FOOLS GOLD: THE FOREIGN-POLICY
'LEGACY' OF AMERICA'S PRESIDENTIAL ICONS OF APPEASEMENT & "LOOKING THE OTHER
WAY"
by Murray Soupcoff,
The
Iconoclast
October 21, 2002
Will the depressing news about the ever-eroding "legacy" of William Jefferson
Clinton, not to mention the never-ending gullibility and stupidity of Nobel
Prize winner Jimmy Carter, never stop? Since 9/11, we've had countless reports
of the missed opportunities of the Clinton administration to put Osama Bin Laden
and al-Qaeda out of commission. And now comes the recent headline news that
North Korea reneged on the Carter-brokered 1994 peaceful "accomodation" between
the Clinton administration and the tyrannical North Korean dictatorial regime
-- the "Agreed Framework" between the two nations in which North Korea agreed
to freeze its nuclear weapons program and the United States agreed to send billions
of dollars in aid to assist Kim Jong Il in rescuing his starving people from
state-created famine and the grinding poverty generated by the Communist nation's
rigid collectivist economy.
Of course, it's very old news about Jimmy Carter's futile attempts as president
to free American hostages in Iran by appeasing the extremist mullahs in Iran.
And most of us still remember at least a few of his many accomodating efforts
to diplomatically reach "an understanding" with leftist political tyrants of
all religious persuasions by ceding them everything they wanted -- in the interests
of "international peace."
Unfortunately, yesterday's news also includes Bill Clinton's refusal to heed
advice from the FBI in 1996 to "prohibit fund-raising by Islamic terrorists
and identify terrorist organizations," as described by Dick Morris in his New
York Post column of January 2, 2002. According to Morris, who was there
as a close political adviser to Bill Clinton, Clinton ignored those recommendations
for fear that such actions would be viewed as politically incorrect -- racial
profiling of Islamic charities. Better to "look the other way" and appease such
anti-American constitutencies, especially if some future votes might be bought.
In fact, according to Morris, similar 'civil liberty' and 'profiling' arguments
were made against a separate recommendation to require that drivers' licenses
and visas for non-citizens expire simultaneously, so that illegal aliens pulled
over in traffic stops could be identified and (if appropriate) deported. In
particular, little Georgie Stephanopoulos (Mr. Clinton's most oily adviser)
stressed the "potential abuse" of such profiling and the political harm to the
president's Hispanic base if such measures were implemented.
Of course, as noted by Morris in his Post column, had the FBI recommendation
being adopted by Bill Clinton, Mohammed Atta might have been deported after
he was stopped for driving without a license three months before be piloted
an American Airlines jet into the World Trade Center.
And then there was that little matter of the refusal of Bill Clinton to accept
Sudan's offer in the 1990's to deport Osam Bin Laden from Sudan to American
soil. Too messy and risky a proposition (as opposed to oral sex in the oval
office with Monica Lewinsky), opined the former First Felon who turned down
the offer and looked the other way. As Paul Harvey might put it, we certainly
know the rest of the Bin Laden story.
Fast forward to the present and we have shocked headlines in the mainstream
press revealing that North Korea has admitted that after the 1994 Carter-brokered
agreement between the Clinton administraton and North Korea, North Korea broke
its word to to the dual masters of appeasement and secretly developed nuclear
weapons right under the noses (and averted eyes) of the Clinton foreign-policy
team. And yes, folks, that means that today North Korea probably has the capacity
to launch at least a few nuclear-tipped missiles at Alaska or Hawaii (as first
evidenced by the multistage North Korean rocket that flew over Japan and landed
in the Pacific ocean in August 1998, evincing only a few token peeps of protest
from Bill Clinton, Madelaine Albright and company).
Gosh, that sure was some tough Agreed Framework with North Korea that Nobel
Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter worked out in 1994 -- with its lofty language,
deliberately vague provisos, and noticeable omission of any serious sanctions
should North Korea abrogate the agreement. However, as Martin Sheen or Barbra
Streisand might point out, It's just an another sterling example of how much
can be accomplished internationally when military action is avoided and the
conflicting parties turn instead to peaceful negotiations. Certainly, as members
of this year's selection committee for the Nobel Peace Prize pointed out, President
George W. Bush could learn a thing or two from Saint Jimmy's obsequious and
empathetic negotiating strategy -- pretending that even the most loathsome tyrants
are "just like us," misunderstood, well-intentioned good souls desperately searching
for new ways to live in peace and benefit all humankind.
Of course, there is something Mr. Bush can learn from all this (not that
he appears to need to). And that's just how bankrupt was the Neville Chamberlain
style of international diplomacy favored by Jimmy Carter and the Clinton administration
in dealing with the 1994 Korean nuclear crisis. The message that the Carter/Clinton
team quickly telegraphed to their tyrannical adversary was not one of good will
and peaceful intentions, but rather WEAKNESS -- a lack of resolve to end the
North Korean nuclear-weapons program for good (or else!). And of course, as
Adolph Hitler demonstrated in the 1930's, what the forces of evil inevitably
do in the face of such "good will" and "peaceful intentions" is walk all over
it; trample it; spit in its face -- all the while daring the totally flummoxed
forces of appeasement to do something about the ever-more outrageous misdeeds
of their mischievous adversaries (who well know that the well-intentioned "peace-at-any-price"
crowd simply don't have the wisdom or the will to do a thing about any of it).
Sadly, that's the stuff today's Nobel Peace Prizes are all about -- lots of
talk, diplomatic bafflegab and covert appeasement. The perfect international
award for Jimmy Carter.
And of course, as events unwind in the twenty-first century, we increasingly
learn that's what the foreign policy of Bill Clinton was all about, whether
in dealing with international terrorism, North Korea, Iraq, Communist China
and other rogue tyrannies -- lots of talk, diplomatic bafflegab and covert appeasement.
And as we are learning today, lots of dire consequences.
Some legacy. Some president.
And to think that such sorry excuses for political leaders as Bill Clinton and
Jimmy Carter are revered by so many these days. What a corrupt and morally-compromised
age we live in! ***
© 2002 The
Iconoclast
Murray Soupcoff is the author of 'Canada 1984' and a former radio and television producer with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. He also was Executive Editor of We Compute Magazine for several years, and is now the Managing Editor of the popular Canadian conservative Web site, Iconoclast.ca
COPYRIGHT © 2002 BY THE AMERICAN PARTISAN. All writers retain rights to their work.
Home | About Us | Archives | Forums | Links | Resources | Submissions | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer