Skip to comments.Mr. Bush’s Nuclear Legacy
Posted on 09/02/2006 4:48:20 AM PDT by dirtboy
Unless something changes soon, by the end of President Bushs second term North Korea will have produced enough plutonium for 10 or more nuclear weapons while Irans scientists will be close to mastering the skills needed to build their own.
Thats quite a legacy for a president sworn to keep the worlds most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the worlds most dangerous regimes.
Even if the United States were not tied down in Iraq, military action would be a disaster. Besides, American analysts dont know where North Korea has stashed its plutonium nor what technology Iran might have hidden. Its huge centrifuge plant at Natanz is still nearly empty, and the more threatened Iran feels, the more reason it has to hide its program.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Yeah, that worked so well when the Clintonistas tried it. Gee, I wonder why THAT wasn't mentioned?
What a complete lurching mess of an editorial column.
Listen you fishwrap...it's PRESIDENT BUSH!
The Commies in our bomb program and later Bill Clinton hands nukes secrets over to Russia and China and now it is Bush's fault.
When I see the NYSlimes listed I don't even read it anymore.
Let's try some alternate editing.
Even if the United States were not tied down in Iraq, military action would be a disaster. Besides, American analysts don’t know where North Korea has stashed its plutonium nor what technology Iran might have hidden.
With bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, and missile defense initially operational in Alaska, the remainder of Pres. Bush's 'Axis of Evil' is more limited in its options for threatening the west than just a few years ago. Meanwhile, the Patriot Act and the removal of the Clinton "intelligence gathering wall" between the CIA and FBI, along with NSA wiretapping programs has improved the chances of the US detecting the whereabouts of these rogue programs.
When the NYT shut down the "bugmenot.com" registration work-around, I stopped reading their drivel. Much better now.
My tagline is far closer to the truth-
Somebody needs to go to every democrat leader today and ask them point blank what they would do this instant about Iran.
They can't say "diplomacy" because it is exactly what Bush is doing and it is visibly failing completely, due purely to Iranian belligerence, since they know it is weakness pure and simple.
They can't say "leave it alone", pretend it is all scaremongering got up by Bush Rove and company, because that is patently false and would also saddle them with blame when it all predictably blows up.
The only reasonable position is far to the hawkish side of Bush - but they can't possibly call for greater hawkishness of any kind, let alone admit that Bush is acting with excessive restraint.
They are utterly useless and they have nothing to offer or say.
They would say that we need to work with the United Nations and our allies (what's left of them after Bush) in order to offer Iran such great things that they will stop their nuclear enrichment program.
Liberals always have some insane rationale to avoid using military power. Asking them is pointless.
From the newspaper that, I'm sure, celebrated Jimmy Carter and Madelaine Half-Bright's deal with North Korea as "peace in our times!". The same paper that defended Bubba Clinton's 8 years of ignorance and malfeasance as the terrorists around the globe took refuge, built up their recruiting drives, trained out in the open, and prepared for the great war to come. Simple amazing.
My real thoughts on this pompous swill disguised as an editorial are- The gays and bed wetters who run the NEW York Times couldn't do one hundredth as good as Pres. Bush if they ran this country. Same applies to the cowards who run the Democrat party.
This effin' rag has betrayed state secrets (NSA data sifting) and hounded the GWBush administration for three years on the Plame debacle. When will these rats apologize for any of this? My fervent prayer is that a few NY Times wise guys (reporters) are clapped into prison for treason along with editors in chief who vetted them
Come on people, this writes itself. Embarassing silly people who want power and pretend to be responsible is great sport, and a child of 10 could do it in his sleep with these clowns. If we are all going to go to a nightmare world of nuclear terrorism, at least let's get a few laughs out of the transition.
I thought these dems were mostly lawyers. Why do thry always blame the wrong person? We elected Bush to govern America, not the world and N Korean policies are not his legacy.
the NYT is irrelevant.
Yeah it's Bush's fault, right. It's a little tough to conduct credible diplomacy when half your government is constantly undermining the other half.
How can Bush go to a rogue regime and threaten them with "serious consequences" for doing anything, when the dem party has established that it will fight, kick, scream and block anything he does? And if he actually does get anything accomplished, they'll hold hearings to try and prosecute him for it. And if they can't do THAT, they'll try him in the media and present him to the world as a criminal fascist.
The dems have been effectively telling the world's dictators, "Go ahead, do whatever you want, don't worry about Bush. We'll keep him in check while you go about your business of killing or whatever."
I can't figure why they are fingering President Bush on this issue because he's following the wildly successful Clinton doctrine with N. Korea including building them reactors that we don't find objectionable. END SARCASM!
| Democrats have begun a desperate-yet-predictable effort to blame North Korea's nuclear aspirations on President George W. Bush's strident rhetoric. Despite their leftist cant, they seem remarkably uninterested in the "root causes" of Pyongyang's current nuclear brinksmanship: Bill Clinton's eight years of appeasement and the gullible cordiality of the South Korean government.
Under the final terms of the Agreed Framework approved in October of 1994, Clinton agreed to provide the "Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea" (DPRK) with two light water nuclear reactors and a massive allotment of oil. The U.S. agreed to ship 500,000 metric tons of oil annually in response to the North's pretense that the energy-starved backwater had developed the nuclear facility to generate power. These shipments have cost taxpayers more than $800 million to date - a bargain compared with the $6 billion spent on constructing the nuclear reactors, which now empower North Korea to produce 100 nuclear bombs each year.
Read more at: Appeasing North Korea: The Clinton Legacy Written January 3, 2003...
Isn't it odd that the NYTimes titled their article Mr. Bush's Legacy.