Pab Sungenis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-19-05 09:18 AM
Original message |
North Korea nuke agreement? Sounds famliar. |
|
Basically, they've agreed to abandon the nuclear program in exchange for energy assistance and a promise not to invade.
Forgive me for stating the obvious, but ISN'T THAT THE SAME DEAL CLINTON CUT WITH THEM?
So, basically, if Bush hadn't shot off his stupid mouth with that "Axis of Evil" crap, we'd still have the status quo antebellum on the Korean Penninsula.
Yet Bush is supposed to be the one who can "keep us safe."
|
FloridaPat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-19-05 09:20 AM
Response to Original message |
1. For once it is really Clinton's fault. I sure miss having a president |
|
who isn't a traitor. I'm beginning to rethink this "sex in the White House" stuff. If it keeps us out of invasions and keeps us safe, the pres can have as much sex as he or she wants.
|
FormerDittoHead
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-19-05 09:30 AM
Response to Original message |
2. My first thought exactly... |
|
When Korea announced their nukes, Republicans railed against Clinton for doing EXACTLY what they just agreed to...
According to their prior critism:
UN Inspections are a farce (remember???) The energy concessions were a REWARD to North Korea for building nukes - it teaches them that if they build nukes, they can "blackmail" us, etc.
I don't watch Fox, but I'm sure all of this has been forgotton...
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 12:40 AM
Response to Original message |