Does the N. Korea deal sound just like the one that Clinton got?

I answered this question this morning.

Thorgirl for once brought up an excellent point. The Republicans in 1994 SCREAMED when Clinton did the exact same deal they are PRAISING Bush for doing with the North Koreans, even though Bush had absolutely nothing to do with this deal. China was the country instrumental in bringing this deal together, but the Pro Bushers are so eager to find ANYTHING they can say he did right they are forgetting they hated this very same thing in 94, calling it "appeasment of the worst sort'. Why, when Dems do it, it's appeasement, but when Repubs think THEYRE doing it, it's a "victory in the nuclear arms race"? And if this IS such a victory, why doesnt Bush offer the same deal to Iran?

Sorry yet Clinton had lots to do with the present difficulty in North Korea. many people suggested his plan to help NK through his agreements would lead us to precisely the position we are now, yet for sure that would have required more beneficial learn and wondering on that administrations area.

No, Clinton had screens put in , where he could watch what they were doing, when Bush presented himself. They took down the screens and stated the deal is off because you don't have a elected President.

Jimmy Carter got North Korea to promise not make an atomic weapon and look where it got us; Carter got a medal and the free world got ... nothing.

Please, don't ever disgrace Clinton by comparing him to this bush as$hole.