Oh, go on, please keep endorsing him.

It’s just too good…..

Mr Chirac, where are you when we need you?

Mr S Hussein, have you got a view on this??

Cholera virus endorses drinking from sewer.

Posted by: HW at March 18, 2004 07:52 PM

What’s holding up Castro and Chavez? Are they angling for the VP spot with Kerry? I’m sure Slobo Milosovec will be chiming in for Kerry once there’s a break in his trial, and then there’s Aristide. Lots of quality endorsements to go!

Posted by: TL at March 18, 2004 09:08 PM

I have a suggestion for Kerry. He should state plainly that he will not be swayed by terrorism and that he will fight Al Qaeda with every legitimate means. This would remove one incentive for a terrorist attack on Americans - the possibility that a President Kerry would go wobbly on terrorism.

Posted by: popd at March 18, 2004 09:41 PM

I have great faith in a Democratic administration negotiating with North Korea, particularly since the last one negotiated an agreement which the North Koreans quickly broke.

Posted by: popd at March 18, 2004 09:43 PM

“I’ve met foreign leaders who can’t go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, ‘You’ve got to win this, you’ve got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,’ things like that,” he said.

Days later…

Kerry Foreign Policy Advisor Rand Beers issued the following statement today: ‘…It is simply not appropriate for any foreign leader to endorse a candidate in America’s presidential election. John Kerry does not seek, and will not accept, any such endorsements’

Dang, he even flip-flops on he OWN SUPPORT How is he going to be consistent on ANYTHING in these troubling times?

Posted by: Max Darkside at March 19, 2004 12:34 AM

Hello good people.

Wait, bad people.
Lovely day isn’t it?
wait, I never meant lovely, I’m totaly against that now,
Today, I’d like to tell you I’m totaly against terrorism, wait, no, I didn’t mean that in that context, I’m for terrorism, that right, for it you hear! And I’m Jewish, wait, no I’m Irish, where am I? Oh, I’m Spanish, that right…

Posted by: John KerryII at March 19, 2004 12:46 AM

I think Howard Dean should have stayed in the race…. I think Kerry has lost his mind, but not recently, back in Vietnam…

Posted by: Fat Guy at March 19, 2004 12:51 AM

Fat Guy, I have no problem talking about the people who support me, unlike those washington insiders. I’ve had the support of George Sorros, Vladimir Putin, Khomeni, Chriac, and MacDonalds Yearrrggghhhh!

Posted by: H. Dean at March 19, 2004 07:37 AM

This post is inaccurate. Kim Jong-Il did not endorse Kerry. You have a professor suggesting that the N. Korean government is delaying talks on trade, possibly in hopes of dealing with a different administration. The headline is dishonest by suggesting more than is supported in the post.

Amazing how fast you neocons turn on Spain when their leader finally starts following the will of the people. I guess you folks are not as big of supporters of democracy after all.

Posted by: Todd at March 19, 2004 08:06 AM

Todd: Yes, they have democracy in Spain. They can do whatever Al Qaeda tells them to do.

Posted by: popd at March 19, 2004 08:41 AM

Todd What is it with you and labels? Everybody to the right of you a NeoCon? Give me a break you Left-WingNUT. Oh yah. Nitwit.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 19, 2004 09:37 AM

Todd,

Why does official state radio in NK run glowing reviews of Kerry and run his speeches. Who runs rasio in NK?

Posted by: jones at March 19, 2004 09:46 AM

‘Turn on Spain’? So we’re demanded diplomatic ties be cut? Expel their ambassador? Cut off trade? Embargo? Invasion? Please. Todd doth protest too much. They have every right to choose their own government. We have every right to disagree with their choice and point out its potential consquences. Are we not a fan of the 1st amendment Todd?

Posted by: mark buehner at March 19, 2004 10:49 AM

Labels doc? Here are your words from a previous thread:

“You ‘d better make it freakin’ air-tight, and you’d better support it with something other than your Left-wing Nut. And while you’re at it, you can explain the Freakin’ Lyin’ AssHat by the name of Kerry . . .”

“I don’t mind debate, but your little turds are beginning to aggravate me.”

“Because he ain’t been elected, you dolt!”

“You are a Liberal man whose choice happens to be Beer instead of Whiskey. Join the rest of your Liberal friends in voting for whom you choose.”

What is your point?

Jones,

The headline said Kim Jong-Il endorsed Kerry. Unless you are being completely disingenuous, an endorsement in this political context means a formal endorsement. If the Wall Street Journal writes a favorable review of the actions of Kim Jong-Il, does that mean it is endorsing him? Of course not. The headline is dishonest.

Mark,

Big fan of the First Amendment. Yes you are free to disagree with Spain’s choice, but from what I have seen, it goes beyond disagreement to disrespect. I am suggesting that the principled basis for the change of heart is the speakers enamorment with his or her own view of the world than democracy itself, which is often thrown around as the façade of justification. This should not come as that shocking of a statement; I’m just calling it for what it is. I obviously hit a nerve.

Posted by: Todd at March 19, 2004 11:41 AM

People think it is perfectly ok for the Spanish to choose as they did - it is their democratic right. Democracy is not some sacred ultimate truth. Democracy wont necessarily save us from our enemies - We need to save democracy from being used by our enemies against us.

It is perfectly reasonable to suspend democracy when under attack because democracy only works within a healthy atmosphere. The Spanish elections should certainly have been postponed until emotions had time to settle and the people had time to reflect on the best course of action. The people were essentially not free to choose either way because they were being bullied. A lot like making a confession under duress. Therefore what happened in Spain was not in fact democracy but something quite the opposite. The election result should be declared null and void and another election called at a later date.

Posted by: AngloAmerican at March 19, 2004 01:00 PM

I think the Republicans should run an add with lookalikes wholeheartedly endorcing John Kerry.

No ominous music or voice overs… make it ironicly positive instead.

Posted by: Joshua Scholar at March 19, 2004 01:19 PM

Hmmmm…..disingenous…..perhaps. But not necessarily an irrelevant question.

However, haranguing over semantics kind of misses the point, doesn’t it? North Korea clearly favors Kerry. A formal endorsement is just that….formal. We have no formal relations with NK anyway. The knca is quite vocal about their support. Does that not strike you as strange?

Now, one could argue that that is because they are afraid of ol’ (as another poster put it) “trigger-happy” Bush. Or, what I think is a more likely scenario, is that Kim Jr wants to continue to sell nuclear tech and drugs all over the world and wants us to leave him alone so he can perpetuate his little fantasyworld abattoir over there and he thinks Kerry is much more likely to allow that to happen, for whatever reason. The one thing that all of these penny-ante dictators have in common is that they think of their own neck first. That is clearly what is happening here. Kim Jong Il clearly thinks that he is more likely to retain his status quo with Kerry rather than Bush. A valid, fair, and reasonable question to ask is….why? i think it would be a reasonable debate question, as well, particularly if a particular candidate wants to use foreign concern over the direction of American foreign policy as one of his talking points.

“Senator, The North Korean state-controlled media has, by any stretch, shown that they favor a John Kerry presidency over a George Bush presidency. Why do you think that is? What will you do differently?”

I haven’t heard it yet.

Posted by: johnnymozart at March 19, 2004 01:45 PM

Hey, TODD! - ‘I am suggesting that the principled basis for the change of heart is the speakers enamorment with his or her own view of the world than democracy itself, which is often thrown around as the façade of justification.’

Put yourself in Lil’ Kimmies uhhh BlueSuedeShoes. Facade? That must definitely be why his people eat their kids. Yup. He’s got all kinds of principles, that boy.

My word, your logic is twisted. But, I forgot. You’re a man of ‘principles’, like that Senator Kerry guy.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 19, 2004 02:47 PM

Todd wrote,

“Amazing how fast you neocons turn on Spain when their leader finally starts following the will of the people. I guess you folks are not as big of supporters of democracy after all.”

America did not toss Spain out of our coalition in Iraq. Spain ran away from our coalition in Iraq. So to suggest that we have ‘turned’ on Spain, makes absolutely no sense at all.
Spain ‘turned’ on us.

Do you Liberals ‘read’ what you write?

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 19, 2004 06:37 PM

Did anyone read the Drudge item about Kerry’s choice words about the Secret service agent? WHAT a jerk (editing a few choice terms I’d rather use myself but anyway..)
That was the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time. Kerry says “I don’t fall” then later article mentions 6 or so tumbles…
I’ve got so many good reasons to dislike John Kerry, but my shallowest is that he IS so damn ugly! He reminds me of that Munsch(sp.?) painting “The Scream”
Sorry about the treadjack. Rant Over…

Posted by: coastygirl at March 19, 2004 10:03 PM

I think kerry’s mother had a difficulty, and maybe a little too small in dialation, therefore His head is a little too long, but he is lucky not to look like cone head.

What are you crying about todd? KimjongII endorsed Kerry, as well as komieni in Iran, all the terrorist and dictators love him because he is a coward and will help the terrorists win the war.
Thats why he cried out for them not to endorse him anymore.

Posted by: Al uzza at March 20, 2004 03:18 AM

I consider myself neutral in this argument. But I have to say that Todd has lost this particular argument very, very badly.

Todd, everyone has pissed on you from a great height. Deal with it, loser.

Might I suggest a new phrase? When someone behaves like a coward in future, we should say they are suffering from ‘Spanish Courage.’

Posted by: Daniel Polwarth at March 20, 2004 07:07 AM

Actually, Daniel, NOT ALL of Spain supports
the Communists. They only have 164 seats
in the new Parliament which IS NOT a
majority.

PPP still has 143 so your post is NOT CORRECT.

Posted by: leaddog2 at March 20, 2004 07:16 AM

Add Iran
http://www.tehrantimes.com/archives/Description.asp?Da=2/8/2004&Cat=2&Num=026

Posted by: Noone at March 20, 2004 09:23 AM

JohnnyMozart,

Thank you for being a voice of reason among mindless babble. Your are right, the question you posed is much more interesting. But how can you have a reasoned debate when you cannot even reach a baseline agreement on the rules of engagement?

You make valid points. The world is a dangerous place, and N. Korea is probably the most dangerous and unstable among them. I think the speculation that Kerry, should he become president, would let N. Korea play it’s nuclear card unfettered with interference is highly unfair, and not based upon a principled analysis of his record or stated commitment. Here is Kerry’s general statement on his foreign policy philosophy:

“Americans deserve a principled diplomacy…backed by undoubted military might…based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics…a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. A bold progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and imminent, but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decade, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease. These are not just issues of international order, but vital issues of our own national security.” (emphasis added)

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

The emphasized portion signal’s Kerry’s fundamental disagreement with the Bush administration that I happen to agree with. “Trigger Happy” diplomacy, as you put it, does not serve U.S. long-term interests. And, to the extent that trigger-happy diplomacy worked in Iraq in the limited sense of Sadam is out of power, that out-dated cold war throw back of good versus evil ain’t gonna fly in today’s global environment, particularly when we build coalitions around bribes and coercion rather than common interests. And I trust Kerry (with a whole lot of reservations, qualifications, and demands for verification) more than I do Bush to see the nuances and subtleties of international diplomacy and deal with threats in a way that serves our global long term and, quite blatantly, economic self-interest.

The survey released this week demonstrates that perceptions of the U.S. as a leader in the global community are at the lowest point they have ever been.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64388-2004Mar16.html

It is a legitmate qeustion to ask, “Do we care?” I submit we should. People may think it is fun to hate the French and the Germans and, now, the Spanish, and drive them towards an intellectual alliance with those who think ill of the United States. We have very real reasons to fear the North Koreans and, more importantly, China which is really what makes North Korea significant. But the idea that the U.S. can survive with an attitude of “Here is how its going to be done and, if you don’t like it, fuck you too, cuz you’re next” may be a good way to secure the redneck vote because it creates the illusion of toughness, it ain’t gonna bring back their jobs. One of the reasons off-shoring of jobs is profitable is because other countries don’t have to deal with the costs of complying with the regulatory restrictions that companies in the U.S. do. Through trade treaties with other countries that equalize the playing field, then the concept of free trade can actually work, because it is free and fair.

But it seems that most commentators on this site just want to rant and rave and lodge reckless, disingenuous, unprincipled, unverified, or unsupported accusations. I think the idea that Kerry, if elected, would stand idly by while N. Korea sold arms and nuclear capabilities to the world and Iran continued it’s nuclear program unfettered is, at minimum, overly exaggerated and grossly unfair. But, no doubt, that is the perception the Bush administration is attempting to create and it will be, I expect, highly successful with a large part of the electorate, particularly those who are uncomfortable examining the basis of their preconceived notions.

And to the extent that these countries, particularly North Korea, actually think that they will be able to do all the bad things that Bush is allegedly stopping them from doing when Kerry is president, I believe that they will be unpleasantly surprised. I don’t believe Kerry will repeat the mistakes of the Clinton administration. No doubt, many of you do. It just goes to prove the old adage, “Opinions are like assholes. Everybody’s got one, and they are convinced that theirs doesn’t stink.”

I still have hope that commentators like yourself, Johnny, will continue to populate the CP with something other than just opinions.

Posted by: Todd at March 20, 2004 01:14 PM

Daniel Polwarth

Sorry to disappoint, but I honestly do not feel that I have been pissed upon from great heights. To the contrary, as arrogant as this may sound, from my perspective those who have tried to piss up to my height have experienced a most dreadful golden shower. Their pride and ignorance prevent them from realizing the rankness of their condition, and they have mistaken their own insidious putrid excretions for the quenching showers of enlightenment. Your analogy is telling, though. I don’t think this should be a pissing match.

Posted by: Todd at March 20, 2004 01:31 PM

Careful now Todd, Tony F’s tantrums are rubbing off on you!

Posted by: leaddog2 at March 20, 2004 03:16 PM

Todd,

I am reading your logic and it doesn’t stick to one assertion or tangent.

You don’t need to write at such length if you can’t stick to one topic. You assert that our foreign policy of showing ‘toughness’ is wrong. But, instead of explaining WHY you feel it is wrong you switch over and talk about jobs.

Us ‘Neocons’ are fully aware that France and Germany doesn’t like us. But, what you need to understand is that WE do not understand why we should care what they think (given that France and Germany was bribed through the Food for Oil Program). Kofi Anan as we speak is investigating how much damage Saddam Hussein’s relationship with France and Germany has created.

This was discussed on Fox News Channel last night.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 20, 2004 04:13 PM

Jeff,

I understand you confusion. Perhaps it is a product of the source of your information (sorry, a slight jab at Fox News for being a less-than impartial, less-than credible “news” channel). Nevertheless, to avoid the ad hominem, I always believed that France and Germany have all kinds of dirty laundry in need of airing that would ultimately be revealed. I did not see the piece, as you might imagine, but I am glad they are being revealed as the frauds everyone suspected they were.

But here is my point. Our foreign policy and jobs are connected. The way in which we conduct our foreign policy doesn’t only impact military operations in Iraq. It affects the United States credibility as a leader in all international endeavors, including those upon which the global economy depends. Our national economy is based upon consumer capitalism. Its growth is dependent upon expanding markets to bring in more consumers. So we need France and Germany, and Spain, and Europe, and Asia (not so much Africa, they don’t have as much money) to achieve not only out own economic goals, but also our own national security goals. (Notice that France and Germany are letting the terrorist they captured go? Evidence wasn’t there, really? Just a coincidence?) We lost Spain as a coalition ally, in part because of the percieved arrogance of the U.S.’s rush to war, with-us-or-against-us diplomacy. It is all interconnected.

So, no, I don’t engage in compartmentalized thinking. Don’t worry; it drives my wife nuts too.

And I do apologize for the length of some of these comments, but my short posts seem to draw the most fire if I have not fully explained each and every point with supporting details, air-tight facts, and precise language (the ones that are so supported get ignored). I seem to be hitting some nerves out there, which is my desire. These are important issues, which the mainstream media is doing a woefully inept job of exploring. I would like to see the ideas and their underlying principles discussed, supported, and debated here. I am not arrogant enough to profess I have all, or even any, of the answers. I just like the discussion.

Posted by: Todd at March 20, 2004 04:56 PM

Saudi Arabia supports Bush. There is no more treacherous, conflicted, and disturbing alliance.

15 of the 19 9/11 mass murderers were Saudia Arabian, most of al Quaida, and bin Laden are Saudi’s, the House of Saud was and continues to be the primary funding and nurturing source for all the jihadist mass murder gangs, including al Quaida, all the Gaza mass, Chechen, Malaysian, Philipine, African and all jihadist mass murderers.

And forget the RoveBush mindwarp pimping the naked lies, the totally unsubtantiated, wagthedog lies of SA getting tough on terrorism. Has SA cooperated with any 9/11 investigation? No. Has SA cooperated with the Vinnell (US private military company) compound attacks last year, or the attacks against foriegn workers for US corporations a few months later? No. All these attacks were directed and American’s and American collaborators not any Saudi’s interests as pimped the complicit parrots in the western mainstream media.

Bakers PR firms’ multi hundred million dollar contract with SA pimps false propaganda, disinformation, and uncorroborated fictions of some supposed SA assaults on some supposed terrorists, and fictions about a supposed capture of some supposed high value target in SA, - but where is the beef. Where is the proof? Where do these terrorists end up, and why is the US not given access to, or at least information about their activities, connections, and operations? We get NOTHING from SA but hate and terror.

Saudi Arabia supports Bush, and Bush supports SA, - defend that ulgy truth truebelievers!!!

SA uses our petro dollars to fund and nurture mass murder gangs and madrasses intent on slaughtering Americans, Jews, and all infidels. The abundant funding comes in the forms of direct aid, or some in bribes to keep the mass murder gangs focused on the west and off the depraved excessess of the Royal familiy, and some is laundered through various wahabi or mass murder gang charities, - but by far the LIONS SHARE OF ALL THE FUNDING AND NURTURING OF ALL THE JIHADIST MASS MURDER GANGS continues virtually unabated flowing out of the the obscenely rich pockets of Saudi royals, - all of whom are “good friends of the Bush oligarchy, - but mortal and sworn enemies of America.

Saudi Arabia is America’s mortal enemy, whose state religion, and freakish imams teach generation of 4-year-old muslims to kill all American, Jews, and infidels, who use the worlds largest conventional oil supplies, and America obssessive complusive addiction to oil, as a weapon.

We welcome Spain and any one of European leaders support. Jong Ill is 3rd generation wacko and his credibility is only slightly less suspect than Bush’s, and so irrelevant.

All the rest is unsubtantiated partisan slime.

Remove the beam (Bush “good friends” and our mortal enemies in SA) from your own eye, before you judge the splinter (Spains new government support for Kerry) in ours truebelievers.

Not one single word of the RoveBush mindwarp pimping SA-is-our-“good friend” is true.

It is all a dangerous, conflicted, and treacherous Bush lie.

How anyone can support a government that actually shields, protects, and pimps these fiends as “good friends of America is both astonishing and treacherous. This shameless offensive partisan treachery is more alarming, than disgusting.

Posted by: Tony Foresta at March 21, 2004 01:18 PM

Tony, please answer me this question simply and directly. Are you calling for the impeachment and arrest of George Bush and company?

Posted by: billhedrick at March 21, 2004 05:46 PM

By the way, no one hates the Spanish. They made a democratic decision, a wrong one, I think, that they will most likely live to regret, and one that, even indirectly, gives the impression that they are doing the terrorists bidding. But no one hates them.

And as for France and Germany, let’s not forget that it was they who stood in the way of our foreign policy, not the other way around. It’s apparently bad for the US to act unilaterally, but when the French want to go by themselves (can’t really use unilaterally here, because “unilateral” is apparently now defined as “35 countries or less”) and do God knows what in the Ivory Coast, well then, that’s ok, because its nationalistic self-interest.

Or whatever.

I agree that we, as the most powerful country (currently) on Earth bear a significantly higher burden and are held to a more strict standard. That is as it should be. But there is a difference between doing what is necessary, and doing what makes everyone happy (including NK- I’m sure they were overjoyed to sign the 1993 Pyongyang accords) Your somewhat smug comments about Bush’s ability to understand the sophisticated nuances of foreign policy notwithstanding, I think the best person right now to make these decisions has proven to be Bush, not Kerry.

Posted by: johnnymozart at March 22, 2004 11:50 AM

JM,

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I give much credence to what you say, and Kerry’s touting of Perry and Clinton is political ass-kissing with dubious value. But I do believe that both Bush and Kerry have learned from their mistakes and that, quite simply, North Korea is not to be trusted. Any future acccord would have to have verification and consequences.

The value of military force as a viable alternative is certainly suspect. I give Bush (well, actually, his handlers) credit for drawing a fudnamental distinciton between Iraq and North Korea. Military options in N. Korea could have much more dire, magnified, and complicated consequences. So I agree with Kerry that a military solution will not be the best option for United States interests, but he had better damn sure leave the option on the table.

I am not willing to concede that Kerry is going to ignore N. Korea or take them at their word. But I agree that Kerry needs to provide a much more coherent and detailed response on his strategy.

Thanks for your comments.

Posted by: Todd at March 22, 2004 04:40 PM

Hey Todd, glad you responded and was able to appreciate my ability to be prolific today. :)

Frankly, I think all new Presidents get a nice fresh dose of reality the moment they first step into the Oval Office. Soundbites are one thing, but when you have cold hard facts staring you in the face, no ones cares about soundbites. It happened to Clinton. It happened to Bush. Won’t happen to Kerry, because he won’t be elected. ;)

Seriously though, I personally would like to believe that a smart guy like John Kerry would see this situation for what it is, and I heartily agree that a military solution would be disastrous for everyone, especially South Korea. Personally, I don’t assign blame to anyone in particular, but I think this agreement is undoubtedly the worst foreign policy failure in the last ten years. Possibly the last twenty or thirty. The ineffectiveness of this agreement and the IAEA should be a lesson to us when we engage people like Iran. Unfortunately, I fear it is not. We are continually not learning the lessons we should. In both parties. I fear that with North Korea we are on a road with no turns here, and that is why I think any dialogue that does not include the only country with any actual leverage over North Korea, China, is a fool’s errand, and likely to lead only to one of two things, an inevitable military conflict or a false sense of security by signing another “arms accord”, as it were.

Actually, the best suggestion I heard about this, and it is debatable but thought provoking, was to force China to decide which they liked less, a nuclear armed South Korea and Japan, or a nuclear armed North Korea to keep the United States off balance. My suspicion is that they desire the former less, and would influence NK accordingly. Now, neither of those countries have announced those intentions, but talk about throwing a wild card. Just musing. Any thoughts?

Anyway, my post/posts were not intended as a cheap shot on John Kerry, because as I said, the viewfinder always changes when you get into office, but I remain unsettled by thoughts of the potential reasoning behind our enemies advocacy of any particular candidate, of any party, for any office.

Posted by: johnnymozart at March 22, 2004 05:36 PM

By the way,

Not to worry. I don’t think you’re a troll, as others have accused you. I sometimes (especially lately) have been finding even myself getting caught up in the partisan insults, when I have previously prided myself on being a voice of calm and reason on this site. Oh well.

Thanks again for the reasoned opposing side.

Posted by: johnnymozart at March 22, 2004 05:39 PM

I do not believe arrest is necessary - yet -unless the treasonous creep that outed Plame is unearthed, but I do believe at least inquiry into impeachment proceedings are warranted, for both Bush and Cheney.

Posted by: Tony Foresta at March 22, 2004 08:56 PM

Too fricken funny Tony…..impeachment is for screwed up lying democrats. For example, Kerry really is out of his mind since Vietnam. He lost it right after he saw all that baby killing, genital zapping, and point blank shooting of defenseless women. Yeah, the poor guys face even took on a horse like quality and sorta fit right in with the jack ass image of democrats!

Posted by: DickD at March 23, 2004 03:08 AM

Johnny Mozart,

I agree on two fronts. One, once a person, any person, gets into office and they see the gravity of the situation and they receive information from Those Who Really Know, (intended with zero sarcasm), their views must, of necessity, change. This is why I am not as worried about the often recklessly strewn allegation that Kerry is a flip flopper. In many ways, Kerry is a pragmatist (not to be confused with an opportunist), which I believe is an effective way to govern, but no doubt can come at a political price. (to the contrary, think about how many moderately conservative policies Clinton successfully co-opted.) But you have to be able to trust the pragmatist so that their changes/evolutions in policy are principled. For me, the trust I was willing to give Bush to lead the war in Iraq was betrayed, and the evidence is mounting that his strongest issue, the war on terror, was actually ineptly handled (referring to front page Wall Street Journal article from yesterday; sorry, no link; their content will cost you. Speaking of which, why no posts on the Rice-Clarke debate? Perhaps I should petition for posting rights.) But I think your point about Kerry is quite valid, and I am not prepared to give him my full ENDORSEMENT on this issue just yet.

Second point of agreement. China is the real concern behind North Korea and, I submit, requiring more caution and less trust. The dichotomy you propose; Nuclear S. Korea and Japan or N. North Korea is troubling. I trust that there are people much more skilled and knowledgeable than I in both the U.S. and Chinese governments that are working to find other alternatives. An arms race with China is a dangerous hand for the U.S. to play. It was dangerous to play with the Soviets, and China is no USSR.

(I am not terribly proud of my resort to name calling, either. Although, some were pretty good and not without a factual foundation. But it is weak. I consider name calling a tacit admission of the oposing argument, because it demonstrates an inability to address the argument on its merits.)

Posted by: Todd at March 23, 2004 10:00 AM

Todd I have read the WSJ twice now, and I think you’re making crap up. Quote it or be silent, please. Implying the article uses ‘ineptness’ or any closely related synonyms will have to be proven. So. Quote away. I have it in front of me in hardcopy.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 24, 2004 07:57 AM

Skipper, am I missing something? Where does Todd say anything is inept?

Todd,

Thanks for the reply. I saw you make a comment on a recent thread about people calling people trolls and tinfoil hats etc, and how that was unfair and partisan, and it is. Your last comment in your above post is correct, but I would qualify it this way: There are many people, on both sides, whom are ill-equipped to debate an issue on its own merits and will call names. There are other people, such as myself, you, Mark Buehner, the Cap’n, and others who able to but get bored and sick of the chicanery of the first group and will unfortunately respond in kind. Here’s an example: there are some people here who no matter what you say, what evidence you produce, no matter how compelling it is, will never concede a point and in fact, will repeat their slogans and cleverly strung together vocabularies. Or they’ll do that and call you a bigot, racist, and stupid as well. After a few times that happens, you tend to unload with both barrels when you see the same pattern emerging, particularly when it is the same person. Oh well. :) Pinheads. :)

But that aside, what we were discussing earlier, make no mistake, I don’t advocate the “nuclear arms race strategy” for the Korean peninsula. However, what other leverage do we have with China? That is what needs to be explored. I like you, hope there are some people smarter than I coming up with a better solution. But we should not delude ourselves into thinking that someone like Kim Jong Il thinks like or has the same goals as we do. A “sign a treaty and cross our fingers” strategy will be disastrous not only for America, but for the world. What if the bomb in the Spanish train station or under the Paris rails were a nuke? Everyone ridiculed and castigated Bush when he included North Korea in the “Axis of Evil” but now we know that he was right. Unfortunately, we have acted too late. This is why sanctions don’t work in the 21st century, because a country should never be put in the position where the only thing they have to sell are drugs and weapons. Aid at this point will appear to be capitulation, and won’t go to the people who need it anyway, thus encouraging more intransigence. So I don’t have a ready answer, but I think the other players in the region need to be included.

Second point, I know we disagree on the Iraq war. (Oh, whoops, I see now skipper) I actually get the WSJ, and I saw that article and I find myself agreeing with Cap’n DOC, that’s not the point it was making. But I understand the point you are making.

My feeling about the Iraq war was this: I don’t feel betrayed or misled, because I think that this was a judgement call. In other words, no one needed to mislead me to convince me that Saddam Hussein was a potential problem, even one worth going to war over. I don’t relish the idea of war, as I have been accused. I did not need to be misled to be suspicious and concerned about a known murderer’s arms programs, based on current evidence, past behavior, past comments by Clinton administration officials and US Congressmen on both sides of the aisle, inability of Iraq to account for previously declared items, and the overall recalcitrance of the Iraqi government in cooperating with UN inspections. (Inspections are useless, no matter how good the veneer of “cooperation” is, if the person is not fully cooperating) In my mind, it was far riskier to not know for the very reasons we see in North Korea. I’ve said this before, but Saddam Hussein is just Kim Jong Il without nukes and better fashion sense.

Now, was this the correct judgement call? Certainly a reasonable question worthy of American debate at the highest levels. Did we expend political capital we could have used for Al Qaeda? Did we enter into a largely unnecessary war? Will it improve the face of the Middle East or make it worse? All of these legitimate, important questions. However, this isn’t where the level of the debate occurred, was it, Todd? It wasn’t viewed as an important issue; whether the correct call was made. It became a long dissertation on the character of George Bush. “He lied! He did it for oil! He did it to get revenge for his daddy! He doesn’t care about Al Qaeda! Osama bin Forgotten! Bush=Hitler! Its all about Halliburton! He’s a racist! (against Muslims) He intentionally misled America for his own gain!” And on and on and on.

All of which is horseshit.

Just to note, this is not an excerpt from a blog, but everything I mentioned above was said by a US politician or a foreign one. That’s sad that our elected representatives are so concerned with their own lot that we can’t bring a critical debate above a schoolyard level. There are good things about Iraq. There are bad things about Iraq. But we don’t debate them that way. I can’t defend a Bush action without being referred to as a “Rupert roadie” a “Bush worshipper” or a “sheep” (by someone with the intelligence of a sheep.)

Bush has made some critical errors in judgement during his Presidency. However, you must concede that he has done a lot of good, no matter how much you disagree with his policies. Same for all of his predecessors. Some good. Some bad. Where the debate should occur is whether the bad outweighs the good. But as you say, we can’t even establish common ground that anything good has occurred. Nikita likes to point out that 50,000,000 people are free because of George Bush who wouldn’t be otherwise, for however long that might last. Maybe that will change, maybe it won’t, but at least they’ll get the chance to help decide for themselves, whereas they had no opportunity to before. Almost 600 soldiers are dead who might not have been otherwise. many innocent Iraqis are dead. I recognize that. Some things, though, are worth it, some are not. But its worth debating at that level, instead of seething with hatred, as some people on this site do. If our country doesn’t start recognizing what’s causing our great divide, though, and do something to stoip it, we’re going to be in trouble.

Sorry for the length.

Posted by: johnnymozart at March 24, 2004 01:04 PM

Good go johnny! And well put. MOF, I put it (not STUCK it) to Todd as well as I could because he’s one of the few I sortof enjoy debating with…

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 24, 2004 02:46 PM