Cruz’s mixed-up history of Clinton’s deal with North KoreaBreaking News
tags: election 2016, Ted Cruz
“The Clinton administration led the world in relaxing sanctions against North Korea. They used the billions of dollars that flowed into North Korea to develop nuclear weapons. Now we’re facing a megalomanical manic who may potentially have a hydrogen bomb.”
— Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), remarks to reporters in Rock Rapids, Iowa, Jan. 6, 2016North Korea’s fourth test of nuclear device has yet again led to finger-pointing over who failed to restrain the Stalinist state in its quest for nuclear mastery.
Was it the Clinton administration, which critics say negotiated a bad deal that failed to halt North Korea’s push? Was it the George W. Bush administration, which other critics say let the Clinton deal collapse and thus let Pyongyang retrieve the plutonium used in its nuclear tests?
The answer to those questions generally lies with the political leanings of the speaker. Republicans tend to focus on the Clinton years, conveniently skipping the Bush years; Democrats only focus on Bush. Both presidents ended up doing deals with the North Korean government — Bush even removed North Korea from the State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism — only to see their hard work turn to dust. Small wonder Obama has barely bothered to touch the issue.
comments powered by Disqus
- At Summit Meetings, Kremlin Often Tried to Steamroller U.S. Presidents
- How A Tariff Loving Utah Senator Became A Cautionary Tale About Protectionism
- Pompeii excavation project reveals secrets
- In Ireland, Drought and a Drone Revealed the Outline of an Ancient Henge
- Sarcophagus Found. Contents Unknown. (‘No Guessing, Please.’)
- Oxford professor counts 93 penises in Bayeux Tapestry
- Medieval Scholars Call for Transparency and Anti-Racism at Conference
- Robert Dallek's FDR Book Invites Comparisons To Trump's Presidency
- Ridley Scott to Adapt Israeli Author's "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind" Into a Movie
- Partisans assail historians for judging the past by today’s standards. Here’s why they’re wrong, says classicist