here. I assume I don't have to explain how nukes work? I'm not a physicist, but I did stay on a lumpy mattress at a Holiday Inn last night. Terrible room service.

THEY ALWAYS INTENDED TO ACQUIRE NUKES. IT NEVER MADE MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE WHO WAS THE PRESIDENT.

Sure, in their heart of hearts they want them, but why? They want them so A) they won't get the same treatment as Iraq did (and they're right in this regard), and B) so we'll treat them as a legit, sovereign power. Because we did engage them as a legitimate sovereign entity under Clinton instead of insulting and threatening them, because we actually negotiated with them we largely got what we wanted--them to not produce plutonium that was weapons grade. Yeah, they were going to maintain the capability, but they also submitted to international inspections to make sure they weren't actually doing so.

Then we went all macho on them, and forced them into a corner. Now they're testing weapons.

Whining "under Clinton they produced NO fissile material, and under W they've gone hog wild with it" is like complaining that you tripped before you hit the ground.

What a crappy analogy. I'm not even sure what the heck that's supposed to mean. The point is to get them to not produce fissile materials for bombs. They did that under Clinton. They reversed course under W. He did nothing about it.

The only whining going on here is from you folks, who simply can't rebut the point that even if BC's policy wasn't perfect, it was worlds better than W's. If you wanna sling mud at BC, great--but it was under W that NK went nuclear bigtime. Whatever limitations there were under BC's policy, W's has been an unmitigated failure.

Let's sum this up:

"Failure" =1994-2001 -- Era of Clinton 'Agreed Framework': No plutonium production. All existing plutonium under international inspection. No bomb.

"Success" = 2001-2006 -- Bush Policy Era: Active plutonium production. No international inspections of plutonium stocks. Nuclear warhead detonated.

Face it. They abandonded an imperfect policy that was clearly working to some real extent...and replaced it with nothing. Now North Korea is a nuclear state.

 

[ajax]

Helmetcase my primary disagreement with you is your time line. The N. Koreans have been developing for some time now. In my opinion theirs plenty of accountability to go around. The difference is Bush didn't give them money and Clinton did. The funny part is how much american money helped pay for the their nuclear program. Another funny part is that Carter got a Nobel Peace Prize for this. He should have to pay back the American people all the money he negotiated to the N. Koreans.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The facts are the facts, man: under Clinton they produced NO fissile material, and under W they've gone hog wild with it.

As of 1997, North Korea possessed 0.03 tons of Plutonium classified as military stocks of fissile material. In addition, North Korea is listed as ambiguous in a 1996 discussion of defacto nuclear powers. Finally 2003 estimates by ISIS show stocks of fissile material at 10-40kg as of 2003.

This means that your "hog wild" growth is a whopping 10kg from the ISIS 1997 estimate (and that assumes that the estimate is at the high end of the range). To phrase that another way, the hog wild growth would be 1/3 the production of fissile material under the Clinton administration.

They've restarted their program in an effort to buttress themselves against our sabre rattling. They saw what happened with Iraq and fear the same thing, and want to have a bigger stick to wield.

North Korea acknowledged they violated the 1994 treaty to Ambassador MFEMF in October 2002. At that time, exactly nothing had happened to Iraq other than the same UN threats that it had been receiving for the last 10 years. Iraq wasn't invaded until March 2003. Care to rethink that hypothesis?

The facts of the case aren't really in dispute here

In so much as you have offered few facts to dispute and a lot of opinion (whether your own or secondhand), we agree.

 

[Helmetcase]

Helmetcase my primary disagreement with you is your time line. The N. Koreans have been developing for some time now.

Where in my timeline do I disagree with any of that?

In my opinion theirs plenty of accountability to go around. The difference is Bush didn't give them money and Clinton did. The funny part is how much american money helped pay for the their nuclear program. Another funny part is that Carter got a Nobel Peace Prize for this. He should have to pay back the American people all the money he negotiated to the N. Koreans.

We didn't give them money, other Asian states funded the non-weaponized nuclear program. Nukes are not nukes--there's weapons grade and non weapons grade. They stopped weaponization efforts when we negotiated the Agreed Framework. Read up on the links I provided you.

As of 1997, North Korea possessed 0.03 tons of Plutonium classified as military stocks of fissile material. In addition, North Korea is listed as ambiguous in a 1996 discussion of defacto nuclear powers. Finally 2003 estimates by ISIS show stocks of fissile material at 10-40kg as of 2003.

When was this 1997 era plutonium produced? Hint: Not under Clinton Agreed Framework policy.

Thanks for helping prove my point.

This means that your "hog wild" growth is a whopping 10kg from the ISIS 1997 estimate (and that assumes that the estimate is at the high end of the range). To phrase that another way, the hog wild growth would be 1/3 the production of fissile material under the Clinton administration.

Wrong. See above. Read the second paragraph. From what we can tell, the fissile material was NOT produced under the Agreed Framework policy. This isn't really in dispute.

You're bringing a sharp stick to a gun battle here. :banghead: Seriously, get the facts of the case straight before you impugn me or my position.

North Korea acknowledged they violated the 1994 treaty to Ambassador MFEMF in October 2002. At that time, exactly nothing had happened to Iraq other than the same UN threats that it had been receiving for the last 10 years. Iraq wasn't invaded until March 2003. Care to rethink that hypothesis

No. It's perfectly sound. They returned to weaponization efforts AFTER we abandoned the Agreed Framework policy. This isn't really disputed except on AM talk radio and by John McCain, who's busy pandering for Right Wingut land votes that he's not gonna get.

We'd already been gearing up for war for a long time in October 2002. What, you think we went to war in March 2003 after starting the march to war in....February 2003? Gimme a break, man. We'd already called them the Axis of Evil. The writing was on the wall. Our policy change re: NK was in full effect by 2002--we'd ended any effort at the Clinton Era Agreed Framework, and were essentially threatnening them without offering anything in return.

In any event, the recent (post Iraq invasion) nuclear efforts on their part are a clear (heck, even they'll admit it! We're scaring them and they're responding!) response to their perceived need to have a nuclear stick to wave at us.

In so much as you have offered few facts to dispute and a lot of opinion (whether your own or secondhand), we agree.

You're in no position to make such a statement. I've offered facts from non-partisan arms control analysis sources, clear timelines of the events that aren't disputed, and rebutted every point you've made. I'd look in the mirror, my friend.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Quote:
Huh? The bottom 50% of wage earners pay NOTHING. In fact, with the "earned income credit", lots of people who pay essentially no taxes get a "refund." It is impossible to give the people of this country a tax cut without the "rich" getting most of it, because they are the ones who PAY most of the taxes.

Nothing you said contradicts what I said--in reality, the bottom 90% by population simply haven't seen their tax rates move very much.

Nothing he said contradicts what you said - he just pointed out that the more tax you pay, the more movement you see when the tax rate changes. Just like it is very difficult to get much movement in your tax rate when you don't pay taxes or pay very little. So why would you be surprised that not much has changed for the bottom 90% when the remaining 10% pay 65.84% of taxes and the bottom 50% pay almost nothing?

By the way, regarding North Korea, I am interested in hearing what specific actions of the Bush administration diplomacy you regard as critical to what you perceive as failure. I am also curious that since the North Koreans acknowledged they were building nuclear weapons in October 2002, why you hold Bush responsible? Do you feel it reasonable to assume the North Koreans spun up the weapons program suspended under the Clinton administration from a cold start to actual production of nuclear weapons in 22 months?

Finally, how do you reconcile the 2002 admission by the North Koreans that they had traded advanced missile technology to Pakistan in exchange for enriched uranium around 1997 with your blame on this administration?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

By the way, regarding North Korea, I am interested in hearing what specific actions of the Bush administration diplomacy you regard as critical to what you perceive as failure.

I think it was a LACK of specific actions that people are peceiving as a failure on this issue.

Also, I think there is plenty of blame to go around, with Clinton and Bush. But people voted for Bush because he was supposed to be strong on defense and tough on terrorism. It seems silly then for him to use "But Bill Clinton did it too" as his defense for failure to keep nukes out of N. Korea.

People voted for Bush because they wanted something different than what Clinton was doing. If they had wanted to continue the same failed Clinton policies, then they would have voted for Gore.

I don't what Bush could have done to stop N. Korea from getting nukes, but then, I am not the president and thus don't have to have the solution.