October 10, 2006

Vote for Dems to Beat North Korea!

Hatched by Dafydd

The funny part is, I think the Democrats have started to believe their own bullroar. In their unintentionally hilarious hysteria, they blurt out arguments the GOP has made for years:

Democratic Sen. John Kerry, the president's rival in 2004 and a potential 2008 candidate, assailed Bush's policy as a "shocking failure," and said, "While we've been bogged down in Iraq where there were no weapons of mass destruction, a madman has apparently tested the ultimate weapon of mass destruction."

Hm... who was it who mocked the inclusion of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) on the list of the "Axis of Evil?" Democrats said then that President Bush included North Korea only to prevent the list from being entirely filled with Moslem.

Previously, for six years under Clinton, the Democrats snoozed, confident that tossing a few tens of billions of dollars (and a nuclear reactor) to Kim Jong Il would placate the "madman."

Then when Bush initiated his policy of trying to line up allies for sanctions against the DPRK, the Democrats (especially including Sen. John Kerry, D-MA, 100%) fought it hammer and fang, every step of the way. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Haight Ashbury, 95%) hooted at the preposterous idea that we would ever need ballistic missile defense, and she led the fight -- successful during the Clinton Go-Go 90s -- to zero out the research on it.

So, Mr. Kerry and Mrs. Pelosi... do you finally, at long last, support missile defense? If so, then at least one good thing has come out of this piffle of a detonation.

"The Bush administration has for several years been in a state of denial about the growing challenge of North Korea, and has too often tried to downplay the issue or change the subject," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"We had the opportunity to stop North Korea from increasing its nuclear power, but George Bush went to sleep at the switch while he pursued his narrow agenda in Iraq," added Sen. Bob Menendez, a Democrat in a tough campaign in New Jersey.

Wow, tough stuff! I presume Sens. Harry Reid (D-Caesar's Palace, 100%) and Bob Menendez (Temporary D-NJ, 100%) can point to a long history of pushing for much harsher treatment of North Korea... for example, by conducting direct, face-to-face negotiations with them so we can settle how much tribute to pay and how many more reactors to send to appease that failed Stalinist state.

Reid is of course "changing the subject" from his obsession with the internet peccadillos of former Rep. Mark Foley, which have occupied about 137% of Reid's always-limited attention span since September 29th.

The Democrats' main argument seems to be that North Korea's now suspect claim that they have detonated a nuke actually helps the Democrats in the upcoming election... after all, Democrats have long been known as the party of cold warriors who come down hard on Communism.

(The nuke announcement really is producing some major-league skepticism. Bill Gertz reports in today's Washington Times:

U.S. intelligence agencies say, based on preliminary indications, that North Korea did not produce its first nuclear blast yesterday.

But remember... you read it here first!)

My worthy co-conspirator, Brad Linaweaver, informs me that he just saw Dr. Helen Caldicott on some screamfest -- anybody besides me remember that energumenic refuge from Bedlam? She opined that the North Korean nuclear (?) explosion leaves America with but one option in response: we must unilaterally disarm our nuclear arsenal!

Freeze now! The survivors will envy the dead! (Probably so, for they don't have to listen to Helen Caldicott speak.)

Let's see what happens to the polls, which jumped from 0 to a 65-point advantage for Democrats in 3.4 seconds (want to buy a slightly used Dyson sphere?) But that may flip right back, now that the conversation is no longer about Gary Condit.

Oh, wait -- my mistake. That was the last congressional sex scandal, which was front-page news in every newspaper and TV broadcast in America... on September 10th, 2001. (So I reckon at least one Democrat actually cheered when the twin towers were struck.)

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, October 10, 2006, at the time of 5:21 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1332

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Vote for Dems to Beat North Korea!:

» The Norks test: US doubts it was nuclear from Sister Toldjah
Bill Gertz reports from the Washington Times: U.S. intelligence agencies say, based on preliminary indications, that North Korea did not produce its first nuclear blast yesterday. U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that seism... [Read More]

Tracked on October 10, 2006 5:54 AM

» North Korea is the criminal not Bush from Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense
It’s so predictable. No sooner than Kim lit his firecracker in the mountains, did the Democrats and their enablers on the left blame Bush. The Washington Post continues the syndrome: “Nearly five years after President Bush introduced the c... [Read More]

Tracked on October 10, 2006 7:08 AM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

China, Russia, and the EU have led the UN in issueing deadline after deadline for Iran, approved of sanctions and then opposed them.

So what is different about North Korea?

Are we looking at a repetition of the same?

What does North Korea have that anyone wants?

Iran has vast Petroleum resources, NK offers only regional instability and the possibility that China might end up with not just one but three nuclear powers on it's borders.

And while that is going on, might Taiwan pick up a few nuclear crumbs too?

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 10, 2006 5:53 AM

The following hissed in response by: Christoph

I not only think the Democrats are too weak, I think certain among them are too unpredictable in controlling themselves and their tempor to deal with this consistently.

    Speaking of Democrat Perfidity, John Kerry Jokingly Threatens to Kill George Bush?

Wild Bill has the details (originally from Bill Maher’s show). 1:06 into the video, in response to a Maher statement about “killing two birds with one stone” that had nothing to do with President Bush, John Kerry says:

“I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and killed the real bird with one stone.”

Do you think the calm and reasonable former Democratic Party nominee was the best man for the job of handling North Korea?

The above hissed in response by: Christoph [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 10, 2006 6:11 AM

The following hissed in response by: Christoph

As far as the low-yield nature of this detonation, I’ve been thinking about this too.

The Australian ran a story about a second possible low-yield second (non?) nuclear test U.S. intelligence may have detected in the 1KT range.

I don’t know whether that’s true or not (I think it's a long shot), but if it is, it’s good news.

It may mean they’re weapons don’t work. And they know it.

Whether it was one fizzle or two, this has to put pressure on North Korea’s regime.

The above hissed in response by: Christoph [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 10, 2006 6:19 AM

The following hissed in response by: Joshua Xanadu

So the Bush Doctrine of preemptive military strikes has been unveiled for what it is. Tough talk. I think Teddy Roosevelt would be turning over in his grave now. We've gone from "speak softly and carry and big stick" to "tough talk from a little man."

It's not just Bush or the Republicans who have damaged any foreign policy credibility. Now of course they're running to their loathed United Nations to act, even through all their dismissals of the UN as a defunct, slow and inefficient organization. That's their own words. They are putting all of the initiative on the same people they mock.

No, what's more disturbing is the damage to American credibility that Bush-Cheney-Republicans have dealt. What are we going to do in the face of a WMD-wielding lunatic like Kim Jong Il? Apparently, their bold vision for securing the U.S. is to run with our pants down to the UN, to China, for help. Somebody call the WAAAAAmbulance.

Bush and Cheney. Flip-floppin', limp-wristed, 98-pound weakings. Grow some balls and take down Kim, will ya? Where's your Bush Doctrine now, you Republican pansies? Be consistent, at least, even if that means sending the rest of our soldiers on home leave to Korea. What? We can't? Bring back the draft. Do something, ya weak-knee Republicans.

At least the Democrats talk diplomacy and act accordingly. The Republicans feign strength and act weak. What's worse, ya chicken-hawks? Yeah, that's right... Talk about your hypocritical pansies. Run to your UN and China for help.

The above hissed in response by: Joshua Xanadu [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 10, 2006 6:28 AM

The following hissed in response by: peter from new york

OK, so Bush's abject failure to prevent NOK from developing an (apparently not very functional) nuclear weapon is: a) Clinton's fault (as always) and b) Pelosi's fault?

This president went to war with the country that wasn't even close to developing a bomb, and then abjectly and completely failed to stop the one we knew was trying to develop a bomb from doing so. His oh-so-muscular refusal to negotiate directly with NOK was proved ineffective. And then you mock Clinton for negotiating with this regime, when in fact it did head off development for eight years.

Easily the worst president ever. Will you be one of those who are, ten years from now, still muttering that Bush was a great president brought down by Clinton?

Ridiculous.

The above hissed in response by: peter from new york [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 10, 2006 7:09 AM

The following hissed in response by: jp phish

If it was a low yield nuclear weapon it would be easier to mount on existing Iranian missiles, fabricated as an artillery shell, or carried by small plane.

The above hissed in response by: jp phish [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 10, 2006 7:16 AM

The following hissed in response by: Rosie the Riveter

Bush has been in office since 2001. If he didn't think Clinton's policy towards North Korea was effective, he's had plenty of time to implement his own.

So now we see the result of Bush's policy: a nuclear-armed North Korea. And what's the Republican response? Do they admit that their treatment of North Korea has achieved exactly the opposite of what they wanted? Do they acknowledge that they need to change course? Of course not. No, they fall back on their tried and true response to any emergency: blame Clinton.

This was lame during Bush's first term, and it's even lamer now. It's time for Republicans to take responsibility for their own decisions. After all, they have always proclaimed themselves the party of personal responsibility. Perhaps they should practice what they preach.

The above hissed in response by: Rosie the Riveter [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 10, 2006 7:22 AM

The following hissed in response by: jp phish

Some factual tidbits about Iraq:


  • The Iraq Survey Group:
    uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations.

  • A vial of VX spread by crop duster could kill thousands of football fans.

  • GWB's pre-OIF warning was of vials of chemical/biological weapons and a nuclear program; not chemically loaded artillery shells and not existing nuclear weapons.


The above hissed in response by: jp phish [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 10, 2006 7:52 AM

The following hissed in response by: jp phish

From TCS DAILY

American policy against North Korea is working. That policy, in a nutshell, is this: use all methods short of war to harm the economy of North Korea, making it impossible for that government to raise revenue from illicit activities, and thereby more and more difficult to retain power or fund its nuclear ambitions. This creates cascading effects that work in the favor of the US: the possibility of a North Korean collapse forces China and South Korea to consider changing their stances in the six-party talks, making it more likely that the six will agree on a unified plan to de-nuke the peninsula, and that North Korea will have no choice but to accept.

The above hissed in response by: jp phish [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 10, 2006 8:32 AM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

Uh Dafydd, I think you have someone doing a sock puppet act on you. Joshua Xanadu/peter from new york/Rosie the Riveter sound like the same person doing multiple postings. To those named - we get it, okay? You can stop making up new names to say the same thing. By the by, very, ahem, "Democratic" of you.

So, according to the Democrats, go it alone (Iraq) is a complete policy failure. While the multilateral approach (Iran and North Korea) is a complete policy failure. I'm sure that appeasement (the Clinton North Korea policy) would have worked. No doubt. It worked for eight years. Of course, does everyone believe that the North Koreans never cheated during the Clinton period of peace and stability?

What really pissed of Kim Jong Ill was that Bush stopped his counterfeiting and money laundry operations. What with the crimp in his drug and weapons sales, whatever is a poor insane dictator to do for a little extra spending money?

We could never have pre-empted North Korea like we did Saddam. The framework was never there. But we have put them in a position where they are shown to be exactly what they are - a rogue nation led by a lunatic. I don't think this is bad policy.

Repercussions? Japan a closer ally. South Korea the same. Anyone else think China is finally going to tug on North Korea's leash? Seems to me like a little clarity has been achieved.


The above hissed in response by: Big D [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 10, 2006 8:51 AM

The following hissed in response by: yonason

HOW DID N.K. GET NUKES, AGAIN?
"North Korea's " ...nuclear test could not have occurred without Bill Clinton’s decade of dalliance. Clinton could have obliterated the Yongbyong reactor with one strike when he first learned of North Korea’s covert nuclear program in 1994. Instead, he allowed Jimmy Carter’s private foreign policy to preempt him. Upon completing the “Agreed Framework” in 1994, Clinton stated, “This agreement will help achieve a vital and long-standing American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula.” We now know the $4.6 billion bribe gave the Communists the two nuclear reactors they used to create their current arsenal."

Oh, yeah, the Arkansas BillHillery, I might have known.

The above hissed in response by: yonason [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 10, 2006 9:23 AM

The following hissed in response by: Joshua Xanadu

I don't know who the other folks are, but I've only posted once. To all you Republicans who vacillate, let me just say this: quit acting like a flip-floppin' pansy.

Please respond to this: How do you justify going to the freakin' UN and China for our OWN national security needs?

I've never advocated only diplomacy with Iraq, so don't give me that. My only concern, if you reread my original post, is hypocrisy. I'm a person who believes our current course in Iraq is untenable, so the solution is to INCREASE our troops to 300,000. The same is true for North Korea. Our troops are tough. They can handle it. That's what they signed up for.

So Republicans, what is your pussy-footing response? Ummm... please, UN and China, solve our problems... WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH.

The above hissed in response by: Joshua Xanadu [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 10, 2006 9:31 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Oh come on.... there is no way the Demcorats would have supported any kind of military action against North Korea.None. nada. The peanut farmer went over there and worked out some bogus deal and when Clinton accepted it we lost the best oppurtunity to deal with the North Koreans.

The Democrats are ignoring the fact that if not for Bush Kaddafi would have a bomb by now and the A.J. Kahn network would still be operating.

Remember A.J. Kahn? The Pakistani scientist was selling nuclear technology to the highest bidder for years and the Democrats did not even give a damn. I remember when Pakistan went nuclear and no one in the Clinton administration saw it coming.

So now, maybe, North Korea has gotten a bomb. Well at least we have a shield.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 10, 2006 11:24 AM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

Sorry Josh. Three posts in an hour saying the same thing sounded pretty fishy. Especially given the tone used.

Ahem. So. Your point is...? We could launch an attack on North Korea? Then...what? They launch about 10,000 missiles, devastating Japan, South Korea, and oh yeah, about 30,000 of our troops? Then...what? China (and maybe the rest of the world) comes down on the No-Ko side? Then...what? South Korea boots us out?

Sounds a lot like you are advising us to punch a guy in the face who is holding a gun to your best friend's head. Not the smartest move.

Or maybe we could just nuke North Korea. No repercussions to that. Except with China, South Korea, Japan, and the rest of the world.

Like it or not, we have important regional allies in this fight. South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan are our friends. China, well, we have a mutual dependence relationship there (we buy get their stuff, they get our money). If we go forward with a military strike, we are not the ones who will pay the biggest price. Therefore it is better to let them in on the decision.

And who knows? China may just have the juice to solve this thing without a shot being fired.

Historically Clinton bribed the North Koreans to play nice. Bush bravely discontinued the bribery. The North Koreans are now acting like...North Koreans.

Right now I see the entire world lining up behind us. Seems to me like we are on exactly the right track.

Oh, yeah. And the No Ko bomb was a dud. So...?

The above hissed in response by: Big D [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 10, 2006 2:35 PM

The following hissed in response by: OCPatriot

The sheer amateurishness of the Bush approach to foreign policy is what got us here with North Korea.

Early on, Bush was faulted for his failure of policy toward North Korea, as well as Iran.

Our government has been acting the way amateurs do, not knowing or understanding the impact of what it has been doing. From President Bush, who makes a joke of his ignorance, to stooges such as Rumsfeld and truly unfeeling fixed-idea men such as Cheney, we have suffered from inept and uninformed leadership. Iraq is just one example of such amateurness, with a war that had no plan for any follow-up. North Korea is another. Iran is another. The way we’ve handled Afghanistan is still another. Our ignoring the essential conflict between Israel and the Palestine peoples, just hoping it will go away. Add them up and we can now see how inept this administration has been. Then look at the current economy, changed from a positive one in which our assets were growing to one in which almost everything except oil has been declining. Asking the military, who weren’t trained to build nations and who did their job heroically in the war, to sort out what needs to be done in Iraq or Afghanistan is truly amateurish; such work was never the military’s job. Not even having a full professional cadre of those who speak the language of our enemies, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Iran to Lebanon – how could this administration even pretend to understand what forces it has unleashed? The author of “Fiasco”, Tom Ricks, has said we’ll probably have troops in Iraq for fifteen years because of how amateurishly things have been handled. I grieve for our sons and daughters and our grandchildren who will be forced to handle the mess that on.

Why am I reminded of a very disturbed student, who was in Junior High School at the time, who used to shout, "Bomb 'em! Bomb 'em!" whenever something happened that he didn't understand or like. However, unless cooler heads prevail, we may find ourselves fighting a war on three (Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran) fronts, something the military doesn't believe in. Watch out; if W gets upset or too frustrated, he may just shout, "Bomb 'em!"

Diplomacy? What's that? It's a sign of weakness or else those furrin folks catch you and trick you with it. One of the rules for negotiating successfully, apparently forgotten in the current environment, is that you to have to respect the people you're negotiating with. You don’t have to like them or go along with them. You have to understand their position and how it corresponds to what you want. Our government has apparently forgotten this and considers negotiating a sissie thing to do. Attacking the party they may end up negotiating with is their only tactic. This is true with Hezbollah, with North Korea and with Iran. So there really can be no negotiating with any of these. By the way, force hasn't worked but that message hasn't penetrated the skulls of Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld. It probably never will.

Also please understand there are really two U.S.A.s - one is the “Cowboy Nation” of the ignorant public; the other is the “intelligentsia”. In the “Cowboy Nation” we go to war convinced we’re right and that our strength will overcome all obstacles; the “intelligentsia” takes a more measured look at things and may often be found in universities and places where measured thought is respected. “Cowboy Nation” is macho; “intelligentsia” is sissies. Unfortunately, this time around the Cowboy Nation prevailed and seems to be Bush’s main approach to all problems facing us. If we had even consulted with the “intelligentsia”, historians might have explained how the Shiites hated the Sunnis; we might have had a couple of hundred interpreters explaining what the Iraqi’s were saying (we had maybe one or two); someone might have drawn up a plan for nation-building that made some sense instead of no plan (yes, no plan); information might have been garnered, after the attacks of 9/11, about what really lay behind them. But the Cowboy Nation, led by John Wayne (or George Bush) prevailed, alas. Cowboy Nation could lead us to war with Iran or North Korea, stupidly.

To negotiate you generally need an informed public. Any group that has bought into the belief that Iraq had some connection with the downing of the twin towers can easily be said to be ignorant, and the polls tell us that a significant number of people believe just that. Somewhere I read that there were only eight individuals in the FBI who could speak Arabic of any kind before 9/11, and one of them tried to get information from the CIA, but couldn't, that might have stopped 9/11; this person died in one of the towers; he became Head of Security for the World Trade Center. That's still another kind of ignorance, bred of lack of knowledge. Our President is extremely ignorant; facts don't mean much to him and he mangles them regularly. So, yes, please accept that much of the American public is ignorant. The Nazi propaganda machine knew very well that lies, when repeated often enough, are believed by those who are subjected to them; so does Mr. Rove. So what's there to it that surprises anybody? I seem to have heard some obscure showman say: "There's a sucker born every minute." For those who care about this, wringing one’s hands will not do it; you have to take action to change the situation through a change in the Administration and schools that teach more truth.

Please remember that the U.S.A. has no end-of-war settlement treaty with North Korea. If I recall correctly, that is one thing the North Koreans wanted, including a mutual non-aggression pact with our country. It has been a sticking point for them for some time. Now the North Koreans aren't particularly known for keeping their word, but this is something that ought to be included in any negotiations, wouldn't you think? Instead we give Koreans the same treatment that Cuba got and look at where Cuba ended up. How many North Korean experts who really know that country has Bush ever listened to? How many Iraq experts has Bush ever heard? How many Iranian experts has Bush ever gotten counsel from? Assembling a large panel of each of these type of learned individuals might result in more understanding of where these countries are coming from and what we might have in common, a key to honest negotiations. Sorry, that's all a pipedream with the anti-intellectual macho guys at the helm.

So if you're tired of the macho "cowboys" and want a change, vote Democratic for a change that will last for a limited time, at least until the Democrats gather enough power themselves to be corrupted. But, make no mistake about it, vote for Republicans and you will have more and more of the madness of King George.

The above hissed in response by: OCPatriot [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 10, 2006 5:07 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Big D:

Uh Dafydd, I think you have someone doing a sock puppet act on you. Joshua Xanadu/peter from new york/Rosie the Riveter sound like the same person doing multiple postings.

It's possible; they have different IP addresses, but that can be spoofed. But it could also be some lefty blog that linked Big Lizards and urged its readers to leave comments.

But honestly, I have no problem with their comments. They're silly, but they just make the left look desperate. Who could object to that?

(I especially loved "Joshua Xanadu"'s diatribe about Republican "pansies" -- he evidently prefers mucho-macho Harry Reid!)

JX wants us to believe he's really a war hawk; but his comment is such perfect example of the overwrought stereotype that most lefties have of Republicans (whom they see as "war hawks"), that I believe he's really a "seminar commenter."

For example, no actual Republican would make the foolish mistake of calling either George W. Bush or Donald Rumsfeld "chickhawks." No Republican would dismiss flying for the Air National Guard or the United States friggin' Navy as "not serving," which is a requirement for the chickenhawk label.

Note that I'm stretching the definition of the term "seminar commenter" a bit to encompass, not just those who have actually attended seminars on how to sound like a conservative (rather, like a leftist straw-conservative construct), but also any leftist posing as his bizarre concept of a right-winger in order to try to have more impact.

(You know, "I've been a Republican all my life, but now Smirky the Wonder Chimp BusHitler has gone too far, so I'm voting for Kerry!")

Joshua, Joshua: the masquerade only works if it's believable; it doesn't work when it's laughable!

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 10, 2006 5:16 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

OCPatriot:

Also please understand there are really two U.S.A.s - one is the "Cowboy Nation" of the ignorant public; the other is the "intelligentsia".

I'm curious: do you consider yourself more properly a member of "the intelligencia" than I?

How so?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 10, 2006 5:22 PM

The following hissed in response by: Joshua Xanadu

I ain't never said I was a Republican. I think that's pretty clear from my posts. Sheesh. As if I were trying to pretend.

All I care is hypocrisy. I have no love for the Europeans. I applauded Bush's attack on Iraq, PROVIDED that: A) it's consistent with our policy on dictators around the world; and B) Bush was competent.

Neither holds true. Either you talk diplomacy, or your back up your tough words. You Republicans like to single out Democrats as pansies, but the only pansies and draft-dodgers I see in Washington are Republicans. Yes, that's right, you chicken-hawks.

I don't claim to be an ex-miliatry folk. However, I do think that our military signed up for the job to fight 'evil' around the world. Let our generals fight with the full force of the American military. This is true from McArthur to more recent folks like Shinseki (a charming and decisive chap, BTW) and Powell. The doctrine we SHOULD use is that of Powell's.

Nope, you pansies want China to deal with North Korea (As someone who studies China, I find this optimism laughable). You want the UN to deal with this. I say you guys sound like the biggest hypocrites. I've always detested the UN almost as much as Bolton, but at least don't go crying to the Security Council when you've 'changed your mind' about multilateral approaches.

'Changed your mind'? Sounds like a flip-flopper.

The above hissed in response by: Joshua Xanadu [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 10, 2006 5:45 PM

The following hissed in response by: Patrick Chester

Hmm, I think Xanadu had better throw some more faux-macho insults. It might actually annoy people enough to get the angry reactions he's so obviously fishing for.

The above hissed in response by: Patrick Chester [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 10, 2006 6:07 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Joshua Xanadu:

You Republicans like to single out Democrats as pansies, but the only pansies and draft-dodgers I see in Washington are Republicans. Yes, that's right, you chicken-hawks.

I don't know what blogs you're used to, but here on Big Lizards, we do not allow combative insults hurled at either the hosts or the other commenters. We have a set of commenting rules with which you should familiarize yourself.

If you continue in this way, I'll delete your comments.

Make your points without attacking anyone here or violating any other commenting rules, please.

Thanks,

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 10, 2006 7:30 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Patrick Chester:

It might actually annoy people enough to get the angry reactions he's so obviously fishing for.

I doubt it. Mostly it just becomes a crashing bore, and other commenters will skip over his subsequent pronunciamentos.

In fact, I have noticed that Big Lizards commenters are the nicest, brightest, and most decent bunch of folks I've seen on any blog that allows comments. Even when they disagree -- even heated disagreements, such as those over immigration -- they never lower themselves to the level of many other blogs of both left and right. (Read the comment threads of The Daily Kos, if you dare!)

I would love to think this is because of the lead that we hosts offer; but maybe it's just the mellow yellow tones of the blog design itself...

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 10, 2006 7:37 PM

The following hissed in response by: jp phish

Dafydd ab Hugh,

I agree with you. The commenters on this blog are on a higher thought plane than those on other blogs. They have greater respect for the truth, which is probably to your credit.

The above hissed in response by: jp phish [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 10, 2006 9:43 PM

The following hissed in response by: Joshua Xanadu

In deferrence to the 'gentlemanly combat' rules ascribed by this blog, I'll resist from making provocative attacks. It's just that it's so easy... (resist the temptation, Xanadu... RESIST)

Please, dear sirs, how do you explain your party's loathing of the UN, yet current reliance upon it? I dare say that is the height of hypocrisy, to which I find your continued truculence unjustifiable. Don't say, "Hey, this is what you Democrats want -- Don't complain" -- Unless you agree that the Democrats' multilateral approach is right.

You can't have it both ways. That's hypocrisy, and I beg a Republican to explain this away. If you must equivocate, it's time to reevaluate your party's truthfulness.

The above hissed in response by: Joshua Xanadu [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 11, 2006 7:08 AM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

Poor Joshua,

Hypocrisy is a two-edged sword my friend, frequently grabbed by the blade.

In your mind, when Bush ignores the U.N. he is a rogue cowboy. Now he talks to the U.N. and he is a hypocrite? And we are all hypocrites for supporting him? I'd say that Democrats (such as yourself) are hypocrites when they criticize Bush for doing exactly what they think he should do. How is that not the case? Think for a moment - What would you be writing here and now if Bush had decided to unilaterally attack North Korea? Still think you're not a hypocrite?

Now to the real problem. Assume for a moment that Bush is not an idiot, as you have been told. That he is capable of playing the great game, of pursuing nuanced approaches to complex problems. That perhaps a misstep here or there doesn't equate to failed policy or failed leadership.

If you make such an assumption, and I know it is difficult to go against years of indoctrination, then most of his actions make a lot of sense, with no hypocrisy necessary.

Iran, No Ko - Bush has followed the Democratic prescription to solving these complex problems to the letter. Why are you upset over it? Once again, it is because it doesn't fit in with the "Bush is an idiot/cowboy" meme that has been drilled into your brain. The only solution to the obvious disconnect between the facts and what you have been told is the typically liberal one - Deny the facts! Bush is still an idiot! And Republicans are hypocrites! Your angst is all someone else's fault!

I know. It is all so confusing.
Clinton bought peace with No Ko by giving them a nuclear reactor, letting them print fake $100 U.S. currency, among many other misdeeds. Such a simple, elegant, nuanced approach. A champagne solution if there ever there was one!

But that's not fair. It is not Clinton's fault. And not Bush's fault. However, there is a certain two-bit dictator who may bear some blame...But it is not his fault either. He is soooo "ronrey".

By the by, nice use of the dictionary on your desk. But please, don't strain yourself on our behalf. Being polite doesn't mean employing artful language. In this case it is simply the absence of rudeness.

The above hissed in response by: Big D [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 11, 2006 9:46 AM

The following hissed in response by: Binder

I don't suppose, Joshua, that Bush could be using the UN in the same way he used it in '03; that is, to show how impotent it is, which then provides some justification for ignoring the silly body completely.

The hope that China will reign in North Korea strikes me as wishful thinking on the part those who expect it.

But if the US goes to the UN with demands for action, and the UN, as always, fails to do anything constructive, then yet another nail has been placed into the coffin of that ridiculous body. It would, of course, be even better if, as in 2003, the UN passes some resolutions and then gets pissy when someone tries to actually enforce them, but I suspect the delegates to the UN (and their member countries) have learned the folly of that policy, if nothing else.

The above hissed in response by: Binder [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 11, 2006 9:55 AM

The following hissed in response by: Joshua Xanadu

In "Big D's" critique of my "Democratic" mentality, one where he supposes that I was: 1) against the War in Iraq; and 2) think Bush is stupid, he errors in the very same way he accuses. He can't get it through HIS thick skull that a Democrat could be advocating for something other than diplomacy.

Apparently, he also doesn't read, because in everyone of my posts I reiterated my support for military intervention always.

Bush is not stupid; however, he doesn't really want to "spread democracy." My complaint is that we've adopted this "spread democracy" theme, then we should remain consistent to maintain American credibility. THAT'S the problem. We have no credibility.

So my position? Surprise, it's that we use our entire military to enter Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, Uzbekistan, and China. We can't? Our military isn't strong enough? I disagree. I say we fight until we back up our statements.

Unrealistic? Then don't say stupid things like we're for "spreading democracy." If we want to be 'realists,' we should stop talking like 'democratic peace' interventionists.

Binder:

As much the UN will be discredited again (not that it would do any good), you're optimism that this is Bush's mind game before a military strike is naive. Let's face it, Bush doesn't have a plan here. He's been caught holding his pants around his ankle, because his tough talk is untenable.

The above hissed in response by: Joshua Xanadu [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 11, 2006 11:03 AM

The following hissed in response by: Patrick Chester

Ah, so Xanadu's going for the "I'm MORE of a hawk than you guys" schtick including the "if we can't go into all these countries then we can't say we're supporting democracy" strawman. How boring.

You're right Daffyd. His boorish pronouncements are quickly becoming scrollover material.

The above hissed in response by: Patrick Chester [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 11, 2006 12:00 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Joshua Xanadu:

Please, dear sirs, how do you explain your party's loathing of the UN, yet current reliance upon it?

I'm one of those who loathes the UN, and I don't think we should be relying upon them. In fact, I think the Bush adminstration is altogether too hung up on diplomacy -- as was Ronald Reagan.

But both Bush-43 and Reagan are far less so than all other administrations of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries; I can't always get what I want, but I can get what I least loathe!

In the specific case, there is an obvious reason why Bush turns to the UN... and note that neither President Bush nor any member of his cabinet has ever slammed the UN as irredeemable (as I do); John Bolton has rightly said it's drastically in need of reform. (The Bush administration is far more moderate on this issue than I; but I'm the one who is out of step with the American people, not Bush.)

The reason is that it's the only game in town. The only alternative to going to war over everything is diplomacy (I don't oppose all of it; I just think we're too wedded to it). And alas, the UN behemoth has gobbled up every other avenue for diplomacy.

Whenever some international problem crops up, everybody else involved say "we must do this through the UN! Call the UN!" And if we refuse, then we won't be involved in the negotiations at all.

President Bush understands this just as well as Ronald Reagan did. (Ronald Reagan also commonly said that government was not the solution to the problem, government was the problem... but that didn't stop him from running the government as chief executive.)

I would rather we formulated our foreign policy just between ourselves and our allies; but if they will only negotiate (e.g.) sanctions against North Korea through the framework of the UN, then our only alternatives are to go along with it -- or withdraw from the world.

Make sense?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 11, 2006 2:39 PM

The following hissed in response by: Joshua Xanadu

I've come to a conclusion about the Republicans who still support Bush. (There are others, much more consistent Republicans who abide by their beliefs... few and far in between, unfortunately):

No one has yet to justify the hypocrisy. So my conclusion is that hypocrisy is okay.

Trust me, I could care less about being provocative to you refined gentlemen. I'm just asking the right questions.

I'm not trying to out-hawk anyone. My point throughout this whole debate is that America has lost its credibility around the world by being hypocritical. Who cares about the world, you might ask?

In my line of work, credibility is paramount, especially dealing with officials from other countries. I hate that we are losing our leverage over other countries, to shape their decisions to benefit the U.S. This is a result of our loss of credibility.

It seems that the only response I've received are disbelieving dismissals... as if I were playing a part. Listen: the U.S. losing our influence around the world is NOT a joke.

Whether we talk diplomacy and act accordingly, or we talk tough and back it up, we need to be consistent. How hard is it to buy into that?

(Of course, most folks just read one or two lines and get angry). So prepare yourself for more responses that do not address these questions.)

The above hissed in response by: Joshua Xanadu [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 11, 2006 2:46 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Big D:

And you too; cut out the personal attacks on Joshua Xanadu, all right?

This is a good subject, and I'd love to see more of a dialog here. I just got finished praising y'all to the skies; your job now is to live up to your previous standard.

There are much better arguments in favor of Bush's handling of North Korea than in favor of the Clinton policy (and they are not at all identical)... so let's have that argument!

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 11, 2006 2:48 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Joshua Xanadu:

It seems that the only response I've received are disbelieving dismissals...

You are precipitous. When you hit people with a new argument, the thoughtful thing to do is stop, think a while, and then respond with counterargument.

Now, people may well react viscerally to your rather offensive early demeanor; but that doesn't mean that logical arguments won't follow later... as mine above, for example.

"Patience the way of the Jedi is!" -- Yoda.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 11, 2006 3:14 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved