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, America's
geopolitical foes? A prime example is Bill Clinton's 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
objective—an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the
Korean Peninsula.”
In light of the present reality there:
whoops!
Recall that this poll-obsessed
president—same as the last occupant of the White House—mastered
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 party's 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 1994's Republican Revolution: a GOP
takeover of both chambers of Congress for the first time in 40 years.
Yet, at the time, Clinton's 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-un's father) had Bill Clinton's 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, isn't 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-un's 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 landscape—and disturbing international
developments—a mixed blessing, at best. What it really means is
that the GOP—and Donald Trump, in particular—is 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
Obama's coddling North Korea for eight years, what of his adding
almost 10 trillion added to the nation's debt; ISIS's full flowering
under his watch; the healthcare debacle that is Obamacare; and the
yet-to-be realized Damocles sword that's 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, isn't Bill Clinton's North
Korea misadventure equivalent to Barack Obama's 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 Korea's 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, there's 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 Clinton's minor
inheritance of the military intervention in Somalia ordered by George
H. W. Bush. Second, and of far greater significance, was Mr. Obama's
inheritance of the Iraq War from George W. Bush. Yet, an important
mitigating factor shows, once again, that a Democrat's hands are
central to triggering that American tragedy. This time it was Bill
Clinton's chose not to act against Osama bin Laden—the mastermind
of the 9/11 attack—that 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 didn’t 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 president's 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
personality—a man or woman of action—they 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 Korea—and other anti-American despots—would
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.
Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976
http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002
