Euna Lee and Laura Ling
Let me say at the outset that I am very happy that the two American journalists held for 5 months in North Korea are being released. Whatever they did in entering the country illegally, it certainly did not merit 12 years of hard labor. My only reservation is that the circumstances of their release may never be known and that, in my view, Bill Clinton is stealing the credit for their release.
It was last night that I heard a news blurb (on Fox, I believe) that the basics of a deal had been made to secure the release and that Bill Clinton was flying to Pyongyang to "finalize the details".
Now today comes the news that Clinton is in North Korea, has met with Kim Jong-Il and the pardon has been issued. That is great news, but there are two questions in my mind:
1 What is North Korea receiving in return?
2 Who really brokered the deal?
3 Since the ladies worked for Al Gore's TV enterprise, what was his role in sending them to North Korea?
As to question number one, we may never know. As to number 3, Gore will never tell. As to question number 2, I feel quite comfortable in stating that:
Unnamed State Department officials and/or White House national security officials, working behind the scenes, brokered this deal. They may never be given due credit because, for some reason, Bill Clinton was chosen to go to Pyongyang and put the final touch on the deal-probably assuring Kim in Obama's name that the US Government would abide by any concessions agreed to.
What this does is, as the photos show, gives North Korea recognition and legitimacy as a nation. It also allows Bill Clinton an opportunity to repair his empty and tarnished legacy as a public figure. Hillary, the Secretary of State, couldn't go herself since the North Koreans had already called her "a schoolgirl". So the next best thing was to send Bill to steal credit from the diplomats who did the actual work.
How Clintonesque!
Of course, that didn't stop CNN's afternoon anchor, Rick Sanchez, from breathlessly asking the question:
Did Bill act unilaterally or was he sent by the administration?
What a dumb question!
So for the benefit of Rick Sanchez and CNN, I will summarize.
Unknown State Department diplomats and/or White House officials worked behind the scenes to negotiate the terms of the release.
Hillary and Bill orchestrated a trip to Pyongyang by Bill to give the final (high-level) assurances that the terms would be followed by the US, so that Bill (and Hillary) could steal the limelight and bask in the glow of a diplomatic "triumph".
How Clintonesque!
5 comments:
You say all of this as if Bill Clinton wasn't CHOSEN to go. As if he could just swoop in without permission and steal the spotlight. I'm sorry but that just defies any and all logic about how these things work.
You're also criticizing all of this without knowing all of the behind-the-scenes facts of the situation. Try telling all of this to the families of those two journalists. You really think they give a damn about Clinton supposedly "stealing the glory" from some bureaucrats? Who cares? You're just nitpicking and grasping for something to criticize because it's Clinton.
Anyways, I can already predict the jokes that will be made about this by the late night comedians. Should be funny.
Also, as far as Bill Clinton's legacy goes, you are completely wrong. I was not a fan of the guy, but he left office with incredibly high approval ratings. If he were to have run for a third term, he probably would have won. We all love to joke about his fooling around with the ladies (and rightly so), but in the end he was a wildly popular President and remains so today. So I'm not exactly sure what you think he was supposedly salvaging his legacy from. You and your ilk are never going to like him, so is it even worth discussing?
Bryan,
First of all, as I said, I am very happy the two journalists are being freed.
In my opinion, yes, Obama had the final say, but I still think Hillary and the Clinton crowd pushed for this. As for swooping in and stealing the spotlight-ever heard of Jimmy Carter-or Jesse Jacksosn? They would have gone on their own.
As for Clinton's legacy, he went out with high appovals because the economy was good. History will regard him as a shallow president with few accomplishments but a legacy of corruption. He was a corrupt president who ran a corrupt administration.
As for Clinton's legacy, he went out with high appovals because the economy was good.
Isn't that a good thing? Isn't that what America longs for? I don't see your picking on Clinton as positive either. Can any democrat ever do right by you?
Truman was pretty good.
Post a Comment