North Korea: saying so don't make it so

[tongodeon]

Six years after Bill Clinton left office they're still blaming him for the current administration's failures.

Q Okay, just one quick follow-up. When you hear from your allies on Capitol Hill and elsewhere who were in favor of the preemptive doctrine, and they are critical of the administration, they think the administration is not doing enough in

Comments

[ikkyu2]

Among the more troubling aspects of the current administration is their constant carping about Clinton. Clinton was a good president; can't we just accept that and focus on the current business of good government?

[tongodeon]

Unfortunately no. They held Clinton in such disdain that the fact that Clinton engaged in a certain policy is proof that the policy is flawed. "We can't do that - that's what Clinton was doing." You can STILL hear this rationale floated around conservative circles. "That's Clinton policy - you're not the next Slick Willie are you?"

Unfortunately, when what Clinton is doing WORKS and you abandon what he's doing you're left with what DOESN'T WORK. And that's how you trade negotiation for WMD buildups in North Korea, trade containment for clusterfucks in Iraq, or lose focus on Al Qaeda and get three smoking holes.

[ikkyu2]

Unfortunately, when what Clinton is doing WORKS and you abandon what he's doing you're left with what DOESN'T WORK.

Hey now - I agree with your point, but you're too clever and skillful a debater to try and pull a schlock argument like this. If what Bill is doing works, and you abandon what Bill is doing, there could still be other things that work.

[tongodeon]

I'd really like to think so, but apparently not. Seriously, fill in the blank. "Thank god George Bush is ______ instead of ________ like Clinton did."

[cactusthesaint]

Unfortunately, when what Clinton is doing WORKS and you abandon what he's doing you're left with what DOESN'T WORK.

Are you saying there's only one correct solution to a problem?

Just because there is one solution that gives satisfactory results doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a different solution that gives equally satisfactory or possibly even more optimal results.

I'm not defending the Bush Administration -- it seems, in my not particularly well-informed opinion, that the White House abandoned a policy that has worked for years without making any discernable effort to replace the policy with another working solution.

/derail

[cactusthesaint]

I should preview, apparently, but I'm glad to know I wasn't the only one who didn't buy that argument.

[tongodeon]

Just because there is one solution that gives satisfactory results doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a different solution that gives equally satisfactory or possibly even more optimal results.

True, ikkyu2 made that point already and I agreed.

it seems, in my not particularly well-informed opinion, that the White House abandoned a policy that has worked for years without making any discernable effort to replace the policy with another working solution.I disagree that this is a "working solution". This solution is "not working". Or at least it's "not working as well". During Clinton, North Korea was bound by the NPT and Agreed Framework and complying with both treaties' terms. Since being provoked by Bush's "bold action" they've openly withdrawn from the Agreed Framework, they've *also* withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, they're openly brandishing what they claim are nuclear weapons, and they're openly developing and demonstrating delivery systems

[cactusthesaint]

True, ikkyu2 made that point already and I agreed.

I had clicked reply many hours prior, became distracted before composing my reply, but failed to check if anyone else had replied when I did finally get around to it.

I disagree that this is a "working solution".

I think you misunderstood me or I wasn't sufficiently clear. I wrote:

it seems [...] that the White House abandoned a policy that has worked for years without making any discernable effort to replace the policy with another working solution.

I intended that to mean what you wrote in your inital post, namely:

[C]linton's policies didn't fail. The current policy is a failure.

We're in agreement. I (and ikkyu2) just didn't like part of your argument.

[tongodeon]

I agree that my argument was flawed in theory but not, unfortunately, in practice. Every day I hope that Bush proves me wrong and finds some way to make his presidency less of a failure than Clinton's.

[cactusthesaint]

Just out of curiosity, have you previously written much about your opinions of Clinton's Presidency? There aren't many posts from you tagged billclinton

[tongodeon]

I started writing in 2003, three years after Bill Clinton left the White House. I probably won't be writing much about George Bush in 2011 either.

At least I hope not. God help us if he's still a factor in world politics at that point.