« The Generals | Main | Random thoughts composed on an Amtrak train from DC to Baltimore »

Appeasement Bought Us Nothing But Trouble

When former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was on Larry King's show, she blamed the Bush Administration for North Korea's launching of seven missiles:

"Frankly, Larry, I think the problem here is that we are watching the failure of five years' worth of American diplomacy," Albright said Wednesday night. "I'm very worried about it, and I hope very much that we do have a review of our North Korean policy."

Investors Business Daily caught Ms. Albright's rewrite of history and outlined how it was the Clinton Administration that dropped the ball on North Korea, bringing us to the problem we have today:

• 1993: North Korea threatens to leave the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. After conducting U.N. inspections there for a year and a half, former International Atomic Energy Agency chief Hans Blix warns he can't provide "any meaningful assurances" North Korea isn't making nuclear weapons.


• 1994: Under the "Agreed Framework" negotiated by the Clinton administration with help of ex-President Carter, North Korea agrees to stop building nuclear weapons. In exchange, it gets billions in aid, including food, oil and modern nuclear reactors.

By 2000, according to a congressional report, North Korea would become the "largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid" in Asia. North Korea immediately starts cheating on the deal, acquiring nuclear know-how and material from Pakistan and China.

• 1998: A U.S. government report finds at least 1 million North Koreans have died of starvation as aid is used to kick-start the nuclear weapons program.

• 1998: Clinton's military chief of staff tells Congress North Korea has no active ballistic missile program. A week later, North Korea shoots a Taepodong-1 missile over Japan and toward Alaska.

• 1999: Clinton eases sanctions against North Korea. U.S. signs a $5 billion deal to build two nuclear reactors. North Korea diverts aid to speed WMD program. Mass starvation reportedly continues.

• 2000: Despite continued breaches of the "agreed framework," Albright travels to Pyongyang, where she cheerfully clinks glasses with Dear Leader Kim Jong-Il. Media hail the meeting as a diplomatic masterstroke by Clinton.

• 2002: New York Times headline: "North Korea Says It Has A Program On Nuclear Arms."

For years, the Clinton Administration appeased Kim Jong-Il, refusing to take any action that could risk Clinton's approval rating or injure his legacy. All the while, North Korea was building its weaponry. Now that Kim Jong-Il is test-firing missiles he acquired during the Clinton Administration, Secretary Albright criticizes with self-righteous indignation President Bush's failed diplomacy.

Other former Clinton Administration officials have criticized Bush's handling of North Korea. Recently Ashton Carter, Clinton's assistant secretary of defense and William Perry, Clinton's secretary of defense, said this in their June 22 Washington Post editorial:

Therefore, if North Korea persists in its launch preparations, the United States should immediately make clear its intention to strike and destroy the North Korean Taepodong missile before it can be launched. This could be accomplished, for example, by a cruise missile launched from a submarine carrying a high-explosive warhead. The blast would be similar to the one that killed terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq. But the effect on the Taepodong would be devastating. The multi-story, thin-skinned missile filled with high-energy fuel is itself explosive -- the U.S. airstrike would puncture the missile and probably cause it to explode. The carefully engineered test bed for North Korea's nascent nuclear missile force would be destroyed, and its attempt to retrogress to Cold War threats thwarted. There would be no damage to North Korea outside the immediate vicinity of the missile gantry.

Suddenly, when they aren't the ones responsible for the consequences, these men are hawks on North Korea. It's easy to demand an airstrike against a madman possibly armed with nuclear weapons when they're on the sidelines and not subject to any of the risk.

But when they were the ones minding the store and had the chance to make the tough choices and deal with Kim Jong-Il's defiance and missile buildup, they balked.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Appeasement Bought Us Nothing But Trouble:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Bush seeks united stand against N. Korea

» Cyber-Conservative linked with North Korean Nukes: How We Got Here

Comments (74)

You forgot these important ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

You forgot these important milestones

2000 - George W. Bush elected President

2006 - After 6 years of US foreign policy failures, North Korea fires missles, threatening Hawaii.

2006 - Republicans, in disgrace and with approval ratings ebbing, blame Democrats for Bush's six years of failed diplomacy.

He had six years to fix things and he botched it.

Lee,Clinton had 8 ... (Below threshold)
yetanotherjohn:

Lee,

Clinton had 8 years to fix it, including before NK had a nuke. Now that they have a nuke you expect a miracle. Your BDS is showing.

6 years of Multinational Di... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

6 years of Multinational Diplomacy failed?

Wasn't that how we were suppose to have proceeded with Iraq? OMG. Bush was right in how he proceeded into Iraq.

Actual;ly Lee the Repbulica... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Actual;ly Lee the Repbulicans are not in disgrace and Bush's approval numbers are on the rise...but then you would never let a few facts upset your fantasy world.

Regardless of the mess GWB ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Regardless of the mess GWB was left with - he had six years to fix it, and failed. Hawaii is under threat of attack.

Wake up children - the fault is yours - you elected this clown.

And here is a list of accom... (Below threshold)
Lee:

And here is a list of accomplishments that the Republicans have achieved since 2000 to rectify the North Korea situation:

       
Clintoon got his legacy alr... (Below threshold)
stan25:

Clintoon got his legacy alright. He is beginning to look like the most incompetent President we have ever had. Even worse than the Peanut Farmer. There are still things out there lurking, that Clintoon did that will come home to roost. He did all of this to cover the fact that he was getting a blowjob in the Oval Office.

Bush did what the Dems aske... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Bush did what the Dems asked in regards to N. Korea. He agreed to the multiparty talks, which they kept crying about.

Clinton left a disaster in foreign policy in almost every area AND an economy that was crashing. He left us a stock market shaken by unmatched corruption. He left us with Al Qaeda primed to attack te US. He left us with an intel apparatus that couldn't find its butt with 2 hands.
-=Mike

The Clintonistas are engage... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

The Clintonistas are engaged, on damn near EVERY talk show, with the most dramatic re-write of history in, well, history.

Madeline halfBright and the rest papered over and outright appeased Kimmy for 8 years. The NORKS announced just how dramatic their cheating was right after Jimmy Carter picked up his "Peace Price" for helping negotiate all this!!!

The Clinton butt-boys and girls are busy spinning, but the truth is very clear: they screwed this pooch!!

And, as some have already stated, these same folks who STILL shout that we needed "diplomatic partners" in Iraq, shout just as loud that we should "go it alone" in North Korea.

pure Grade "A" bullshit!!

Appeasement doesn't work?!!... (Below threshold)
Omni:

Appeasement doesn't work?!! Since when?!! Oh, right, that Hitler thing, yeah...

"When former Secretary of S... (Below threshold)
Josh Brown:

"When former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was on Larry King's show, she blamed the Bush Administration for North Korea's launching of seven missiles"

Of course she blamed the Bush Administration! The very PURPOSE of her former role as the Secretary of State was to supervise and conduct foreign policy! Would you expect to hear her say "It was all MY fault!"? The left seems to be always passing the blame to the right when the negative results of their legislation become a major topic.

And here's a timeline for those who believe that the blame, in fact, DOES lay with the Bush Admin.:

2002
Oct North Korea admits having a secret nuclear arms program.

Dec 11 The US finds North Korean-made Scud missiles on a ship bound for Yemen, but is later forced to allow the ship to go, saying neither country has broken any law.

Dec 26 UN confirms that 1,000 fuel rods have been moved to a nuclear reactor in Yongbyon.

Dec 27 North Korea expels two IAEA nuclear inspectors and says it is plans to reopen a reprocessing plant, which could start producing weapons grade plutonium within months.

2003
Jan 2 South Korea asks China to use its influence with North Korea to try to reduce tension over the nuclear issue, and two days later Russia offers to help.

Jan 6 The IAEA passes a resolution demanding that North Korea readmit UN inspectors and abandons its nuclear program or face possible action by the UN Security Council.

Jan 10 North Korea announces it will withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Feb 12 The IAEA finds North Korea in breach of nuclear safeguards and refers the matter to the UN Security Council.

Feb 24 North Korea fires a missile into the sea between South Korea and Japan.

March 10 North Korea fires a second missile into the sea between South Korea and Japan in as many weeks.

April 23 Talks begin in Beijing between the US and North Korea, hosted by China.

April 28 US Secretary of State Colin Powell says North Korea made an offer to US officials, during the talks in Beijing, to scrap its nuclear program in exchange for major concessions from the United States.

Aug 1 North Korea agrees to six-way talks on its nuclear program with South Korea, the US, Japan, China and Russia.

Aug 27-29 Six-nation talks in Beijing on North Korea's nuclear program fail. Delegates agree to meet again.

Oct 30 North Korea agrees to resume talks on the nuclear crisis, after saying it is prepared to consider the US offer of a security guarantee in return for ending its nuclear program.

Dec 9 North Korea offers to "freeze" its nuclear program in return for a list of concessions from the US. It says that unless Washington agrees, it will not take part in further talks. President George W Bush says the program must be totally dismantled.

2004
Feb 25 Second round of six-nation talks end without breakthrough.

June 23 Third round of six nation talks held in Beijing, with the US making a new offer to allow North Korea fuel aid if it freezes then dismantles its nuclear programs.

July 2 US Secretary of State Colin Powell meets the North Korean Foreign Minister, in the highest-level talks between the two countries since the crisis erupted.

Aug 16 North Korea says it will not attend a working meeting ahead of the next round of six-party talks on its controversial nuclear program, saying the US was "not interested in making the dialogue fruitful".

2005
Feb 10 North Korea says it is suspending its participation in the talks over its nuclear program blaming the Bush administration's intention to "antagonize, isolate and stifle it at any cost".

May 1 North Korea fires a short-range missile into the Sea of Japan, on the eve of a meeting of members of the international Non-Proliferation Treaty.

May 11 North Korea says it has completed extraction of spent fuel rods from Yongbyon, as part of plans to "increase its nuclear arsenal".

July 9 North Korea says it will rejoin nuclear talks, as US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice begins a tour of the region.

July 12 South Korea offers the North huge amounts of electricity as an incentive to end its nuclear weapons program.

July 25 Fourth round of six-nation talks begins.

Aug 7 Those talks deadlock and a recess is called.

2006
July 4 North Korea test-fires at least six missiles, including a long-range Taepodong-2.

July 5 North Korea test-fires a seventh missile.

-- Compared to the Bush Admin., Clinton did next to NOTHING to thwart the threat that we may now face in the form of North Korean ICBM's. Liberals (as the name implies) believe that they can solve problems simply by being NICE to people. "Excuse me, Mr. Dictator who starves his people to death, if you do so and so for us, we'll send you a whole bunch of FOOD for your people." - Makes sense to me...how about you?
Clinton sent $4BIL, with a B, in aid to N. Korea which, as is now clear, went almost DIRECTLY to their military (missiles and the like being in that category, obviously).

I would say that the best course of action would be to turn North Korea into a giant parking lot.

Has anyone considered that ... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

Has anyone considered that neither Administration is/was capable of dealing with this madman?

Didn't Albright go out with a comment somewhere along the lines of "they fooled us"? Isn't Bush doing exactly what he said he would do when he entered office? Does either approach work?

Lee, this just doesn't work...

Wake up children - the fault is yours - you elected this clown.

...because maybe it's the Dems' fault because they failed at both "un-electing" Bush and producing a marketable candidate in the first place.

Well, whatever happened pri... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Well, whatever happened prior to his administration, Bush has been in power for 6 years. He has to take responsibility for his actions and the results of them. I don't care what Clinton, or for that matter, what Eisenhower did in Korea...that's got nothing to do with Bush's actions and results.

He has to take responsib... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

He has to take responsibility for his actions..

Yes, that's true, but if there have been no actions as such, then what do we do? Set ourselves up for the three-peat?

Besides, it's not like we are dealing with a post stone age dictatorship or something. There's one guy carrying the football, and if any of his underlings were to suggest something that he doesn't like - they're gone*.

Does anyone know if any of the missiles' flight paths went anywhere but the sea of Japan? There's no direct path from North Korea into the Pacific ocean without going over South Korea, Japan or Russia.

*speculative of course

Enron was Clinton's fault, ... (Below threshold)
Totally Matt:

Enron was Clinton's fault, Mike? Who had Kenny Boy in their rolodex again? Whose campaign did all of these convicted execs contribute to? I'm not saying that this widespread corruption was Bush's fault. I'm saying it's partially his, perhaps partially Clinton's (one can make a case for anything against Clinton, but hey, his job approval rating was light years above Bush's), but for the most part it's a predictable by-product of unfettered capitalism. I'm not saying we should vote for the Communist Party; I'm saying that corruption is the cost of doing business, and it ought to be taken seriously by everybody. I'm glad you do, but I wish the President would.

Anyway, I'm shocked--SHOCKED!--that Madeleine Albright is still a partisan Democrat. I expect nothing but reasoned analysis and bipartisan camaraderie from the members of this administration after they've been put to pasture.

but hey, his job approva... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

but hey, his job approval rating was light years above Bush's

I liked Clinton, but there is a lot to criticize about his performance. His job approval ratings can be much firmer linked to his control of information and much superior spin skills than any superior qualities as a President.

This whole North Korean mes... (Below threshold)
thought:

This whole North Korean mess is clearly Clinton's fault.

As for Bush having had 6 years to deal with this...well, by the time Bush took over, the situation was far worse, and NK's nuke program farther along, than when Clinton had his chance.
Plus, Bush has had to deal with far greater issues than Clinton ever did...like 9-11, the corporate scandals, all of which occurred during Clinton's watch, etc.

Clinton was a stooge with regards to NK, just like with all national security issues. The only reason Clinton had such a high approval rating was because he and his friends in the media hid all of the festering problems from us. Clinton reminds me of Herbert Hoover, who at one time presided over the roaring 20's...everyone thought they had it so good, but then it all eroded.

Enron was Clinton's faul... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Enron was Clinton's fault, Mike?

Absolutely. Clinton fought to get Enron int'l contracts regularly. Clinton gutted SEC enforcement.

It is CLEARLY his fault. Nobody else in gov't can remotely take the blame.

Who had Kenny Boy in their rolodex again?

Clinton. Notice that it was Clinton cabinet members calling Bush to beg him to save Enron.

Notice it was Bush who said no.

Whose campaign did all of these convicted execs contribute to?

He gave Bush money. Bush, in turn, did nothing to help him and Bush's Justice Dept indicted him and convicted him.

Clinton, on the other hand, bent over backwards, championed the near-total removal of all oversight , and helped them gain untold billions in int'l contracts.

I'm saying it's partially his, perhaps partially Clinton's (one can make a case for anything against Clinton, but hey, his job approval rating was light years above Bush's)

Approval ratings trump actions?

Wow, you ARE a progressive.

but for the most part it's a predictable by-product of unfettered capitalism.

Yes, because Communist states didn't have mass corruption. It's a problem with capitalism. Sure.

And, funny that Bush, oh, indicted and convicted Lay, Skilling, and Fastow. Also went after Global Crossing. Tyco.

Who did Clinton go after for corporate corruption?

I'm not saying we should vote for the Communist Party; I'm saying that corruption is the cost of doing business, and it ought to be taken seriously by everybody. I'm glad you do, but I wish the President would.

Bush provided the oversight that Clinton refused to do so because, darn it, Clinton needed that stock bubble.

Clinton oversaw a problem every inch as bad as the S & L scandal. In a shocking turn of events, the press is far less concerned about it than they were about S & L's.

Anyway, I'm shocked--SHOCKED!--that Madeleine Albright is still a partisan Democrat. I expect nothing but reasoned analysis and bipartisan camaraderie from the members of this administration after they've been put to pasture.

I'll be stunned if you hear anywhere near the venom towards the next Dem in office.

Of course, since it won't be happening anytime soon, they will probably be dead by that point.

You didn't see Reagan, Bush, or Quayle regularly condemning Clinton. You HAVE seen Gore and Clinton condemn Bush.
-=Mike

What's the matter Lee, ha... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:

What's the matter Lee, having a hard time keeping up the PERPETUAL FRAUD that is the Democrat Party?

Clinton is a huge failure , fraud and full of it as are the entire democrat party who continues to live their lie. Democrats have made themselves sysnonymous with corruption , liars and traitorous frauds. Keep up the good work FLee.

JoshBrown - thanks for the ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

JoshBrown - thanks for the detailed list of things GWB did that failed to solve the NK problem. Glad someone has documented just how many times Bush has had the opportunity, and failed, during the last six years.

MikeSC, That was ... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:

MikeSC,

That was a beautiful smackdown, brilliant and as always indisputable facts are a slap in the face of the corrupt and phony democrat party.

there are many reasons why ... (Below threshold)
gozorak:

there are many reasons why a self rightous cow like Albright will not be intrusted by the Amreican people again with protecting our interests. She proves with statements like this that partisanship is more important to her and her party than dealing with problems like North Korea. As laughable and infuriating as her comments are I am glad she and others continue to bury any hope they have of one day winning the white house

Albright is pushing a book ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Albright is pushing a book she wrote, so keep that in mind. Look at the absurdities that comes out of Ann Coulter's ugly dog-faced mouth these days as she goes out on book tours.

Nonetheless, Bush has had ample opportunity to fix this mess over the last six years, and today we see Hawaii in possible peril as a results of his failed attempts at diplomacy.

SIX YEARS. Who voted for this clown?

Hey loser, Lee .... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:

Hey loser, Lee .

Shutup and go cry for your failed corrupt traitors somewhere else. Like prison for example where you are in the MAJORITY. Go play and pretend to be competant .

gozorak, She ke... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:

gozorak,

She keeps in shape and can leg press 400lbs, because she loves public service and can't wait for a Dim to get back in office.All these losers are the same, they can't get a job other than by being in Power. Democrats are stupid in they are only interested in filling in slots with any of their dumb "D's". That is all that matters.

Lee...thank you for espousi... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Lee...thank you for espousing pre-emptive action against Korea. You're on the right side for once!

Now I know why my sweet gra... (Below threshold)

Now I know why my sweet grandmother died of cancer; it was Clinton's fault. ARE YOU PEOPLE NUTS? The guy has been out of office for six years and you still talk about him as if he is still the President. Yes, Albright is a partisan, but so are all of you.

Of course no one in their right mind would blame Bush completely for what that wack job with the funny hair cut in North Korea is doing. But to blame Clinton for a missle launch six years after he left office is asinine.

As foreign policies go, reasonable people can disagree if it was smart for frat boy to focus all of his energy on Iraq and not on all the parties to that axis of evil he likes to talk about. But hey, if the Rossians and Chinese are busy protecting their own self interest, and being enablers for North Korea, there really is nothing frat boy could have done in this situation but try to go to that dreaded UN. Which, by the way, he did. Now if he had a real ambassador... well, that's another discussion for another day.

Now even the most hawkish among is knows -at least I hope they do-that it would be foolish to declare war on North Korea right now. And Kim jung -what ever his name is, knows it. That's why he keeps playing this game of chicken, and is having his way with the Bush administration. Is it frst boy's fault? Of course it isn't. It's the fault of a leader who is unstable, and who unfortunately, the world community has ignored for far too long. One who unlike that other wack job that used to rule Iraq, might actually have weapons of mass destrcution, and wont be afraid to use them.

Now I know why my sweet ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Now I know why my sweet grandmother died of cancer; it was Clinton's fault. ARE YOU PEOPLE NUTS? The guy has been out of office for six years and you still talk about him as if he is still the President. Yes, Albright is a partisan, but so are all of you.

Hmm, the Great Depression didn't end by 1938.

IT WAS ALL ROOSEVELT'S FAULT!!! HE HAD 6 YEARS TO FIX IT!!

True, he actually was given about 12 yrs and failed --- but still...

...or maybe, just maybe, a problem can be made so horrible that fixing it is a long, long, long-term process?
-=Mike

field-negro, good shot.... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

field-negro, good shot.

Sure, everybody is a partisan, but the Clinton Administration tried it their way, and Bush has taken option 3 (do nothing) which has been his way from the outset. Neither has been at all remotely sucessful.

If North Korea keeps it up, option 2 may be in order. Would the U.N. agree to such a resolution, even with an omnipotent U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. and with support of the worldwide community? Your guess is as good as anyone's.

Sorry ^, but what I meant t... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

Sorry ^, but what I meant to add is that it's unfair to blame Bush and/or Clinton for this thing.

But I think it's clear where North Korean missiles will be pointing towards going forward.

It's America's problem now and has been for a long time. I'm just glad that Gore or Kerry is not in office now. Gore might get mad at NK and claim that their missiles aren't environmentally friendly and produce another PowerPoint presentation (ppt rattling?) and Kerry would probably start handing out scantron sheets in order for us to pass the global test crap.

/rant

Scrappleface has the defini... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Scrappleface has the definitive answer up:
"U.N. May Threaten Kim Jong-Il with Time Out"

says it all...and WAY too close to the truth of the matter!

The U.N. is worse than toothless.

IF Bush does ahead and "fix" the NORK situation the only way it CAN be fixed, then the Left will decry THAT...versus their current moaning.

p.s.
The Battle of Britain, did not occur until AFTER Winston Churchill took over the British government. That's right...Neville Chamberlain's "diplomacy" secured "Peace in our time". But when that neo-con Churchill took over, THEN Hitler was forced to attack Britain. Poor Adolph...he LIKED Neville. Rumor has it they danced....

Don't worry "field-negro". ... (Below threshold)
Sam Wasserstein:

Don't worry "field-negro". One day you will be freed from your Democrat plantation masters.

You will be allowed to speak freely then, and no longer forced to spew that hateful bile.

Approval ratings trump a... (Below threshold)
Totally Matt:

Approval ratings trump actions?

Wow, you ARE a progressive

I was trying to put it in terms you would approve of, Mike! Because what the people say, goes, right? Or is that only when it comes to gay marriage?

I'll be stunned if you h... (Below threshold)
Totally Matt:

I'll be stunned if you hear anywhere near the venom towards the next Dem in office.

You didn't see Reagan, Bush, or Quayle regularly condemning Clinton. You HAVE seen Gore and Clinton condemn Bush.
-=Mike

Because it makes no political sense for people to attack Clinton, because people would vote for him again if they could. You wouldn't, but a majority of women, blacks, Hispanics, liberals (grudgingly, 'cause he's a centrist) and partisan Dems would. Bush, on the other hand, is a terminally unpopular and embarrassingly uninquisitive dope who spends more time on vacation than Parisian transit workers. Gore and Clinton would be remiss if they didn't take shots at this idiot! God, it must be so hard to be a Republican with this nitwit in power.

As for my throw-away comment about us being better off in a capitalist society, along with the corruption that comes with it, than in a Communist society, you twisted my words to mean that I think we would have less corruption in a Communist society. Not even Communists believe that! Jesus H. Cricket, dude! You're not such an ideologue that you can't accept that there is necessarily waste and corruption that comes with living in a capitalist society, are you? Holy crap...

obligatory 40 year old virg... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

obligatory 40 year old virgin reference...

Q. You know how I know you're gay?

A. Because you keep bringing up gay marriage when people talk about Kim Jong-il.

terminally unpopular and... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

terminally unpopular and embarrassingly uninquisitive dope

That's pretty good, but being a Republican today under this guy is a whole lot easier because of today's Progressive/Missing Identity/Left/Democrat/Liberal party's members and constituents(sp?).

If I understand Albright an... (Below threshold)

If I understand Albright and the Democrat foreign policy establishment's carping correctly, the Bush administration had it exactly backwards.

It should have set up six party talks with Saddam and invaded North Korea.

Is that about right, Lee and Totally?

Hey Sam, I am already free ... (Below threshold)

Hey Sam, I am already free from the plantation; it's the country that frat boy is running with the republican overseers that I am worried about.

Dont whup me no mo massa bush dont whup me no mo.
Meeeza beggin you massa bush :(

Lee, what would you do? I r... (Below threshold)

Lee, what would you do? I realize of course you only seem to be offering up the DNC felching talking points, but what would do in regards to North Korea? Give the President some much needed advice Lee...

I was trying to put it i... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

I was trying to put it in terms you would approve of, Mike! Because what the people say, goes, right? Or is that only when it comes to gay marriage?

Taken to trolling me now, eh TM?

People saying "Hey, the economy is good" isn't exactly a roaring proclamation of the greatness of foreign policy.

But, hey, your point routed me, right?

Right?

Because it makes no political sense for people to attack Clinton, because people would vote for him again if they could.

Hold on to that belief. For a man so universally loved, he never could get a majority of the vote.

Even the "hated" Bush pulled that trick off. So, Clinton had better opinion polls. Bush had better VOTE NUMBERS. Both times he won, mind you.

When Clinton was in office, Reagan and Bush honored the long-time tradition of not criticizing the current President. Though it seems Dems have a problem honoring it --- likely because they know they won't be in the WH anytime soon.

You wouldn't, but a majority of women, blacks, Hispanics, liberals (grudgingly, 'cause he's a centrist) and partisan Dems would.

If he ran in 2004, he'd have been steamrolled.

If he ran in 2000, he would've lost.

If he ran in 2008, he'd have lost.

You seem to miss the whole "Clinton never once got a majority of the vote" thing.

Bush, on the other hand, is a terminally unpopular and embarrassingly uninquisitive dope who spends more time on vacation than Parisian transit workers.

And yet he got a majority of the vote and more votes than Clinton. Twice.

Man, that has to burn you up inside.

Gore and Clinton would be remiss if they didn't take shots at this idiot! God, it must be so hard to be a Republican with this nitwit in power.

Says the man whose party is led by Howard Dean and whose last two candidates were embarrassments to all Americans.

As for my throw-away comment about us being better off in a capitalist society, along with the corruption that comes with it, than in a Communist society, you twisted my words to mean that I think we would have less corruption in a Communist society.

You said it was a problem of a capitalist society. It's MY fault you can't make a point?

And, seriously, what's with the trolling me? You're tiresome playing the role of uber-emotional elitist about gay marriage. You're WAY out of your league here.

Jesus H. Cricket, dude! You're not such an ideologue that you can't accept that there is necessarily waste and corruption that comes with living in a capitalist society, are you? Holy crap...

Yup, that is EXACTLY what I said.

Kudos.

I once thought you had your head in the clouds. It's now clear that it cannot be the case as your head is firmly entombed elsewhere.
-=Mike

Hey snowballs, gay-baiting ... (Below threshold)
Totally Matt:

Hey snowballs, gay-baiting is a good tactic for a party with a lot of homophobes in its base that cannot campaign on results. So get your practice in, 'cause Rover's gonna need you in a couple of months.

Actually MikeSC and I and several others were having a very long and very interesting discussion about gay marriage in a previous thread, so it was an inside thing between me and my BFF. =)

There should be a rule that people who can't spell "competant", RobLACa, don't get to question the competency of others. This thread makes you come off as a complete and utter moron. Go pick an argument with the receptionist at your local chapter of Greenpeace, because the people you disagree with here are most assuredly more intelligent than you are.*

As for Albright and other Clinton higher-ups not being able to find work, I'm pretty sure that whatever they all do, they all make more money than you ever will, selling crappy books or working in the private sector. You're a jealous idiot, and they're millionaires who get to go to cool parties and schmooze with hot movie stars. But seriously, though, you da man.

Also, you are in the minority. People don't like this president anymore, they don't like his policies, and they want a change. I'd be happy with any moderate Repub or Dem, a split Senate, and a Democratic House. Empirical evidence clearly states that spending is lower when Congress is divided than when either party controls both chambers, so economic conservatives will undoubtedly agree with me as nobody likes to be a hypocrite (and spending definitely needs to be curbed).

As for everyone talking about pre-emptively striking NK, L'il Kim has at his disposal enough chemical weapons to wipe out Seoul in a hurry, and he can deliver them with conventional artillery batteries. Dropping bombs on his silos is an incredibly idiotic idea because he seems like the sort of whackjob who would love to go out with a deadly gaseous bang. Pay off a few of his generals to overthrow him--it'll be much cheaper, and North Koreans will like the U.S. more (and yes, that does matter). Plus all of those South Korean allies of yours that you supposedly care about won't die of mustard gas poisoning.

Poor Adolph...he LIKED Neville. Rumor has it they danced....
Posted by: Justrand

And Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein while Hussein was using chemical weapons against Iran. Justrand, does every liberal have to accept responsibility for Chamberlain's isoloationism? Because principled liberals aren't isolationists, they're tough multi-lateralists. (No, there aren't very many of them around anymore.) Isolationism is a conservative non-strategy. Conservatives in the US were unhappy that FDR decided to go to war and not because he was three years late, but because they didn't think America's interests would be served.

Don't try to infer anything about the quality of anyone's character on here, Justrand, based on a weak-kneed British Prime Minister from the 1930's. We didn't vote for him. And the American president that (in conjunction with Stalin) defeated Hitler was a liberal. Nice try, though.

*Not saying libs/Dems are smarter; if they were, Dubya would be an assistant GM for a MLB team. I'm saying this clown is just stupider than the people he is insulting.

Hey snowballs, gay-baiti... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Hey snowballs, gay-baiting is a good tactic for a party with a lot of homophobes in its base that cannot campaign on results. So get your practice in, 'cause Rover's gonna need you in a couple of months.

But your party opposes gay marriage. Every single candidate said so.

Or is your party just laden with liars?

As for everyone talking about pre-emptively striking NK, L'il Kim has at his disposal enough chemical weapons to wipe out Seoul in a hurry, and he can deliver them with conventional artillery batteries.

I want this recorded, because I have money saying that if we go to N. Korea and there are no WMD there, TM will say that Bush lied about it and nobody really believed they had them.

You know, how they did with Iraq and all.

And Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein while Hussein was using chemical weapons against Iran. Justrand, does every liberal have to accept responsibility for Chamberlain's isoloationism?

Seeing as how you expect conservatives to do so for us trying to prevent Iran from taking over the Middle East --- yeah, you do have to accept responsibility if you hope to have some semblance of consistency.

Because principled liberals aren't isolationists, they're tough multi-lateralists.

Except when it comes to gay marriage. Than it's fiat city, right?

Isolationism is a conservative non-strategy.

Hmm, who opposes any military action against anybody who MIGHT be a threat to the US?

Not the conservatives.

Conservatives in the US were unhappy that FDR decided to go to war and not because he was three years late, but because they didn't think America's interests would be served.

Yet the Republicans REFUSED to campaign on WW II against FDR in 1944. Weird, huh? Not politicizing a war?

Man, that is some kooky stuff there.

And the American president that (in conjunction with Stalin) defeated Hitler was a liberal. Nice try, though.

The general who made it happen wasn't a liberal in your eyes.

And that Stalin guy was a pretty loathesome human. Just beneath Mao for most detestable human in history.

*Not saying libs/Dems are smarter; if they were, Dubya would be an assistant GM for a MLB team. I'm saying this clown is just stupider than the people he is insulting.

TM, again, you do realize that the cutting can go both ways, right?
-=Mike

It should have set up si... (Below threshold)
Totally Matt:

It should have set up six party talks with Saddam and invaded North Korea.

Is that about right, Lee and Totally?

No, invading neither country would have been a better idea. Iran would have made more political and military sense, because now Iran is effectively taking over Iraq and the military is handcuffed when it comes to killin' Kim Jong Illin'. (Is there a world leader whose name is more fun to make fun of?)

Mike, who's trolling you? Would you prefer to be able to blather away with no one questioning your assertions? This tendentious dialogue serves to sharped both sides' arguments, and it's more fun than just having a big ol' partisan internet circle jerk, isn't it? I'm reading comments at Wizbang and trying to have an argument with people I think are capable of it (yourself included). Or would you rather me return to the echo chamber and bark at stuff?

Even the "hated" Bush pulled that trick off. So, Clinton had better opinion polls. Bush had better VOTE NUMBERS. Both times he won, mind you.

So Clinton fans didn't get out and vote as much as Bush's supporters, probably because they were sitting back enjoying the prosperity. I may as well assume that, because the guy did have a consistently high job approval rating. And don't tell me that Clinton managed to manipulate polls. You're giving him too much credit. He's not Karl Rove.

Bush ran against Al Gore when he was the most boring man on the planet, and against John Kerry who was a gift to the incumbent. Gore is funny and passionate now, but too smart to get back in the ring. Anyone can see what it's done to McCain and his "maverick" principles.

I did say corruption is a problem in capitalist societies. It's a problem in every society, except for maybe anarchist communes, I suppose. (Cheap rent, but soap's hard to come by.)

And yet he got a majority of the vote and more votes than Clinton. Twice.

Man, that has to burn you up inside.

Disappointed, yes. But I'm a happy, well-adjusted, very well paid young man with a great girlfriend and a wonderful family. Kinda softens the blow.

The Democrats are opposed to gay marriage, but they're opposed to the constitutional amendment banning it too. It's a politically safe position. I'd prefer that they grew a collective spine, but it's better than trying to write discrimination into the law.

We won't be going into North Korea, because we can't. Don't have the means to do it. But KJI most certainly does have WMDs. Maybe Saddam lent him his for safekeeping. But they weren't in Iraq. Hilarious of you to try and use this against me, as you and your ilk are the ones with egg on your faces.

I wasn't saying you're guilty by association of shaking Saddam's hands via Rumsfeld's. I was saying that a neo-conservative was an apologist for a war criminal, and then helped orchestrate his removal. Not all neo-conservatives have been Saddam apologists, though. Similarly, one weak-kneed isolationist British Prime Minister does not thereby make all liberals week-kneed isolationists.

They didn't politicize WW II, because it was the right war. This war, whatever its merits and motivations, has not been executed competently or honestly. I would never vote Democrat again if they refused to make this a campaign issue, because a president-as-such deserves absolutely NO loyalty whatsoever. He has to earn it through his performance, and Bush hasn't. It's not a monarchy, Mike, although I can name a few if you'd like to go live in one.

Did I praise Stalin? No. I said he helped take out Hitler. The Soviets did as much as the Western Allies to defeat him, in fact. Doesn't make him a good guy. But it doesn't mean I can't be grateful that one evil piece of shit routed another evil piece of shit.

As for me insulting you, I'm trying to show restraint. RobLACa, on the other hand, deserves to be laughed off the internets.

Look, if you don't want me to engage with your arguments, then stop making arguments in public forums. (Anyone who's curious: MikeSC lost a debate about gay marriage in a previous comment because he expressly denied that the Court should ever, under any circumstances, supercede the will of the people to protect minority rights. Kudos to none of you for defending this lunacy.) But Jay Tea, Lorie, et al expressly welcome dissent, and I will continue to give it until I get bored. What the hell is the point of reading blogs if you just absorb the thoughts of people who agree with you? I hardly read any comments on liberal blogs. Why should I?

Bleh--does anyone know if t... (Below threshold)
TM:

Bleh--does anyone know if there is a trick to using formatting tags on this blog? 'Cause they seem to hate me.

*sharpen both sides.... (Below threshold)
TM's executive assistant:

*sharpen both sides.

Q. Do you know how I know y... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

Q. Do you know how I know you're gay?

A. Because you seem to care a lot about formatting...

does anyone know if there is a trick to using formatting tags on this blog?

Yeah, a pretty html table would just make your comment pop!

Totally Matt, I totally kid... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

Totally Matt, I totally kid ^.

When you say I hardly read any comments on liberal blogs. Why should I?, I couldn't agree more. The only liberal blog that I ever liked (Yglesias) turned into a meaningless forum for NBA playoffs/rules/draft etc.

All of the missile's were s... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

All of the missile's were shot down by a laser beam from a 747. It's simply the star wars that the dim-wits also made fun of at work. They can also explode the NK nukes in country with no trace that anyone did a thing. Listed as just another failure by the dim-wits best friend Kim the donkey lover. LMAO

"And Rumsfeld shook hand... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

"And Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein...

Well yeah, but it ain't like they were drinking buddies: http://tinyurl.com/rtemt

No, invading neither cou... (Below threshold)
Cybrludite:

No, invading neither country would have been a better idea. Iran would have made more political and military sense, because now Iran is effectively taking over Iraq and the military is handcuffed when it comes to killin' Kim Jong Illin'. (Is there a world leader whose name is more fun to make fun of?)

And just where would we have based this invasion of Iran out of? Afghanistan is land-locked and lacks the road & rail infrastructure we'd need to bring heavy armored divisions through. not to mention how the folks of Afghanistan would have reacted to us bringing in that many troops...

Pakistan allowed us nothing but overflight rights when we went into Afghanistan, and that was right after 9/11. You really think they would have let us bring in the several armored divisions it would take to conquer Iran?

To the north there's Russia and the 'stans, neither likely to let us bring in forces on that scale. And fairly mountainous terrain trying to go that way. To the west, Iraq & the Persian Gulf.

To invade Iran without having taken Iraq first, we would have had to take a coastal city with a good port and airport by amphibious and airborne assault and then clear and hold a thirty mile radius around that city for the better part of a month while the heavy units were brought in and organized. Do you have any idea how many casualties we would take just holding on to that city, much less with taking the rest of the country?

"And just where would we ha... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

"And just where would we have based this invasion of Iran out of?"

Careful Cybrludite, the liberals have already stated where we could invade Iran from. Their elite, ex-Marine military expert Murtha has already explained how we can invade the Middle East easuly from......Okinawa.

MikeSC: It's been a real pl... (Below threshold)

MikeSC: It's been a real pleasure watching you take Matt apart.

Oh, and Lee:"He... (Below threshold)

Oh, and Lee:

"He had six years to fix things and he botched it."

How long have you been commenting here now? And you haven't won a single convert. You've had all this time and you've botched it.

Don't mind Lee, he's the vi... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Don't mind Lee, he's the village idiot.

It seems that shamelessness was a communicable disease in the Clinton administration. Albright is a disgrace.

Oyster, who died and made y... (Below threshold)

Oyster, who died and made you the "Siskel & Ebert" of Wizbang threads? TM wins on logic and reason. Nice try MikeSC, but you are way too partisan dude.

Honest question; would you prefer if America was pretty much a one party state? It seems that most of your comrades that post here would, so I want to ask you, because you seem to be somewhat sagacious in your thinking.

BTW, unlike oyster who just throws out proclamations based on whose views are similar to his. I will tell you why TM wins. He wins because of this statement by you my man:

"And that Stalin guy was a pretty loathsome human. Just beneath Mao for most detestable human in history"

Now that statement alone shows what an extreme ideologue you are. And extreme ideologues can't win arguments based on logic. For you to use Mao, and Stalin, two communist who deserve to be on the list-but not one and two- and leave out a certain fascist with a funny mustache, because he is closer to you ideologically, is insane. You know what, don't answer that question I asked you. I think I already know your answer :(

So Clinton fans didn't g... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

So Clinton fans didn't get out and vote as much as Bush's supporters, probably because they were sitting back enjoying the prosperity.

Wow. That might be the single most illogical argument ever made. Reagan got more votes and he had more prosperity under his watch.

I may as well assume that, because the guy did have a consistently high job approval rating.

Or that people liked him when there was no direct alternative, but the moment an alternative arose, they didn't support him nearly as much?

Could be?

See, people "hate" Bush, until they're given an alternative. Then they support Bush more than they supported Clinton when he had an alternative.

And don't tell me that Clinton managed to manipulate polls. You're giving him too much credit. He's not Karl Rove.

Clinton, clearly, wasn't bright enough to do it since he was unaware of the definition of the word "is". But I'll but guarantee you that if they wanted to, Republicans could question A LOT about his elections.

Why?

Because every election has problems.

Bush ran against Al Gore when he was the most boring man on the planet, and against John Kerry who was a gift to the incumbent.

Clinton ran against Bob Dole and George Bush who had no desire, whatsoever, to win.

Are you trying to claim that Bush faced weaker opposition?

Disappointed, yes. But I'm a happy, well-adjusted, very well paid young man with a great girlfriend and a wonderful family. Kinda softens the blow.

That's a good thing. I have the same.

The Democrats are opposed to gay marriage, but they're opposed to the constitutional amendment banning it too. It's a politically safe position.

Wow, that is pure courage.

We won't be going into North Korea, because we can't. Don't have the means to do it. But KJI most certainly does have WMDs.

Until it turns out he didn't. We all thought Saddam had them as well.

I don't doubt for a moment that he does --- but we have less intel about N. Korea than we had about Iraq.

Just saying.

I wasn't saying you're guilty by association of shaking Saddam's hands via Rumsfeld's. I was saying that a neo-conservative was an apologist for a war criminal, and then helped orchestrate his removal.

Nobody was a Saddam apologist. At his apex, he was "our son of a bitch" --- not somebody we REMOTELY liked or wished to tolerate. WE didn't praise him the way, say, Albright praised Kim Jong-Il.

This war, whatever its merits and motivations, has not been executed competently or honestly. I would never vote Democrat again if they refused to make this a campaign issue, because a president-as-such deserves absolutely NO loyalty whatsoever. He has to earn it through his performance, and Bush hasn't.

Dems fired missiles into Iraq for the identical reason Bush went in there.

You support THAT?

There is not a war that Republicans "started" that Dems supported. Not one. Dems seldom have that problem with the GOP, who tries to support the military.

(Anyone who's curious: MikeSC lost a debate about gay marriage in a previous comment because he expressly denied that the Court should ever, under any circumstances, supercede the will of the people to protect minority rights. Kudos to none of you for defending this lunacy.)

Again, the person who has to tell everybody he "won" is simply trying to convince himself.

Oyster, who died and made you the "Siskel & Ebert" of Wizbang threads? TM wins on logic and reason. Nice try MikeSC, but you are way too partisan dude.

Wow, an uber-partisan finds TM's whiny emotionalism compelling. Color me stunned.

Now that statement alone shows what an extreme ideologue you are. And extreme ideologues can't win arguments based on logic. For you to use Mao, and Stalin, two communist who deserve to be on the list-but not one and two- and leave out a certain fascist with a funny mustache, because he is closer to you ideologically, is insane.

Feel free to continue with your idiotic babble.

Why are Mao and Stalin #1 and #2?

Because they killed MORE people --- by a huge margin --- than Hitler. It's not like this is even a close competition. Mao killed about 60M. Stalin killed 20-30M. Hitler killed 10M. On that scale ALONE, Hitler pales in comparison to leftist darlings Stalin and Mao.

You know, you could have ASKED why they were #1 and #2. I'd have been glad to explain it --- but hey, since all Republicans are Nazis to you, you didn't feel any need to do so.

If you want to believe that Hitler is "closer" to be politically, it's because you are, to be generous, a complete moron.

Just because YOUR side has never come to grips with what Communism caused the world --- hell, YOUR side apologized for Mao and Stalin's humanity crimes on a regular basis while my side has condemned Hitler, unequivocally, for many years.
-=Mike

And then Big Bad Bush was s... (Below threshold)
Lee:

And then Big Bad Bush was smacked down again.

SEOUL, South Korea - A U.S. envoy expressed support for China's proposal to hold informal six-nation talks on the North Korean nuclear threat and offered to meet bilaterally with the North on the sidelines of those discussions.

Brought to his knees by a lunatic with a really bad haircut. What a putz.

China (and Russia) refused to go along with GWB's plan to keep tensions high (which GWB wanted in order to help republicans get re-elected), and George was slapped down. North Korea will get the talks they've been demanding all along, and the world learns that the US foreign poilcy is just so much noise ...

Albright was right.

All of the missile's wer... (Below threshold)
Totally Matt:

All of the missile's were shot down by a laser beam from a 747. It's simply the star wars that the dim-wits also made fun of at work. They can also explode the NK nukes in country with no trace that anyone did a thing. Listed as just another failure by the dim-wits best friend Kim the donkey lover. LMAO

Yeah Scrapiron! Jumbo jets with frickin' laser beams on their foreheads! Man, you need to post more frequently. I learn so much from you.

Mike, while I would hate for someone to accuse me of being un>emotional in my arguments, the rejection of your view that the Supreme Court = totalitarianism is not "emotionalism". You lose, dude.

Consider some of the princi... (Below threshold)
Sylvan:

Consider some of the principles of sowing and reaping:

1. What you sow you reap.

2. You reap MORE than you sow.

3. You reap LATER than you sow.

What Bill Clinton sowed, George Bush reaped, in spades.

nice try Sylvan - but lame,... (Below threshold)
Lee:

nice try Sylvan - but lame, just like your party. All your party can accomplish is feeding the defense industry, tax cuts for the rich, trying to spin religious doctrine into domestic law, and licking the genitals of lobbyists.

You're a disgrace to this country - and Bush's latest failures in N Korea are a prime example. This administration declared North Korea among the "axis of evil" in 2002 (?) and they FIRED A MISSLE AT US last week, and now we have to follow China and Russia's orders to sit down at the table.

Glad the republicans are on top of this war on terror! THEY FIRED A MISSLE AT US, and GWB was willing to let the people of the state of Hawaii be held as a psychological hostage to a madman, until China and Russia intervened ON OUR BEHALF, and set a plan in motion.

Pathetic.

Insofar as this is a genuin... (Below threshold)
Totally Matt:

Insofar as this is a genuine national security issue, Sylvan, that sort of comment is unhelpful within the context of this discussion.

But I'll tell ya what. If L'il Kim levels Seoul in response to a preemptive attack, you can fly yourself to S. Korea and explain to the survivors that it's actually Bill Clinton's fault.

This administration decl... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

This administration declared North Korea among the "axis of evil" in 2002 (?) and they FIRED A MISSLE AT US last week, and now we have to follow China and Russia's orders to sit down at the table.

Stop being such a chickenshit, Lee. If you are advocating we nuke North Korea, come out and say it. Or are you just gonna fling shit and waffle like your heroes Dean and Kerry?

B Moe, I think Lee is expre... (Below threshold)
Totally Matt:

B Moe, I think Lee is expressing the reasonable disgust that we should feel right now. The U.S. cannot do anything about N. Korea militarily without jeopardizing millions of S. Koreans.

Lee isn't being a chickenshit. He's as pissed off about this as we all should be (and hopefully are). It's an actual threat posed by a guy who wants people to think he has WMDs and nuclear weapons, and Commander Codpiece has to suck up to the Chinese and that snake Putin to try and settle things down.

Are you happy with the American bargaining position right now?

Hmmm...revealing reactions ... (Below threshold)
Sylvan:

Hmmm...revealing reactions to three clear and simple principles as applied to two principals.

One principal's charismatic exterior masks a less principled interior; the other's exterior reflects a more principled interior.

Some seem to have lost the ability to perceive the distinction and would sacrifice principles for a principal, no matter his ilk.

Long after principals are gone from the scene, the principles will continue in force. We ignore them at our peril.

Sylvan, the issue is Americ... (Below threshold)
Totally Matt:

Sylvan, the issue is American security, not loyalty to either Bush or Clinton.

I think it behooves everyone to treat this as a bipartisan problem that requires a creative solution. Politicizing this situation is crass and stupid. But of course Democratic and Republican congresspeople will do it anyway.

Mike Mike Mike. No buddy, I... (Below threshold)

Mike Mike Mike. No buddy, I am not a big fan of Mao or Stalin. Che, on the other hand, I like. But yourt facts again are wrong-as usual- But you know the old saying about letting facts get in the way of a good argument. I think Mao was responsible for the deaths of 40 million, Stalin more like 13 million and your buddy 12 million. Mr. Funny mustache man killed about 6 million jews, and about six million others, such as other minorities, the weak, the handicapped, Catholics, communist,trade unionist, you name it; he took them out. "It's not like this is even a close competition...Hitler pales in comparrson to your leftist darlings.." Really? Just what bizarro world do you live in? I mean if we take this thing by size of their countries alone and percentages of those killed, it would be funny mustache man way out front.

Anyway, I am going to vote funny mustache man number one, certainly over Stalin. Who, by the way, helped the allies defeat said mustache man-the hero to the "brown shirt" movement- in World War II.

But let me give you a quick history lesson, because I can see that you are not as smart as I thought you were -Gee see how people can fool you on the web?- Stalin did not directly gas and have his SS murder people like funny mustache man because of their race. Yes, millions od Kulaks starved because of famine, and yes, he took their land and oppressed them when they started slaughtering live stock and animals in Russia. So he was a bad man, but I think any -and this is where it gets tricky for you- reasonable person would argue that he did his bad deeds out of political expediency. Hitler, on the other hand, was just pure evil, and his "final solution" program is unmatched in human history in terms of it's brutality. Read Mein Kampf again-I am sure you have a copy somewhere.

So again genius, this isn't about left and right, dem and repub. It's about who was truly evil, and Hitler was number one. Period! Which leads me back to my original point. You coulddn't see that, because all of your thinking is so colored by ideology. You claim your side condemned Hitler, yet given all that he has done, you chose to not mention him number one or two on your list. That's classic.

BTW, you still didn't answer my question about doing away with the democratic party in America. The last part of my previous post was purely rhetorical, so I was expecting an answer. But maybe you won't answer it, because you might have a good trait left in you after all. Honesty.

It's an actual threat po... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

It's an actual threat posed by a guy who wants people to think he has WMDs and nuclear weapons, and Commander Codpiece has to suck up to the Chinese and that snake Putin to try and settle things down.

We don't have to do shit, we could incinerate North Korea right now. The question is would you rather do that than negotiate with the people involved.

Are you happy with the American bargaining position right now?

No. I would prefer that Clinton had not given North Korea nuclear capabilities, but he did and we have to deal with it. I am also not happy with disingenuous partisan fuckwads who bitch because we didn't negotiate in the middle east and are now bitching because we are negotiating in se asia.

nice try Sylvan - but la... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

nice try Sylvan - but lame, just like your party. All your party can accomplish is feeding the defense industry, tax cuts for the rich, trying to spin religious doctrine into domestic law, and licking the genitals of lobbyists.

Says the party whose last President sold WH stays to campaign contributors on a regular basis, took money from the Chinese in utter violation of the law, and gutted the military and utterly made the intel community impotent.

You're a disgrace to this country - and Bush's latest failures in N Korea are a prime example. This administration declared North Korea among the "axis of evil" in 2002 (?) and they FIRED A MISSLE AT US last week, and now we have to follow China and Russia's orders to sit down at the table.

Because traitors such as yourself would bitch and moan if we went over there and did anything.

But I'll tell ya what. If L'il Kim levels Seoul in response to a preemptive attack, you can fly yourself to S. Korea and explain to the survivors that it's actually Bill Clinton's fault.

Hmm, he gave them the nuclear material in exchange for them "promising" not to make bombs --- promises they broke the day they made them.

Yup, it's Bush's fault. Of course.

Lee isn't being a chickenshit. He's as pissed off about this as we all should be (and hopefully are). It's an actual threat posed by a guy who wants people to think he has WMDs and nuclear weapons, and Commander Codpiece has to suck up to the Chinese and that snake Putin to try an

Wow, this is different than Saddam...how?

Che, on the other hand, I like.

You support murderous, authoritarian thugs? Gee, that's nice.

I think Mao was responsible for the deaths of 40 million, Stalin more like 13 million and your buddy 12 million.

Yes, me calling somebody the 3rd most loathesome in history is him being my "buddy".

And Stalin killed far more than 13M. The man used FAMINE as a weapon.

Mr. Funny mustache man killed about 6 million jews, and about six million others, such as other minorities, the weak, the handicapped, Catholics, communist,trade unionist, you name it; he took them out.

As did Stalin.

As did Mao.

And they killed more.

Care to tell me how they're BETTER than Hitler, since that is PRECISELY your argument here My argument for them being worse is that they killed considerably more people.

Really? Just what bizarro world do you live in? I mean if we take this thing by size of their countries alone and percentages of those killed, it would be funny mustache man way out front.

Actually, Pol Pot would be #1 by a huge margin. He only killed about ONE QUARTER OF HIS ENTIRE COUNTRY'S POPULATION.

Study a little history.

Anyway, I am going to vote funny mustache man number one, certainly over Stalin. Who, by the way, helped the allies defeat said mustache man-the hero to the "brown shirt" movement- in World War II.

...only because Germany attacked him after he signed a non-Aggression Pact and helped Hitler execute a mass genocide in Poland.

Really, your side has a hard-on for Communists. It makes no sense.

Stalin did not directly gas and have his SS murder people like funny mustache man because of their race.

Stalin killed them because he thought they MIGHT be "unfaithful" to him. He starved millions to death for NO reason.

Again, I'm going with the totals killed to make my list. You're going with "Well, I side with Mao and Stalin more than I side with Hitler", which is beyond contemptible.

Yes, millions od Kulaks starved because of famine, and yes, he took their land and oppressed them when they started slaughtering live stock and animals in Russia. So he was a bad man, but I think any -and this is where it gets tricky for you- reasonable person would argue that he did his bad deeds out of political expediency.

Well, gee, I suppose that makes it OK then, huh?

I'm supposed to care WHY somebody slaughters untold millions?

Jesus, have you no decency?

Hitler, on the other hand, was just pure evil, and his "final solution" program is unmatched in human history in terms of it's brutality. Read Mein Kampf again-I am sure you have a copy somewhere.

Yes. Again, because calling somebody the third-most loathesome man in history means I approve of him.

Unlike you, I studied Hitler and Mussolini in depth back in school. I know precisely what those two men did. Hitler was an evil, evil man.

The "Great Leap Forward" of Mao alone DWARFS the sheer magnitude of mass slaughter than the Holocaust. Stalin's forced famine of his opponents equalled the Holocaust.

Stalin and Mao were worse.

So again genius, this isn't about left and right, dem and repub. It's about who was truly evil, and Hitler was number one. Period!

Stalin and Mao were markedly worse. Killed far more people.

Which leads me back to my original point. You coulddn't see that, because all of your thinking is so colored by ideology. You claim your side condemned Hitler, yet given all that he has done, you chose to not mention him number one or two on your list. That's classic.

I am going with numbers killed.

By YOUR OWN NUMBERS, Stalin and Mao were worse.

But since you have a hard-on for Communist thugs, you don't MIND that. You don't have a problem with that.

In any rational sense, it is impossible to say Hitler is "worse" than Stalin or Mao.

Worse than Pol Pot? Yup.
Castro? Yup.
Khomeini? Yes.
Saddam? Easily.
Milosevic? Please.
Lenin? Yup.

Mao? Nope.
Stalin? Nope.

BTW, you still didn't answer my question about doing away with the democratic party in America. The last part of my previous post was purely rhetorical, so I was expecting an answer. But maybe you won't answer it, because you might have a good trait left in you after all. Honesty.

I want 2 parties.

The Dems have proven themselves to be in opposition to the US, so they should disband and allow a competent party to take over.

Finding somebody so blinded by utter evil because you LIKE Communists doesn't think highly of me is something I'm proud of. If you liked or approved of me, I'd know I was wrong, fundamentally, on everything.
-=Mike

So he was a bad man, but... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

So he was a bad man, but I think any -and this is where it gets tricky for you- reasonable person would argue that he did his bad deeds out of political expediency. Hitler, on the other hand, was just pure evil, and his "final solution" program is unmatched in human history in terms of it's brutality.

Intentionally starving millions of people to death in the name of "political expediency" isn't evil? What kind of vile sack of corruption are you? That is truly dispicable.

"...reasonable person wo... (Below threshold)

"...reasonable person would argue..."

haha. Anyone who starts off a comment saying they "like" Che would be immediately suspected of having a total lack of reason. Here's where it gets tricky, dude; Che was a cold blooded murderer. He personally signed the death warrants of thousands and pulled the trigger himself on a significant number of those occasions then happily paraded their family members by the carnage that was once their loved ones. He destroyed the Cuban Peso when Castro made him Minister of Economics. Then within a year of being named Minister of Industries Cuba was rationing food. The only thing he excelled in was being Chief Executioner. He was an amoral, immoral blood-thirsty thug.

That is all he was.

Yet people like you would gleefully romanticize his bloody soaked insanity. Why, I'll bet you'd proudly wear a shirt emblazoned with his picture.

Here's my advice to all those who wear such clothing. If you want to wear something that really embodies "revolution", get a shirt with Ben Franklin on it.

Intentionaly starving milli... (Below threshold)

Intentionaly starving millions of people to death in the name of political expediency ...what kind of vile sack of corruption are you" I don't know, I think I come from the same sack with the people who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of native Americans, in order to open up the frontier for their own. And I think the people that forced hundreds of thousands of people to work for free for them, while causing the deaths of countless more on their way to do said work, was in that sack too. That sack of corruption!

Oyster, Che was a physician, who also saved the lives of many poor peasants in the hills of South America.-Have you ever saved a life?- And was one of the first to actually call for the fighting of imperialism in Africa-Congo-(That will always be good in the field-negro's book- He was also executed without a trial. Which might explain why many people see him as somehwat of an icon. I mean, even the most wicked and immoral among us, have gotten the benefit of a trial. But he did not, so regardless of what you might think about him, I think you will agree that he deserved that much.

Oh, and I don't wear Ben Franklin t-shirts, but I work on Ben Franklin Parkway; does that count?

"Che was a physician, wh... (Below threshold)

"Che was a physician, who also saved the lives of many poor peasants in the hills of South America."

Stalin loved his dog, too.

Che was not a physician. That's the most preposterous of his adorers claims. He was a medical school dropout. Looks like he never got as far as the part where he was supposed to take the Hippocratic Oath. Shame he didn't use that wounderous talent on the people who died by his hand, huh?

I took some accounting classes. Does that make me a CPA? Whether or not I've saved a life has no bearing on the matter.

Che KNEW how to save lives,... (Below threshold)

Che KNEW how to save lives, I doubt if you KNOW how to balance the books of a dollar store.
Therein my nescient republican friend, lies the difference.

Ouch. Your attack on my in... (Below threshold)

Ouch. Your attack on my intelligence really hurts. I happen to to run the accounting department for a 3 million dollar a year business. And what makes you think I'm a republican? Is that supposed to be an insult too? Please advise. I'm not sure if my feelings should be doubly hurt.

Che KNEW how to save lives, eh? I guess that makes up for all the ones he killed. Nice logic there, pal.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy