President Bill Clinton to Blame for Nuclear North Korea/caption
In nature typical human beings are smart enough not to feed the gators. Wisely neither do they tangle with grizzly bears. Historically why then do Democratic presidents consistently subsidize and embolden Americas geopolitical foes? A prime example is Bill Clintons public capitulation to one back on October 18 1994:
This agreement $4 billion in U.S. energy aid will help achieve a longstanding and vital American objectivean end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula."
In light of the present reality there: whoops!
Recall that this poll-obsessed presidentsame as the last occupant of the White Housemastered the promotion of superficial political narratives. Stated plainly the optics of how something can be politically spun: without any thought to how dire something actually is or may turn out in the long term to be. Facilitated by Bill Clinton what greater example could there be than North Korea? Today a totalitarian regime has him to thank for reportedly passing the nuclear threshold.
Beyond any consideration Democrats are always about preserving their partys influence via the next election cycle. Back then in the middle of his first term Mr. Clinton badly needed a talking point. An illusory victory" he could point to to stave off what shortly became 1994s Republican Revolution: a GOP takeover of both chambers of Congress for the first time in 40 years. Yet at the time Clintons machinations were even acknowledged by the partisan New York Times:
The accord struck in Geneva gave the President a chance to proclaim a major foreign policy success just weeks before the midterm election. But Asian diplomats pointed out today that it also placed the United States in the odd position of bolstering the political capital of a man it has regularly denounced as a terrorist a supplier of missile technology to Iran and a dictator: Kim Jong Il."
Ah the difference 23 years makes.
In retrospect Kim Jong Il (Kim Jong-uns father) had Bill Clintons yellow cake and ate it too. Naturally by cake I refer to de facto U.S. financing of North Korea fledgling nuclear weapons program. Over the decade that U.S. billions flowed to Pyongyang isnt it likely that some of that American cash was misappropriated to acquire uranium and develop military technology like ballistic missiles?
As the Clinton administration had declared Kim Jong-uns father a terrorist why would they foolhardily enter into an agreement with someone obviously so dangerous and untrustworthy? Remember the former Arkansas governor had no international experience. His shortsighted political fix" garnered some momentary positive press but achieved nothing meaningful. In the House of Representatives a 54-seat swing put Republicans in charge for the first time since 1952. Likewise an 8-seat gain gave the GOP control of the Senate held previously in 1986. As is so typical in modern-day politics problems escalate by being kicked farther down the road to someone else and an uncertain future.
Then as now Republicans hold the reins of power in Congress and the White House. Given the contentious political landscapeand disturbing international developmentsa mixed blessing at best. What it really means is that the GOPand Donald Trump in particularis left holding the bag for decades of liberals reckless policy decisions. Idiotic choices exemplified by thoughtless neophytes like Bill Clinton in the 90s and repeated by Barack Obama during his administration. Besides Obamas coddling North Korea for eight years what of his adding almost 10 trillion added to the nations debt; ISISs full flowering under his watch; the healthcare debacle that is Obamacare; and the yet-to-be realized Damocles sword thats his disastrous Iranian deal". Wrongly maligned by the beltway establishments of both parties how lucky" for Mr. Trump to also potentially contend with an upcoming nuclear threat from Middle Eastern Ayatollahs!
In essence isnt Bill Clintons North Korea misadventure equivalent to Barack Obamas and Iran? Once again the pretext of a Democratic victory lap" on the international stage was the unhinged rationale for misappropriating American resources to bankroll the largest state-sponsor of terrorism: $33.6 billion! As the clock rapidly expires does any clear thinking person truly believe that Iranian leaders are not actively following North Koreas lead?
To that end in the modern era Democratic presidents tend to drag America into armed conflicts (or as close to them as possible). As examples theres no doubt that Democrats were in the White House during the three big defensive" wars of the 20th century: the two World Wars and Korea. Furthermore Democrats started and escalating the widely unpopular Vietnam War. In Asia so much American blood and treasure needless lost! If history repeats itself there his Democratic predecessors not Trump overwhelmingly bear responsibility.
In the interest of full disclosure there are two notable exceptions where contemporary Republican presidents have initiated war. First was Bill Clintons minor inheritance of the military intervention in Somalia ordered by George H. W. Bush. Second and of far greater significance was Mr. Obamas inheritance of the Iraq War from George W. Bush. Yet an important mitigating factor shows once again that a Democrats hands are central to triggering that American tragedy. This time it was Bill Clintons chose not to act against Osama bin Ladenthe mastermind of the 9/11 attackthat enabled the deadly domino effect. As Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) articulated in the GOP debate on February 13 2016:
The World Trade Center came down because Bill Clinton didnt kill Osama bin Laden when he had the chance to kill him four chances per the 9/11 report."
For all of the above if not for failed Democratic presidents would Mr. Trump be in such an unenviable position overseas? Thus his fiery rhetoric of fire and fury" is singularly appropriate under these circumstances. For insight into the presidents mentality his 1990 book Trump: Surviving at the Top" states:
Americans have become so accustomed to professional politicians that when they are faced with a strong personalitya man or woman of actionthey are afraid or at least very wary … When we fear leaders of great passion though we often forget that the other side fears them too."
Such a mind-set undoubtedly scares anti-Trump pundits populating the MSM media but it sends an unmistakable Reaganesque message of strength and resolve. Trouble-making North Koreaand other anti-American despotswould be wise to listen. For real change has arrived: this time a pro-America grizzly is being provoked. Regardless of the outcome that will make all of the difference. No longer does a wishy-washy Clinton or a progressive apologist occupy the Oval Office.
David L. Hunter is an Associate Editor at Capitol Hill Outsider. Hes on Twitter and blogs at davidlhunter.blogspot.com. He is published in The Washington Post The Washington Times FrontPage Mag and extensively in Patriot Post Canada Free Press and American Thinker.