Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditJust when it couldn't get worse…
The one thing the Bush administration and the Republicans have excelled in these past years is conquering the media heights -- air, print, and face time -- when it was crucial. In the last two weeks, with Iraq in near meltdown, American casualties soaring (32 dead in the first 9 days of October and figures on the wounded going sky-high), Iraqi police poisoned by the hundreds, assassinations the norm, and Shiites as well as Sunnis fighting with the U.S. military, the Foley scandal suddenly succeeded in sucking all the air out of the media environment. The President and Vice President continued to travel the country doing their normal dirt, but it was as if they had been silenced.
In the meantime, the Bush Bump in the polls, which barely lasted out September, looks to be turning back into a Bush freefall. (The newest Newsweek poll has presidential approval back at a dismal 33%.) In fact, as the mid-term elections approach, all poll figures are trending Democratic. For the first time in what seems decades, Americans find the Democrats more "trustworthy" than Republicans on everything, even "moral values" and "defense against terrorism" (so both the latest Washington Post poll and the Newsweek one tell us).
So just when the President and his Party seem sunk, who rides to the rescue? Kim Jong Il. Okay, okay, the Democrats are going to argue that a North Korean nuclear test is but more evidence that Bush's policies were a hopeless caricature of a catastrophe. But that may not matter. It's just the sort of argument that generally goes on the inside pages for the news (and political) junkies. What may matter most is that, for the first time in ten days, the Foley scandal is, however briefly, off the front pages and the President is front page and center being "presidential." The New York Times lead headline is: "Bush Rebukes North Korea." The Washington Post: "U.S. Urges Sanctions on North Korea."
Jim VandeHei and Chris Cillizza put it this way in the Post: "GOP officials are urging [Republican] lawmakers to focus exclusively on local issues and leave it to party leaders to mitigate the Foley controversy by accusing Democrats of trying to politicize it. At the same time, the White House plans to amplify national security issues, especially the threat of terrorism, after North Korea's reported nuclear test, in hopes of shifting the debate away from casualties and controversy during the final month of the campaign."
Strange isn't it how the Evil Ones have a way of riding to the rescue of the Bush administration. It's worth remembering that George W. Bush's presidency was languishing and he was under attack by worried members of his own party on September 10, 2001. And have we all forgotten the way Osama bin Laden providentially video just on the eve of the 2004 presidential election, providing Bush with a poster-boy-of-terror moment. Now, the unlovely Kim has exploded his mini-nuke. Maybe it won't prove "just in time," but you can't blame the Axis of Evil One for giving it the old Pyongyang U. try.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
there is no reason to suppose that this won't blow up in Bush's face, like everything else.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/10/2006 @ 5:10pm
Now is a good time for Dems to point out that China has had nuclear weapons for four decades, and has more recently been busy testing ballistic missiles, without receiving any kind of rebuke, stinging or otherwise, from 'national security' Repubs.
Why the double standard? U.S. corporations, like Wal-Mart, are making huge profits by exporting American jobs to sweatshop dictatorships like China, and now Vietnam. Also worth noting is that China, like terrorism sponsor Saudi Arabia, currently holds trillions of dollars' worth of U.S. Treasury bonds, in effect financing the Repubs' borrowing and spending spree.
In other words, the 'axis of evil' has never been anything but a smokescreen for the Repubs' treasonous appeasement of our number one terrorist enemy, the Saudis, and our number one nuclear threat, China. Someday our fellow citizens will figure out this fact; that day will arrive sooner if Dems stop saying "Yes, but . . ." to the Repubs' fear-mongering and start pointing out who our real enemies are and who is covering up for them.
Posted by samcrossett at 10/10/2006 @ 5:53pm
If the repubs are in that bad of shape and all here can't wait until Nov, then the little turd in NK doesn't matter.
If the repubs hold on, then the dems are in worse shape than even they understand.
OFF TOPIC..question...
Did we(US) GIVE NK any nuclear material and know how?
Posted by john maasch at 10/10/2006 @ 5:58pm
Related/Unrelated,
Just watched Ned Lamont on Hardball struggling to differentiate his policy on Iran from that of Lieberman. Lieberman, Ned declared, was involved in sabre-rattling that will never lead to a positive outcome. Ned, on the other hand, is merely holding the sabre without rattling it. You see the difference, of course. Rattling and holding. Shaky and firm. Completely different.
Meanwhile on North Korea, the Dems are able to point a finger at W and W can counter with tough talk, Cheney will talk about gave concerns, Rice will meet with our friends in the area and resolve to solve the problem without appeasement, and Rumsfeld will blame the media for not understanding the complexities of the problem. And the Dems will counter with what? They can try to outline the lax policy that has allowed this to fester, but no one is going to listen to such things. They can try to hide behind James Baker's belief in diplomacy with enemies, but I wouldn't trust Baker to maintain a constant course in a political situation as far as I could throw him.
The only out for the Dems in this is if the Prez really starts to build us up to war, which I highly doubt.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/10/2006 @ 6:03pm
The detonation of a nuclear device is not a spinnable event. People have memories. They will vaguely recall that during the Clinton administration, North Korea was being "engaged" somehow or other. Now, in the get-tough atmosphere that Bush encourages, they have done something truly scary, something that has not happened in recent memory.
Bush has taken on three enemies - Afghanistan, Iraq, and North Korea. Each was impoverished and virtually ungoverned, and functionally defenseless. And he has been defeated by each one.
What a pathetic weakling Bush is. He picks fights with sickly losers, and gets beaten up.
Spin away, Republican geniuses. You're in a hole. Keep digging.
Posted by MyParadigm at 10/10/2006 @ 6:11pm
Oh Gawd,
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is fighting for the Missile Defense System. She is frustrated that NK has been allowed to develop this technology and wants to get to the bottom of this situation: how did this happen? who supplied the technology?
Such good questions. Can't wait for the administration's answers.
On another topic, while talking about the six-party talks, I found these statements made by Rice in response to questions about Iraq:
it's a lot harder to see the quiet process of political reconciliation that is going on in Iraq, where they have already had elections, formed a government, they're writing a constitution, and then they're going to have elections for a permanent government."
The secretary said insurgencies are defeated "politically as well as militarily."
These statements were made July 2005.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/10/2006 @ 6:16pm
Did we(US) GIVE NK any nuclear material and know how?
JOHN MAASCH 10/10/2006 @ 5:58pm
STWRILEY answered that question on another thread, pretty thoroughly. Basically, the answer is no.
Posted by MyParadigm at 10/10/2006 @ 6:18pm
Sorry, I don't think that N. Korea is doing this now to help the Republicans distract voters from Foley any more than I think insurgents are ramping up at this point to help the Democrats get elected.
Posted by Woody Fan at 10/10/2006 @ 6:28pm
yes, woodyfan, not every thing revolves around the US. these folks have lives and agendas of their own.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/10/2006 @ 6:41pm
Zero -
Several Democrats have attacked the Bush Administration's record on North Korea - Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Bill Richardson, Herb Kohl, Russ Feingold, Bob MenendezSam Nunn, Steve Israel, Gary Ackerman, Charles Shumer to name a few.
Posted by Hman23 at 10/10/2006 @ 7:09pm
Foley? what's not to like zero?
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/10/2006 @ 8:43pm
Zero -
Hold on - you started in with the Democrats but then go on to discuss what the media and blogs are leading with. Which is it, because unless you think the Democrats in fact control what the media reports, I cannot see conflating the two. As far as the media, I'll grant your point on huffingtonpost.com, but N. Korea is THE lead story on almost every other major outlet. And within are many articles where Democrats are being very critical of Bush's policies (or lack of policies) via-a-vis N. Korea. And of course, stories where Rice and others are defending the adminsistration (or blaming Clinton).
As for the polticians, will Democrats continue to mention Foley and (more importantly) the ensuing cover-up until to the election? You bet. And they should, as it shows a consistent pattern in the Republican-led Congress of placing party loyalty and electoral survival above principle. But I wager it will not be THE singular line of attack. Iraq, national security, the economy, AND N. Korea will also be a part. If the White House wasn't getting hammered on this issue, why on earth would they be minimizing the test, as they are doing today?
Posted by Hman23 at 10/10/2006 @ 9:39pm
the Korea thing is not good news for Bush. and they seem to know it. McCain looked lobotomized trying to fix the blame on Clinton. no matter what Bill did or didn't do, it's been like six years since he's been at the levers of power. no, the blame falls squarely on Bush. and may the ax follow.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/10/2006 @ 10:07pm
"Actually, you are both correct. The 1994 US-North Korea Agreed Framework had Clinton promising 2 light water reactors to NK by 2003. The Bush Administration cancelled sending those reactors."
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/10/2006 @ 6:44pm
LvLying, conveniently left out the part about the difficulty in making nukular weapons with said reactors, or the part about shutting down their, more suitable for weapons, reactors.
Had this topic been persued, we undoubtedly could have counted on LL to forget it was his wiz bang, "Clinton was nothing, it was all the rep congress", congress who forgot to provide funding to hold up our end of the agreement.
Oh yea. America can say/sign anything and then do as it pleases. Treaties? Puhlease!
Go pedal this shit elsewhere. Anybody following the lead of the posts on this blog, already knows this is shit. And those who don't aren't bothering to read you either.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 10/10/2006 @ 10:20pm
The way I see it, Dems will continue to lose at the polls because (in general) they won't take a stand. They like to critize, play the Monday morning quarterback, but not present a clear, strong position.
Again, I mean this in general terms. There are some exceptions - but the Dems leadership is constantly bickering and whinning.
I'm far from a rabid Rep supporter. We all know they have made, are making, and will continue to make mistakes and problems. They do, however, stand up for what they believe - whether we agree with them or not is, of course, a different story.
In some ways, I wish there were other/better alternatives.
I hope some Dem leadership will put forth Real plans, Real ideas, not just the same old bashing.
Posted by Corwin at 10/10/2006 @ 10:45pm
Once again the great AntiChrist lvl and his sidekick massch have tag teamed to provide more inenptitude than fact.
Just for grinns go to http://factcheck.org/default.html and check out the latest in BS created by the repubs and their BS mill of misinformation.
Tally to date is Repubs 99% lies and misinformation Dems 10% streching the truth, all you gots to do is be able/willing to read the facts.
Posted by dycel8r at 10/10/2006 @ 10:48pm
Oh Corwin welcome to the Wanker squad.
Posted by dycel8r at 10/10/2006 @ 10:49pm
I think it's obvious to everyone that Bush has done nothing about North Korea for the whole time he's been in office. I mean, what has he done? This can't help him because it makes him look weak, incompetent, negligent, or some combination. That image of Bush as a "firm hand on the wheel" was pretty much shot after Katerina, which remains the defining moment of his presidency. His image has never recovered. Will someone tell me how this isn't yet another Katerina moment? How Democrats should respond to "blame it on Clinton" is, laugh in their face. As Clinton himself said on a different subject, "At least I tried. They didn't try." I think the GOP is in quicksand now, and whatever they spinning do will get them in deeper. People have had plenty of time to make up their minds about these people. My prediction is that nothing will work in their favor between now and November. Stop being paranoid, people! Their hall of illusions is crumbling to dust as we speak.
Posted by eatbees at 10/10/2006 @ 11:05pm
STWRILEY answered that question on another thread, pretty thoroughly. Basically, the answer is no.
Posted by MYPARADIGM 10/10/2006 @ 6:18pm
we didn't give north korea anything. But rumsfeld had no problem selling tham what they needed.
Posted by Will C. at 10/10/2006 @ 11:32pm
Instead of just your usual ad hominum attacks try to do something on an adult level and actually debate the issue.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/10/2006 @ 11:05pm
Luvvy
Since you don't like ad hominem attacks and want to debate on an adult level, then you can explain exactly how I am appeasing the terrorists.
Posted by Will C. at 10/10/2006 @ 11:38pm
you didn't really think I was going to forget about that, did you luvvy?
Posted by Will C. at 10/10/2006 @ 11:39pm
You are a another one who could demonstrate even a modicum of credibility if you ever debated the facts.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/10/2006 @ 11:10pm
Luvvy
since you're interested in reestablishing a modicum of credibility and debating with facts...
then you can explain exactly how I am appeasing the terrorists
Posted by Will C. at 10/10/2006 @ 11:42pm
if you want to know what is in the drudge report, just go to the web site. you don't need "mask" or whoemver to parrot it for you
Posted by ZERO 10/10/2006 @ 10:56pm
Don't go to the website. It just helps his traffic numbers and ad rates.
Posted by fromredbird at 10/10/2006 @ 11:51pm
"Tally to date is Repubs 99% lies and misinformation Dems 10% streching the truth, all you gots to do is be able/willing to read the facts"
Is this an example of ineptitude or fact?...I suspect the former....
Posted by john maasch at 10/11/2006 @ 12:01am
The drudge report in just a link service...maybe we should use the ever serious and balanced(unbalanced womwn for sure) Huffington....
Posted by john maasch at 10/11/2006 @ 12:02am
it's "ad hominEm"
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/11/2006 @ 12:17am
The perfidy of the Republican Congress on the Mark Foley issue is much easier for the attention span of the average American to grasp than light water reactors and the history of how the Republican Congress and Bush sabotaged the Agreed Framework.
That's just how it is.
Posted by fromredbird at 10/11/2006 @ 12:25am
"Tally to date is Repubs 99% lies and misinformation Dems 10% streching the truth, all you gots to do is be able/willing to read the facts"
Is this an example of ineptitude or fact?...I suspect the former....
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/11/2006 @ 12:01am | ignore this person
Maybe you should try reposting everything he wrote, John, in context. It shouldn't be that hard - it's only a few extra key lines.
Here's what he actually said:
Once again the great AntiChrist lvl and his sidekick massch have tag teamed to provide more inenptitude than fact.
Just for grinns go to http://factcheck.org/default.html and check out the latest in BS created by the repubs and their BS mill of misinformation.
Posted by DYCEL8R 10/10/2006 @ 10:48pm
You left out the first part there, John, by accident, I'm sure. Happy to help.
Maybe you and Liberty should try FactCheck.org, John. After that, swing by Media Matters. You'll see exactly what Dy was talking about.
(but you knew that)
So, your post, was that an example of ineptitude or fact?...I suspect the former....
Posted by New Dawn at 10/11/2006 @ 12:58am
Once again the great AntiChrist lvl and his sidekick massch have tag teamed to provide more inenptitude than fact.
Just for grinns go to http://factcheck.org/default.html and check out the latest in BS created by the repubs and their BS mill of misinformation.
Tally to date is Repubs 99% lies and misinformation Dems 10% streching the truth, all you gots to do is be able/willing to read the facts.
Posted by DYCEL8R 10/10/2006 @ 10:48pm
Posted by New Dawn at 10/11/2006 @ 12:59am
Nah. This is not the moment of truth. That is happening as we write...and as the Nation warned at the end of September.
Be very afraid of the Eisenhower Carrier group as it sails towards Iran. The October Surprise has been in the works for years....
This is a MUST READ
IF YOU'RE NOT VERY AFRAID... [tvnewslies.org]
Posted by Reg at 10/11/2006 @ 01:44am
". For the first time in what seems decades, Americans find the Democrats more "trustworthy" than Republicans on everything, even "moral values" and "defense against terrorism" (so both the latest Washington Post poll and the Newsweek one tell us)."
LOL...and what did the Democrats DO to deserve that new rep?
Nothing, just "not be Republicans". What a glorious victory!
Posted by Mask at 10/11/2006 @ 07:13am
"Be very afraid of the Eisenhower Carrier group as it sails towards Iran. The October Surprise has been in the works for years...."
This is standard conspiracy fluff. I served on the USS Enterprise for 3 years - a nuclear carrier battle group has been in the Persian Gulf (it's impossible to not be 'just off the coast of Iran' in the Gulf.. just look at a map) constantly for the last 15 years. There is nothing particularly new or ominous about a new battle group going to relieve one that's been there for awhile.
I trust that, even if they don't understand other forms of rationality, that the current Administration understands the political implications of war with Iran. I suspect it would require re-instating the draft, would involve many more casualties than we're currently experiencing in Iraq, and would send petrol prices through the roof, all of which are political liabilities.
The real tragedy with the North Korea situation is that because of the stupidity of Kim and the incompetence of Bush, it's likely that the UN will vote to impose further sanctions on the country. Sanctions predominantly affect the elderly, children, sick, and other vulnerable populations.
Posted by twocinc at 10/11/2006 @ 07:38am
Posted by TWOCINC 10/11/2006 @ 07:38am
Looneys rarely use logic, TWOCINC. This has been a PLUNGER staple for a few weeks now.
Not only the Enterprise and the Eisenhower as part of a plot to attack Iran for an "October Surprise"...but a "secret Israeli sub" that's going to launch a sea-launched Exocet at the Enterprise, damage or sink her, and then the Iranians get blamed ("Gulf of Tonkin-2006").
When none of this comes to fruition by November 7th....the nuts will either claim that "Our exposure of it stopped them from doing it" or something equally stupid. (Sort of like how the Millerites or any of the "Armeggeddon will happen next Tuesday" types claim that "God postponed it" and then set a NEW date...with no loss of faith.)
Posted by Mask at 10/11/2006 @ 08:50am
mask, when the regime fucks up big time, there is a great virtue in not joining them.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/11/2006 @ 08:51am
Why such hatred and animosity? If you want to steer people to your point-of-view, why not use the straight facts? Don't cherry-pick news items. And it won't hurt to admit that sometimes you/we are wrong.
Republicans have, are and will be wrong about some things. Democrats have, are and will be wrong about some things.
Republicans lie. Democrats lie.
Forget all that BS. Find some common ground. Agree on the basics. Figure out what you really disagree about – and debate that.
Geez – some of you sound like you're ready to go to war. Chill out and show some respect.
Posted by Corwin at 10/11/2006 @ 09:13am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/11/2006 @ 08:51am
I assume you're talking about the Republicans and Democrats (my 7:13am post)?
Not "virtue"...advantage is the word you're looking for.
But as I said earlier, it's interesting that it took a monumental f***-up by Republicans, to have people even CONSIDER that Democrats are good on "moral values" and "defense against terrorism".
It certainly wasn't based on their "Contract for America-2006" or the "plans" buried on the DNC website. And their "moral values" up-tick has sprung off of "Foley-gate", not that over the last few years, the public decided they approve of Democratic views on morality.
So....when they win on November 7th (yes, not "if"), what have they won on, but the failures of the other guys. Fair enough to do that, but it means that, like Bush, they're going to have to claim a mandate...where none exists.
And what happens AFTER November...into 2007...will those "moral values" voters the Dems just won stick with them...when "gay marriage" comes up again? Will the "strong on defense against terrorism" voters back them when they shut down Gitmo?
Or will it be like Bush's attempt at Social Security reform in 2005 (based on his "mandate" from 2004)?
Posted by Mask at 10/11/2006 @ 09:19am
the future, the future, what about now, mask?
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/11/2006 @ 09:48am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/11/2006 @ 09:48am
Now?.....Now, the Democrats take the House, maybe take the Senate. (if by "now" you mean in the next 3 weeks).
AFTERWARDS, the "reckoning". It'll be fun to watch.
Posted by Mask at 10/11/2006 @ 09:52am
four weeks from now is not now. give the crystal ball a rest, won't you? you have heard the expression: not see the forest for the trees? this describes you.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/11/2006 @ 09:55am
LOL...and what did the Democrats DO to deserve that new rep?
Nothing, just "not be Republicans". What a glorious victory!
Posted by MASK 10/11/2006 @ 07:13am
the victory is for the American people, who finally waded through all the republcian ass gas and finally saw the democrats for what they are... more trustworthy, more moral, and better at fighting wars.
history does support these things
Posted by Will C. at 10/11/2006 @ 09:55am
"the victory is for the American people, who finally waded through all the republcian ass gas and finally saw the democrats for what they are... more trustworthy, more moral, and better at fighting wars. "
You are kidding, right? Nobody believes this ass gas either...and if kooks like you do, then the next 2 years will be even more of a fiasco than the last and you you will have permanently planted your ass in the kook section with out hope of a cure.
Posted by john maasch at 10/11/2006 @ 10:22am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/11/2006 @ 09:55am
I'm sorry, JOHANN...have I missed your chastisement of those on the Left here, who are predicting the "doom of the GOP" due to Foley-gate, etc.?
Or is that kind of "crystal ball" activity okay?
Posted by Mask at 10/11/2006 @ 10:22am
Posted by WILL C. 10/11/2006 @ 09:55am
And once again, WILL proves my point. Upto 2 weeks ago, it looked like the Repubs were on a "come-back"...Bush's ratings up...chance of a Dem House marginal at best.
Then..."Foley-gate" and 15% lead for Dems (even on Fox!!!! polls).
So...when they win the House on November 7th, like WILL, they will claim it is EVERYTHING but "GOP protecting pedophiles instead of children" and that it was "all abou Iraq, health care, the deficit, Abramoff-gate, whatever".
not a criticism...the Repubs would do (and have done) the same thing....just the nature of politics. You win on scandal...you claim it was the issues.
Posted by Mask at 10/11/2006 @ 10:26am
And once again, WILL proves my point. Upto 2 weeks ago, it looked like the Repubs were on a "come-back"...Bush's ratings up...chance of a Dem House marginal at best.
er, not exactly, a small blip does not a come back make, Bush ratings went from terrible to merely miserable.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/11/2006 @ 10:44am
You win on scandal...you claim it was the issues.
issues, like Iraq?
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/11/2006 @ 10:44am
Can we please get over the Foley non-scandal? He likes young men. He resigned. He's gone.
As for North Korea, I really don't think it helps Bush at all. Granted, it may neutralize the media's Foley fixation, but frankly, isn't the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a Communist dictator more important than a congressman's sex life?
Posted by Beausoleil at 10/11/2006 @ 11:00am
Beau, what about the cover up?
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/11/2006 @ 11:11am
They (republicans) do, however, stand up for what they believe - whether we agree with them or not is, of course, a different story.-Corwin,
Are you sure about this? Do they really stand for Family Moral Values? Foley, Sherwood, Gingrich signing divorce papres at the hospital. Balanced budgets? nope. Smaller guvt? nope. I could go on, but you get my drift.
(Chimpy not answering questions at his prfest)
Posted by crabwalk at 10/11/2006 @ 11:15am
now he is rambling in his chimpy way, obfuscating, deflecting, spouting nonsense, almost incoherent. This guy is a Leader?? I fear for our country even more every time this moron opens his mouth.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/11/2006 @ 11:25am
Well, the only thing that could help Dubya and the GOP is the oh-so timely capture of OBL. Of course, they had better have remembered to use a good quality freezer bag, cause if he shows up with freezer burn it might be a wee bit suspicious....
Posted by leftofcenter at 10/11/2006 @ 11:27am
He is going to ask the UN to send a letter expressing anger.
Ahh, Hans Bricks, welcome. Have you met my fish?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/11/2006 @ 11:28am
LOC, how about a wax model of OBL. Who would know?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/11/2006 @ 11:29am
I never really liked Clinton, but when I listen to chimpy speak, I miss 'ol Billy. It also reminds me of a scene in the movie Slapshot , where the goaly says "Maurice, when you speak it makes me want to puke. AUUGH, spit"
Posted by crabwalk at 10/11/2006 @ 11:35am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/11/2006 @ 10:44am
How were Dems winning on Iraq, JOHANN.
Sure the polls had turned against the war, but Dems hadn't settled on "Murtha" or "Hillary"....i.e. pull out or "let's fight it better".
That's what's going to be so interesting when they take Congress next year...they'll have to settle on one thing that they're going to "force Bush to do".
But do they risk being labelled "The ones who lost the war" by the Right Wing Media (Limbaugh, Fox, etc) or do they play it cagey and hope the GOP forces Bush to "declare victory" and watch from the sidelines and point fingers at Bush when Iraq breaks apart?
Posted by Mask at 10/11/2006 @ 11:39am
The Big, Tough Leader still finds it morally acceptable to hide behind the Iraqi women and children. "better to fight there than here". That is morality?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/11/2006 @ 11:42am
I'm sorry, but the so-called coverup doesn't bother me especially. The nature of politics is to keep these things secret. As is often the case, when the truth comes out, the efforts to suppress the scandal are worse than alleged misconduct (e.g. perjury with Clinton).
Again, Foley has resigned. That's enough. I don't blame the Dems for amping up this non-scandal for political purposes -- the GOP would do the same -- but I'm far more concerned about communists with nuclear weapons and the rise of Islamist terrorism.
Whether the GOP losses or not, I'd prefer that the debate would focus on those substantive issues.
Let's not David Corn this thing, ok?
Posted by Beausoleil at 10/11/2006 @ 11:44am
too bad there isn't a gay male prostitute he could call on, seems like he is getting some real questions. Some.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/11/2006 @ 11:45am
Mask, let's give the dems three and a half years with this Iraq thing, that's how long the repubs have had that football, THEN judge them on what they DID. you are adding your voice to criticize the out of power party for the in power party DID.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/11/2006 @ 12:07pm
and who is that Ligeti fellow?
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/11/2006 @ 12:08pm
Beau, Again, Foley has resigned. That's enough.
no it isn't. that little thing called the cover up remains. are you suggesting we abandon justice for these perps? more important issues notwithstanding.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/11/2006 @ 12:10pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/11/2006 @ 12:07am
JOHANN, what actions of the Dems in the past...can offer insight into their governorship in the future?
And remember, we're talking about Congress...not the White House. So, Clinton doesn't count.
Good place to start...future "Majority Leader" Harry Reid....and compare him to past "Minority Leader" Harry Reid and his leadership.
Posted by Mask at 10/11/2006 @ 12:31pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/10/2006 @ 6:44pm
Actually, you are both correct. The 1994 US-North Korea Agreed Framework had Clinton promising 2 light water reactors to NK by 2003. The Bush Administration cancelled sending those reactors.
While to his credit, Clinton knew by 1998 that NK had violated the agreements and were pursuing Nuclear Weapons development, he did not suspend the agreement. He did however have contingent planning developed to bomb NK nuclear facilities.
You are essentially correct, Lvliberty, though you do simplify things a bit. It's not quite as clear-cut as Clinton approved it and BushCo canceled it. Clinton also refused all the key (i.e., working) parts of the LWR's himself (by terms written into the Agreed Framework) because they were balking at certain provisions of the IAEA inspection work (at some of their more "experimental" facilities. We now know that is because of weapons development activity (as indeed Clinton suspected.) But the problem was and probably still is (given the best intelligence estimates that have been released) plutonium from spent fuel from the old graphite reactors (the LWR's are useless for this purpose, being specifically designed as anti-proliferation plants; basically they produce plutonium 240 along with the weapons-grade plutonium 239, which "poisons" it and makes it useless for weapons.) That was what the Agreed Framework was designed to contain, and it did for eight years, until BushCo provoked the cancelation by that idiotic "Axis of Evil" rhetoric. They have never understood the politics of the Korean states or their relations to China and have blundered through policy in northeast Asia.
Your right about Clinton's contigency plan too, though he seems to have envisioned this mostly because they were expecting the DPRK to collapse under it's own failures; a 50% starvation rate in the population to start, no electricity to speak of (the Wikipedia article [en.wikipedia.org] on the Agreed Framework shows a night map of northeast Asia and you can see the DPRK as a dark patch right in the middle of dazzling light; S. Korea, China, Japan), virtually no trade, etc. In that all the experts have been surprised, but it does make sense given the extreme totalitarian-ideological nature of the DPRK (and the cult of personality around the two Kims.) That may actually be the problem now, since we really don't want the total collapse of a nuclear state, no matter how bad they are. Loose nukes really are our worst nightmare. That's what we're going to have to fall back on now, trying to secure the best control of these things that we can. I just hope Georgie is up to it.
By the way, we actually both cited the FAS source independently (I used it on the other thread), it's always good to see a convergence of sources and a good debate on evidence.
Posted by Stwriley at 10/11/2006 @ 12:49pm
Off topic, sorry ...
Study: War blamed for 655,000 Iraqi deaths
Key points in the survey:
The number of people dying in Iraq has risen each year since March 2003.
Those killed are predominantly males aged 15-44.
Deaths attributed to coalition forces accounted for 31 percent of the dead.
Although the "proportion of deaths ascribed to coalition forces has diminished in 2006 ... the actual numbers have increased each year."
President Bush slammed the report Wednesday during a news conference in the White House Rose Garden. "I don't consider it a credible report. Neither does Gen. (George) Casey," he said, referring to the top ranking U.S. military official in Iraq, "and neither do Iraqi officials."
"The methodology is pretty well discredited," he added.
The authors said their method of sampling the population is a "standard tool of epidemiology and is used by the U.S. government and many other agencies."
Professionals familiar with such research told CNN that the survey's methodology is sound.
Posted by MyParadigm at 10/11/2006 @ 12:52pm
More off-topic....
Everybody better watch quoting Zogby polls from now on....
I just got my THIRD survey from them and supposedly I'm "on their online polling list".
('course it could just be spam from some marketing firm!)
Posted by Mask at 10/11/2006 @ 1:11pm
JOHANNESROLF,
The so-called coverup doesn't really bother me. I don't suggest that we "abadon justice" -- there are mechanisms for dealing with sexual harassment of pages -- but I recommend that we focus on the more pressing issues at hand in the election:
-North Korea's nuclear ambitions/success.
-Iran's nuclear ambitions
-Iraq policy
The "perps" I'm worried about are a communist dictator with nukes, a theocracy lead by a raging anti-semite with nuclear amibtions, and terrorists who attack civilians in Iraq in the hopes of destroying its fragile democracy.
Posted by Beausoleil at 10/11/2006 @ 1:39pm
and terrorists who attack civilians in Iraq in the hopes of destroying its fragile democracy.
this is a very simplistic analysis of the situation in Iraq, depending almost entirely on the lies that the administration is peddling. to little avail, evidently.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/11/2006 @ 1:43pm
Well, "simplistic" in which context? On a "comments section" of an online magazine?
At the very least, you have to acknowledge that so-called "insurgents" are deliberately killing civilians (women, children) and elected officials -- not simply coalition forces. Surely this qualifies many of them as terrorists. That much has zero to do with the "lies" of the Bush administration.
This much is more accurately described as "simple" (to understand), rather than "simplistic".
Posted by Beausoleil at 10/11/2006 @ 1:59pm
Beau, it seems a lot of the killing is by "our" Iraqis, militias, is this what you mean by fragile democracy? terrorism is a method. dropping bombs on civilian targets could be described as terrorism. the fact is that the US has plunged Iraq into civil war, with all the complications that entails. since you do not acknowledge this, I call your analysis simplistic.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/11/2006 @ 2:04pm
You're missing a very simple and crucial distinction: deliberate murder of civilians by so-called "insurgents" in order to spread terror vs. inadvertant/accidental/collateral civilian deaths caused by a liberating coalition & Iraqi troops while defending a democratic government against said "insurgents".
I understand the lines are blurred further by the existence of militias who have infiltrated the police and commit murder based on ethnicity. However, the effect of their violence is the same: namely, to spread terror and harm the public's trust in the democratic government.
When have coalition forces deliberately targeted civilians for the purpose of spreading terror?
Posted by Beausoleil at 10/11/2006 @ 2:17pm
Hey Beau, you've probably heard that guns don't kill people, people do.
If we're discharging weapons and people are getting killed as a result, we are killing people. Our intent, from our point of view, is to establish a form of government acceptable to us.
The so-called terrorist sees it exactly the same way from his point of view.
You can keep making artificial distinctions about targeting innocent civilians. But to the dead, there is no difference.
And the dead may be the only objective observers.
Posted by MyParadigm at 10/11/2006 @ 2:33pm
by a liberating coalition & Iraqi troops while defending a democratic government against said "insurgents".
no to liberating, no one has been liberated in Iraq. Iraqi troops engaging in revenge killing, including civilians. collateral damage? that is far too simple an excuse. no buy, american people, ditto. there is no democratic gov't in Iraq, a puppet gov't is what it is.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/11/2006 @ 2:42pm
Again, I think you're both failing to realize that intent is a crucial factor in distinguishing murder from collateral deaths. This certainly true in the legal context, where intent or "guilty mind" is determinative in a charge of homicide or murder.
I don't deny that innocents have been tragically killed (accidently) by coalition forces and/or Iraqi troops/police in the course of their duties. However, the distinction I make is far from an "artificial" one. The terrorists understand this all too well -- witness their use of civilians as shields as well as their strategy of hiding weapons in hospitals, schools etc.
The so-called terrorist sees it exactly the same way from his point of view.
You may cringe at the use of the word "terrorist", but this is exactly how I would describe an indivual who deliberately kills women, children, and other civilians in order to inspire fear and sow chaos.
Our intent, from our point of view, is to establish a form of government acceptable to us.
Our intent is not simply to help establish a government that is "acceptable to us". Rather, we are trying establish a government that is inclusive, truly representative, tolerant, and acceptable to the rest of the world. The previous regime was a genocidal nightmare which was unacceptable in a post-911 world.
True, there is tremendous suffering and instability in the new Iraq, but at least there is at least some hope for a real Democracy where there used to be none.
Would you prefer a return to the old regime?
Posted by Beausoleil at 10/11/2006 @ 3:59pm
I would not. However, I imagine there are more Iraqis every day who would like a return to the old regime. I doubt they will ever be in the majority, but that is not out of the question, considering the level of violence.
If they get their wish, that would be a democratic result, if we define democracy as giving the people the government they choose.
I guess that's one way to build a democracy.
But back to the good news. At least the North Korean nuclear test appears to have been a dud. I guess that stuff Clinton gave them was just no good after all.
Posted by MyParadigm at 10/11/2006 @ 5:07pm
Beau, you are still running away from the fact of civil war, which tends to be everyone against everyone. the US occupation troops, without which the "democratic" gov't would collapse overnight, have fought Baathists, the last gov't of Iraq, islamic radicals who flocked to the country they did not exist in before, and surprise Shia militias, trained by us.
" a government that is inclusive, truly representative, tolerant, and acceptable to the rest of the world. The previous regime was a genocidal nightmare which was unacceptable in a post-911 world"
no way, the elections took place without the Sunni and the baathists. I don't believe a gov't in Iraq can succeed without those elements. and if the Saddam gov't was unacceptable, it was so before 9/11, which changed nothing in regards to Iraq, as they were not involved.
" a government that is inclusive, truly representative, tolerant, and acceptable to the rest of the world.
a gov't like that would be nice to have in this country.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/11/2006 @ 6:08pm
In Reply To: The Wanker squad -
"Instead of just your usual ad hominum attacks try to do something on an adult level and actually debate the issue.
You might try by first posting your facts that counter what I posted. Or is it just easier to call someone names without any substance?
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/10/2006 @ 11:05pm"
Oh great AntiChrist lvl since you asked, to do something on an adult level like criticizing someone without bothering to check on their sources for factual substance, this is required to have an actual DEBATE. The urls you post never actually go to a source. So much for your truths, is this a sign of an adult I think not it is another in a long line of falsities that you repeatedly throw out to make yourself feel important but your too clueless to see anything but your own opinion!
"Is this an example of ineptitude or fact?...I suspect the former....
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/11/2006 @ 12:01am"
Obviously ineptitude on your part, you repeatedly prove your ineptness by failing to review the facts. This is a trait of someone who is so anally inept that they feel their opinion is more relevant than the facts or the truth, a truly conservative responce to every issue.
Posted by CORWIN 10/11/2006 @ 09:13am / This is the point but if we are inundated with lie after lie are the lies now true and if they aren't who will defend them, not those who refuse to question their validity.
My post is a lead for those who wish to actually believe there is truth, to get the down and dirty on those who with the help of their manipulation squad limpbrain, savage, colteris, anally retentive's all who blow smoke and watch their clones get down on their knees and kiss their feet or their ass which ever is closest to the ground in blind support.
Ask yourself this why does the conservative base hate Clinton so much what he did in office is minor in respect to what this administration has done yet they grab every chance they get to compare "Clinton" to the crimes of their perceived leaders, the devout turn up their eyes and blame whomever they're point at, its totally irrational yet the brainless are the easist to brainwash.
Whats my point it's time to quit assuming the truth and really question what is true. To be thrown the
New Dawn thanks for the Media Matters tip.
Posted by dycel8r at 10/11/2006 @ 10:30pm
"no way, the elections took place without the Sunni and the baathists"
Again, you have the facts wrong. Participation in the election was strong for all the ethnic factions of Iraq. This was true even for the beleaguered Sunni minority. The evidence is in the democratic parliament, where all the factions are represented.
if the Saddam gov't was unacceptable, it was so before 9/11, which changed nothing in regards to Iraq, as they were not involved.
I disagree. In the aftermath of that attack, it was unacceptable to allow rogue dictators to threaten us and blatantly ignore weapons inspectors. Also, we know that Abdul Yassin, one of the bombing masterminds of the first World Trade Center, had ties to Iraq.
I sympathize with your frustrations, but it's important to focus on facts rather than Bush-hatred.
Posted by Beausoleil at 10/12/2006 @ 10:11am
I disagree. In the aftermath of that attack, it was unacceptable to allow rogue dictators to threaten us and blatantly ignore weapons inspectors.
it is you who is in error. Saddam allowed the inspections. it was Bush who pulled the inspectors. you are somewhat mindlessly repeating the mis-administrations talking points. I could arguwe with a cardboard cutout for all the independent thought you exhibit.
"The evidence is in the democratic parliament, where all the factions are represented."
yeah, right. that whole gov't is propped up by US soldiers, they are all afraid to leave the green zone.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/12/2006 @ 10:15am
for all the ethnic factions of Iraq.
the Shia and the Sunni are ethnically the same. shows how much you know.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/12/2006 @ 10:17am
"Ethnic" in this instance is being used broadly to refer to Iraq's different factions, which includes other ethnicities such as Kurds. True, the Sunni and Shia are mostly Arabs, but it is far from inaccurate to use the term "ethnic factions" in referring collectively to these groups.
Saddam allowed the inspections. it was Bush who pulled the inspectors. you are somewhat mindlessly repeating the mis-administrations talking points. I could arguwe with a cardboard cutout for all the independent thought you exhibit.
Look closer at the facts. Saddam played a dangerous game with the inspectors, frequently denying them access to alleged weapons sites and abuptly expelling them from others with little explanation. It's impossible to deny that Saddam failed to satisfy U.N resolutions. Evidence also shows that he had every intent of rebuilding his former formidable arsenal.
This game could have gone on indefinitely, but Bush (along with leaders from other nations), called his bluff.
There is nothing "mindless" about these opinions; nor are they merely "talking points". Avoid being defensive and stick to arguing facts.
yeah, right. that whole gov't is propped up by US soldiers, they are all afraid to leave the green zone.
The first ever inclusive, representative and democratic government in Arab history is being defended -- not "propped up" -- by a coaltion of soldiers from around the world, including a large contingent of Iraqi soldiers.
You may be quick to dismiss this shaky government, but the millions of civilians who risked their lives to vote might disagree with you, to say nothing of the Iraqi troops who continue to put themselves in harm's way.
Posted by Beausoleil at 10/12/2006 @ 10:33am
the Sunni and Shia are mostly Arabs
they are not mostly arabs, they are arabs. these are religious differences. stick to the talking points, you obviously cannot think for yourself. sorry, that's what it looks like from here.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/12/2006 @ 1:08pm
Beau, your opinions are verbatim of the talking points. at least change a verb here and there.
that the Iraqis defied the violence to vote is a myth that just won't die, though Iraqis are dying at a rate undreamed of by Saddam and the rest of the wolrd. here's what happened. it was well established that by shutting down the country, the violence would ebb. that happened several times, including the election. trouble is you cannot shut down a country indefinitely.polls indicate that 70% of Iraqis want an end to the Benevolent occupation, and over 60% of americans think it was and is a fools errand and want out. you are in an evershrinking minority.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/12/2006 @ 2:25pm
turns out the Brits want out too
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/13/2006 @ 12:28pm
in parting let me just add that events have far outpaced your rhetoric.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/13/2006 @ 3:38pm