JF, more distortions by the liberal media:
North Korea is particularly awkward for Mr. Bush to discuss publicly because, as best we know, it didn't make a single nuclear weapon during Bill Clinton's eight years in office (although it did begin a separate, and secret, track to produce uranium weapons; it hasn't produced any yet but may eventually). In contrast, the administration now acknowledges that North Korea extracted enough plutonium in the last two years for about half a dozen nuclear weapons.
There were many scattered reports that North Korea was actively pursuing the bomb, even in the early 90's. I even saw one report back then saying that North Korea already had it. All Bill Clinton did with the 1994 accord was buy more time, and even then, Clinton didn't even keep up his end of the bargain because, IMO, his administration wasn't even sure it was a wise decision to begin with.
Then around 1999-2000, North Korea started secretly breaking their end of the bargain. All the while tensions between North and South were thawing, and Clinton of course was taking credit for it.
The one mistake Bush made, IMO, was that he forced the North Korean issue way too hard in 2002. But that was arguably because Bush had to take hard-line stances after 9/11. In hindsight, it was clumsy, but that's no excuse for the second-guessers to distort the truth.
In fairness, Mr. Bush is paralyzed only because the alternatives are dreadful. A military strike on North Korea's nuclear sites might have been an option in the early 1990's, but today we don't know where the plutonium and the uranium are kept, so a military strike might accomplish little - but trigger a new Korean war.
Another lie. Since when was a military strike on North Korea ever an option? It wasn't back in the early 90's, and it isn't today. One word: China.
The "Hate Bush" attitude survives even after the election, distorting the truth and losing whatever valid points they have to make.
Tenchusatsu |
