The conservative case for why Bill Clinton got snookered
Unable to accept good news as good news, a number of conservatives are criticizing the Obama administration and former President Bill Clinton for the deal that released two American journalists who had been held hostage for five months in North Korea.
Charles Krauthammer, on Fox News, argued last night that in terms of legitimacy and propaganda, North Korea “got a lot” in ransom. “And it probably has gotten stuff that we haven’t even heard about and we may never hear about — aid in food and oil,” Krauthammer claimed. “All of that stuff will happen quietly in the future.” (For the record, I’ve seen no evidence whatsoever to substantiate that conjecture.)
The
Wall Street Journal editorial board took a similar stance, warning that the deal “will mean that Kim’s price will be even higher to spring the next American hostages.”
And in the Washington Post, the ever irascible John Bolton notes that the reporters’ capture “was hostage taking, essentially an act of state terrorism. So the Clinton trip is a significant propaganda victory for North Korea, whether or not he carried an official message from President Obama. Despite decades of bipartisan U.S. rhetoric about not negotiating with terrorists for the release of hostages, it seems that the Obama administration not only chose to negotiate, but to send a former president to do so.”
Bolton’s right, to a degree. I would agree that North Korea got something out of this deal. Kim Jong Il got his picture taken next to that of Clinton, which isn’t a lot but it’s something. Personally, I think it’s a price worth paying for the lives of two American citizens. It’s also true, as Bolton says, that U.S. presidents for a long time have stressed the importance of refusing to negotiate with terrorists, especially in return for hostages. Ronald Reagan was a particularly vocal advocate of that policy.
Oddly, though, Bolton, Krauthammer and the WSJ did not mention an even better cautionary tale. Exactly 24 years ago this week, the administration headed by Ronald Reagan — the very same Reagan so dead set against negotiating with terrorists — set in motion a secret effort to negotiate with pro-Iranian terrorists for the release of Americans they had taken hostage.
By now, it has become part of the conservative mythology regarding Reagan that the Iranians feared the California Cowboy so much that they released the embassy hostages as soon as he took office. But in truth, Iranian-backed groups continued to take American hostages throughout the Reagan era and even tortured and murdered a few.
As part of the eventual Iran-Contra deal, the Reagan White House ended up delivering more than 2,000 TOW anti-tank missiles to the Iranians as well as Hawk anti-aircraft missiles. Those pro-Iranian terrorists then went out and captured new American hostages to replace the ones they were releasing.
I wonder why Bolton didn’t mention that? He surely knew about it, since he himself was a part of the Reagan administration and was in fact implicated for withholding documents about the scandal from Congress.
It seems to me the calculus works out something like this:
Ronald Reagan negotiating with terrorists and supplying thousands of missiles to a terrorist regime in exchange for U.S. hostages = good.
Bill Clinton exchanging smiles and a handshake in return for U.S. hostages = bad.
Pretty simple, huh?
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2009 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
338 comments Add your comment
Midori
August 5th, 2009
3:46 pm
A gift for Mrs. G, Bosch, AmVet, Brad:
http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com/39a5d435e0b4d993a782d3a173ed9942.jpg
Gandulf - Second!!!
August 5th, 2009
3:46 pm
Got’ya – First!
Midori
August 5th, 2009
3:47 pm
Jay,
they are just haters.
screw them.
I was channel surfing, and came upon Hannity’s show – he was griping and demanding to know WHY HILLIARY DIDN’T GO TO N. KOREA!!
AFTER ALL, IT’S “HER” JOB!!!
The Loser.
Brad Steel
August 5th, 2009
3:50 pm
Every conservative knows that diplomacy doesn’t work. Especially in this case.
No wait – except for this case!
getalife
August 5th, 2009
3:51 pm
Success for the dems mean failure for the gop.
Never bet against this country,
You will lose .
Hillary has accomplished more in a few months than condi in 8 years.
Best ever.
George American
August 5th, 2009
3:52 pm
Liberals love any chance they get to spit on the Gripper’s grave.
Reagan lives on as America’s greatest president!
Midori
August 5th, 2009
3:55 pm
George,
that just can not be true, as we have yet to see his birth certificate.
Brad Steel
August 5th, 2009
3:57 pm
Krauthammer blithers: And it probably has gotten stuff that we haven’t even heard about and we may never hear about — aid in food and oil
Chuck, you forgot to mention the sunglasses, gray jumpsuits, unicorns, DVDs, Daper Dan Hair tonic and 20%-off at any DC are Applebee’s.
Krauthammer what a tool. Is his job part of an ADA tax deduction?
Midori
August 5th, 2009
3:57 pm
is it Gripper, Gipper, or Dripper?
Kamchak
August 5th, 2009
4:06 pm
Midori @ 3:55
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!
stands for decibels
August 5th, 2009
4:07 pm
Gripper, Gipper, or Dripper?
Paging Karnac, the Magnificent.
Later, all. Try not to push anyone down a flight of stairs.
Jackie
August 5th, 2009
4:08 pm
The conservatives continue to talk and make assertions that President Obama has failed after 200 days in office. He has not provided jobs, economic recovery and stellar foreign policy initiatives, despite the promises made during the campaign.
What are we to do about that magic wand President Obama has? Wonder if the batteries are bad, or, should we focus on those who criticize and proof they have to bolster their argument?
RealityKing
August 5th, 2009
4:08 pm
What about the other 10’s of thousands of political prisoners still in North Korean prisons? Are they not worth Bill’s big carrot/no stick advances??
Ben
August 5th, 2009
4:10 pm
Jay, I normally don’t agree with a lot that you write about but this time I will not deny that Bill Clinton did a very good deed today. I’ve never forgiven him for the assault weapons ban but he’s redeemed himself 100 times over today and deserves due credit.
Forget John Bolton; he couldn’t even get confirmed by the Senate for a simple ambassador’s job. I use to subscribe to a philosophy like his, acting tough and belligerent just because we’ve got the biggest stick but life is too short and hard to be constantly looking for a fight all the time. I believe in all out fighting the fights that are necessary and then you fight to win and obliterate your enemy but just because there is a difference in politics that’s not worth getting people killed over.
mike
August 5th, 2009
4:15 pm
Actually, plenty of conservatives criticized Reagan for the negotiation. In fact, I’d love to see anyone produce a conservative argument that “negotiating with terrorists and supplying thousands of missiles to a terrorist regime in exchange for U.S. hostages = good”. This is the textbook definition of straw man argument.
In fact it is Bookman who is applying the double standard (shocker!).
If Jay believes that the result of Reagan’s negotiation with kidnapers led them to go out ” and capture new American hostages to replace the ones they were releasing”, why does he advocate such negotiation now.
So to be clear, conservatives believe:
Reagan’s’ negotiation with kidnappers = bad
Obama’s negotiation with kidnappers = bad
Jay’s viewpoint:
Reagan’s’ negotiation with kidnappers = bad
Obama’s negotiation with kidnappers = good
RealityKing
August 5th, 2009
4:16 pm
Of course, Jay’s argument fails to mention that the TOW anti-tank and Hawk anti-aircraft missiles were all trackable dudes.., unlike the celebrity propaganda North Korea has gained through Bill’s progressive naivety.
Paul
August 5th, 2009
4:20 pm
I listened to Krauthammer make those comments and thought the same word: conjecture. If he prefaced it with ‘if the past is any indication’ he’d have a point. As it was, it came off a searching for a justification to complain.
Also listened to Bolton. In the interview I saw he kept repeating the line about how the meeting gave the regime ‘legitimacy.’
Note to Bolton: it’s been that regime for years and years. Before that, it was his daddy’s regime. When he’s gone, it’ll be one of his kids.
How long does it have to be before people accept they’re in power? Legitimately? (in many parts of the world, the most ruthless, cruelest, evil SOB is the legitimate ruler).
But I’m pleased to hear people are open to the idea of following Reagan’s lead: time to start negotiating with terrorists. Taliban, anyone?
Midori
[[that just can not be true, as we have yet to see his birth certificate.]]
You’d think these fundamentalists would be familiar with ‘virgin birth’ – but maybe not… I’ve noticed a slackening in the “Messiah” references.
Paul
August 5th, 2009
4:21 pm
Midori
Sorry – I meant to lead with “Of course there’s no birth certificate. You’d think these fundamentalists…”
DebbieDoRight
August 5th, 2009
4:23 pm
Perhaps the next time the republicans start hollering about concessions to terrorists that the Obama administration has authorized, yada, yada, yada, yada……….someone should just mention these two words.
Iran Contra.
Kamchak
August 5th, 2009
4:24 pm
Actually, plenty of conservatives criticized Regan for the negotiation.
Would you quantify plenty and provide links?
mike
August 5th, 2009
4:24 pm
DebbieDoRight –
LOL. That was the whole point of Jay’s article was about. Did you read it?
mike
August 5th, 2009
4:30 pm
Kamchak –
Well, since that happened long before web sites, there are not alot of internet records of commentary of that time. I tried doing a quick search but all of the articles from liberals all using the same silly talking point for the Clinton trip are gumming the works.
I don’t know any conservative who does not hold Reagan’s hostage scandal as the biggest mark against him.
How about providing some links for any conservative who made the case that “Ronald Reagan negotiating with terrorists and supplying thousands of missiles to a terrorist regime in exchange for U.S. hostages = good”, as Jay claims.
Brad Steel
August 5th, 2009
4:31 pm
Has anyone heard Bolton’s argument? He is trying to say that Americans are less safe because Clinton was successful in getting these women released.
WTF, Bolton? I feel we moved just lowered the probability of the next second-rate missile test fire. John, believe it or not, you’re not always right.
DebbieDoRight
August 5th, 2009
4:31 pm
Of course I read it!! I was agreeing with Jay!!
Midori: Did you know Reagan’s middle name was (loosely translated), “One who walks on water with the divine power and does absolutely no wrong”? How DARE you say something smarmy about Mr. Reagan!! How. Dare. You!!??!!
Jay
August 5th, 2009
4:34 pm
@@, did you get my email message?
electrician
August 5th, 2009
4:37 pm
DebbieDoRight @ 4;23.so you are praising Reagan for the Iran contra affair, for establishing the negotiation precedence that prsident obama is now using..how odd,
Brad Steel
August 5th, 2009
4:40 pm
RealityKing @ 4:08 pm mumbles: What about the other 10’s of thousands of political prisoners still in North Korean prisons? Are they not worth Bill’s big carrot/no stick advances??
Yes, this trip was a massive failure. You also forgot to mention that his wife has fat thighs and dresses kind of matronly – huge foreign policy failures.
Kamchak
August 5th, 2009
4:43 pm
Well, since that happened long before web sites, there are not alot of internet records of commentary of that time.
So you’re relying on your memory to serve you in this assertion?
How about providing some links for any conservative who made the case that “Ronald Reagan negotiating with terrorists and supplying thousands of missiles to a terrorist regime for U.S. hostages = good”, as Jay claims.
Since I did not–unlike you–make any assertion, I don’t feel compelled to comply with your request. You might wanna ask Jay though.
TnGelding
August 5th, 2009
4:43 pm
Midori
August 5th, 2009
3:57 pm
Gypper!
@@
August 5th, 2009
4:43 pm
I did, jay. I’ll talk to Solomon, my wiser than I contact.
Thanks! I think….
(ISH)
TnGelding
August 5th, 2009
4:45 pm
RealityKing
August 5th, 2009
4:08 pm
Are they U.S. citizens?
Who You Gonna Call
August 5th, 2009
4:48 pm
Well, Jay, we know that it’s one thing what these Republicans say that they will do in public but it’s an entirely different thing that they actually do once they get in the dark. I try not to dwell on that thought. It makes me want to puke.
Paul
August 5th, 2009
4:51 pm
Kamchak to mike
[[Since I did not–unlike you–make any assertion, I don’t feel compelled to comply with your request. ]]
mike
Don’t worry about it. A few days back he said I implied Iran or Iraq was behind 9-11. He’s ducked addressing it since.
Wyld Byll Hyltnyr
August 5th, 2009
4:52 pm
Jay, Clinton did not get snookered THIS TIME!!!!!!!!! The little runt is pretty shrewd – he absolutely raped the other (and lesser) Wild Bill when Clinton gave him billions to put his nucular aspirations on hold which never happened as NK went forward full steam while Clinton was fat, dumb, and happy – the two journalists were no big deal so KJI pulled a double win – 1) he gets to tell his people that he is so powerful that the President of the US came to him to beg; and 2) Obumbler is just dumb enough thart he mau believe that Clinton accomplished something so he’ll let Clinton negotiate with the little runt on the nucular program – which is just what the little runt wants since his last deal was such a one sided win for NK.
Dusty
August 5th, 2009
4:54 pm
Bookman is already rehashing the Clinton excursion to North Korea? I thought we had already covered that one. OH, somebody wrote a column with doubts about many things.
How dare some jerk at WSJ and elsewhere bring up other views? It is down right unhealthy.:roll:
So bring up Reagan. Whatsa matter? Tired of saying Bush did it?
Also NOT mentioned is that Obama is acting like Bill came home with a case of Swine Flu and the ADMINISTRATION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Of course not. Bill is married to the Sec. of State in Obama’s administration but but but….no connection.
Figure that one out. Two Americans rescued but the adminsitration knew nothing and did nothing so they said. Well, errr thanks, Bill, even if you did it all by yourself for some reason. What? Huh?
thomas
August 5th, 2009
4:54 pm
Clinton did a wonderful job!
Does anyone know what he had to offer or promise them, or was it as Jay said a simple smile and a handshake?
If it was just a smile and a handshake, why can Hills not smile and shake hands, or is there something more?
I Report :-) You Whine :-(
August 5th, 2009
4:54 pm
Oh yeah, so now the Iranian embassy hostages were released as a going away present for Dhimmi Carter.
A new day, some new history from the liberals.
How will they ever twist this-
Seventy-one percent (71%) of U.S. voters say President Obama’s policies have increased the size of the federal deficit, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Why, didn’t the 71% get bookman’s message that it was Bushie’s fault?
TnGelding
August 5th, 2009
4:56 pm
mike
August 5th, 2009
4:30 pm
I guess the $5 trillion in debt he left is no big deal then.
Jay was just surmising from what Bolton said it was good vs. bad and being a bit facetious:
“I wonder why Bolton didn’t mention that? He surely knew about it, since he himself was a part of the Reagan administration and was in fact implicated for withholding documents about the scandal from Congress.
It seems to me the calculus works out something like this:
Ronald Reagan negotiating with terrorists and supplying thousands of missiles to a terrorist regime in exchange for U.S. hostages = good.
Bill Clinton exchanging smiles and a handshake in return for U.S. hostages = bad.”
Jay
August 5th, 2009
4:58 pm
Hey Mike, how would you explain the fact that Oliver North, the guy who carried out that arms-for-hostages deal, became a widely celebrated conservative hero for his role in that fiasco and remains one to this day? Republicans even nominated him to run for Senate from Virginia.
Doesn’t sound to me like conservatives thought he did anything wrong.
How do you account for the fact that Eliott Abrams, another key player, was later pardoned by the first President Bush along with several others convicted in the scandal yet still ended up being a key player in the White House of the latest President Bush?
Doesn’t sound to me like conservatives thought he did anything wrong.
John Poindexter, same story.
And finally, how do you account for the fact that somehow, Bolton and the rest of the conservatives never happened to bring up this very pertinent example? They forgot? Or did they think that because Reagan did it, it was OK?
Who You Gonna Call
August 5th, 2009
4:59 pm
is it Gripper, Gipper, or Dripper?
Could be Trickler. After all, he did so take great pride in his “trickle down on his followers” philosophy. And, his followers just soaked it all up. Still do, as a matter of fact. They never gave a second thought to the issues of “why is it warm or yellow”.
TnGelding
August 5th, 2009
5:02 pm
I Report
You Whine 
August 5th, 2009
4:54 pm
Of course he has added to the deficit. Why isn’t the number 100%? But it was necessary in a lot of economists’ view to try to lessen the impact of the worldwide recession.
DebbieDoRight
August 5th, 2009
5:05 pm
electrician: DebbieDoRight @ 4;23.so you are praising Reagan for the Iran contra affair, for establishing the negotiation precedence that prsident obama is now using..how odd,
Electrician, what I wrote was called “sarcasm”. I thought I did a pretty good job of it; but perhaps I didn’t. Also, sir/madam, I demand that you apologize to me for even IMPLYING that I would forget to “praise Reagan”!!! the man was a saint!! He did no wrong!!! he did NOT have alzheimers during his time in office, no matter WHAT kitty kelly said, AND he really DIDN’t know anything about Iran Contra!! It was just some low level Colonel without the required security clearance nor the authority, who orchestrated that fiasco!! You sir/madam will hear from my lawyer.
TnGelding
August 5th, 2009
5:06 pm
Success breeds contempt.
Success:
1) The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted
Contempt:
1) The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; scorn.
http://www.warriorforum.com/mind-warriors-success-power-self-improvement/98492-warriors-do-you-believe-success-breeds-contempt.html
DebbieDoRight
August 5th, 2009
5:08 pm
Could be Trickler. After all, he did so take great pride in his “trickle down on his followers” philosophy. And, his followers just soaked it all up. Still do, as a matter of fact. They never gave a second thought to the issues of “why is it warm or yellow”.
They thought it was moonshine.
TnGelding
August 5th, 2009
5:09 pm
Jay
August 5th, 2009
4:58 pm
Was my defense that appeared just before yours anywhere in the ballpark?
Kamchak
August 5th, 2009
5:10 pm
Paul
I refer you to the “wilderness” thread:
Page 2 Aug 3rd. @11:59am comment #84627
Page 3 Aug 3rd. @2:42pm comment #84705
I cannot explain it any more clearly than that without being condescending. If you cannot understand it after that, well the word jejune leaps to mind when describing your comprehension.
Bill Clinton Secures Release of Euna Lee & Laura Ling on Pyongyang Trip | CafeSentido.com
August 5th, 2009
5:14 pm
[...] nuclear weapons and not engaging in the provocative behaviour they have been engaging in”. Conservatives have assailed the trip as capitulation to state terror and have said the deal gives too much “ransom” for the release of [...]
TnGelding
August 5th, 2009
5:15 pm
Welcome one and all! Happy Birthday Charlie!
Tavern on The Green – Tuesday August 11th, 6pm
Performances By the Legendary Tony Bennett and Wyclef Jean
Yes! I want to strengthen the Democratic Majority by participating in the Rangel Gala as a:
Sponsor $2,500 Patron $1,000 Chairman’s Circle $500 Special Guest $200
Please make checks payable to The Rangel Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee of Rangel for Congress & the National Leadership PAC. No corporate checks.
TnGelding
August 5th, 2009
5:21 pm
Uh oh!
NEW YORK (AP) – The American Psychological Association declared Wednesday that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients they can become straight through therapy or other treatments. Instead, the APA urged therapists to consider multiple options – that could range from celibacy to switching churches – for helping clients whose sexual orientation and religious faith conflict.
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PSYCHOLOGISTS_GAYS?SITE=GACAT&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2009-08-05-17-13-25
Mr. Snarky
August 5th, 2009
5:24 pm
So, Dusty, Jay’s not allowed to refute Krauthammer’s cockamamie assertions?
I’ve yet to see any material benefit to Kim Jung from Clinton’s visit…just stroked his ego as best I can tell. Seems a small price for two lives.
I Report :-) You Whine :-(
August 5th, 2009
5:25 pm
Hey Mike, how would you explain the fact that Oliver North, the guy who carried out that arms-for-hostages deal, became a widely celebrated conservative hero for his role in that fiasco and remains one to this day?
Check this out-
Michael Ledeen, a consultant of National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, requested assistance from Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres for help in the sale of arms to Iran.[14] At the time, Iran was in the midst of the Iran–Iraq War and could find few Western nations willing to supply it with weapons.[15] The idea behind the plan was for Israel to ship weapons through an intermediary (identified as Manucher Ghorbanifar)[1] to a moderate, ~~~~~~~~~~~~politically influential Iranian group opposed to the Ayatollah Khomeni;~~~~~~~~~~~~[16] after the transaction, the U.S. would reimburse Israel with the same weapons, while receiving monetary benefits. The Israeli government required that the sale of arms meet high level approval from the United States government, and when Robert McFarlane convinced them that the U.S. government approved the sale, Israel obliged by agreeing to sell the arms.[14]
1) They were not negotiating with terrorists.
2) They were supplying weapons to groups allied by cause with the United States.
3) The promise to release the hostages was not implicit, it was for the attempt to persuade the terrorists.
4) The terrorists never received any weapons.
You know, the things Obozo should be attempting to do in Iran this very day, if he were not a fellow Muslim, that is.
Dusty
August 5th, 2009
5:28 pm
Jay Bookman wants to being up Oiver North and President Reagan.
President Reagan FIRED Lt. Col. Oiver North from his position.
The courts dismissed charges against North in 1991. The Supreme Court would not review the case.
Col. North, a graduate of the Naval Academy with twenty years service in the Marine Corp, set up the Freedom Foundation to help wounded military men, help their families, an effort long supported by Republicans. They believe in supporting the military.
As to Jay Bookman, well he seems to have his own justice system. He picks and chooses only incidents that reflect little honor on the military’specially when the Commander-in-chief is a Republican.
George American
August 5th, 2009
5:29 pm
North Korea is a terrorist state and Clinton is negotiating with them.
Did we not learn anything from 9/11?
I think this is just sad. The terrorist have obviously won.
RW-(the original)
August 5th, 2009
5:31 pm
Still the libs can’t get over trying to stop the spread of communism in South America…geez
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bosch,
If you’re going to be referencing full moons and associated parties you need a better calendar. The Full Sturgeon Moon is technically tomorrow at 12:55 AM so it’s kind of tonight.
Midori
August 5th, 2009
5:38 pm
William Jefferson – the LA congressman who had money stashed in his freezer — was just found guilty.
I forgot on how many counts.
Good riddance to bad garbage.
Bosch
August 5th, 2009
5:39 pm
Midori –
Funny Funny!
RW,
Oh sorry. My bad. Have fun tonight! And how do you feel about pickled herring?
Midori
August 5th, 2009
5:39 pm
George,
I’d say one of the things we learned from 9/11 is to NOT bomb and go to war with the wrong country.
@@
August 5th, 2009
5:41 pm
I’ll disagree with Krauthammer on this one. I don’t think they got anything in exchange other than a photo-op with Bill Clinton. ‘Lil Kim is just crazy enough to think that mattered to anyone other than himself.
Bill’s sourpuss next to Kim’s beaming smile was a tell-tell. To me, it was a shame Bill was put in such a shameful position, although he had no qualms about placing himself in a compromising position before.
Having Al Gore standing in the spotlight when the two women made their first in-country appearance was truly nauseating but then he always is to me.
The strangest thing I witnessed was some democrat on Hannity’s “sump’n sump’n” panel say that he didn’t think the shakedown should have occurred at all — even if it meant the women remain in prison. That was a SHOCKER!
TnGelding
August 5th, 2009
5:42 pm
I Report
You Whine 
August 5th, 2009
5:25 pm
Repent you heathen! Islam is the future!
Good grief!
You’d better hope the Kenyan prince doesn’t have you euthanized tonight!
RW-(the original)
August 5th, 2009
5:43 pm
Bosch,
I pretty much stick to pickled pickles.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hey! Why’s Hillary poking around in Kenya today?
George American
August 5th, 2009
5:44 pm
Oilie North and Gordon Liddy are hated by liberals because they are loyal real Americans who followed the orders of their brilliant commander-n-chief Ronold J. Reagan, not the commander-and- thief – Obarma.
TnGelding
August 5th, 2009
5:44 pm
Dusty
August 5th, 2009
5:28 pm
Yeah, the Supremes failed us…..again.
md
August 5th, 2009
5:48 pm
Do I have this right – this article is about justifying negotiating with terrorists by one corrupt party because the other corrupt party did it in the past?
And is there a question as to why this country is losing its way.
TnGelding
August 5th, 2009
5:48 pm
@@
August 5th, 2009
5:41 pm
Tom and Huck reunited! Happy days are truly here again!
Brilliant deduction
August 5th, 2009
5:50 pm
md,
no.
TnGelding
August 5th, 2009
5:50 pm
md
August 5th, 2009
5:48 pm
No, this article was about failing to recognize a successful diplomatic mission by the opposition party.
Brad Steel
August 5th, 2009
5:56 pm
The chubby wingnut pundits are trying to make this story into a massive long-term foreign policy blunder, eh?
I hope Obama’s OKs to stem-cell research don’t deliver a cure for Alzheimers. That would be a real tragedy.
md
August 5th, 2009
5:56 pm
“No, this article was about failing to recognize a successful diplomatic mission by the opposition party.”
If that was the case, there would be no need to bring up the reagan days. Unfortunatley, in todays world it must be tit for tat and the choosing of sides. The high road would have been to disagree with the “conservative” views without bringing up reagan, but instead its gutter politics.
Who You Gonna Call
August 5th, 2009
5:57 pm
Too bad Saddam is dead. These Republican patriots on here probably regret not getting a photo-op and a handshake with another of their comrades. Well, maybe Rumsfeld will give each of them a photographed copy of his handshake as a consolation prize.
DoggoneGA
August 5th, 2009
6:00 pm
“who followed the orders of their brilliant commander-n-chief Ronold J. Reagan”
Yep, good, loyal, true “Americans” – who put loyalty to a person before loyalty to their country. I wonder if they kept their fingers crossed whenever they said the Pledge of Allegiance?
mike
August 5th, 2009
6:07 pm
Jay –
“Hey Mike, how would you explain the fact that Oliver North, the guy who carried out that arms-for-hostages deal, became a widely celebrated conservative hero for his role in that fiasco and remains one to this day? ”
He is considered a hero on the right for his willingness to take a bullet for his superiors, not for the hostage scandal that was the result of a policy that he didn’t create. He was following orders and didn’t throw people under the bus on the way out. The notion that it was the policy that made North a hero is laughable.
“How do you account for the fact that Eliott Abrams, another key player, was later pardoned by the first President Bush along with several others convicted in the scandal yet still ended up being a key player in the White House of the latest President Bush?”
For the same reason that Vivek Kundra was selected as Obama’s Chief Information Officer after being convicted of shoplifting. Are you saying that liberals approve of shoplifitng? Nonsense.
“And finally, how do you account for the fact that somehow, Bolton and the rest of the conservatives never happened to bring up this very pertinent example? They forgot? Or did they think that because Reagan did it, it was OK?”
This is a silly argument. Are you saying that anyone who writes an article about Bush and extraordinary rendition without mentioning Clinton’s similar activities approves of Clinton’s extraordinary rendition? Of course not.
How about providing some links to articles in which conservatives celebrate Reagan’s hostage negotiations. Better yet, admit that it is a silly straw man argument.
I expect that you will just duck the question. Again.
Midori
August 5th, 2009
6:25 pm
one thing I must agree with George about: North is pretty “oilie”
RW-(the original)
August 5th, 2009
6:25 pm
Speaking of Corruptocrats, William Jefferson (D-LA) guilty of accepting bribes.
Chris Salzmann
August 5th, 2009
6:26 pm
George American August 5th, 2009 3:52 pm SAID: Liberals love any chance they get to spit on the Gripper’s grave. Reagan lives on as America’s greatest president!
CHRIS SAYS: The funniest yet!!! LMAO.
Chris Salzmann
August 5th, 2009
6:30 pm
George American August 5th, 2009 4:44 pm SAID: Oilie North and Gordon Liddy are hated by liberals because they are loyal real Americans who followed the orders of their brilliant commander-n-chief Ronold J. Reagan, not the commander-and- thief – Obarma.
CHRIS SAYS: “Just following orders” was an excuse that didn’t work for the Nazis during the Nuerenburg Trials. But hey, if its conservatives in the dock, its a perfectly good excuse, right?
DoggoneGA
August 5th, 2009
6:31 pm
“He is considered a hero on the right for his willingness to take a bullet for his superiors”
Translation: he was willing to violate his oath of loyalty and lie about an illegal act…to protect his superiors. See what I said about loyalty to a person above.
Jay
August 5th, 2009
6:32 pm
A few points, Mike:
First, conservatives certainly didn’t — and still don’t — condemn Reagan for that policy. Shouldn’t any discussion about the dangers of negotiating with terrorists for hostages at least mention what was by far the worst example of that practice in US history? Yet conservatives studiously avoid mentioning Iran Contra. I don’t know, that silence strikes me as — what’s the word I’m looking for here, Mike — hyperpartisan? Since we all know how quick you are to spot such things, I’m simply shocked you can’t see it in this example. (OK, that’s a slight exaggeration for effect).
Point two, you ask for websites documenting my point. Well, as someone here wisely pointed out earlier, “since that happened long before web sites, there are not a lot of internet records of commentary of that time.” Oh wait — that someone was you, right Mike?
Point Three: You nonetheless have made claims such as “I don’t know any conservative who does not hold Reagan’s hostage scandal as the biggest mark against him” and “Actually, plenty of conservatives criticized Reagan for the negotiation.” Really? Because as I remember it, the conservatives did everything they possibly could, include lie for him under oath, to protect Reagan from an investigation into that scandal.
But if you have web citations to prove otherwise, by all means do provide them.
Midori
August 5th, 2009
6:36 pm
Jay – 3
Mike – 0
take a bow, Jay.
@@
August 5th, 2009
6:38 pm
TnG:
Let’s see now, it was Bill’s dad who was the drunk, I’m assuming he’s Huck? It works well that way since it was Tom that took the gold.
I’ll take Bill and you can have the “politically gorged” Al with his cap, tax and get rich scheme. Besides, Al’s dad was a racist bigot. He would’ve never sailed Jim down the river — dems don’t do that!
Like hell they don’t.
Chris Salzmann
August 5th, 2009
6:40 pm
Dusty August 5th, 2009 5:28 pm SAID: President Reagan FIRED Lt. Col. Oiver North from his position.
CHRIS SAYS: North took the fall for Reagan. That’s a well established fact.
Dusty August 5th, 2009 5:28 pm SAID: Col. North, a graduate of the Naval Academy with twenty years service in the Marine Corp, set up the Freedom Foundation to help wounded military men, help their families, an effort long supported by Republicans. They believe in supporting the military.
CHRIS SAYS: And of course, Democrats and Independents don’t support the military and their families, right? Pretty pathetic gibberish coming from an unusually twisted mind set.
AmVet
August 5th, 2009
6:40 pm
Reagan was a dictator coddling yutz.
The convict North evaded prison by lying to Congress.
Both wiped their a__es with the US Constitution.
The jewels of the failed GOP…
electrician
August 5th, 2009
6:41 pm
DebbieDoRight @ 5:05 all that accusatory reaction from a post that implied a question?..you dont get it….and probably never will.
saywhat?
August 5th, 2009
6:46 pm
md, if Obama had traded weapons for release of hostages, that also would have been bad, just like when Reagan did it.It has nothing to do with party. The fact is, Obama didn’t trade arms for hostages.He traded face time with a former president for hostages. Not a bad deal (especially if one is the hostage in question). To criticize Obama for one, but not Reagan for the other, is blatantly hypocritical because of the lopsidedness of the tit-for-tat in these two cases. If Reagan had freed the Iranian hostages by sending Gerald Ford over to Iran, THEN it would be hypocritical to criticize Reagan and praise Obama. Its not about “it being okay to do if the other party did it first”. Obama didn’t do what Reagan and the other party did. He did something far smarter, cost effective, efficient, and oh yeah, legal.
saywhat?
August 5th, 2009
6:48 pm
I forgot to ask. md, are you being intentionally obtuse?
Bosch
August 5th, 2009
6:54 pm
RW,
Well, it’s obvious isn’t it? She’s there to destroy Obama’s birth certificate.
@@
August 5th, 2009
6:55 pm
For those who want to know just how serious this showdown with Iran has become. The Syrian regime has put layers upon layers of security around themselves. It seems threats against them are coming out of Iran.
Any further negotiations for peace will bring the Iranian hammer down on Assad.
thomas
August 5th, 2009
7:08 pm
I still have not read or seen anything that tells why Hilliary cannot smile and give out handshakes.
As we have been told that this is all it took to free the reporters.
If it was about face time, one may wonder why the North Korean’s would rather have face time with a former president than a sitting president.
I am very happy that Pres. Clinton was able to get the 2 ladies home, with just his handshake and cute smile.
However it would seem as if more would have been required. I only hope that more was not needed and we just don’t know about yet.
I Report :-) You Whine :-(
August 5th, 2009
7:17 pm
Funny how when Reagan was president, Iranian groups opposed to the ayatollahs were terrorists but today they are “students” just thoroughly impressed with Obozo’s speeches.
“Hyperpartisanship” indeed.
DoggoneGA
August 5th, 2009
7:20 pm
“However it would seem as if more would have been required. I only hope that more was not needed and we just don’t know about yet”
What are they going to do, come and take them back?
If all it took was a handshake and a smile…why waste Hillary Clinton on that? My understanding, from what I have heard reported was that they requested President Clinton be the envoy to bring them back.
DoggoneGA
August 5th, 2009
7:21 pm
“Funny how when Reagan was president, Iranian groups opposed to the ayatollahs were terrorists but today they are “students” just thoroughly impressed with Obozo’s speeches”
Funny how memory works, isn’t it? MY memory is that they were students opposed to the Shah.
mike
August 5th, 2009
7:21 pm
Jay –
“First, conservatives certainly didn’t — and still don’t — condemn Reagan for that policy.”
Never said that they did. (What is it with you and straw men arguments?) You said that conservatives said that Reagan’s negotiation policy was “good”. I am pointing out that they don’t and that in fact, most view that policy as one of Reagan’s flaws.
Much like the example I cited earlier (and to which you never responded), Liberals don’t “condemn” Clinton for his extraordinary rendition policy, yet I am not so silly as to believe that liberals support Clinton’s policy.
“Point two, you ask for websites documenting my point. Well, as someone here wisely pointed out earlier, “since that happened long before web sites, there are not a lot of internet records of commentary of that time.” Oh wait — that someone was you, right Mike?”
Yes, but I am not the one writing whole articles based on the premise that conservatives supported Reagan’s negotiation policy. Aren’t you supposed to be the professional journalist who researches what he says? Did you not do any research before penning your screed? I based my contention on the conversations that I have had with my conservative friends. You pulled your assertion out of thin air.
“Point Three: You nonetheless have made claims such as “I don’t know any conservative who does not hold Reagan’s hostage scandal as the biggest mark against him” and “Actually, plenty of conservatives criticized Reagan for the negotiation.” Really? Because as I remember it, the conservatives did everything they possibly could, include lie for him under oath, to protect Reagan from an investigation into that scandal.”
LOL. “The conservatives” did that? All tens of millions of them? What a joke. I guess the fact that some of Edwards’s people tried to cover for him means that “the liberals” are all equally responsible. What silliness.
You are making this much too easy.
I Report :-) You Whine :-(
August 5th, 2009
7:22 pm
This week, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood claimed that “cash for clunkers” had benefited domestic car companies, particularly Ford. When The Associated Press requested data to verify this contention, the most transparent administration ever to grace God’s soon-to-be-unblemished Earth refused to release the data.
Maybe Klinton can pull another circus trick and shelve the real news for a few more days, we hope, we hope!
thomas
August 5th, 2009
7:25 pm
Doggone GA,
Is that your understanding or do you have an actual article from anything detailing this?
Not trying to be a smart@ss, but why would they request a former president and not a sitting president.
Didn’t Hilliary already go to N.K. before now? Guess that smile was not great and the handshake limp.
mike
August 5th, 2009
7:25 pm
Jay –
Feel free to explain why Reagan’s negotiations with led to them ” capturing new American hostages to replace the ones they were releasing”, but Obama doing likewise will not have the same result.
You know, explain your own double standard and not spend your time worrying about your hyper-partisan peers on the right.
I Report :-) You Whine :-(
August 5th, 2009
7:25 pm
The “shah” was Dhimmi Carter’s blunder but you keep trying Doggone, someday you to will be relevant!
Or not.
AmVet
August 5th, 2009
7:32 pm
Regarding Ronnie:
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. – John F. Kennedy (1917 – 1963)
DoggoneGA
August 5th, 2009
7:33 pm
“Is that your understanding or do you have an actual article from anything detailing this?”
I heard it on NPR, but I also found this: “the Obama Administration had approved the trip after North Korean officials were said to have told the journalists’ families that they were prepared to release them to Mr Clinton. The families then approached the former President”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6738756.ece
md
August 5th, 2009
7:34 pm
Saywhat,
The US has (and still does to my knowledge) a policy in place to NOT negotiate with terrorists. Reagan violated that policy and was vilified for it. Now the Obama admin has also violated that policy. If it is no longer a policy, then say so, but don’t do one thing and say another.
And negotiating with terrorists compounds the problem, it is not a solution.
Jay
August 5th, 2009
7:37 pm
Mike, if that’s your response, well … I’m going to sit back and watch a ballgame and let one Stanley Burrell do my talking for me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ2ZFVx6A4Q
DoggoneGA
August 5th, 2009
7:38 pm
“Feel free to explain why Reagan’s negotiations with led to them ” capturing new American hostages to replace the ones they were releasing”, but Obama doing likewise will not have the same result.”
Do you really need it explained? The North Koreans just might do the same…if someone is stupid enough to get close enough to give them the opportunity. It’s not the same as Iran, though…where Americans were IN the country and easily available. Or have you forgotten that the Iran hostage crises was precipitated by the students taking over the American Embassy.
You do know what “sitting ducks” means, don’t you?