Like most Democratic talking points, they collapse under about forty seconds of thought.
First, both nations had nuclear weapons programs long before Bush was elected. Repeat: both nations had nuclear weapons programs long before Bush was elected. In 1994, Clinton was seriously considering military action on North Korea's nuclear program, something that seems unlikely if one assumes North Korea only had a serious nuclear program after Bush. Clinton abandoned the idea after Carter came back from North Korea and told him he'd gotten a "pinky swear" from an insane dictator.
Second, I'm still amazed at how many Democrats bitch about not having enough troops because of Iraq to threaten nations like North Korea or Iran. The obvious corrolary is that they think military action, specifically involving ground troops, is a top option in these cases. Is this true? If not, then drop it. Add to this that if we were NOT in Iraq, and had the number of troops in Afghanistan that the Democrats say we should, what would be different? The "Iraq keeps us from threatening other nations" meme falls flat, too.
Current Events » in reply to Connecting the dots
Yeah, them's the talking points, all right.
The whole thread (32 posts)
- Consensus: "Axis of Evil" protecting themselves from US aggression.
- Do you really think owning a few nukes could protect the "Axis of Evil" ?
- Connecting the dots
- Yeah, them's the talking points, all right.