Well, it would, since you are throwing in the Plain Dealer and the Dispatch into some vague “Democratic” camp, depsite their persistent endorsements of Republicans in the majority of races for Senator, Governor and President over the last couple of decades. If the rest of the list was compiled the same way, we can be pretty sure that the the list began with a tilt.
Let’s see if I get this right.
You can just replace “Long haired, pot smoking, hippy, liberal, catholic, democratic, communist, atheist, muslim, pacifistnik, abortionist, and Pink Unicorn knows what else” with " Not a Republican." and you’re there. Correct?
And for the OP, what elucidator said.
He’s dead on.
That’s a good point, barton. I do not consider “breaking off talks” to be a serious criticism, because Edwards didn’t say to what end talks should have been conducted. Also, IMHO talks based on misrepresentation and bad faith could only have done harm. Now that NK has honestly admitted its nuclear program, genuine talks might more possible (if NK has any real interest.)
However, others may consider “break off talks” to be an important complaint, so it does belong on the list.
ElvisL1ves, I will stop being cute if you will. Why do you not consider NK’s acquisition of nuclear weapons to be an important change in circumstances?
Kimstu, Iagree that one might apolitically criticize Bush for not building up the military enough. In fact, a Democrat could even make such a criticism for political purposes. (E.g., JFK unfairly criticized Eisenhower/Nixon for a bogus “missile gap.”) However, this course is pretty much closed to today’s Democrats, because their hawish wing is gone. Frankly, I think the Dems will become a more potent party when they reacquire it, and stop trying to fly on a single wing.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by december *
**The question for debate is:
Will Bush’s opponents will succeed in getting the public to believe that the problems of NK should be blamed on Bush?
I say these rhetorical attacks will fail, because:[ol][li] The accusations are bogus. NK is a long-standing problem.[]In particular, there’s nothing really new about NK developing nukes. The new aspect is that we are no longer in denial.[]The accusations are inconsistent.A single attack message might be effective even if false, but there are two many different accusations here.[/ol] **[/li][/QUOTE]
I think the single biggest reason the accusations won’t stick right now is Bush’s popularity. The fact that this is currently on a diplomatic track keeps it tamped down to a certain extent and that’s good enough for most people at this point, I suppose.
Obviously Bush can’t be blamed for creating the situation. North Korea did that. They have been waffling on treaties since the 1985 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. To paint it as Bush’s fault is a waste of energy.
However, Bush (& administration) is entirely responsible for his response to the situation. He should get the credit or the blame. If it goes badly you can bet the public will blame Bush without any help from his opponents.
Not if the Apaches have nukes.
Regards,
Shodan
Pithy contest? You lose.
december: *Bush has been criticized for several failings:
1.His inclusion of NK in the “Axis of Evil” pissed them off.
2.He has focused too much on Iraq, when NK was always the bigger danger.
3.There is no crisis. South Korea understands that peaceful negotiations can succeed.
4.He has under-stated the NK crisis in order to maintain public attention on invading Iraq.
5.He hasn’t built up a military capable of dealing with NK.
6.He has been too militaristic, goading NK into building up their own armaments. […]
I agree that one might apolitically criticize Bush for not building up the military enough.*
Are you trying to say that it’s not possible to criticize Bush “apolitically” (i.e., for reasons other than partisan political sniping) on any of the other points? Don’t you think that non-Democrats—or even Democrats—might legitimately disagree with or disapprove of his actions on those counts, without being motivated solely by Democratic partisanship?
For example, Pat Buchanan is hardly a Democratic partisan, but he disapproved of Bush’s “axis of evil” rhetoric (your point #1):
William F. Buckley is hardly a Democratic partisan, but he objects to the Bush administration’s hard-line tactics and ignoring South Korean advice (your points #6 and #3):
The American Partisan’s David Pyne is hardly a Democratic partisan, but he criticizes the inconsistency of Bush’s NK and Iraq policies (your point #2):
Where you get the idea that only Democrats can be criticizing Bush on North Korea, and that the Democrats can only be doing it for reasons of partisan gamesmanship, I simply do not know. Looks as though there’s plenty of room to object to the Administration’s policies from all over the political spectrum.
You don’t suppose that that the North Koreans are just a little piqued because Dubya called Kim Jong Il a “pygmy”?
http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/102702a.html
The original Newsweek article is available from the archives at the Newsweek site, but you have to pay $2.95 for it.
The point is, Bush is no diplomat, and his lack of skill with adversaries will result in increases world tension at best, and nuclear holocaust at the worst. We can’t afford this idiot any more; Chaney ought to put a muzzle on him.
That’s what they said when Reagan called the USSR an “evil empire.” Today, we know that the USSR pretty much was an evil empire. People who lived under their tyranny are now free partly because Reagan spoke straightforwardly, rather than euphemisticly, or “diplomatically.”
I think the same principle will work with NK. Kim Jong Il does not deserve respect. He’s a militaristic tyrant. He starves his people. He sells weapons internationally to any buyers. He’s a liar. I think treating him with the disrepect he deserves is a wise strategy.
Getting back to the OP, even if you’re right diplomatically, Fear Itself, I think Bush can only be helped politically by his bluntness. Most Americans are probably unaware that Bush dissed Kim Jong Il. However, I think a majority would approve if they were made aware of it.
So, you think the future will prove that Kim really is a pygmy, and that Bush’s intemperate remarks are the signs of a diplomat? Like him or not, we are not going to get what we want in Korea or anywhere else by calling each other names.
The diplomatic approach has already failed. Jimmy Carter treated NK with respect; we wound up accepting a flawed agreement that led to them becoming a nuclear power.
There are times when effective negotiation requires being hard-nosed, rather than nice. Since NK has now admitted cheating on their prior agreement, I think this is one of them. YMMV.
december, re NK’s acquisition of nukes changing the equation, that only makes sense if you think they are intended for offensive purposes rather than strategic deterrence (of us, that is, us including every one of NK’s neighbors). Or if you would prefer to dismiss Kim as an unpredictable madman - but the evidence of his unpredictability is lacking even if we don’t want to discuss sanity.
You also, btw, can’t get away with calling a guy a “pygmy” if he has nukes - just like the Old West had the Colt .45 as “The Great Equalizer”.
Yes, “the diplomatic approach has already failed” - cutting off all talks (Bush doesn’t want to call them “negotiations”; that word is for Clinton and pussies, apparently) and labeling them “evil” can be called “failing”. Only after that did NK remind the world it can become nucular pretty quickly.
TBone2, HBO/Cinemax has liberal political bias? US News and World Report is too far left for you, fer chrissakes? I’m glad I left Ohio. Sheesh.
Lesse, here, Reagan mouthing the words “Evil Empire” somehow brought down the USSR? What, that was, like, a magic spell or something?
Ah, my all time favorite right wing fantasy! Ronald Reagan brought down the Soviet Union. Well, Ol’ Ronbone did torpedo Mike Gorbachev, thats for damn sure. Seems Mike came to Iceland, hat in hand, with detente and perestroika busting out all over, making concession after concession in his courageous bid to move the USSR forward. And what did he want?
A minor concession on Star Wars, some sop tossed to his dignity. And canny ol’ Ronny said, nope, no way, gotta have it. Don’t work, can’t work, doesn’t matter, gotta have it.
And Gorby want down the toilet to be replaced by Boris the Boob. Has there ever been a man more spectacularly ill equipped to lead a nation? Russia went straight from rigid, corrupt socialism to pure kleptocracy in a couple of years. A people with vast resouce and intelligence, aching to breathe free, delivered into the hands of mafiya and plutocrats. An opportunity to free millions of people, pissed away - and the right wing loonies dance on thier prospective graves and gleefully praise Ronnie.
P.J. O’Rourke said it best, that the whole structure of politics, secret police and gulags fell apart because nobody wanted to buy Bulgarian shoes.
Ronnie had squat to do with it, save for pissing on the only hope the poor buggers ever had.
I can remember in the 1950’s and 1960’s when we used to chant, “Coexistance or no existance.” I can remember when respected American opinion leaders felt that Communism and capitalism would gradually evolve to some middle system. I can remember when American policy was to assume that the USSR would permanently exist, and our job was to respect them and get along with them and to forestall war by maintaining a balance of terror.
Reagan changed the entire policy direction by changing the country’s and the world’s view. An “evil empire” is something that needs to be toppled, not merely coped with. It does not deserve respect. And, he did topple the evil empire while avoiding a catastrophic war. Sounds good to me.
How many Democrats have made it American policy to topple the awful NK government? Isn’t it in the interest of the entire world to do so?
Incidentally, every so often I see reprints of articles and editorials about Hitler from the mid-1930’s. He was treated with respect then. That undeserved respect may have contributed to the Allies’ slowness to oppose him militarily.
Oh, piffle.
The Soviet Union collapsed, Ron Reagan was President. The two facts are connected in a blithering myriad of ways, but direct cause and effect? Stuff and nonsense, sir.
One must presume, mustn’t one, that if such a grand geopoltical scheme were hatched in the mind of a B-grade movie star, he might have been at least cognizant of it, don’t you think? And yet the CIA had not a clue, not an inkling, that the USSR was ready to collapse.
Did Ol’ Ronbone have secret sources of information, that crafty devil? Some special perspicacity born of his years of experience as a mannequin? Such gargantuan intellect that he, and he alone, could see the results before anyone else?
Bit of a stretch, don’t you think?
Instead of parroting spin from Reagan opponents about this “B grade movie star,” please read Reagan’s own writings on a myriad of issues in “Reagan, In His Own Hand: The Writings of Ronald Reagan That Reveal His Revolutionary Vision for America” by Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan, Annelise Anderson, Geroge P. Shultz, Kiron K. Skinner, Martin Anderson. You will discover that he was deeply interested in policy issues. He read books and aritcles about policy issues voraceously. He had a good understanding of issues and the ability to communicate his understanding of them.
On a personal note, a colleague of my wife at Stanford Research Institute once made a technical presentation to then-Governor Reagan. This scientist (a liberal, who totally opposed Reagan) was struck by how well and how quickly Reagan grasped the essentials of the specialized material presented to him.
It may make you feel good to imagine that Reagan was an airhead, who succeeded only by being in the right place at the right time, but it isn’t so.
Will it stick? Only insofar as it is accurate.
The Clinton years were bringing NK around. They had at least one nuke from before then, we knew it and they knew we knew it. But they had ceased any new production. They were engaged in conversations. A relationship was being built. Positive interaction builds on positive interaction. Webs of interconnectedness were being created. People get used to eating again.
All that was cut off with bellicose posturing and empty sword rattling. So now we have the situation of more nuclear material production and a power with weapons aimed at an ally feeling really backed into a corner. Our only options now are to give up more in negotiations or to further isolate a starving people and induce more despearation in a government with the power to do great harm.
I’d say that GeeDubya has not done well with this.