The Heartless and Wrong Critics of Bill Clinton’s Trip to North Korea
Aug 6th, 2009 | 51 responses
I tweeted a bit on this last night, but I must stress again: The response from certain right-wingers to Bill Clinton’s trip to North Korea to free the two American prisoners is simply appalling. Apparently, Krauthammer, Bolton, Morris, and their cruel and wrong ilk would rather Laura Ling and Euna Lee have rotted away in a totalitarian labour camp.
They claim, without actually knowing any of the specifics (they’re full of idle, partisan speculation, as usual), that the U.S. must have given up too much to secure the prisoners’ release (more on this below), but what they can’t abide, and will not acknowledge, is that Clinton, Gore, and Obama actually succeeded. Had Bush done something like this, they would have kowtowed before his diplomatic ingenuity with genuflective obeisance. Forget, as Jon Stewart rightly noted last night (hilariously, and with indignation), that Iran-Contra was an egregious and illegal diplomatic quid pro quo. Forget that famous shot of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam, or Reagan’s support for any number of tyrannical regimes around the world. What these conservatives want us to believe is that Clinton’s trip, along with whatever concessions were required to secure the release, was an expression of American weakness, and that, basically, the U.S. should have sacrificed the two women for the sake of its own image (and for the neocon agenda).
This is silly. First, what exactly do they think the U.S. gave up? A lot, according to Krauthammer, who doesn’t have a clue (again, speculation). (What, did Clinton give them Mississippi or something? Did he promise them some of the Wall Street bailout money?) But is the U.S. really so incredibly weak that it can afford to give up nothing? Hardly. It is possible to negotiate from a position of strength, which is precisely how the U.S. ought to approach North Korea. (Indeed, diplomacy now would allow the U.S. to take a harder line, if necessary, down the road, especially if/when international support is required for sanctions.)
Second, did the trip grant North Korea any of the legitimacy in the international community it so desires? Look, whether we like it or not, North Korea is a sovereign state. Either you deal with that fact, or you don’t. If you don’t, all you have is your bullying righteous rhetoric, which won’t do anything to help solve the problem, which is not just that North Korea is a totalitarian regime that brutalizes its own people but that it is a relatively powerful nuclear state with the capacity both to disseminate its technology to more formidable foes and to destabilize the region (not to mention to retaliate against South Korea and possibly Japan in the event of an American attack).
The only viable solution rests with serious diplomacy, and what is important here is not what Clinton may or many not have been authorized to give up (such as an apology) for the sake of the release but what a gesture of good will his trip may have signalled. Fred Kaplan has more on this at Slate. Just as Jimmy Carter’s trip to Pyongyang in 1994 paved the way for the Agreed Framework, which could have been effective had Bush not dismantled it, Clinton’s trip may pave the way for serious diplomacy between the U.S. and North Korea down the road. In that sense, the trip may have been not just about the release of the two journalists but about the bigger picture of relations with North Korea, specifically focused on its nuclear program. The release was obviously a good in and of itself, but there is now the possibility that the whole incident could have provided the opportunity for progress with respect to one of the world’s most pressing crises.
No wonder the above-named conservatives are aghast. They want nothing to do with such diplomacy or any sort of negotiation, let alone a one-on-one deal between Washington and Pyongyang. But what other options are there? It will be diplomacy, and a deal, or it will be nothing — and, if it’s nothing, the problem only gets worse.
(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)
51 Responses to “The Heartless and Wrong Critics of Bill Clinton’s Trip to North Korea”
Great points, Michael, and I agree 100%! After the all of unmitigated foreign policy disasters of the Bush years, why is anyone even listening to Bolton??? And I didn't even think about Iran-Contra- the ultimate quid pro quo that damaged American interests! Where are the Reaganites to defend their party's standard-bearer?
Would anyone have even dreamed of sending George W. Bush or Dick Cheney on a humanitarian rescue mission?? Who has more clout overseas– Bill Clinton or George W? Clinton has clout that the far right can only dream about, but will never possess because for 8 years Cowboy diplomacy alienated half the planet!
Looks to me like another case in which the democrats somehow MUST be portrayed as villians, afterall, the idea of conservatives giving kudos to WJC for a rescue operation is simply beyond the pale!!! (to heck with those young women, maybe they would have learned something useful in those labor camps) Btw, I saw the news segment of them getting off the jet and was very moved. I suppose that makes me a bleeding heart liberal or some such thing.
Next time North Korea or Iran have hostages, perhaps they will have Clinton stand on one leg and bark like a dog.
Naturally liberals don’t see anything wrong with this. That is the way their minds work.
jwest-
Yes, we actually care about human life and the plight of the ordinary American- instead of just postulating about it! Unbelievable that some on the right would have let those two young women rot over there just so US policy — which has been ineffective towards NK for the last 20 years– could remain intact.:-(
Micheal – I have stated a number of times already, this is a good thing, and any criticism from the Right this time is simply knee-jerk attacks. Sometimes, we need to just accept things as a good result, and stop caring about partisan politics.
Kritt,
That’s the difference between left and right.
The left thinks about their actions, the right thinks about the consequences of their actions.
It’s a pretty simple world if you don’t need to consider what your feel-good answers to hard situations will mean to situations that arise tomorrow.
Kritt, there really isn't much point in responding to jwest…just read, understand where it is coming from, and move on. Treat jwest as a base line for far right thinking. It is good to have a nice base line.
That’s right Shannon, it’s easier if you never consider the other side.
Makes your head hurt less from all that thinking……doesn’t it?
“Treat jwest as a base line for far right thinking. It is good to have a nice base line.” ~ shannonlee
A kind and generous assessment to be sure.
Jwest- I know that I should resist – but I can't help myself.
So- did Dick Cheney think about the consequences when he and his minions outed Valerie Plame?
Did Cheney and Bush think about the consequences when they decided to invade Iraq (with no plan for the post-invasion occupation)??
Did the right consider the consequences when they flew back to Washington to have an emergency session for Terry Schiavo ??
Did Reagan consider the consequences of arming the Iranians?
Sorry- I could come up with a much longer list — but these are just a few off the top of my head.
Good point kritt11, here's another: “Did Bush, Cheney think about the consequences when they unilaterally invaded Iraq under false pretenses.”
Oh J…what is the point of having a base line if you don't understand it? You should be proud of yourself. You're the end of the spectrum…like a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow…or maybe a crazy leprechaun.
“The left thinks about their actions, the right thinks about the consequences of their actions.”
I swear, this is a kind of stupid that defies classification . The lack of reflection it reveals bordering the insane. But maybe I'm wrong, maybe the right did think about the consequences of invading Iraq with too few troops and thought, what the hell, lets do it anyway.
shannonlee, JSpencer was agreeing with you!
Well the Left likes to um, Leftisize, while the Right is always Right! Yeah! That'll show you. /jwest
I meant Jwest
Anyone else care to pile on?
Well, let’s take those first in line. Kritt shows the depth of misunderstanding evident on the left, so we’ll start there.
Dick Cheney and (I’m assuming you’re thinking of Scooter Libby) outed Plame? It’s pretty obvious you never got farther than a Keith Olbermann screed concerning the facts of this incident. Research, think, come back and we’ll talk.
You’ve got me on invading Iraq without knowing exactly how every faction was going to react and having a plan that made everyone in the country happy and content on day one. How they could have proceeded without this plan is unforgivable.
Liberals have adopted a universal view that the opposition to killing Terry Shiavo was due to some religious fervor that makes people want to keep vegetables alive. As one of the atheists who wanted Shiavo to have a court review her medical condition and hear testimony from her parents prior to starving her to death, I thought it would be nice if people had the right to a second look before being killed. You, apparently, think otherwise.
Did Reagan consider the consequences of arming Iranians against Iraq? I would assume so. Since at the time the Soviets were arming the other side, what would you have done? Perhaps a socially conscious interpretive dance that would have brought peace to the region?
How do you and other liberals make it from day to day being so naïve?
I agree with AR that too often there are people on the right who have kneejerk responses, and to an extent I think the couple of responses that Stickings focuses on were of that nature.
However, seeing this thread dissolve into a partisan slugfest is pretty disheartening too, and gives plenty of other examples of kneejerk responses from both sides. Disheartening, but not surprising, given the tone of the post itself and particularly the title.
Perhaps if we honestly want to encourage people to not have kneejerk partisan reactions we ought not to call our opponents “stupid” and “heartless”, and should especially refrain from doing so based on a small sampling of people from the other side of the aisle while ignoring the sizable number of conservatives who didn't react that way.
Anyway, although I'm certiainly not a Bill Clinton fan, he did a good thing here. Hostage situations are sticky and considering the consequences of negotiations is wise, but at least from what we know it doesn't look like we compromised anything here, and I'm glad the two women are home.
<blockquoteou’ve got me on invading Iraq without knowing exactly how every faction was going to react and having a plan that made everyone in the country happy and content on day one.
How about on year six?
Err.. dude, a court did review and rule on it. Short memories make for happy hypocrites.
And then diverting the proceeds again, in violation of US law?
How do you and other teabaggers make it through the day being so ill informed? Or is this really a case of willful ignorance?
It is really unfortunate that some people cannot express even well-justified disagreement without degenerating into attacks like “heartless and stupid”.
Er, dude…..
Shaivo’s husband convinced one judge that she should die. All subsequent reviews were of the law allowing the judge to make that decision – not of the facts of the medical case or the assertion that it was her wish to die.
These are the type of facts that liberals seem to ignore when riding their high horse. You seem to believe that if Iraq had not been invaded, the country would be a benign, kite flying land of happy, non-nuclear Arabs. It’s all so clear and easy, isn’t it?
The tragedy here is that liberals think they are smart and informed.
(sigh)
jwest-
Even Cheney finally admitted that he outed Valerie Plame. The right insisted for years that she wasn't covert, that she sent her husband to Niger because of nepotism,that she lied to Congress, blah blah blah blah, ad nauseum.
Jwest- I know that I should resist – but I can't help myself.
Yes, you were right, Kim, you should have resisted- just like you used to admonish people who kept bringing up their grievances with Bill Clinton during the Bush administration.
Mostly I just like to see John Bolton's red face.
I think that the Clintons exploited the situation with great finesse, figuring out what would work best and bringing to bear the collaboration of past leaders with current diplomatic efforts and essentially giving up very little to get a significant, and MIA for 8 years, toe-hold in dealign with N. Korea.
Kritt,
From all of your comments over the years I can tell you’re an intelligent and caring person. Because of this, I can’t argue Plame with you.
It would be like clubbing a baby seal (out of season) – it’s just too easy.
Maybe it would be a good idea to remind the late comers why everyone is shaking their heads here. JWest seems to think the right considers the consequences of their actions before they act.
Sometimes stupid gets so stupid it needs to be put to bed, thats all.
You got that right Jason they ought to just ban them and have it over with, eh?
CStanley, just let me make one quick point. There is no such thing as an absence of attitude. Pretending to be the sorrowful moderate adult who's dismayed everyone can't get along and sing kum-ba-ya together and lumping everyone except yourself as a partisan is an extremely irritating attitude here at The Moderate Voice (Joe does it too, a lot). Just because you start admonishing both sides doesn't make you all knowing and wise or make your own biases magically disappear.
God knows I've done it myself too (and I'm doing it now), but I've been reflecting more and more about the issue of partisanship and how it's actually GOOD for speech. This is how you get the “let's just address both sides of the issue and call it a day” mindset in modern journalism. Suddenly, nobody's allowed to have an opinion or to agree or disagree on an issue, that's just too “partisan.” Then this attitude is carefully cultivated into a culture of transcribing and “moderation” becomes a new golden idol everyone worships. That in itself becomes a whole new partisan attitude.
This is how you get JasonArvak decrying Michael Stickings for calling conservatives stupid and heartless saying it's “not constructive” and “denigrates everyone.” Michael, because he wants to be seen as a moderate, thus changes the title of his post to whitewash that forbidden word, “stupid.” It's the moderate argument from authority, as if moderates actually hold any authority (or more than anyone else) and it's starting to irritate the hell out of me. Does it irritate anyone else here?
Clinton succeeded. Obama had nothing to do with this, and is simply trying to jump on the bandwagon after it was over.
Clinton has always been a superlative statesman. He was one of the best presidents we've had over the past 20 years, and was 100% more capable than Obama.
Does it irritate anyone else here?
It irritates the hell out of me, lit3bolt. And I don't disagree with your general premise that people ought to be able to express strong beliefs and disagreements, even ones that are ideological or tend to break along party lines. But I see that as a different thing altogether from what was happening on this thread. I noticed the rabbit hole disappearance of the word 'stupid' as well, which coincidentally helped one commenter chime in about how we needed to be reminded that 'jwest started it!'
I mean seriously though- rehashing Bush/Cheney/Plame, etc, helps us discuss current issues, how, exactly? I'm not getting into who threw the first rock, but can't we put the stones down and talk about issues?
I guess generally, aside from the use of inflammatory words/tone and the overgeneralization that Stickings used in this post, even the premise of it annoys the crap out of me. It's the same stuff that keeps me from reading Michelle Malkin on any regular basis because the whole point seems to be to get everyone riled up about the faults of our ideological opponents, instead of focusing on debating what we believe vs. what they believe and having to construct an actual argument to support our ideas or to allow others to challenge our beliefs.
Yes.
If you would all just concede that I am right on all matters, we could end this unproductive partisan bickering.
SteveK,
I have already apologized to you for the offenses I've given you. I would really appreciate it if you would not keep finding reasons to harass me whenever I comment.
Jason, Get over it!.. I am not harassing you, I am merely pointing out what I see as a gross inconsistency between what you say and how you are known to act.
The point I was trying to make is that YOU are not in any position to come down on anyone about their “degenerating into personal attacks like “heartless and stupid”.”
Words and actions… cause and effect.
SteveK, your personal vendetta against me (which clearly continues forever regardless of how much I try to apologize to you) is not relevant to the issue on this thread. My bad acts, whatever they may be, do not justify others'.
Do you intend to inject your personal objections to my prior actions whenever I comment on any issue in a way you disagree with?
CS-
Come on, You know he had it coming when he made that ridiculous blanket statement differentiating the right and the left!
Unlike Stickings' blanket assertion about how appalling the reaction from the right was, huh, Kim?
Personal vendetta Jason? You posted a comment saying
I replied:
you reply with accusations that I was “harassing” you to which I replied:
Now you go completely over the edge with “personal vendetta” BS.
How about just replying to my point and not denigrate further “into personal attacks like “harassment and vendetta”.
I think what we need is thread moderators.
Mod: Stay on topic!
Biggs: I can't shake him!
Mod: Stay on topic!
Biggs: He's coming in too fast!
Vader: I have you now! *pew pew*
Biggs: Nyarrrrrrrggggg!!!
CS-
To be fair, Stickings assertion was not quite as all-encompassing as Jwest's, LOL. And I don't see where he blamed EVERY conservative for the reaction of a few wingnuts. You will recall that he used the terminology– “certain right-wingers”. Which, I happen to agree with.
You are obviously free and, from my side, welcome to disagree with me about whatever the current issue is.
I don't think you should be able to constantly keep hijacking threads to dredge up your complaints about you being banned from a blog two years ago. I think you should get over that and stick to the present.
LOL, well, I see that that's how his statement is NOW worded, Kim. More of the post apparently has disappeared down the rabbit hole. Oh well, at least I know my criticism must have hit a nerve.
It looks like the version cross posted at The Reaction is the original unscrubbed version, which has the wording I was referring to.
A few thoughts, in no particular order:
1. Michael Stickings did not make blanket assertions about the right. He made specific assertions about specific people on the right (mostly very famous pundits as opposed to generic individuals) who have been criticizing, and in some cases, harshly condemning, Bill Clinton's trip to North Korea and his rescue of two American journalists.
2. The criticism of the rescue described above IS heartless. It is heartless, it is churlish, it is almost certainly motivated by base partisan motives, and it is in any case unseemly in the extreme. To point this out does not constitute “overgeneralization,” or “inflammatory” rhetoric, or a “kneejerk partisan reaction,” and it's not at all comparable to people who kept bringing up their grievances with Bill Clinton when Bush was president. We are talking about a highly particular circumstance here.
3. Related to no. 2: I don't like the term “moral equivalence,” because it's usually used by the right as a shorthand way of exonerating the U.S. from taking responsibility for bad behavior or policy decisions. Having said that, there are times — and this is one of them — when it's accurate and appropriate to say that a false moral equivalence is being drawn between someone like Charles Krauthammer or John Bolton, and someone like Michael Stickings, takes them to task for it, using strong but not abusive language. Just because certain figures on the right are being so unbelievably mean-spirited and petty to criticize such a heroic rescue and joyous reunion, does not mean that those, like Stickings, who point out and criticize that mean-spiritedness are being mean-spirited themselves. Sometimes there aren't two hands. Sometimes there is only one hand, and there is no other hand. Every situation is not a set of scales that must be equally and exactly balanced with each other.
4. Those who write and say that it was political weakness and “negotiating with terrorists” to save the lives of two journalists and reunite them with their families, implying that we should have left them there to rot and die rather than (horrors!) use the word “apologize” when it's not clear Ling and Lee did anything wrong or give Kim Jung Il the psychic and emotional thrill of making former Pres. Clinton come to North Korea to pick up the ladies, are wrong. It's not wrong to say they are wrong. There is no reason to believe *anything* was given away except a bit of face, and I'm sorry (not!), but having seen Ling and Lee run down those airplane steps, faces convulsed with sobs and arms outstretched toward beloved husbands, child, sister, parents, a bit of face is an exceedingly small price to pay.And to criticize that outcome, at that price, is… wait for it… disgusting and repulsive.
5. It's not usually a good or wise idea to call someone stupid. There are exceptions to every rule, though. Jwest is one of those exceptions. Jwest IS stupid.
And the current issue here is the question of whether calling conservatives “heartless” and other nasty things is really the best way to express disagreement with them.
In this particular case, it is. Certain words, like “heartless,” are admittedly overused in political debate, but John Bolton and Charles Krauthammer and a few others on the right, have written things about this subject that are heartless.
Kathy, on number one- click on the link to the cross-posted article at the Reaction. If he hasn't now scrubbed that one, it contains the original wording which I was responding to.
On number 5, way to keep it classy.
Kathy— You certainly made my points better than I did or ever could have! Great comment!
Except—- #5– Jwest can't be that stupid because he said that he has gleaned from my comments over the years that I am intelligent and caring.:-)
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Ah, you're still trying to play the sage… what a jerk.
I wasn't the least bit devastated though I've just always thought that your thuggish methods of dealing with opposing views killed any chance of open and honest discussion / debate while making you appear to be an ass that couldn't handle any questioning of your positions. But… since we've wasted far to much of Joe's excellent blog on this and you've finally acknowledged the fact that you ARE “a horribly censorial blogger or site admin”, let's let bygones be bygones. You seem to be on the road to recovery so I'll leave it at that.
…disgusting and repulsive. Heartless, too. Cold. Reptilian ~ kk
Why are innocent ectotherms being dragged into this thread. Are there no limits?
These conservatives aren't just heartless, they're stupid.
Is this the line you're talking about, CStanley?
If so, I have absolutely no problem with it, in the context of right-wing critics of former Pres. Clinton's successful rescue of Laura Ling and Euna Lee from 12 years in a North Korean labor camp. Even if you do object to the word “stupid” (there's no reason at all to object to “heartless” — that's what Bolton's and Krauthammer's and Podhoretz's commentaries were), I find it beyond my ability to understand how you could put so much emphasis on what you consider the “inappropriateness” of using that word, when weighed against the churlishness and total lack of even a drop of human compassion or concern for the lives of those women. Did you read Bolton's op-ed, Christine? He did not waste even one word on any expression of happiness or relief that Ling and Lee were home safe. The word “heartless” has a meaning, Christine, and it's a word in our language for a reason, namely, that sometimes it's the correct word to describe what you're talking about. And this case is one of those instances. If Bolton deploring the actions taken to rescue Ling and Lee because it doesn't fit his militaristic, warmongering mentality w/o even taking one moment to be grateful that Ling and Lee are home safe is not heartless, then nothing is heartless.
Oh dear, jspencer, are reptiles ectotherms? I guess I don't like ectotherms then.
LOL, Kritt, and thank you for the compliment.