McCain's attempt to excuse Bush's and his party's foreign policy failures on Clinton remind me of the resolution regarding Libya. Conservatives, of course, have used Libya as an example of why the invasion of Iraq was justified, i.e., dictators would be scared straight. However, if this is the case, how do they explain North Korea and Iran? Rather, as the article below explains, Libya reflects the triumph of Clinton's policies of engagement, and the repudiation of hawkish efforts to demand regime change or approach the negotiating table with numerous conditions attached.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13086.htmI also really think that the media in an attempt to be "fair and balanced" says that the failure of the policies regarding Korea involve the prior administration. How so? Under Clinton, there was some dialogue with North Korea, we had international monitors in place, North Korea had not yet developed any Nukes, and we had not painted North Korea into a corner by actively advocating regime change and following through by invading Iraq.
Of course, in 2002, Bush includes North Korea in the axis of evil, and begins efforts to invade Iraq. The U.S. then accusses Korea of a secret nuclear program, then halts oil shipments. Korea then kicks out the nuclear inspectors, and removes nuclear monitors. Bush's response? He invades Iraq, the country dening that it has nuclear weapons, while ignoring North Korea, the country saying that it is about to begin enriching plutonium.
In 2003, the U.S. invades Iraq. North Korea begins processing plutonium.
In 2005, following Bush's first, North Korea announces that it has developed nuclear weapons.
In 2006, North Korea tests such a program with a sub-megaton detonation similar in size to several Indian nuclear tests.
Remarkably absent from both the Repubublican and Democratic discourse on the subject is China's involvement in Pakistan's development of nuclear weapons, and Pakistan in turn sharing this Chinese technology with North Korea.