Not with those words, but a casual skim of SA’s posting history should prove that he’s not shy about breaking out the pompoms for this Administration. Unless I’ve conveniently overlooked all the times he’s rushed to beat Diogenes in the daily SDMB Bush-bashes… 
“Not with those words”!?
Isn’t that what quotes are for–to, you know, quote exactly what somebody said?
There is a considerable difference between supporting somebody and favoring what they are trying to accomplish and saying they are doing a “heckuva job”, and you know that full well, rjung. This is hardly the first time you’ve misrepresented my words and/or stance on an issue and I guess I’m just gonna have to start calling you on it each time you do.
You are clearly an intelligent person but one who has always been a mystery given that you’re posts and one-line drive-by snarks are typically so lacking in substance. I’ve become convinced, therefore, that much of your posting behavior is intended to have some sort of subliminal, long-term effect beyond the silly, annoying (even to your own side) and lightweight effect that it presents superficially. Pretty clever of you there, jungie, but it’s not gonna work with me because I’m gonna start busting your ass every time you lie about or misrepresent my position or something I’ve said.
Oh, I almost forgot…
We wait with bated breath…
Minnowed or wormed?
NATO - to pick an example that worked - is a perfect example of multilateralism. Do you really think we would have been better off going it alone without NATO? The troops stationed on the front lines in Germany were there with German blessing, and kept Europe safer.
Not even the strongest proponent of multilateralism thinks it includes getting buy-in from your adversary. Even if the Russians had not conveniently been boycotting SC meetings at the time of the invasion (talk about your failure of intelligence!) we would have had ample justification to defend South Korea , probably with many of the same allies. No UN flags, true, but no difference in the war.
Sovereignty covers what a country does within its borders, and self defense. I don’t consider bans on aggressive, unprovoked invasions a reduction of sovereignty in any real sense, and certainly not an unacceptable one - unless you are willing to say the resistance to Saddam’s invasion of a Kuwait was an affront to Iraqi sovereignty.
BTW, if you are really for the neocon program you quoted, you should be in favor of restoration of the draft. Handling all those cases with our current resources is impossible.
The problem isn’t with multilateralism, per se. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with alliances. The countries of NATO all shared common goals (in stopping the common Soviet threat), and a common ideology. But a group like NATO can be contrasted with a group with the UN. The nations of the UN don’t share common goals and don’t share a common ideology.
There are some times, though, when sovereignty doesn’t even go that far, though. Look at, for example, the Rwandan genocide. The international community certainly had the right to go in and prevent the slaughter, even though Rwanda was a soverign nation. And I’d go further, and say that, even if the world community doesn’t act in a case like that, the US has the right to go in by itself and prevent the slaughter, even though that would be an aggressive, unprovoked invasion of Rwanda. It’s still a good one.
Military power isn’t the only power the US possesses, nor is it neccesarily the only solution to international disputes.
:dubious: And that detracts from the UN’s authority/legitimacy/claim to being seriously listened to how?
Don’t tell us, tell W!
That is indeed a true neocon view - they disagree, and so can be ignored. Exactly the Bush position on so many things starting in 2001, one of the reasons we’re twisting in the wind all by ourselves in Iraq. Diplomacy calls for negotiation and compromise, not rejection of a body which is not all like us. The whole purpose of the UN is to resolve disputes among nations with different goals and ideologies, not to provide cover for the aims of any one nation.
I will happily grant prevention of genocide as a legitimate reason for violation of sovereignty - but again this is best done multilaterally. I assume you are for the Kosovo intervention? Niether Clinton nor Bush did all they could in this, by the way.
But neocons reject a lot of the alternatives. They don’t seem very happy with sanctions. Maybe multilateral pressure helps, but you’re against that. (China seems to have influenced North Korea more than us.) Look how successful our unilateral Cuba policy has been for the past 45 years.
The non-military sanction worked in Iraq. No WMD, and inspectors crawling around would no doubt have cut down on the mass murders. That probably was why the sanctions rankled the Administration so much.
If I had attributed those words to you, then you’d have a point. I this case, however, it was a play on (in)famous phrase “You’re doin’ a heckuva job,” which I imagine a politically-saavy hipster like you would have clued in on.
(But then I also figured you wouldn’t pass up an opportunity for some mock Republican outrage, so your high-fallutin’ is also not surprising, either. :))
Well, it certainly has been a failure of neoconservatism, and a pretty huge one at that.
And neocons finally getting around to criticizing the Bush approach now, after having kept their mouths shut for years after the invasion, certainly suggests that they’re a little late to the party. They wanted the credit if it worked, and are jumping ship now that the war’s doomed.
Let’s see: isolationism, Kissingerian realpolitik, and a strawman depiction of left-of-center foreign policy. Fortunately, that’s hardly the universe of choices.
I see…so when you claim that someone holds a certain belief, and you mention that person by name and put that so-called belief in quotes with no other attribution, as follows below from the quote in question:
Originally Posted by rjung
SA thinks Bush is doing a “heckuva job.” 'nuff said.
…you don’t really mean that person is the one who actually said that, you just want everyone to think they did? Does that about cover it?
Yes, I’m aware it’s a play on the phrase…and I’m also aware that your intention was to portray me as subscribing to the sentiment of that phrase, when in fact I do not. If it weren’t for the fact that you’ve done this sort of thing numerous times before, I’d be a little more willing to accept your claim that it’s a simple misunderstanding; as it is, however, I think your real intent is clear though I will grant that perhaps you didn’t intend to be so obvious about it.
SA, if I were to attribute a quote directly to you, I’d spell it out in big blazing neon letters, such as
“I’m also aware that your intention was to portray me as subscribing to the sentiment of that phrase, when in fact I do not.”
–Starving Artist, backpedaling away from his track record of Bush cheerleading
But like I said, feel free to indulge in your mock outrage, if it will help make it easier to avoid the bigger issue – that the USS Bush is going down like a rotted ship, and all the neocon rats are jumping overboard in doubletime denial.
Well, you see it doesn’t matter how you’d choose to do it; what matters is how it’s interpreted by those schooled in how to read English. You don’t get to make up your own rules about when to use quotes. BrainGlutton himself thought you were quoting me; I thought you intended to pass yourself off as quoting me; and I’m sure anyone else who’s willing to be honest about it thought you were quoting me. As I said, you don’t get to make up your own rules about the usage of quotes, and you don’t get to claim you’re being misunderstood when you use them the wrong way.
But of course, you know all this already. You simply tried to make it seem that I said something I didn’t, and now that you’ve been exposed in your deception you’re trying to weasel your way out of it.
There’s no outrage, mock or otherwise. Just a determination not to allow you continue to misrepresent my words without being called on it.