Clinton: Korea Wants U.S. to Lead

[Matt]

Clinton: Korea Wants U.S. to Lead
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158713,00.html
Monday, June 06, 2005

WASHINGTON — President Bush's approach to North Korea and Iran has been the right one, but the United States will have to take the initiative sooner or later to deal directly with those nations rather than rely on surrogate negotiators, former President Bill Clinton (search) told FOX News' Greta Van Susteren.

"The Chinese can help us, others can help us, these six-party talks can be valuable, but sooner or later we’re probably going to have to take more initiative" with North Korea, Clinton said in an exclusive interview to air Monday at 10 p.m. EDT on FOX News. "The administration has basically been saying that. Just kind of read between the lines, that’s pretty much what they’ve concluded, I think."

Speaking from the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Ark., Clinton compared the administration's approach to Iran and North Korea, saying the majority of Iranians want to build in the direction of the United States while North Koreans want the United States to be "nudging away and taking the lead." Both also want nuclear power, which they view as a status symbol, and are willing to take whatever action they need to sustain that pursuit.

Despite the brinksmanship, Pyongyang (search) is not totally irrational, Clinton said.

"Oh, they are irrational to some extent, but I don’t think they’re totally irrational," he said. "I think they watch American cable channels. I think they watch the European cable channels. I think their decision makers keep up more than we know. And I think they want us to think they’re a little crazy.

"But, you know, what’s the alternative?" Clinton asked. "We could take military action. And if we’re lucky we could take out their facilities. But for all we know a lot of their lab facilities are in deep underground caves ... We could run the risk that they could counteract by lobbing conventional missiles into Seoul or Japan or farther away. Until we have exhausted all diplomatic means, I don’t know why we would just let the thing get worse."

Earlier this year, Clinton and former President George H.W. Bush (search) were appointed by President Bush to lead American fund-raising efforts to help relieve victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami (search). Despite the recent protests over the alleged treatment of the Koran by some military guards watching prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Clinton said that he thought the relief effort has given Muslims the sense that the United States does care about their fate.

"Keep in mind, Indonesia is the biggest Muslim country in the world, 200 million Muslims. Sri Lanka has a Muslim population. And the Maldives is an overwhelmingly Muslim country. India is the second or third biggest Muslim country in the world … so you've got a record here, where everybody knows America went out, the American military and American civilian workers, and all these American non-governmental organizations, they just tried to help people for purely human terms," he said.

"It did enormous good for us. Our image in Indonesia went up, Mr. bin Laden’s image went down," Clinton said referring to the Al Qaeda terror network leader.

Saying that he would leave it to the White House to discuss any content, Clinton revealed that during his world travels, he has called administration officials when hearing something they may find interesting. He said he also volunteers his perspective when Bush calls on him to share an opinion on a particular subject. The former president said he regrets that partisanship is so institutionalized in Washington, but he and Bush have taken particular efforts to understand one another.

"We’ve established what I think is a very good personal relationship. I don’t ask him to give up his political convictions, he doesn't ask me to give up mine. He makes his position clear, I make mine clear. But when we ... can work together, we do. That’s how I think the country should work," Clinton said.

That doesn't mean that Clinton has deserted politics altogether. While the former president wouldn't indicate whether his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton (search), plans to run for president, he said that he is superstitious about considering future plans when she still has to get re-elected next year to her New York Senate seat.

"It’s foolish for her to entertain any kind of serious discussion about whether she should or shouldn’t run for president until the voters of New York ratify her service for the last six years and renew her contract," he said. "I think it would be a great mistake for her to look beyond this next election, and I know she feels that way."

Nonetheless, Sen. Clinton has made several overtures to Republicans, Clinton said, including taking trips with Sen. John McCain of Arizona to investigate climate change and working with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on medical record privacy protections.

"I’m really proud of Hillary because she’s sponsored more legislation across the party lines than any other first-term member of the Senate in either party," he said. "And she just keeps working and she has really good relations with the Republican House members in the New York delegation. That’s the kind of thing I think we ought to do."

Political arguments, however, appear to be growing in Washington, D.C. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean (search) recently charged that Republicans haven't made an honest living in their lives, a sweeping remark criticized by Democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and former vice presidential candidate John Edwards.

While Clinton suggested it would behoove Democrats "to try to treat the Republicans with respect and as human beings to try to work with them on every issue we can," he also said that Democrats should not retreat when they are attacked.

"If you lay down and you look like a deer caught in the headlights, then you will confirm the assault. And so we have to fight back," he said, adding that negative ads are okay to run as long as they are true and make people think.

Clinton would not guess who the Republican candidate will be in the 2008 presidential race, but he said Gingrich and McCain are both good choices.

"I think that [Gingrich] might run. And you know, ever since he left there’s been nobody else who is smart with as many ideas," he said.

[krabapple]

Gingrich against Hillary -- that would be fun.

As for Dean, he clarified that he meant Republican *politicians*. Can't say I disagree much, though I would hardly exempt most Democratic pols from the charge either.

I wonder if Dean will emulate Vice President Dick Cheney , and tell his colleagues on the other side of the aisle to go fuck themselves.

[Matt]

Gingrich against Hillary -- that would be fun.

How about McCain against Hillary?

[Bennett Cerf]

I don't see how McCain can possibly get the Republican nomination when he's unpopular with the far right. After eight years of Bush, they're going to want to move even further to the right, not back a compromise candidate.

[czeskleba]

I like Hillary, but if the Democrats nominate her they deserve what they get, which will be their most resounding defeat since at least Dukakis. Being female and a senator are handicaps for any candidate, but add to that her history of very effective villification by the right and she has FAR too much baggage to overcome.

McCain will be 72 in 2008. If he won, he would be the oldest man ever elected President. That alone would be a substantial factor in not getting the nomination, regardless of his centrist politics.

If the Democrats want a fighting chance at winning, they need to nominate a governor, preferably from the South. I hope the Republicans are overconfident enough to nominate someone like Frist or Gingrich, but I'm afraid they will do the sensible thing and go with Jeb Bush.

[krabapple]

Gingrich against Hillary -- that would be fun.

How about McCain against Hillary?

That would be both *fun* and *encouraging*...because we'd get someone good either way.

[lukpac]

That would be both *fun* and *encouraging*...because we'd get someone good either way.

I've never found McCain to be as centrist as he's made out to be. No, he doesn't use the same partisan rhetoric most do, but his positions on a lot of issues are a lot more in line with the far right than centrists.

[krabapple]

Agreed, but I get the sense that McCain would be more the kind of prez who would *move* to the center...than say, Jeb Bush.

[dudelsack]

They're not going to elect ANOTHER Bush. I refuse to believe that the population will go for this again...
McCain would be the toughest Republican to beat, I think, whether or not perceptions of his centrism are true.

[dcooper]

Agreed, but I get the sense that McCain would be more the kind of prez who would *move* to the center...than say, Jeb Bush.

McCain would like you to believe that he would "move" to the center. But Luke is correct, he's much more in line with the Republican majority than even he wants you to believe. His support of the compromise on judicial nominations is a good case in point. He pissed off evangelicals, but these folks are irrational and didn't realize that all McCain did was clear a path for the radical judges to be appointed. He wanted to preserve the filibuster out of fear that the Reublicans might one day need its power and not because he was interested in true compromise with the Dems.

On issue after issue, he consistently votes with the Republican caucus and was a vocal campaigner for the current president during last year's election, despite being demonized just 4 years earlier by the same candidate & his henchmen. He doesn't compromise, so much as he looks for the popular opinion and moves towards it (according to my source who is in a position to know, he generally commissions more private polls during the course of a legislative session than any other Senator). However, left to his own devices, he's a right winger through and through.

[czeskleba]

Regardless of his core politics or motivations, McCain at least understands the concepts of negotiation and compromise and trying to work constructively with the other side, things that are foreign to the Bush crew and Bill Frist.

I don't think McCain would be as tough a candidate to beat as others do. Historically, being a senator has become a real liability for a Presidential candidate. Only one senator has been elected President in the past 75 years, and he (JFK) won by an extremely small margin. I imagine it's because people tend to have a negative view of Congress in general, and that leads them to dislike all senators except their own. In recent years governors seem to have the best chance of being elected President, which is part of why I think Jeb Bush would be a strong candidate.

[MK]

I think Mitt Romney has a good shot. All the superficial qualities are there: younger (or at least younger-looking), better-looking than the other leading candidates, would have solid support from the evangelical right being a staunch, conservative Mormon...if Bush leaves the second term with shakey numbers, the GOP may be reluctant to put up Jeb (assuming Jeb wants it). In that case, Romney would be their man.

[krabapple]

Agreed, but I get the sense that McCain would be more the kind of prez who would *move* to the center...than say, Jeb Bush.

McCain would like you to believe that he would "move" to the center. But Luke is correct, he's much more in line with the Republican majority than even he wants you to believe. His support of the compromise on judicial nominations is a good case in point. He pissed off evangelicals, but these folks are irrational and didn't realize that all McCain did was clear a path for the radical judges to be appointed. He wanted to preserve the filibuster out of fear that the Reublicans might one day need its power and not because he was interested in true compromise with the Dems.

Heh. Do you imagine for a *second* that the *Dems* would have done it for any other reason, if they were in the power instead?

If so, I have bridge to sell you. Realpolitik dictates that the smart move is to keep the filibuster, in case one's own party is ever in eclipse. Canny Democrats can make that calculation jsut as well, and reliably, as canny republicans. The ones to worry about are the hard-line ideologues who *can't* make that calculation....or won't.

On issue after issue, he consistently votes with the Republican caucus and was a vocal campaigner for the current president during last year's election, despite being demonized just 4 years earlier by the same candidate & his henchmen.

But clearly he has no love for George Bush. Again, being a trooper during the campaign can be seen as power politics, rather than a committement to *Bush's* politics. Do you imagine that all Democrats who came out in support of Kerry really thought that highly of him?

He doesn't compromise, so much as he looks for the popular opinion and moves towards it (according to my source who is in a position to know, he generally commissions more private polls during the course of a legislative session than any other Senator).

And that distinguishes him from, say, Bill Clinton, exactly how?

However, left to his own devices, he's a right winger through and through.

What makes you think he'd be 'left to his own devices' as a president, and suddently STOP looking for the popular opinion and moving towards it?

[krabapple]

I think Mitt Romney has a good shot. All the superficial qualities are there: younger (or at least younger-looking), better-looking than the other leading candidates, would have solid support from the evangelical right being a staunch, conservative Mormon...if Bush leaves the second term with shakey numbers, the GOP may be reluctant to put up Jeb (assuming Jeb wants it). In that case, Romney would be their man.

Got caught speaking fluent French earlier this week. So he's out.

[MK]

McCain dislikes unions, he especially dislikes the AARP, he's really big on fiscal conservatism...a lot of conservatives don't like McCain because he's too left, but I think he's really in the middle, more to the right but strictly in the middle.

Going by memory, I know he's trashed the religious right, at least major aspects of it, he champions many environmental causes (curbing CO2 emissions, no drilling in protected lands, etc.), pushed for campaign finance reform with Feingold, pushed for health care reform with many Democrats (remember that bill he wanted Bush to sign? He said he didn't feel there was any difference between that bill and the one put into law when Bush was Texas governor, but he doesn't mention that Bush tried to veto it over the objections of most people in Texas legislature). I think he favors Bush's ideas on Social Security reform.

McCain has been an adamant supporter of Reagan, but romanticizes about Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, back when the GOP was a very different party - a friend of mine read a recent book that chronicles the change in the GOP, particularly in how the South played a bigger role in the last 40 years, I'll have to ask him for the title again, but it was a pretty dry, academic study, mostly history, little commentary. I doubt I'd agree with him on everything, but I don't think he'd be an ass and push a crappy agenda against the will of the middle.