Former President Bill Clinton successfully brought home two captured US journalists from North Korea – but at what cost?
Alec Jacobs, Guest Columnist
Ideology: Conservative Republican | Writing From: New Jersey
For what may be the first time ever, “Bill Clinton” and the words “brought two women home” have appeared in the same sentence without any sexual connotation whatsoever.
Conservatives should give credit where some credit is due. Clinton did a good job (finally) in bringing home two U.S. journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, who were sentenced to 12 years in a North Korean labor camp several months ago. To Obama’s credit, he made a rare good decision in sending Clinton rather than the other living former Democrat president, the wildly popular Jimmy Carter, who did such a bang-up job in dealing with the Iran hostage crisis. Carter would have ensured that the release of the two women would have come only when Mitt Romney was inaugurated on January 20, 2013.
There are a few things that seem a bit off about the whole situation, though. Arianna Huffington and Meghan McCain (D-AZ) would have us assume the conversation went a little something like:
CLINTON: Hey, can we have them back?
KIM JONG IL: Of course! We were just fooling around anyway. Twelve years, schmelve years! Anything else we can do for you?
CLINTON: There was something I wanted to say about nuclear weapons…oh, screw it! Thanks for the journalists though!
Surely it was much different. North Korea isn’t exactly the friendliest of countries, and especially not toward the United States. The North Koreans have threatened to wipe us off the face of the planet and have shown that they are capable of using nuclear weapons. It is silly to imagine that no concessions were offered and, knowing the Obama administration, an abundance of apologies were certainly offered for no reason, despite what that fat idiot Robert Gibbs may say (and before liberals start their shouting, Al Franken calls Rush Limbaugh a fat idiot regularly). In fact, the Korean Central News Agency reported that Clinton “expressed words of sincere apology to Kim Jong Il for the hostile acts committed by the two American journalists.” Huh?
Only time will tell what the release of the two journalists will mean for nuclear talks (or any talks) between the United States and North Korea. I shudder to think of what this situation may mean for our national security down the line. But I will say that I’m happy the two women have arrived home safely and no longer have to fear serving in a North Korean labor camp.
However, did President Obama and Robert Gibbs really expect us for one second to believe that Clinton went on a “solely private mission?” Especially considering that he had to report on his trip to the State Department upon his return? Hillary never returns my calls about my vacations abroad…maybe she just felt the need to keep tabs on Bill.
And of course, considering Kim Jong Il has been dead for five years, the whole thing still seems to be, in the words of the White House blog, a little “fishy.”
First off you took a quote from Korean Central News Agency which is NK state run media operation… hardly a source of valid information. This is the same news agency that proclaims NK as the the best and most prosperous country in the world and tells the NK people that Kim is a god and father to all of them. Second there if Kim is dead why is he appearing in public(and don’t say doubles). He looks like a man suffering from advanced stages of cancer and will probably die for real some time soon. Lastly Kim has wanted to meet Clinton for forever in order to lend credibility to his regime. While it is dangerous to empower NK I’ll gladly trade a photo-op with Clinton for the two journalists.
You criticize Carter’s way of handling the Iran hostage crisis, but you forget to mention the way Reagan handled it: trading arms for hostages. Clinton’s release of the journalists may have been fishy, but don’t go pointing fingers and discrediting Clinton when your beloved Reagan actually supplied Iran with weapons in exchange for hostages. You can go ahead and say Reagan never meant to trade weapons for the hostages (or so he said), but that is exactly what ended up happening. I’m pretty sure apologizing (if that even happened. Like Clark said, can you really trust the North Korean news?) is a lot better than giving your enemies weapons to later use against you.