Carter-Obama Comparisons Grow

[nicky10013]

Carter was sent because of the soft touch he developed for the DPRK while in office. The "framework" promptly failed time and again. Carter continues to have access for humanitarian missions to this day.

This is a bad thing? If it wasn't for him a few of your citizens would still be in a North Korean gulag.

That aside, the Agreed Framework wasn't a failure at all, at least, surprisingly on the part of the north. Shockingly, it was the US that failed to live up to the agreement because congressional republicans blocked the lifting of sanctions against the North. Once Bush came to power, that was that. After the "axis of evil" speech, the North broke off relations, pulled out of the NPT, kicked out IAEA inspectors and resumed it's nuclear weapons programme which had been stopped since the agreement in '94.

One could certainly postulate the argument that Bush's invasion of Iraq and the veiled threats against North Korea and Iran drove the North to build nuclear weapons. So tell me how that's Jimmy Carter's fault so we can all have a laugh.

Edited September 27, 2010 by nicky10013

[omigos7]

blah

[bush_cheney2004]

This is a bad thing? If it wasn't for him a few of your citizens would still be in a North Korean gulag.

Stupid is as stupid does.

That aside, the Agreed Framework wasn't a failure at all, at least, surprisingly on the part of the north. Shockingly, it was the US that failed to live up to the agreement because congressional republicans blocked the lifting of sanctions against the North. Once Bush came to power, that was that. After the "axis of evil" speech, the North broke off relations, pulled out of the NPT, kicked out IAEA inspectors and resumed it's nuclear weapons programme which had been stopped since the agreement in '94.

You are conveniently ignoring the numerous violations of the framework before Bush (2001) that vexed the Clinton administration.

One could certainly postulate the argument that Bush's invasion of Iraq and the veiled threats against North Korea and Iran drove the North to build nuclear weapons. So tell me how that's Jimmy Carter's fault so we can all have a laugh.

Nonsense...as clearly the DPRK was on such a path long before 2003. Nice try....that's certainly worth a laugh.

[dre]

Shady is right...ex-President Carter continued his soft approach with the DPRK, after trying to remove US troops from South Korea during his presidency:

In 1994, the administration of President Bill Clinton had begun preparations for military action against North Korea when former President Jimmy Carter traveled to North Korea in June and extracted a promise from Kim Jong Il to freeze nuclear production. 1 The Agreed Framework was signed on Oct. 21, 1994.

As we know, the DPRK repeatedly violated the framework to force food and fuel oil concessions.

The US didnt hold up its end of that deal either.

[bush_cheney2004]

The US didnt hold up its end of that deal either.

How would you know? Prove it....DPRK apologist!

[jbg]

The funny part about this inevitable comparison is that President Carter did have some successes with Congress (deregulation, energy policy, Superfund, etc.)

People take deregulation and energy policy way out of context.

Both were forced by "real world" events that took matters out of his hands.

In the case of deregulation, in the case of both airlines and telecommunications low-cost alternatives were nibbling at the edges so essentially the established businesses had to be given the ability to compete, or else die the death of a thousand cuts.

In the case of energy, a combination of factors were at work. Energy regulation in fact did not have much effect until around November 1978, when shortages spawned by Iranian strife pushed heating oil and gasoline prices up against their ceilings. Before then the oil companies weren't even getting their theoretical ceiling price. When prices hit the ceilings, oil companies began limiting sales, first to year-earlier levels and then dropping percentages of year-earlier levels. The resulting shortages made the gasoline pump a symbol of chaos.

At the same time, a web of distortions in price controls designed to aid small oil refiners (called, in a brutally honest lexicon "Small Refiner Bias") basically cratered the system. Things were so bad that when Reagan ultimately decontrolled all energy prices, prices dropped!!! In my area the decline was from around $1.55 per gallon to $1.19 per gallon.

Carter was dragged kicking and screaming into deregulation. To the extent he supported it it was in industries such as airlines where fares were likely to drop rather than rise. This gave him some relief from having statistics showing double-digit inflation.

[nicky10013]

Stupid is as stupid does.

Fine, I guess they deserved to be in a gulag.

You are conveniently ignoring the numerous violations of the framework before Bush (2001) that vexed the Clinton administration.

What claims would those be? North Korean nuclear facilities were sealed and monitored by the IAEA. The seals weren't broken until NK pulled out of the NPT. Did the North Koreans pull some garbage with missiles? Sure, but the Agreed Framework dealt specifically with the nuclear issue. When Bush came to power there were arguments that the North Koreans had a secret enrichment program. However, despite the claims there has never actually been any evidence to actually prove that. Considering these claims came from the same guys that claimed WMD were in Iraq, excuse me for being skeptical. The North Korean program wasn't secret in the least. Everyone knew they had the program. That's what was shut down.

Nonsense...as clearly the DPRK was on such a path long before 2003. Nice try....that's certainly worth a laugh.

When you've got the plants and you've got the centrifuges, it's just a matter of breaking the seals and turning on the machines. They already had the theoretical knowledge and technical capability to produce weapons. They kicked out inspectors in 2002 and tested in 2006. When you've got everything ready to go, 4 years isn't impossible.

[bush_cheney2004]

Fine, I guess they deserved to be in a gulag.

Particularly when such stunts serve to undermine American foreign policy.

....The North Korean program wasn't secret in the least. Everyone knew they had the program. That's what was shut down.

It was never totally shut down, as this game was played many times long before Bush came along. Placing framework violations at Bush's feet is folly given the history of DPRK behaviour.

When you've got the plants and you've got the centrifuges, it's just a matter of breaking the seals and turning on the machines. They already had the theoretical knowledge and technical capability to produce weapons. They kicked out inspectors in 2002 and tested in 2006. When you've got everything ready to go, 4 years isn't impossible.

Iqaq was under attack since 1991....I'm pretty sure the DPRK had earlier concerns pre-dating Bush, like Clinton's planned military strike. Bush...Bush...Bush rings quite hollow when it should be the continuum of American and allied policy for the most dangerous place in the world.

[dre]

How would you know? Prove it....DPRK apologist!

I wouldnt apologize on behalf of either of those parties. Deals between liars are likely to fail. The US reneged on its promise to deliver energy (at first it delivered it late then not at all) and NK reneged on its promise to completely hault nuclear development.

[nicky10013]

Particularly when such stunts serve to undermine American foreign policy.

You realize both Clinton and Carter were both asked to go by the state department and the white house, right? I mean, how is that in any way undermining American foreign policy?

It was never totally shut down, as this game was played many times long before Bush came along. Placing framework violations at Bush's feet is folly given the history of DPRK behaviour.

No, it lays of the feet of Bush and the US congress in the 90s. It's certainkly possible the DPRK was violating the treaty as per the US, however, those claims never had any evidence behind them. It should sound even more dubious because when the North started up it's programme again, it didn't slink away to the mountains, it started up the reactor and centrifuges we knew they had. This has been a regime who, at least in terms of their military, want to make sure the west sees it's every move in terms of the development of new technology. 1) For the reason you stated earlier, they barter their military technology for energy and food 2) they honestly feel threatened by the US presence on the peninsula and want a deterrent to prevent an invasion. The main goal of the regime in Pyongyang is to stay in power. Nuclear weapons helps them do that. They see it as in their interest to make it abundantly clear they have a nuclear capability, which is why they're getting ready to test another weapon shortly.

Iqaq was under attack since 1991....I'm pretty sure the DPRK had earlier concerns pre-dating Bush, like Clinton's planned military strike. Bush...Bush...Bush rings quite hollow when it should be the continuum of American and allied policy for the most dangerous place in the world.

They did. However, when you actually realize that Carter was sent secretly to obtain a deal, one can only conclude that the buildup in Korea which never happened was nothing more than a bluff. They had seen what had happened in Iraq. The funny thing is, they weren't lumped in with Iraq before that, and all during the 90s they had the US Agreed Framework. So sure, they had something to be afraid of, but for all intents and purposes, until 2002 they weren't. So, that doesn't bode well for your thesis I'm afraid.

[bush_cheney2004]

You realize both Clinton and Carter were both asked to go by the state department and the white house, right? I mean, how is that in any way undermining American foreign policy?

Because anytime some yahoo gets caught crossing the border trying to win a Pulitzer Prize it presents a huge problem. We have three idiots (now two idiots) stuck in Iran after hiking over from Iraq.

No, it lays of the feet of Bush and the US congress in the 90s.

Nope...the issues and players are far older than that....nuclear icing on the cake didn't become a reality until Pakistan popped the cork. The DPRK had already represented a huge conventional military risk for the South. This was the policy backdrop for Carter, Reagan, and Clinton.

They did. However, when you actually realize that Carter was sent secretly to obtain a deal, one can only conclude that the buildup in Korea which never happened was nothing more than a bluff. They had seen what had happened in Iraq. The funny thing is, they weren't lumped in with Iraq before that...

Sorry, but Iraq was toast as of 1991, not 2002.

[bloodyminded]

Because anytime some yahoo gets caught crossing the border trying to win a Pulitzer Prize it presents a huge problem. We have three idiots (now two idiots) stuck in Iran after hiking over from Iraq.

True--and in a general sense, I see your point--but the prisoners in Iran were not after journalistic glory (or paycheques)...they made a simple mistake, thanks to following a trail pointed out to them by a local, and thanks to the lack of border signage.

No doubt it was an avoidable error, but I don't know that "idiots" isn't a little harsh.

Edited September 27, 2010 by bloodyminded

[nicky10013]

Because anytime some yahoo gets caught crossing the border trying to win a Pulitzer Prize it presents a huge problem. We have three idiots (now two idiots) stuck in Iran after hiking over from Iraq.

Which doesn't screw with foreign policy.

Nope...the issues and players are far older than that....nuclear icing on the cake didn't become a reality until Pakistan popped the cork. The DPRK had already represented a huge conventional military risk for the South. This was the policy backdrop for Carter, Reagan, and Clinton.

Ah, so the DPRK was violating the Agreed Framework signed in 1994 in the 1970s and 1980s. Notice how, as usual when proven wrong, you ignore the rest of my post.

Sorry, but Iraq was toast as of 1991, not 2002.

That's the entire point. Iraq was invaded in 1991 because it had occupied Kuwait, yes? Your argument was that if the current problems with the DPRK was due to the second invasion of Iraq, it woud've been frightened over the first. It wasn't. Bush invaded Iraq after declaring NK, Iran and Iraq as members of the axis of evil. Seeing that they invaded Iraq, they pulled out of the NPT to develop a deterrent because they figured the US would follow on with invasions of the other 2 countries.

Edited September 27, 2010 by nicky10013

[omigos77]

blah...

[jbg]

True--and in a general sense, I see your point--but the prisoners in Iran were not after journalistic glory (or paycheques)...they made a simple mistake, thanks to following a trail pointed out to them by a local, and thanks to the lack of border signage.

No doubt it was an avoidable error, but I don't know that "idiots" isn't a little harsh.

Well, anyone who goes to either side of that border is dancing in the middle of a three-lane highway (to quote an analogy a friend made when some reporters were captured in Beirut). It is not like touring the U.S.-Canadian border.

[ToadBrother]

One could certainly postulate the argument that Bush's invasion of Iraq and the veiled threats against North Korea and Iran drove the North to build nuclear weapons. So tell me how that's Jimmy Carter's fault so we can all have a laugh.

One could postulate that the moon is made out of green cheese or frozen lettuce, too. It's very damned obvious that NK was pursuing nuclear capacity long before GWB came on the scene. This isn't something Kim Jong Il woke up one morning after 9-11 and dreamed up as a good response to a potential invasion. It's been a long-term project. The same goes for Iran. Both want to be in the nuclear club because of the singular fact that it pretty much buys them immunity from invasion or any kind of overt attempt to influence internal governance or politics. They could care less who the President happens to be as the hit various nuclear milestones. If it were Jesus Christ in the White House they would be declaring some Administration policy or another was forcing their hands, or insisting that it's all for peace, or whatever.

[ToadBrother]

You're missing the entire point of America....the idea is not to always play it safe as in Canada. The last 40 years may as well be the last 240 years for all you know. Americans don't like to be "managed".

Yeah, that explains inter-war isolationism. You're attempts to describe the US's long-term behavior in these sort of grand sweeping statements hardly captures the truth of the matter. The US isn't terribly different than any Great Power before it in the conduct of its foreign relations. I'm not being accusatory here, either, the bigger you are, the bigger you've got to act, or you won't stay big for long. The first rule of international realpolitik is to impose your economic system as broadly as possible, because otherwise someone else will come along and do it to you. The Brits did it in their turn, and by and large the English-speaking world inherited it from them, which is probably a chief reason the US became Great Britain's successor.

[nicky10013]

One could postulate that the moon is made out of green cheese or frozen lettuce, too. It's very damned obvious that NK was pursuing nuclear capacity long before GWB came on the scene. This isn't something Kim Jong Il woke up one morning after 9-11 and dreamed up as a good response to a potential invasion. It's been a long-term project. The same goes for Iran. Both want to be in the nuclear club because of the singular fact that it pretty much buys them immunity from invasion or any kind of overt attempt to influence internal governance or politics. They could care less who the President happens to be as the hit various nuclear milestones. If it were Jesus Christ in the White House they would be declaring some Administration policy or another was forcing their hands, or insisting that it's all for peace, or whatever.

Of course they were pursuing nuclear weapons before GWB was President. That isn't the point. The point was, despite popular rhetoric, they were actually complying with international agreements during the 1990s until GWB came into power. Like I've argued earlier, they already had all the equipment and knowledge to make nuclear weapons. They just had to use it. Up until 1994 they had. The notion they had some secret program is hilarious. The whole point of deterrence is to let your enemies know the extent of your weapons programmes. Between 1994 and 2002, their nuclear facilities which we've known about since the 1970s, were sealed and monitored by the IAEA.

[bush_cheney2004]

Which doesn't screw with foreign policy.

Sure...thousands of US citizens should vacation in the DPRK.

Ah, so the DPRK was violating the Agreed Framework signed in 1994 in the 1970s and 1980s. Notice how, as usual when proven wrong, you ignore the rest of my post.

Your post(s) ignore post Korean War reality in some silly effort to isolate all present circumstance, nuclear or otherwise, to George W. Bush. Why?

That's the entire point. Iraq was invaded in 1991 because it had occupied Kuwait, yes? Your argument was that if the current problems with the DPRK was due to the second invasion of Iraq, it woud've been frightened over the first. It wasn't. Bush invaded Iraq after declaring NK, Iran and Iraq as members of the axis of evil. Seeing that they invaded Iraq, they pulled out of the NPT to develop a deterrent because they figured the US would follow on with invasions of the other 2 countries.

You are ignoring the fact that Clinton was ready to attack North Korea before any of this. The Iraq invasion argument was yours, not mine.

[bloodyminded]

Well, anyone who goes to either side of that border is dancing in the middle of a three-lane highway (to quote an analogy a friend made when some reporters were captured in Beirut). It is not like touring the U.S.-Canadian border.

Fair enough.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah, that explains inter-war isolationism. You're attempts to describe the US's long-term behavior in these sort of grand sweeping statements hardly captures the truth of the matter.

You'd better check on American pre and inter-war interventions versus "isolationism", especially in the Americas. Fools who label aggressive and purposeful policies as "gross mismanagement" have obviously never been the big dog.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course they were pursuing nuclear weapons before GWB was President. That isn't the point. The point was, despite popular rhetoric, they were actually complying with international agreements during the 1990s until GWB came into power.

Nonsense...they were already in violation of the NPT.

[nicky10013]

Sure...thousands of US citizens should vacation in the DPRK.

The Canadian Department of Foriegn Affairs and International Trade actually encourages that. More money flows into the country. The more North Korean citizens see western citizens and realizes we're not bloodthirsty hoardes. It deligitimizes NK propaganda. Also, spending money there not a bad idea. The more wealth and outside information, specifically the later, flows into NK, the harder it is for Kim to hold onto power.

Your post(s) ignore post Korean War reality in some silly effort to isolate all present circumstance, nuclear or otherwise, to George W. Bush. Why?

No, no it doesn't. We were specifically discussing the Agreed Framework of 1994. The reason why it failed was due to a change in US policy when Clinton left office. Is the original reason why NK was developing nuclear weapons? Maybe, however, we weren't discussing the broad ramifications of US policy towards Pyongyang over the past 50 years, just one policy in the last decade and a half. The reasons why it failed very much happened in the new millenium, not between 1950-1953.

So, the real question is, why are you ignoring the points that I'm making and focusing on the broad nature of things that had really nothing to do with the topic at hand? Quit changing the topic.

You are ignoring the fact that Clinton was ready to attack North Korea before any of this. The Iraq invasion argument was yours, not mine.

Yeah, but he didn't, did he? Carter went in at his behest before any troops left the US and they got a deal. Sounds to me like sabre rattling in order to get that deal. Fact is, they got the deal, all evidence points to the fact that NK actually held up their part of the deal. They pulled out when the US when Bush came in refused to continue building the two LWR, sanctioned the North, cut off relations and then finally added them to the axis of evil.

[bush_cheney2004]

True--and in a general sense, I see your point--but the prisoners in Iran were not after journalistic glory (or paycheques)...they made a simple mistake, thanks to following a trail pointed out to them by a local, and thanks to the lack of border signage.

A "simple mistake"? You mean like Mrs. O'Leary's Cow? Sorry, but you have to be an idiot not to know the circumstances of such an adventure, personal and political ramifications, propaganda value, etc., etc. regardless of any border signage. What did they expect...a big wooden monument announcing "Welcome to Iran...Best Camping in the Mideast".

No doubt it was an avoidable error, but I don't know that "idiots" isn't a little harsh.

I doubt that employees at the US State Department would be so kind.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Canadian Department of Foriegn Affairs and International Trade actually encourages that....

Canada loves Cuba too...so what?

No, no it doesn't. We were specifically discussing the Agreed Framework of 1994. The reason why it failed was due to a change in US policy when Clinton left office.

Wrong...it had failed before Clinton ever left office.

So, the real question is, why are you ignoring the points that I'm making and focusing on the broad nature of things that had really nothing to do with the topic at hand? Quit changing the topic.

The topic is Carter-Obama comparisons, not your hard-on for George Bush vis-a-vis the DPRK.

Edited September 27, 2010 by bush_cheney2004