RUSH: Let’s dissect some of this North Korea stuff, because the main thing here is it isn’t new. The North Koreans and their nuclear desires is an old story. For those of you who are Gen X, you might remember the nineties. For those of you who are Millennials, you won’t, and you’re just gonna have to trust me that throughout the nineties, the Clinton administration — 1993 all the way to 2000 — North Korea was, off and on, a top-tier story and precisely about their nuclear ambitions and desires.
Throughout that period, throughout two terms of the Clinton administration there were negotiations both unilateral and bilateral — meaning just us with the Norks and with others at the table — designed to persuade them it wouldn’t be a good idea to nuke up and that they should stop launching these little piddly-wink missiles that they’ve got and behave. And they told us, “Okay! We’ll do that if you’ll help us build up our power grid.
“We would like to use nuclear for our power grid.” So Clinton said (impression), “Hey, you know, I got no kind of problem with that whatsoever. I’ll send Bill Richardson over there, Madeleine Albright, and we’ll fix you right up. But the underground promise is you’re not gonna go nuke weapon on us.” “Oh, no, Mr. Clinton! Oh, no, no! We in North Korea, we never break promises. We’ll never, never go nuclear weapon on you. We will always do nuclear power.”
(impression) “Then you’re right in there, Mr. Kim! No problem whatsoever.” And they made mincemeat of us, they nuked up, and that’s what we’re seeing now. And all during that period, folks, the media was praising the Clinton administration for having the guts, courage, brilliance, just like awesome diplomatic talent and skills, and we were having rings run around us. A 1994 headline: “Clinton Says His Deal with North Korea Would Make the World Safer.” August 8, 2017: “Former President Bill Clinton thought he saved the world from a nuclear North Korea more than two decades ago, but he was wrong.
“In the early 1990s, Clinton faced a growing nuclear threat from North Korea, but he ultimately chose diplomacy and deals over the application of military force. ‘I was determined to prevent North Korea from developing a nuclear arsenal, even at the risk of war,’ Clinton wrote in his memoirs. He decided to change course after receiving ‘a sobering estimate of the staggering losses both sides would suffer if war broke out.'”
So we’re…? I’m sorry; I’m not this dumb. We’re sitting here and we’re asked to believe that Clinton is actually pondering a military reaction and then somebody says, “Mr. President, the fallout would simply be too great,” and Clinton says (impression), “Hey, you know what? I hadn’t thought about that. I had not thought a thing about the fallout from nuclear warfare. You know what? You’re right. We’re gonna go back.” You’re telling me Bill Clinton had to be reminded of the fallout potential?
I mean, that’s how this reads. “Clinton wrote in his memoirs … [h]e decided to change course [on military action] after receiving ‘a sobering estimate of the staggering losses both sides would suffer if war broke out.'” Come on, folks! The whole concept of nuclear fallout is not new. It’s not something Clinton wouldn’t have factored. Nobody was that ignorant back then. It’s just a wonderful way to write that my instincts… (impression) “My instincts were to man up and take it to these people, load up and start pulling the trigger.
“But then I was reminded of the staggering losses, and I had to retrench. I had to realize pulling the trigger, manning up was not the way to go,” and so that’s the way they went. At the time, all the way back in 1994, Bill Clinton… In fact, you know what I want to do? I want to find something here. Hang with me folks as I run through the stacks. Here it is. Here is Bill Clinton in October of 1994. Ready? “This is a good deal for the United States,” he said at the time.
“North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.” That’s 1994. “This is a good deal for the United States. North Korea will freeze and dismantle its nuclear program…” I don’t think that happened, did it? Can I share with you Barack Obama’s statement after the Iranian nuke deal, April 2, 2015.
“It’s a good deal, a deal that meets our core objectives, including strict limitations on Iran’s program and cutting off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon.” Now let me repeat these. Bill Clinton, 1994, about North Korea: “It’s a good deal for us. North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected.” Obama two years ago: “It’s a good deal.”
Clinton says, “This is a good deal.” Obama says, “It’s a good deal, a deal that meets our core objectives, including limitations on Iran’s program and cuttings off every pathway that Iran could take to developer a nuclear weapon.” Clinton says the same thing about the Norks in 1994 as Obama said two years ago about the Iranians. Using intelligence guided by experience, how long’s it gonna be before we’re in the same set of circumstances that we are today except the country involved is gonna be Iran?
The Washington Post is gonna have this breathtaking story, “We’ve just discovered 60 miniaturized nuclear warheads that will fit inside the Iranian nuclear power plant and its missiles,” and everybody’s gonna freak out. “Oh, my God! Oh, my God! They said they were just gonna build a power plant,” and we’re gonna be right here where we are all over again in another 10 years down the road.
And what are the common denominators? Well, one of the common denominators is the Democrat Party. Another common denominator: Liberalism. Another demon denominator: Liberals’ belief that military action is never a solution to anything. What else is common? The liberal belief that doctors, nurses, clean water, negotiations, diplomacy, and words can end hostilities. It never happens until hostilities have been so severe that one side surrenders in defeat.
That hasn’t happened here. It hasn’t happened yet in Iran. And now the North Koreans are doing what? They’re targeting Guam. I think we need to bring in Hank Johnson on this, Mr. Snerdley. Remember Hank Johnson? He’s a Democrat, member of Congress from Georgia. And Hank Johnson was against the militarization of Guam.
He was against the United States increasing its military presence because, said Hank Johnson, he was afraid that putting 8,000 additional troops on Guam would force Guam to tip over and capsize. Guam is an island. And Hank Johnson, well known Democrat, was afraid that that many military people would cause it to capsize and then sink, the island of Guam. I’m not making it up.
Now, granted, Congressman Johnson has problems. But he did say it, and it was not discounted or refuted because the Democrats don’t embarrass each other, at least by calling each other out. So Kim Jong-il says he wants to demonstrate his nuclear prowess by targeting Guam.
I’ve learned this, my friends, when there’s a difficult policy issue, call in the Democrats. They are the experts at damn near everything, from affordable health care — experts at that, right? — they’re experts at predicting global temperatures, global warming, and they’re experts at preventing North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons. You just heard Bill Clinton, 1994: This is a good deal. This eliminates any possibility that North Korea is gonna have any nuclear weapons.
There’s nobody better at this than the Democrats. They prevent the North Koreans and the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons. These people are doing great with affordable health care, predicting climate change. Who better than Hank Johnson, 4th district of Georgia, when it comes to all things Guam. If we want to have a response to Kim Jong-un in Guam, Hank Johnson: 8,000 Marines would cause the island to become so overly populated, it would tip over and capsize. Send Hank Johnson out to negotiate with this guy. That might be fun.
RUSH: Here, more audio soundbites. Mike, I want you to play these back-to-back with no commentary between them by me. This is Bill Clinton first — October 21st, ’94, on North Korea — and Barack Obama on April 2nd, 2015, on Iran.
CLINTON 1994: This is a good deal for the United States. North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.
OBAMA 2015: Today, after many months of tough, principled diplomacy, we have achieved the framework for that deal — and it is a good deal, a deal that meets our core objectives. This framework would cut off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon.
RUSH: Yeah, the same way we did with the Norks. We cut off every pathway. We slowed the spread of nuclear weapons in North Korea. Snookered twice, folks. Are these people that dumb or do they think we are? Which is it? No, I’m being serious. Are Clinton and Albright that dumb that they could be outsmarted by the Norks? Of course not. Of course not. They knew what was gonna happen.
Is Obama that dumb? Does Obama really think that the Iranians are not gonna get nuclear weapons? Does he really think…? No, he wants ’em to get nuclear weapons. Yes, he does. I can see some of you reacting, “How dare you say that!” I say that because I remember Obama once asking, “Who said we get to determine who gets nukes and who doesn’t? There wasn’t anybody told us we couldn’t do it, so who are we? Why does U.S. get to tell everybody else what they can and can’t do?” Damn straight. Don’t doubt me.