P.J. O’Rourke writes a long piece that, while funny, breaks down the GOP position this election season to one statement- the Democrats are worse:
LIKE OTHER DEEP-THINKING people, I’m full of principled, idealistic, high-minded indignation at the GOP. What a stampede of sleaze. Jack Abramoff is the world’s best lobbyist–for the Federal Penitentiary System. Bob Ney was deep in the ethical rough at St. Andrew’s. Randy “Duke” Cunningham’s favorite weap ons system turned out to be the political suicide bomb. Tom DeLay may or may not have broken campaign finance laws, but he did his best to look like he was breaking them. He might as well have tied quail feathers to the GOP majority in Congress and sent it hunting with Dick Cheney.
Watching Republicans in Washington is like watching lemmings, if lemmings jumped into cesspools instead of off cliffs. Splash! There goes Mark Foley! Now the news networks are broadcasting G.O.P.U. around the clock.
Actually, the Republicans should be grateful for their lying, thieving scum. It distracts the public from the things the Republicans have done that are honestly bad. Our postwar policy is creating Weimar Iraq. And when the Islamofascist Beer Hall Putsch comes there won’t even be beer.
***No price is too high to pay for principled idealism. And as soon as high-minded indignation has defeated the Republicans, there will be the impoverishment from protectionism, the horror of nuke-wielding petty dictators, and the increased killings by terrorists to prove it. Deep-thinking people will be relieved that Dennis Hastert can no longer cover up misbehavior in the congressional page program.
Really, that is all the GOP has left- the same stuff we heard, basically, during the torture debate, only ‘high-minded indigination’ is the new ‘moral high ground’ (and I am still amused that we have managed to change ownership of the moral high ground into a smear, but such is life with a Republican government). Regardless, had PJ left out the protectionism comment and simply read the news, he would have learned that we have nuke-wielding petty dictators and increased killings by terrorists already.
In a nutshell, the only argument for voting for Republicans is that the Democrats are worse. Considering it seems like 3/4 of the GOP is under indictment/investigation and they have enacted a seemingly never-ending series of bad legislation and refuse to hold this administration accountable for anything, I find that hard impossible to believe.
Bruce Moomaw
His piece (and your comments) hardly surprise me — O’Rourke has made his entire career out of right-wing snark that is semi-clever on a strictly surface level and idiotic as a rock at any greater depth. (That’s when he hasn’t been making his career out of a professional Two-Face routine, in which he simultaneously writes pieces for “Rolling Stone” declaring that both parties are equally bad, and pieces for right-wing publications — usually the American Spectator, until it became too radioactive for him to approach safely — thundering that the Dems are infinitely worse.)
Pb
I was thinking the same thing–but why mention that when you can just (a) blame it on Clinton, or (b) blame it on the *next* Democratic [President / Congress / activist / heretofore unknown liberal college professor] out there!
As for protectionism, note that Pat Buchanan is the poster child for protectionism in general. And in that vein, I find it interesting to note that many people in this country including (notably) some on the far right very much want to engage in social protectionism on a number of issues–but the radicals in office now are all for plutocracy, which trumps all other concerns!
Bruce Moomaw
In that connection, you failed to mention the sections in his piece in which he annnounces, with a straight face, that unemployment is usually worse under the Dems and that most Democrats are welfare loafers. As I say, dumb as a rock and/or psychopathically dishonest, underneath a shallow smart-aleck facade — which is how he ended up writing full-time for the American Spectator (for which, by the way, he did one piece after another about Clinton’s disgusting personal corruption, at the same time that he was writing indignant pieces against the drug war for Rolling Stone). Fortunately, at this point nobody is listening anymore except his fellow Weekly Standard writers.
Chris Johnson
Did he used to be funny?
Mr Furious
He and Dennis Miller must really crack each other up.
jcricket
Look how long it took our host here to go from “I’m mad at the GOP for this issue but the Dems are actively worse on everything” to the realization that everything he was mad at the GOP about was a “feature, not a bug” of his party. And therefore, things were going to get worse with the GOP in charge, so he has to vote Democrat (or not vote) to change things. And John makes no money from the GOP.
People like O’Reilly and O’Rourke (I sense a trend) will only periodically deign to criticize Republicans to burnish their “independent” cred. The truth is their Republican shills who decided that Limbaugh, Savage, Hewitt, etc. had already taken the right flank of discourse, so they simply feign independence to make a buck. They’ll never make that transition that John has made.
Even look at what’s happened to Dennis Miller, Christopher Hitchens and Bernard Goldberg, “former liberals” who wet their bed so hard after 9/11 that they switched sides. And clearly, once you go “Republican pundit”, you never come back. You swallow the Kool-Aid so hard that it becomes part of your being (not just a rational decision you made on an issue-by-issue basis). To give up on the “us vs. them” mentality that drives these people requires realizing your party personally hates you and wishes you were dead (see Andrew Sullivan and David Brock) to even start to actually switch your vote.
LLeo
I have to agree with the conventional wisdom that the Democratic Party doesn’t have an over-arching political philosophy akin to Goldwater Conservatism. However, one thing is clear to me about the national Democratic Party: they value competence.
During the Clinton administration FEMA worked well. If the Democrats wanted some big new government program they paid for it rather than borrowing. National Security matters were run by pragmatists, not by followers of the Tinker Bell school of foreign policy. Bosnia worked out due to overwhelming force on the ground and Diplomacy. Somalia and Hati were both complete messes (and Clinton is completely to blame for them); however they at least had the balls to Cut-And-Run from bad policies and not get bogged down.
I am suprised to even say this, but the Republicans have become the Pie-In-The-Sky party of idealistic wishfull thinkers, and the Democrats have become the adult-consider-all-the-options Party.
In a way, it is a good thing that Democrats are going to take power in the Congress AND that they don’t have a singular governing philosophy. The reason I believe that, is because they won’t do anything spectacular. Maybe I am becomming little-C conservative in my old age, but I am looking forward to less radical/adventurous/spectacular foriegn and domestic policies.
Pb
Just don’t start hatin’ on the Irish for the actions of the O’Republicans…
Pb
Don’t be too surprised, I was noticing this the other day too:
Paddy O'Shea
Neither O’Reilly or Peewee O’Rourke are truly Irish. They just took the names because they thought it would make them seem witty and glamorous.
Ugh
Jhhn – Thomas sends you some love here.
Pb
Paddy,
Do you have a source for that?
Tsulagi
Another inspiring call to arms. Don’t look at the reality we have a retarded spoiled brat for a president who fucks up everything he touches and Republican “leadership” that sees its role as to clap louder while his admin does so. Just let McCain say a few mavericky words first then they’re good to go.
So his argument is that even though all Pubs in Congress have proven they’ll go ass up for Dobson, Falwell, and looney faux patriot retardocons in THE BASE, the Democrats have the potential to be worse. Can’t beat that reasoning for the parrot troopers. Be afraid, be very very afraid. Loyal bedwetters, vote Republican.
Pb
Ugh,
Heh! Well, that would explain Red State as well as anything else would…
Pb
Oddly enough, Pat Buchanan made this argument in 2004. It was hilarious–he blasted Bush for messing up the economy, he blasted Bush for messing up Iraq… and then all he could muster after that was a meek ‘Kerry would be worse’ accusation.
Cyrus
Possibly one of the first books about politics that I ever read was his Parliament of Whores, an overview of American politics written around 1989 or so. I think it’s the source of his famous quote “Democrats are the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller, and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work, then they get elected and prove it,” unless he had already used it an a magazine article somewhere. I thought the book was hilarious, and in addition there was at least a bit of clever thought and if not bipartisan comity, at least even-handed sniping. Along the way I also read Eat the Rich, similarly funny.
These days I usually preface any support of O’Rourke with a joke about having had to be re-educated after early exposure to his work, or just a question about how I survived it unscarred. The above thing is a good example of why. Funny, yes, but divorced from reality, as John points out. In addition to the problems he concedes and the ones John points out, did he somehow miss that Clinton’s economic policies were, you know, kinda good?
Was he always this partisan, and pretending otherwise just a calculated pose to support Republicans by encouraging distrust of government in general? Did he, like many other formerly-normal people, lose his higher brain functions on 9/11? Well, whatever the reason, I’d read him for the humor — I’d still consider buying a book of his if one caught my eye on the shelf — but I’d take him with the same heap of salt as some pre-Enlightenment author, because the writing may be good but the politics and ethics might as well be coming from another planet.
Mike
Republemmings…..gotta love ’em….
Ugh
Heh! Well, that would explain Red State as well as anything else would…
That was my first thought as well.
ThymeZone
Let’s say for the sake of blogchurn that the Dems really were worse. Not that I think this is even remotely true, but as a hypothetical.
Then, the second worst party would be in power … forever? And the American Experiment would be over.
So even if the grotesque idea were true, where do those chowderheads think it take us? To the promised land where only a few rich people get healthcare, the dollar is down there with the Peso, America is a third rate country, mired in debt and forever caught up in useless wars of political distraction, run by corporations, lobbyists and earmarkers, crooks and thieves and pedophiles who pander to the religious nuts and replace science with prayer in schools? Where the well heeled enjoy government perks like Social Security Portfolios and the rest of us in our old age line up for handouts of Frist Bread and Gingrich Soup on the sidewalks?
John Cole
I am really not sure what to make of that Red State post- there clearly is some jargon I am missing (like the Mark Kleiman ‘rhetorical style,’ or the problem with quoting Glenn Greenwald).
Additionally, this is just a laugher:
“I tell you this because if you purge everyone with whom John Cole disagrees from the Party, you’ll have a great time, for two years at a stretch, once every decade or two. Have fun with that.”
Considering it is not me, but many of the Red state denizens who wish to purge the party of those who disagree, it is pretty silly. I do support a purge of the liars, frauds, and crooks- but not because they ‘disagree’ with me. Ask Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, or basically anyone to the left of James Inhofe and Rick Santorum.
There are many Republicans I would like to do without, though, but I support purging them because they are, as it is becoming clear, liars, frauds, and crooks. I fail to see how that is a character flaw on my part, although I will concede that given the number of GOP leaders who are turning out to be crooked, it will be hard to be the majority party.
Ugh
John – I believe Mark Kleiman’s “rhetorical style” is inferring something about someone from what that person has not blogged about. The Glenn Greenwald reference is to his supposed episodes of “sock-puppetry” (which, of course, is gospel truth over there AFAICT).
You must really be out of club now.
Andrew
I have to agree with Thomas. Changing ones mind in the face of new, contrary evidence is only a sign of moral turpitude. Have some backbone! And learn to relax your gag reflex, like Thomas has. Otherwise, you’ll never get ahead in the right wing blogosphere, or at boy scout conventions.
monkeybreath
Democrats worse than Republicans? Works for me, at least most of the time. What’s more, after a dose of Pelosi and her team, I think there will be converts to this view.
The argument I am hung up on, however, is that sometimes it’s good to change control just so a good general house cleaning takes place. In, say, 2010, I would really rather see the Republicans controlling at least one chamber and maybe the Presidency, but a cleanup first might not be such a bad idea.
Pb
As far as I can tell, the problem with Glenn Greenwald is that they hate him. And really, I can see why–I love reading Glenn’s blog, because not only does he tell it like it is, call people out, and make some very cogent and incisive arguments, but he also generally goes into great detail in the process, citing copious references and cases to back up his points. So what do they do in response? They smear him. It’s sad, really, but that’s all they’ve got. Or as Glenn put it:
Pb
monkeybreath,
Who would you want as a Republican President in 2008, though? Currently, Giuliani and McCain are polling the best, but of course just about anything can happen in that race over two years’ time.
ThymeZone
In case anyone thought I was kidding or exaggerating in my earlier post ….
I wasn’t.
We’re truly fucked.
As for Monkeybrains …. let’s simplify. One party rule is not a good idea. Period. Not under any circumstances.
It ought to be consitutionally prohibited.
ThymeZone
Come to Arizona. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) is running his Senate reelection campaign on essentially this theme.
Turrists – scary! Me, protect you!
jon
Had I stayed in political science, I intended to use Parliament of Whores as my PSCI 101 text. It was that good and drove the point home.
I don’t know where PJ went around the bend, but it was somewhere near the time when the sole principle of the GOP became “hate Clinton.” Shame, too, because even his early partisan material carried the “look, you know and I know that this is all bull” undertone, and there are not a lot of people left who can articulate a case for their side that doesn’t collapse into “TEH EVEL!!!!”
scarshapedstar
You know, in a way, it was. Some might say this whole mess began when one party deliberately chose to run roughshod over the Constitution’s internal safeguards.
But, shit, when nearly half the country supports a coup, who’s to stop it? We do, indeed, get the government we deserve.
Matt
I caught a Bill Maher with the old PJ a few weeks ago.
What people have said about his ability to turn on and off the partisanship is really true.
His Real Time was surprisingly moderate and dare I say, thoughtful.
ET
Ya’ know I am getting tired of all the “Democrats are worse” or all of the other put downs that conservatives and their ilk throw around to scrare the troops in line. I don’t ascribe words like bad, evil, corrupt, stupid, etc to describe all Republicans just because the nutty wing and several rather prominent members of the party are in jail. This is just lazy crap. I thought someone likke PJ was smarter than to buy into the bull crap pushed by the politicos, but I guess he isn’t. I guess he can be manipulated by people just like everyone else.
ThymeZone
Another story about Harry Reid.
You know, I don’t think Reid is a crook. Yet. But I do often wonder what these people are thinking from day to day. Has the term “appearance of impropriety” never dented their conscious thinking? Would it occur to them to take extra pains to fill out the paperwork correctly, go the extra mile to insure that funds are not comingled? Would it be THAT FUCKING HARD for all of the trough-feeding assholes in Washington to take a few minutes out of each day and consider the needs of the country and try to be extra careful in their dealings and their affairs?
And if they aren’t up to that, then are they up to governing?
Bruce Moomaw
“I caught a Bill Maher with the old PJ a few weeks ago. What people have said about his ability to turn on and off the partisanship is really true. His Real Time was surprisingly moderate and dare I say, thoughtful.”
As I say, a professional chameleon. What he writes for the Weekly Standard or the American Spectator is absolutely, totally, 100% different in ideological tone than what he writes for Rolling Stone or the New Republic (or says to Bill Maher). Somebody should remind him where Dante put the Opportunists.
Blue Neponset
John,
When was the last time you posted at Redstate? Thomas is acting like you broke a gentlemen’s agreement not to attack your fellow Redstate editors.
Andrew
More insightful commentary from a RedState commenter today:
I wonder why John wouldn’t want to write for such a crowd.
scarshapedstar
Well, for that you can thank the 30-year conservative branding campaign. “Sensible” paleoconservatism, the kind PJ espouses when he puts on his old-fart routine, much like Marxist communism, is a splendid idea but has never once existed. (This may hurt the feelings of the Cult of Reagan Invictus, but it’s true.) And yet it continues to color our entire political landscape. Liberals are sisyphus, endly trying to push the boulder of bureaucracy up the hill of free-market realities. Or maybe they’re a hydra, as soon as you cut off one speech code, another pops up. Needless to say, this leads to a caricature of liberalism that, like the paleocon, doesn’t really exist. But it’s been pushed relentlessly by the entire media for several decades now, and the liberal response has been to look sheepish and flagellate ourselves over “welfare queens” (which, needless to say, never existed.)
And this is why we, as a society, allow guys like PJ to put on their kabuki show about holding the line against the starry-eyed radicals who’ve never balanced a checkbook, at least in public. They’re reaping what they’ve sown. Now, why nobody has the balls to call PJ a hack and a sellout to his face is beyond me. I guess he reminds everyone too much of their favorite history teacher.
Lee
THREADJACK!!!!
Anyone else see this?
Military to monitor bloggers for accuracy
Pb
ThymeZone,
Correction: another irresponsible smear coming from John Solomon at the AP. Reid already addressed this yesterday:
Reid predicted it, but that still didn’t stop Solomon from trying! The man has no shame.
David
My favorite part of that RS post:
Yeah, just keep telling yourself that.
Pb
Andrew,
[insert picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam here]
Walker
Old news. Very old news. This is why I have gone from daily to weekly on the political blogs (and have stopped reading many all-together). No one in the political blogosphere is realistically paying attention to the economic situation. Reynold’s laughable ignorance of all things economic (he gets schooled regularly on both inflation and the unified budget at Angry Bear) is getting old.
Political blogs like this are reactive. They only react to things as they become visible. To see what is really coming, you need to look at the economics blogs like Calculated Risk and Big Picture. And these are just the generic economics blogs. Housing bubble blogs are a freakin’ subindustry to themselves.
However, I will say that this change in weather for the Democrats comes at an interesting time. The effects of the currect recession (yes, we are in one, it just has not hit the market yet — shades of 2001) will not be felt until after this election. And this recession is going to be huge. We are talking Japan levels here. As this won’t really become evident until after the election, the Democrats will clearly be blamed for this. So the question is this:
Will the average voter actually believe that the Democrats were at fault?
ThymeZone
Yes, Solomon is a turd.
But Reig managed to buy himself a front page CNN story for three thousand bucks worth of bonuses to the staff.
And his “lawyers approved it.” I presume that they charged him for this work, since I don’t know any lawyers who will do that for free. So he paid to get “approval” to do something he didn’t need to do, because it never occurred to him after all these years in Washington that somebody would try to use the thing in a smear?
I am starting to think that Reid and Solomon deserve each other. What’s next, Reid’s Checkers Speech?
Pb
Blue Neponset,
It’s hard for me to tell from their site, but the last story he wrote that I could find there with Google was from 8 months ago or so; I certainly could have missed something, though.
Andrew
Alternately, picture of Rumsfeld sitting on the board of ABB, as they were selling nuclear reactors to North Korea.
Really, it’s a smorgasboard of treason-iffic behavior!
Pb
I’m sure he was retaining them anyhow; I certainly don’t know the details, but I doubt he had them write up a brief on it, he probably just asked his campaign lawyer, “Hey, can I do this?” Now, if he was a Republican, maybe he would have talked to his political advisor instead, and said, “Hey, do you think the other side could attack me for doing this?”, because all they seem to care about is perception, and not the law. But considering all of their very real scandals at the moment, that approach doesn’t seem to be working out so well for them.
ThymeZone
Quite so, I have been saying it for about three years now.
But I’m just a moonbat without a uterus to bury, I can’t get no stinkin publicity.
Pb
I rather enjoy reading bonddad’s and Jerome a Paris’s (nonexistent?) regular posts on economic issues on Daily Kos. It isn’t a daily sort of thing, of course, I don’t think the US government will be defaulting on its obligations tomorrow, nor will banks be closing, nor will there be rioting in the streets, etc., etc. But it does paint quite the bleak picture for the future if we don’t do anything about it.
They’ll believe what they’re told, if no one else tells them any different. So, quite possibly, yes. If they can believe that Saddam was somehow responsible for 9/11, or that Clinton was somehow to blame for North Korea getting the bomb, then they’ll believe anything. Of course, I could then point to all the previous predictions of this before the Democrats came into power, the six years of Bush’s Presidency, and the actions of the Republicans in Congress, etc., etc., but it’s not like they’ll be watching me on CNN or whatever.
DoubtingThomas
Okay, this liberal will defend PJ O’Rourke. He is one of the very few good political satirists. ‘Parliment of Whores’ was very funny, as was his stint on Bill Maher a few weeks ago. Give me a ‘Republican’ like him any day over, say a ‘Democrat’ like Christopher Hitchens. More importantly, he smiles. He is one of the few current pundits I see out there who can laugh at himself. So what if he plays to his audience? Tucker and Chris Matthews sure change their tune when they are facing a liberal audience, and Jon Stewart changes his when interviewing a high ranking Republican. So what??? There is a HUGE difference between O’Reilley and O’Rourke: O’Rourke sees the joke and winks. O ‘Reilley lives the joke and winces.
John Cole
I didn’t really post that much after I went after the people smearing Dick Durbin.
Over the next few months, I became less and less interested in posting there, as it became clearer that I simply don’t look at the world the same way many of them do. I still don’t think they are bad folks, just that many of them are convinced that the Democrats really are that bad, and, as a result, anything that the Republicans do must be good. Some of them like Leon, are with the GOP primarily for single issues, like abortion (although there are other things that keeps Leon with the GOP, although if there were a viable social conservative party, Leon would probably bolt the GOP in a minute). Others have beltway ties and are involved in the businesss of politics. They all have their reasons for sticking around despite the obvious decline in the party and the abandonment of traditional conservatism, but much of it is the ingrained belief/fear that the Democrats are worse.
Given the excesses and abuses and betrayals of principle by the GOP the last few years, I just don’t buy into that anymore. The GOP has gone from a party that believed in keeping government out of your life and protecting individual liberty to one that sneaks internet gambling bans into legislation and works overtime to tell people how to make their end of life decisions all the while endorsing the indefinite detainment and torture of individuals.
It ain’t my party anymore.
John Cole
And, as if on cue, RedS tate frontpages a diary quoting the deep thoughts of Rush Limabugh, where we learn that the problem with the GOP is the damn moderates.
And there you have it.
DoubtingThomas
I know why I read BJ… It’s because of John’s honesty with himself. God, it sure is refreshing!
Darrell
Given that we don’t live in dreamland where only good choices exist, I seriously don’t understand why John feels that this point is so “obviously” wrong that he never bothers to back up his argument… as if it’s too ridiculous to even discuss. Dems would be worse. No doubt. We’re still living with Carter’s and Clinton’s horrible judicial candidates. As we are reminded again today, with Clinton appointee judge giving an active terrorist supporter nothing but a slap on the wrist. We saw the Dems vision for national security in the 90’s (and under Carter) with the overriding need to appease ala “we can trust” North Korea, and their limp wristed responses to terrorist attacks. I don’t think these are extreme examples of mainstream Dem views on the world in the least. To Dems, everything can be “negotiated”. The solution is always more understanding and “dialogue”, which is almost never backed up by tough action.
These are the biggest issues of the day as far as I’m concerned, and the Dems suck ass on both counts, as they give us nothing but “Bush lied us into war”, as if they have put forward any serious foreign policy alternatives… or economic alternatives either aside from “raise taxes on the rich”. I’ve got a lot of problems with Republican leadership, but Dems would undoubtedly be worse. We don’t live in a perfect world with perfect choices. It would be nice to hear some acknowledgement of that reality.
ThymeZone
Wow. I’d forgotten what an ass you are.
Bruce Moomaw
“More importantly, he smiles. He is one of the few current pundits I see out there who can laugh at himself. So what if he plays to his audience?”
Translated into English: he’s a habitual liar for money, and a professional whore himself. Nor does Jon Stewart change his line all that much when talking to republicans. (As for Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson doing so: well, this whorehouse is a very big tent.)
Pb
I wouldn’t call 28 months a ‘slap on the wrist’, but then again, I wouldn’t call Lynne Stewart ‘an active terrorist supporter’. Still, thanks for the good news!
ThymeZone
Jesus, what an idiot.
“Don’t lie the country into war.”
How’s that for a foreign policy alternative, you moron?
I said just that, in 1990-1991, and 2002-2003. And I was right.
I’m still right. That simple expedient would have prevented most of the Middle East shit we’ve seen in the last 16 years, and probably a good deal of the radicalization of Islam.
Saddam was never the “reincarnation of Hitler.” That was a lie. And he had nothing to do with 911, nor WMDs, nor any viable nuclear program. Those were lies.
As a direct result, the fucked up world and country we have today, you blithering idiot.
This will be a great blog on the day that John’s idiot cousins stop posting here.
The Other Steve
Have you guys ever listened to Glenn Beck?
He has an amazing resemblance to the tv blathermouth from V for Vendetta.
I was watching him last night and he even says “I’ll tell you what I know”
Darrell
More confirmation of my point that so many Dems, as Pb demonstrates, really believe that 2 1/2 years (no prison during appeal) for aiding terrorists is not a light sentence. In their worldview, that punishment is about right, or perhaps a little too harsh. This is who Dems are and how they think.
Bruce Moomaw
To Darrell: Bill Clinton may indeed deserve some attack for not grasping the (very difficult) nettle of bombing NK’s reactor site, and instead just kicking the North Korea can down the road for the next President to deal with — but at least he did that much, and he did (as William Perry pointed out in the Washington Post) very radically slow down their Bomb construction by causing them to stop manufacturing plutonium and focus instead on the much slower extraction of U-235. Bush did NEITHER — he used neither the military stick NOR Clinton’s carrot — and so he actually sped up their Bomb program through sheer neglect.
Of course, I tend to agree with Fareed Zakaria that ultimately the only way to deal with North Korea is — and probably always has been — with a combination of just the right carrot and just the right stick. Specifically (these are my specific ideas, not his as far as I know): since its officials live in absolute terror of being violently overthrown and massacred by their own people at some point (they are even willing to mention this privately to outside observers), it has acquired the Bomb mostly as a bargaining tool to try to extort money from the rest of the world, to prevent that overthrow.
So simply putting the economic squeeze on NK through sanctions (as the Bushites seem to be eagerly planning to do) will merely speed up that moment of deadly crisis. Instead, we need to simultaneously (and publicly) make clear that (1) we will regard any attack on the US with a terrorist nuke as a cause for nuclear war against NK unless they can prove beyond ANY doubt that they didn’t provide the materiel; (2) we will not provide one penny to actually prolong their regime’s hold on power — but (3) we WILL provide absolutely any assistance they need to peacefully give up power without being massacred by their own enraged people. Ah, but to make that offer convincingly, we’ll need enough troops to be able to occupy and peacekeep all of North Korea if Kim’s regime DOES give up power — which is yet another reason for us to get the hell out of most of Iraq, fast. They’re riding a tiger, they know it, and we have to give them a way to climb off without getting eaten.
Darrell
You know, as the Clinton appointed judge pointed out during sentencing, although Stewart was convicted of aiding terrorists, actions which he acknowledged could have “lethal” consequences.. all that is trumped by the fact that she had decades of service to the poor and oppressed and was active in her community. That’s what really matters.
This is textbook Democrat idiocy defended by many Dems, probably most liberals. This is the kind of “worse” you can look forward to with Dems in control.
Blue Neponset
Sorry to hear you say that John.
Pharniel
serious kool-aid drinking going on
– over at AOS they’re starting to sound like they need an answer to the “islam problem”
– how can “the democrats” be worse than someone that suspended habias corpus, and removed the first couple amendments worth of rights from american citizens?
seriously. shit fuck. someone needs to go on cnn, hold up the reciepts of cheny selling n. korea nuke reactors and say “this is who’s responsible.”
– the kool aide is spike something fierce, because when the GOP goes after someone with the gloves off, and is disengenuious it’s ‘getting seirous with the people’ or ‘fighting to retain sane governence’, but when the dems even start doing something similar it’s ‘turning a horrible situation into unfair political advantage’
they’re worse than the OSU whiners i swear to god, or the green bay fans who can’t belive that any other team is actually better than there’s is.
they’re acting like rabid fans bent on ‘winning’ and not adults trying to determine amethod of governance.
Darrell
Yeah, more Democrat foreign policy ‘deep thinking’. As if Kim will EVER willingly give up power.
The Other Steve
It was George HW Bush who took us into Somalia as a Christmas President for Bill Clinton after Bush lost the election.
What’s interesting is that the failure of Somalia had a lot to do with Boutros Boutros Ghali who was head of the UN. Ghali had conflicted loyalties between his former position as foreign minister of Egypt and SG of the UN. It gets complicated, and I don’t know everything that happened.
But in ’96 when his term was up, the US vetoed a second term. The US has never done that before.
Somalia was another one of those things that we shouldn’t have gotten into in the first place, and it’s probably not right to blame Clinton for something he didn’t do.
Haiti on the other hand, well, that’s always been a mess so it’s hard to blame anybody for simply maintaining the status quo. Sure we could have done something more, maybe, but then so too can Bush. If you think Haiti is fine and dandy right now, it’s simply because the media is talking about blonde girls getting abducted.
The Other Steve
You’re thinking death penalty then?
The Other Steve
Wow, talk about trying to overplay a hand.
You’d be better of whining about how Harry Reid was nice to the help at the hotel.
Blue Neponset
Hey!! Welcome back Darrell (unless you are a Darrell spoof that is). Your absence was definately noticed. I hope things are going well.
Pharniel
what was the lawyer actually charged with?
also, doesn’t she have breast cancer? if the judge had given her 30 years then the government would be paying for her medical bills and care, this way she’s a dis-barred attourny with a pre-existing medical condition.
doesn’t cost the government a thing and guarenteed she can’t get medical care.
the wingnuts just need to think deeper
Cyrus
Just to focus on one detail out of the metaphorical shit you tend to fling and see if it sticks, Darrell, did you somehow not see this link in John’s post? And I think Josh Marshall put it well here:
You seem to have a visceral loathing for anything and everything that could remotely be construed as “appeasement” by anyone. But either you were ignorant of the fact that your fears of what Democrats might do or allow to happen has gone through under Bush anyways, or you believe Democrats would reverse the example Clinton set and do even less about North Korea than Bush. Evidence, please? I’m sorry to disappoint you, but “Liberality for All” was fiction.
Darrell
Wow, thanks. Very gracious of you
She was found guilty of providing material support to terrorists for which the judge acknowledged could have “lethal” consequences. The fact that she has breast cancer was probably a factor in the judge’s decision to let the the little darling off so light as she might suffer in prison… The judge didn’t even have her go to jail during the appeals process. Isn’t that thoughtful of him? Because after all, Stewart has a long history of helping the poor and oppressed and community involvement.. and in Democrat-think, that appears to trump aiding and abetting terrorists.
ThymeZone
You just can’t help yourself, can you?
He didn’t say “willingly give up power.”
You did. You made it up, and then scoffed at it.
Can you do this for FIVE FUCKING MINNUTES without pulling that kind of crap?
Darrell
Even WITH FULL BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT, Dems defend this failed policy of appeasement. Another reason not to vote Dem.
Tsulagi
So a Clinton appointed judge gave a terrorist supporter a 28 month sentence. Yep, that thar be complete proof the Dems couldn’t protect us bedwetters Republicans from turraists. If the Dems can’t control their judges, what good are they?
Hey, want to play a little “Name that Tune”? Name the only president to issue a presidential pardon to a convicted terrorist against the recommendations of the FBI and CIA?
If one did, surely that would be reason alone to enemy combatantize that president and keep his party from power, right?
John S.
Ah, classic Darrell is back.
I love when he chastises others for things they do, then turns around and does it himself. Awesome.
Darrell
I think that judge expressed a soft-on-crime-and-terrorism attitude which is prevalent among Dems in general. This is just a recent manifistation of that Dem mindset.
scarshapedstar
Oh, for christ’s sake, Darrell. How about you acknowledge this reality:
There are no terrorists in the United States.
Let that sink in for a bit.
Darrell
How honest of you John S. to selectively quote me, editing out all my specific arguments which followed. I think that shows great integrity on your part.
Tsulagi
Hey, I’ll make it easier for you, Darrell, on naming the only president to pardon a terrorist. The person pardoned committed a terrorist act on American soil. He fired a 57mm at a ship in the Port of Miami. He was sentenced to ten years. FBI and CIA suspected he committed other terrorist acts.
Name that prez.
Darrell
So many Dems, particularly liberal Dems, really seem to actually believe this. Take a close look at who they are, as this is the party which seeks to run our policy..
RSA
A few days into Bush’s Presidency it was concluded that Al Qaeda was responsible for the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. Until then, it was speculation that gradually increased to conclusive judgment. Where was Bush’s decisiveness for the next eight months? Why don’t you accuse him of a weak response to terrorism? Was 9/11 just a mulligan for Bush?
Ted
Nice war on straw, there. This idiot can’t imagine a coup devolving into chaos and a failed state. Or any of a number of possible situations in NK.
Bruce Moomaw
But let’s review the salient facts one more time.
Josh Marshall: ” ‘Failure’ =1994-2002—Era of Clinton ‘Agreed Framework’: No plutonium production. All existing plutonium under international inspection. No bomb.
” ‘Success’ = 2002-2006—Bush Policy Era: Active plutonium production. No international inspections of plutonium stocks. Nuclear warhead detonated.”
Darrell: “Even WITH FULL BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT, Dems defend this failed policy of appeasement. Another reason not to vote Dem.”
Er, Darrell. What Marshall (and I) are saying is that, while Clinton’s treatment of NK was questionable, Bush’s was unquestionably much worse. (Which is also what that notorious pinko and terrorist-coddler Fareed Zakaria thinks.)
At this point, however, I really don’t see any point in debating the issue with you. It’s become painfully clear that it’s rather like discussing theology with Koko the Gorilla.
Ted
And in Bush-worhsipper thinking, those should be criminal offenses.
Darrell
But Ted, Dems have told us that the problem with NK is that we haven’t engaged them in enough “dialogue” yet.. and if we would only seek to “understand” their need for nuclear weapons and counterfeiting, things would be so much better. We saw how well that worked in the 90’s didn’t we?
It’s always nice to hope for coup to overthrow Kim, just like it’s nice to hope for World Peace and an end to child hunger. It’s just not very reality based to build a foreign policy around that remote possibility, is it?
RSA
Yes, we did–no new nuclear weapons during the ’90s! Why is that so hard to understand?
Darrell
Are you defending (as other Dems here have done) the light sentence imposed upon Stewart for aiding terrorists?
Tsulagi
Give up Darrell? Okay, why, that president would be none other than Bush the Elder. He pardoned Orlando Bosch, someone Attorney General (at the time) Dick Thornburgh described as an “unrepentant terrorist.” FBI and CIA were against the pardon.
Ah, but the Bush family just has a whole lotta love for terrorists. If they vote Republican. Here’s a little more Bush family love for terrorists.
Stupid ass terrorists. If they’d just vote Republican, then that’s good for America. It follows the new Republican law of nature: up is down, bad is good.
Vote Republican for national security? Only for the lobotomized.
cd6
Quick question Darrell:
So if the Clinton strategy of preventing NK from getting the bomb was “failed appeasement” even though they didn’t actually get a bomb during that time, what would you call the Bush policy re: NK, during which NK DID get the bomb?
RSA
And if anyone says that Clinton was just leaving a big problem for his successors, I’d like that person to address the problems of one failed state and one civil war in the Middle East that Bush has explicitly said he’s leaving for future Presidents.
W.B. Reeves
The pathos of Darrell’s posts are really off the scale.
Because a Judge appointed by Bill Clinton issues a sentence he disagrees with, he thinks it reasonable to blame Democrats in aggregate for the action. Never for a moment does the light pierce the partisan fog in which he stumbles about. If ever it did, he’d have to recognize that his own “logic” dictates that he hold the GOP in toto responsible for every instance of malfeasance, corruption, and general moral and political degeneracy committed or abetted by the bloated power brokers who run the party.
If Darrell actually believed in his own puerile argumentation he’d be voting Democratic or Libertarian at the very least. This presuming that he actually engages in what could be described as thought a rather than simply running an endless mental propaganda loop in his head. Just another right wing Chatty Cathy.
cd6
If Repubs controlled the White House from 2001 on till like 2070, at which point some new Axis of Evil member like New Brownistan got the bomb, would that also be because “way back when, Clinton set the US on a path of failed appeasement that not even seven straight decades of glorious Republican rule could save us from. Damn you Clinton!”
rs
Your post may have stumbled onto an effective campaign slogan for(some) Republicans this fall-Vote for _____,No Indictments,Fewer Convictions.
Punchy
Can we get a sumo wrestling match between FatAss Hastert and MrFat Mike Moore and settle this once and for all?
rs
Or Hillary and Mary Cheney mud wrestling.
cd6
I would do Maria Cantwell
Her tv ads get me semi-hard
Darrell
From what I actually wrote in my very first post
That other Dems on this thread have defended the light sentencing imposed on the terrorist supporter, and not one of them have criticized it, further supports my argument that such mindset is PREVALENT among Democrats.
John S.
LOL
Right…specific arguments that PROVE Democrats are worse!
You are a comedy dynamo.
HyperIon
o’rourke is a novelist. zakaria is supposedly a journalist
his question:Does anyone where you live think that a Democratic Congress in the U.S. would be better for the world?
gee, thanks, fareed, for the neutral phrasing!
Perry Como
When North Korea does its second nuclear test, Clinton will be sorry about his failed policy over the last 6 years.
ThymeZone
Provide links to support this assertion. I know of no Dems in any position to do or say anything about it who have said such a thing.
Nor do I know of any Republican who has said the contrary.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Darrell
Welcome moonbats! The Norks violated the sham agreement agreed to by Bill Clinton and Jimmah Carter from the BEGINNING, despite warnings from the CIA that the Nork’s past behavior made it clear they could not be trusted.
They were enriching uranium since the 1990’s and being paid to do it with free oil, free food, and other goodies, thanks to Democrat appeasement, even after it became clear that the Nork’s were violating their agreement. Failed appeasement which, EVEN IN HINDSIGHT, is being defended by Dems.
Seriously, anyone reading who is reachable.. look at how whacked the Dems really are, especially on the matters of national security and foreign policy. Read how they think, then tell me with a straight face they wouldn’t be far worse than Republicans.
ThymeZone
Provide factual support for this claim. Which Dems have said “there are no terrorists in the United States?”
ThymeZone
Answer the questions, Darrell.
Which “Dems” have made the statements that you attribute to “so many Dems?”
Names, dates. Or shut up.
Darrell
John Kerry, Dem presidential candidate and part-time whackjob on NK:
his sage recommendation on how to handle the Norks? More ‘dialogue’ of course:
Damn President Bush for discountinuing all that free aid to NK like Clinton did, long after it became known that the Norks were cheating on the agreement and lying their asses off about it.
The Other Steve
Darrell – When is GW Bush going to return Posada Carilles to Venezuela?
How can the Republicans claim they are serious about terrorism when they won’t do anything to prosecute those guilty of terrorism?
ThymeZone
John Kerry is one person, Darrell. There are around 40-50 million Democrats in this country.
Where are the polls or other information showing that “Dems” have any particular position on North Korea?
How does the “Dems” position differ from the “GOP” position? Where are the statements to support your claim?
Why don’t you stop making shit up? And why the FUCK do they let you post here? “Because we have open comments” is not an answer. You open comments to people who just make up crap and keep saying it over and over when it is obviously not true? So your comments section is a haven for the deranged and for incessant trolls?
The Other Steve
That whacky John Kerry. Doesn’t he realize that doing nothing at all has been a tremendous success story!
The Other Steve
Damn straight!
They should have just declared they weren’t going to abide by the agreement in a signing statement.
HyperIon
from the seriously stupid Darrell:
funny thing about humans..you cannot know what they will do in the future. you have to run the experiment.
VERY few folksNO ONE would have ever predicted what the Repubs have gotten up to in the last 6+ years.but never mind. Darrell says Dems would be worse. No doubt.
Darrell
And virtually every Dem posting here on BJ on the subject of NK has argued the EXACT SAME THING – that the problem with NK is that Bush is not engaging in enough dialogue with the Norks.
Kerry was simply elaborating how most of you Dem whackjobs really and truly think.
The Other Steve
Well what is the problem Darrell?
I mean, Bush has done nothing about North Korea and now they are testing nukes. Are you saying the problem is that we should be doing more nothing?
Pb
And John Kerry was right, too, we should have. They’ve worked before, and they might have worked again, if done seriously. But instead, North Korea is testing nukes. I feel safer already!
Ted
You’re right. Let’s strategically nuke the country and then send in our (thanks to Bush) now non-existent available troops to secure it. What do we have in S. Korea? 30-40,000, right? That should do fine against NK’s 800k. Using nukes to pre-emptively stop nukes would also be a very consistent and productive example to set.
After all, Darrell tells us the only option is war.
Go read the latest Weekly Standard, idiot. Thanks to your party’s fiscal governance, one of their writers reasons, we are so hopelessly and acceleratingly indebted to China we have no ability to pressure them to do anything about NK.
The Other Steve
We need to stay the course of doing nothing, because if we change course and do something it’ll let the North Koreans know we’re worried about what they are doing and we don’t want that!
This makes absolute perfect sense! Thank you Darrell for enlightening me.
The Other Steve
And Darrell wonders why nobody takes Republicans seriously on the issue of national security. They’re just a bunch of whackjobs who will say anything to protect their political asses instead of admitting maybe they were wrong.
ThymeZone
Provide factual support that “Dems” have such a position, and factual support for what you think the difference is between that, and the GOP position.
What is US policy today? Who has articulated it, what is the basis for it? What are the responsible alternative views? Where are your sources for these things?
Darrell
He cut of US financial support, which was a big part of where Kim’s funding was coming from. Clinton should have cut off funding years earlier, after it became clear the Norks were violating their agreement, but he didn’t want create a stir.
Darrell
Show us the quote where I said that.. because I’m sure a noble honest Dem like you wouldn’t simply make up an accusation like that.. would you?
Perry Como
Listen, moonbats. During Clinton’s reign of terror North Korea was testing nukes every other day. Thanks to President Bush and the National Security Republicans, North Korea is no longer testing nukes. The fact that you Leftists don’t see that just shows how out of touch you are with reality.
Darrell
Yes of course, because you and your fellow Dem sheep have such superior ideas, as you have already elaborated in your devilishly clever scheme to wait for Kim to lose power in a coup. That’s such a wonderful plan! I can see why a person of your intellect would ridicule Weekly Standard.
ThymeZone
Show you a quote? Somebody here owes you a source?
Yeah, maybe if you catch up on the one thousand or so unanswered requests tendered to you in the last year and half, we might start over. Meantime, nobody owes you anything.
Your entire rant is based on the idea that “Dems want more negotiations?” What is your idea of foreign policy, Darrell? Until you formulate one and state it clearly here, I am going to extrapolate from your idiotic brain farts and state it for you: Based on everything you’ve written here in the last 18 months, you don’t think the US should ever negotiate with any of its adversaries about anything.
Can you tell me what theory of diplomacy holds that a great power is best served by not talking to its adversaries and to those who represent a potential threat?
What exactly do you believe in this regard? State your view clearly and unambiguously, or SHUT UP.
Tsulagi
Yes, Dems would be worse. They wouldn’t know how to accessorize like the fightin’ Foley men Republicans.
Wonder how they’re going to maintain being fair and balanced at their Halloween parties. What if more than half want to come as Foley? That wouldn’t be fair to the man pages. I’m sure like NK they have a plan.
W.B. Reeves
Once again Darrell makes it up as he goes along. This thread is no more representative of all or even most Democrats than is Darrell’s posturing representative of reasoned discourse. Describing an Attorney for a criminal as a supporter of crime is an example of cheap demagoguery of the most dishonest kind.
Contra Darrell, Lynn was not convicted of being a “terrorist supporter.” She was convicted of violating the statute because she allowed/facilitated communication between her client and a third party. In almost any other instance this would not qualify as a crime unless it could be shown that the communication furthered a specific criminal act or enterprise. Under the statute in question, no such showing is required. Indeed, the government never showed that Lynn’s action led to any material consequences whatever. Under the statute, the fact of the communication was itself the crime, regardless of content.
In short, she would have been equally guilty even if the communication had no specific connection to terrorism beyond the fact that her client was a convicted terrorist. Given that it can’t be shown that Lynn’s intent was to aid terrorism or that her act, in fact, aided any specific criminal action I’d hardly call over two years in prison, which she may not survive, a “slap on the wrist.”
Of course, if the purpose is to terrorize and intimidate rather than to adjudicate, Darrell might have a point.
Ted
OK, I give up. What’s Darrell’s plan? Negotiation is out, multi-lateral communications are out, war is off the table. So what is Darrell’s brilliant idea?
How the hell did you infer from me quoting the Weekly Standard that I was ridiculing it? Bizzare.
The magazine may be a wankfest for neocons, but they do occasionally have sound analysis of reality as is. It’s just that often their subsequent proposed solutions to problems that are laughable.
ThymeZone
I prefer to let John Kerry speak for himself.
Sorry Darrell, when I have to choose between the view of a lying lunatic who has a long history of saying any bullshit that pops into his mind, namely you, and the view of a guy who obviously has at least been following the timeline and paying attention, namely Kerry, I have a hard time choosing to go with your line of crap. Especially since you have never taken and defended any particular position on this subject, or any other subject, other than “Dems are poopyheads.” Eighteen months of your shit, and that’s the substance.
Why are you here, again? And why would anyone listen to you?
Darrell
It’s not just ‘Dems want more negotiations’.. it’s that Dems stupidly put entirely too much faith in what negotiations can realistically accomplish, especially negotiations with people and regimes who have proven themselves time and time again to be untrustworthy.
In the case of NK, Dems took it even further, actually continuing to fund NK’s nuclear research efforts, long after it became known that the Norks were violating their agreement. ‘Stupid’ seems like too kind a characterization to describe that sort of policy. This is a classic example of why it’s ENTIRELY reasonable to say putting Dems in power would be worse than Republican leadership.
Darrell
Oh I see, “Lynn” now is it? And you libs want to say you’re tough on terror, right? Lynn Stewart was convicted of aiding and abetting terrorists, not simply ‘violating’ some benign statute.. and it says much about you and those you side with that you would attempt to characterize it as you did. Here is a more ‘reality based’ summary of what she was convicted of:
W.B. Reeves
“They were enriching uranium since the 1990’s and being paid to do it with free oil, free food, and other goodies, thanks to Democrat appeasement, even after it became clear that the Nork’s were violating their agreement. Failed appeasement which, EVEN IN HINDSIGHT, is being defended by Dems.”
The fog thickens. Evidently no one has clued Darrell in to the fact that the NK’s nuke was plutonium based, not uranium based. Meaning that Clinton’s policy vis a vis NK’s uranium enrichment program, whatever it’s merits or demerits, was irrelevant to the developement of the recently tested device.
ThymeZone
How much? Compared to whom/what? What is the “correct amount” of this faith? Where is this standard articulated?
Where do you get this crap?
Steve
Heh, nice thread y’all have here.
For what it’s worth, the Lynne Stewart case was a tough one, but I do feel like the sentence was too light. The legal system is sometimes too protective of lawyers who do bad things, sort of like how the cops don’t do much to investigate bad cops.
Darrell
Inspectors found plutonium in NK back in the early 1990’s. Perhaps you believe, like so many other Dems, that the Norks didn’t cheat on plutonium development either since that time.. I think that is such a ‘reality based’ assumption for Dems like you to make, and further evidence on why Dems should be put in charge of our national security, as their judgement is so sound.
Perry Como
Speaking of the moonbats at the Weekly Standard, check out this hit piece those leftists are peddling:
RSA
No sign of intellectual honesty detectable here. First, even if North Korea could not be trusted, the result was better than if the agreement had not been in place. Are you arguing otherwise? Second, if Republicans are so goddamned smart, why did Bush give North Korea $95 million in 2002 to help out their nuclear program without requiring that they let us send in inspectors?
Darrell
But we’re not talking about an “investigation”, we are talking about a conviction.. a conviction on aiding and abetting terrorists. Dirty cops who are convicted face harsh sentences.
In this case, the judge explicitly pointed out that the mitigating factor was his approval of her years of defending the poor and downtrodden, including defending Black Panthers and the Weathermen along with the 93 WTC terrorists, and that because of that, she was deserving of such a light sentence.
ThymeZone
If there is any support here for a view that Darrell’s presence on this thread is a complete waste of bandwidth, disruptive, antagonistic, and purely trollish, I’d like to hear it.
Darrell apparently looks at five and half years of the worst government in US history and says, “Dems could be worse, and the proof is that they negotiate too much.”
Darrell presents no factual support or references for this claim, but instead relies on his tried and true vague generalizations like “so many Dems” and “most people.” Obviously, he is just making the shit up.
Is that an inaccurate summation? If it does represent his view, can anyone make sense of it and explain it in terms that reasonable people can understand?
Can anyone here other than Tim or John with their patented and already-seen “uh, what?” defenses, explain why this place allows Darrell to post here? I will listen to any reasonable explanation.
Darrell
But we’re not talking about an “investigation”, we are talking about a conviction.. a conviction on aiding and abetting terrorists. Dirty cops who are convicted face harsh sentences. Lynn Stewart got a slap on the wrist
In this case, the judge explicitly pointed out that the mitigating factor was his approval of her years of defending the poor and downtrodden (which included defending Black Panthers and the Weathermen along with the 93 WTC terrorists), and that because of that, she was deserving of such a light sentence. I think that example is representative of the typical foolish Democrat mindset regarding how they feel towards punishment of criminals and terrorists.
jg
That is the most desperate statement I’ve ever read. “Please, please see how bad the dems are, we’re counting on it because we have nothing us to run on.”
I could be wrong but didn’t Clinton withhold something from NK? Somethign agreed to in teh framework but for some reason we didn’t deliver? Was it because we’re assholes or was it punishment for their transgressions?
Darrell
You’re damn right I am! And with benefit of hindsight, that you’re actually arguing that sham deal with the Norks was better than no deal at all, says it all.
Bruce Moomaw
So, let me see if I understand Darrell correctly: since NK decided to develop their Bomb for emergency economic gain, then — if Clinton had decided to impose economic sanctions on them — for some mysterious reason they wouldn’t have kept on manufacturing plutonium in order to develop and mass-produce it faster. Right. (And as for Clinton staging an immediate military attack on them instead: there was a good chance that they had already completed at least one or two Bombs — which would have made dandy retaliatory terrorist weapons by itself — and in any case Kim would have shelled Seoul into total bloody ruin. It was a typical Clinton trick to just delay any attempt at final resolution of the NK crisis to the next President — but, as I say, he did at least radically slow things down, which Bush didn’t do. As a result, we can now look forward to NK having a dozen or so Bombs when the crisis finally starts, instead of just one or two.
(Yeah, I know I said I wouldn’t respond to Darrell anymore, but you all know how hard it is to stop after just one nut.)
leefranke
(ripped off from another blow…I forget which)
There are 3 things we could have done with NK to prevent the bomb.
1. War
2. Negotiations
3. Nothing
Since The Bush Doctrine, prevents #2 what is left is either #1 or #3. Since we currently only bombed 2 countries, that pretty much means we did #3 and now3 NK presumably has the bomb.
So Darrell why was #2 so bad again?
Steve
Yes, dirty cops sometimes get long sentences… because they’re not being sentenced by other cops, you see. You seem to have missed my point, perhaps in your shock that I agreed with you in the first place.
Darrell
NK started their nuclear development program back in the 1970’s. Some “emergency” economic gain program, huh?
Tsulagi
It is kind of funny that the fallback meme has been reduced to “Democrats would be worse.” Simply because they have nothing else. Their record is garbage. And the only plan is stay the course for more. So now sell the parrot troopers that the Dems would be worse. Argue with that moonbats.
Still, not every Republican is brain dead enough to buy that one. Seems the Johnson County Sun newspaper in Kansas in over half a century has endorsed no more than 10 Democrats for state or federal office. Now that’s changed. The chairman of the paper explains why to his readers…
Yep
Perry Como
Do you consider yourself reality based? Don’t you see how unhinged you are?
Bruce Moomaw
In this connection, a quote from another notorious pinko — Robert Kaplan — which I’ve just run across in the Atlantic Monthly: “Totalitarian regimes close to demise are apt to get panicky and do rash things. The weaker North Korea gets, the more dangerous it becomes.” He and I are thinking alike. Thus the real need is — and has always been — for the US to provide an emergency escape hatch for NK’s officials to be able to give up power safely. Clinton instead bribed them to delay developing the Bomb and thus just slowed things down, but Bush hasn’t even done that.
Steve
Is North Korea, in fact, close to demise? I mean, is there a mob of angry citizens storming the castle, are they on the verge of some kind of coup, etc? I guess it’s news to me if their internal standing is really weak.
chopper
bush’s ‘do nothing and wait until they develop the bomb’ policy, on the other hand, is utterly brilliant. such a great reason to vote for the GOP – they’ll do whatever it takes to look the other way while our enemies develop nuclear bombs. looking away is ‘hard work’ after all.
i love how it’s clinton’s failure that NK got the bomb 6 years into bush’s administration. priceless spoofing.
Darrell
Ya know, I’m not going to disagree with that entirely. The Republican record has been crappy in a lot of areas, but overall better than what Dems have proposed, and likely would have done with a Kerry or Gore presidency. For example, I think we have far superior judicial appts. to what we undoubtedly would have seen with a Dem in the WH.. also, Repubs have done pretty good on national security too, especially compared to the “Bush lied us into war” “Bush is wiretapping innocent Americans” Dems. There have been some misteps in Iraq, but I think taking out Saddam had to be done, as did all the Dems who voted for authorization to do it at the time. There was bi-partisan support to toppling Saddam, with something like 60%+ of the population in favor of it at the time we invaded.
That can be little doubt tht Dems would have continued Clinton’s foolish “see no evil” policy with NK which Bush put an end to. Dems have a track record of votes, statements, and policies that can and should be used for comparison. I think with all the Repub’s problems, Dems are a worse alternative for reasons stated. And I strongly disagree with the idea that it’s somehow off-limits or wrong to point out where Dems were worse, or would likely be worse than Repubs. Lesser of the two not-so-great choices.
Bruce Moomaw
They are certainly afraid of regime collapse at some point. One Japanese political scientist who has talked to a number of NK officials says that in private they keep mentioning the fate of the Ceaucescus, and Der Spiegel’s description of that hellhole (which is also the article that led me to the Kaplan quote) reports rumors that Kim himself is similarly obsessed.
In any case, whether this really IS the explanation for NK acquring the Bomb is irrelevant to what needs to be done about it. The only other possibilities are that (1) they are honestly frightened of an attack by the US and want it as a defense (which is unlikely), or (2) not only Kim but most of his military officers are totally insane (which is also just a wee bit implausible). In either case, putting on an economic squeeze will make things worse, while offering to make arrangements for NK’s officials to save their wretched lives by resigning peacefully will make things better.
ThymeZone
Ditto. It looks from out here as if the dingbat has the people either bamboozled or scared into submission.
It appears that he has leveraged anti-US sentiment into an entire basis for his existence.
What internals would push the people, or military, to turn against him?
jg
Shorter Darrell, the repubs are doing better than any extreme strawman position I can put the dems on.
jg
Those are the benefits of a state run media. Given its effectiveness can you blame the Bush administration (or Nixon’s) for wanting it?
Darrell
Ah yes, the simplistic left. You forgot
4. Take out their nuclear development facilities back in the 90’s when it became apparent that the Norks had no intention of abiding by the terms of their agreement.
That’s what we “could have done” to prevent the bomb. It’s telling how many Dems still advocate negotiation and ‘dialogue’ with NK as their primary action. Like I said upthread, I think the problem with Dems is too much faith in diplomacy/dialogue, particularly when 1 side is a brutal corrupt dictatorship not negotiating in good faith.
ThymeZone
Take them out, how?
More war, Darrell?
Is there any problem you can solve without starting a fucking war?
Tsulagi
Like I said, not every Republican is brain dead enough to believe that. But some still are.
jg
Whu not go as far back as the 80’s? Why do you only blame the Clinotn administration and not the people who were in charge before him?
Darrell
No, of course not, only “dialogue” can work in disarming a megalomaniac dictator who has no intention of negotiating in good faith.
ThymeZone
Why not bo back to BC? Why not bomb the fuckers back to the stone age? If bombs and guns are the answer, why would we be pussies like Darrell and stop at recent decades?
If he had a hair on his ass, he’d take the Norks right off the map. Gone. Done.
If we are going to have foreign policy designed by eight-year-olds, then let’s have it all.
ThymeZone
Then how, smartass?
jg
If war is the only option then it stands to reason that all our allies feel we should go to war with NK. Do they?
Darrell
Not entirely unfair question, but I don’t think there was much hard evidence on a NK weapons program before 1992/1993, when undeclared plutonium was discovered.
jg
My point was why is he only blaming the previous democratic adminstration and not the two republican ones that were in power just before the dem and also did nothing to stop NK from going nuclear.
John D.
Define “take out”. I’m serious. Every time Clinton bombed anything, a great hullabaloo arose from the Republicans, with cries of “Wag the Dog!”. There was no way he would have been able to ram that through. Bombing a terrorist camp is one thing, bombing another sovereign state is quite another. See “War, Acts Of”.
Those facilities were under lockdown and international inspection, Darrell. Even though they existed, they were NOT BEING USED and were under constant monitoring. Well, until Bush took his eyes off the ball, that is. That’s failure. Sorry.
Also, I am impressed by your continued propping up that “All Dems think [X]” strawman. It must get awfully tiring after a while.
ThymeZone
I know. But my point is, if we are going to “take them back” to some previous state, why stop at a recent one?
Are we afraid to really flex our muscles and assert a zero-tolerance policy? Are we going to leave the madman in power? The world will be better off without Kim Jong Il.
What’s Darrell’s problem? Is he reluctant to have real war and real change? Why the wuss act?
Perry Como
The updated, reality based list:
1. War
2. Negotiations
3. Nothing
4. Bomb the crap out of them
DoubtingThomas
This thread was a lot funner when it was about O’Rourke. Darrell shows up and everyone goes in a tizzy! My, my, what power he holds over this blog!
Moomaw: My point was that you don’t have to hate pundits on the right and lump them all together merely becasue they are on the right. O’Rourke is a saint compared to the Limbaughs, O’Reilley’s and Hannity’s of the world and all of them, left and right, are whores. Hell, everyone in Washington is! And Jon Stewart does go softball on his hard right guests. He treats them with respect and usually manages to get a subtle zinger in there, but he is not the firebrand that we usually see when he is not face-to-face. I don’t think he should be. He recognizes he is not a journalist, no matter how much the media tells him he is. I just wanted to acknoweldge that you can appreciate many on the other side without having to agree with their conclusions. I appreciate how O’Rourke handles himself when you compare him to the typical right wing pundit, that’s all.
HyperIon
i saw some video of the Korean DMZ recently and i was amazed at how weak the NK soldiers looked. really skinny. the voiceover was claiming that the NK guards were much more arrogant than usual due to the recent bomb test. they didn’t look arrogant to me and they definitely need a better tailor…their uniforms were way too big for them.
if the army gets the best food (as i’ve heard), then the regular citizens must be starving. sooner or later people tire of their kids dying of malnutrition. maybe we should do food drops. “this candy bar brought to you by the good old USofA.”
DougJ
Shorter Darrell: it was Clinton’s fault.
HyperIon
um…he’s a fake journalist on a fake news show.
which media are telling him he’s a real journalist?
but i do think that his interviews are much less biting than his monologues. but he is not unique in this respect. it’s a lot easier to attack someone who is not sitting across from you.
Sojourner
Congratulations, Repubs!! Your idiot leader has signed legislature “legalizing” torture and authorizing him to disappear people.
Fuck you.
Darrell
That meme has long been discredited. Buy yourself a clue.
You really seem to know what you’re talking about
“Lockdown and International inspection”, huh? Sounds like everything was really in control there with inspections and all. oh, wait..
Yes, because prior to Bush taking office, the Norks had adhered to their previous agreements and had not taken steps toward development of nuclear weapons…
Darrell
And he’s coming for you next!
Darrell
Shorter Bill Clinton: “We can trust the Norks”
Tsulagi
Yeah, we need Bush toughiness on national security to keep Pubs from wetting their beds too much. As always, they’ve been on the job…
Guess they were tired of swatting flies leading up to 2003 so they didn’t do anything when NK threw out IAEA inspectors. They must have been formulating a comprehensive plan just as they were prior to 9/11. That must be it. Oh, that’s right, the comprehensive plan for NK is to outsource to China our security interests. They heart us.
Actually, that probably is better than having Bush involved.
Ted
You wish, I bet. I’m sure you’ll be comfortable with a president Hillary or any other traitor Democrat having these shiny new powers…
DougJ
It’s pretty simple: the Stone Age never happened. The earth is only 6000 years old, don’t forget.
KC
John’s right, there is really no reason to vote Republican at the federal level this election. None.
Darrell
Except that I would argue that these are not “new” powers. US Presidents have always had CiC power over our military, including management of POWs. In this case, we have captured terrorists who neither signed nor adhered to the Geneva Convention tenets, and are therefore not even eligible for POW status under GC rules.. they’ve always been pretty much SOL as far as their “rights” are concerned. But how honest of you to characterize it as some “new” far reaching nefarious powers granted to the President
DougJ
Clinton did it first. He tried to make people call him “O’Clinton” when he was in college. He poisoned the culture.
Steve
What Bush hasn’t done isn’t nearly as bad as what the Dems wouldn’t do. Take that, moonbats.
ThymeZone
My bad, I meant the Melamine Age.
W.B. Reeves
The fog grows thicker and thicker. So much so that Darrell couldn’t see the rest of the article that he linked to. A bit more below.
So the criminal act in question consisted of releasing a statement by her client. An act with no demonstrated connection to any actual instance of terrorism, despite the sloppy misrepresentation in the lede Darrell selectively quoted.
So what we have is an action that would not have been criminal in any context other than that defined by the statute and which cannot be shown to have led to, or enabled, any specific criminal act. As I pointed out earlier, under this statute the actual substance of the communication is irrelevant, the definition of material aid being so elastic as to embrace actions which are not, in themselves, criminal.
To quote further from the article cited by Darrell:
I think it’s clear that Lynn Stewart violated the statute as written. Her status as an Attorney makes that violation particularly egregious. Consequently, she must pay the piper. However, none of this alters the fundamental reality that the document itself contained nothing that the Prosecution found actionable nor did it appear to lead to any terrorist act. Further, what Stewart did was something that Attorney’s commonly do for high profile clients. It just happens that the statute criminalizes what would otherwise be a normal service provided by an attorney to their client in cases where the client is a convicted terrorist.
None of which excuses Stewart’s dereliction but it does go a long way towards explaining why the Judge chose not to impose the maximum.
Of course, none of this matters if the purpose is to terrorize and intimidate rather than adjudicate. In which case, selective quotation, misrepresentation and demogoguery would be par for the course.
The Other Steve
So cutting off funding prevented them from building a bomb?
jaime
Wow. Darrell is back.
Part Dwight from the Office, Part Salacious Crumb.
100% obnoxious.
Paddy O'Shea
Pb 11:59am: It was a joke. I was just funnin’ at you. Of course O’Reilly is Irish. So was Dick Nixon. What can I say?
New Zogby Poll shows approval of the U.S. ‘Camp Foley’ Congress dropping to 18%. I guess this Foley stuff really isn’t having any effect whatsoever, just like the GOP says. Nope, not one little tiny bit.
http://northdenvernews.com/content/view/535/2
DougJ
New Zogby Poll shows approval of the U.S. ‘Camp Foley’ Congress dropping to 18%
Clinton’s was lower. And this president doesn’t govern by polls.
Paddy O'Shea
DougJ – I once contemplated shortening my name to Shea. I’d hoped it would help me get comp’d Mets tickets.
jaime
Duh…didn’t you see the meaningless poll that said Foleygate didn’t change anyone’s Party affiliation?
DougJ
Clinton changed his name to “Clinton” to get free tickets for a George Clinton concert. He poisoned the culture. I can’t blame you for changing your name.
Tsulagi
Fixed.
Paddy O'Shea
So by that logic O’Reilly could shorten his name and hope to live the life of?
The Other Steve
Ah ha! There we have it.
The North Koreans had been planning this all along, conspiring with the Democrats in fact.
All for the sole purpose of making Bush look bad!
Man, that took some planning. I wonder how the North Koreans knew all the way back in 1994 that Bush would be President?
Filthy McNasty
This is a post worthy of comment. I accept that my Republicans will get spanked this election, and deservedly so. There hasn’t been much for the party to hang its hat on, and that’s unfortunate given that they control Washington.
The Democrats will gain this year, but will do so because the Republicans deserve to lose, not because the Democrats have done or stated anything that shows they deserve to win. so, after November, they will have 2 years to show how much more miserable they are with national governance than the Republicans have been, and will do so in a much shorter period of time, allowing the GOP to regroup enough to take back power in 2008, because by then Americans will surely realize that the Democrats are the worse of two evils.
During the next two years, we’ll be reminded again just how real the world is when Democratic obstructionism and obsession with laws protecting those who wish to eliminate us, allows some very nasty forces the make their way back into our country.
DougJ
I wonder how the North Koreans knew all the way back in 1994 that Bush would be President?
Mary McCarthy leaked it to them.
The Other Steve
This is incredible.
since the 1970s, North Korea has been planning with Democrats to make Bush look bad.
Those dirty bastards!
This is worse than the Democrats setting up Mark Foley!
jaime
Why does the Constitution hate America?
The Other Steve
It’s called Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
It’s the inability to admit that Clinton was a much better President than Bush.
CaseyL
Something’s been nagging at me every time I hear “The Democrats would be even worse!” meme, quite apart from its obvious dishonesty and boneheadedness.
Here it is: The meme’s an insult to anyone who believes there is any goodness in the American soul at all.
It’s an insult because it says that the sadism, stupidity, murderousness, bigotry, and extreme corruption that is the GOP is the best we can do, the best we’re capable of.
It says that sadism, stupidity, murderousness, bigotry, and extreme corruption is what America is all about.
And when you put that noxious meme together with the other favorite GOP/RW rallying cry, “Anyone who opposes Bush is a traitor!”, the natural correllary to is that anyone who tries to be better than what the GOP has come to stand for – anyone who themselves is better than that, anyone who wants a national politics better than that – is a traitor.
So what the Right is saying is that the modern GOP is the best that America can do, and the best that America should do.
That makes me angrier than you can imagine.
W.B. Reeves
Here Darrell tries to muddy the waters. Having made a totally spurious assertion that the NK nuke test was the product Clinton’s supposed mishandling of the Uranium enrichment issue, he attempts to avoid the onus for his blunder by changing the subject. Whether NK was cheating vis a vis plutonium is beside the point since plutonium was not part of the dispute over uranium enrichment or the negotiated resolution of same. Spin as much as likes he can’t obscure the fact the NK’s nuke was not produced with uranium and therefore has no connection whatever with the issue of uranium enrichment. If anything, the NK use of previously held plutonium stocks would tend to indicate that they did, in fact, suspend their uranium enrichment program.
That Darrell doesn’t seem to grasp this elementary point is indicative of either gross ignorance, duplicity or both.
SeesThroughIt
Which is totally not war, and Kim Jong-Il would never interpret it as such!
Darrell
Regarding the terrorist supporter you earlier affectionately referred to as just “Lynn”, let’s be clear about what you are referring so benignly as “consisted of releasing a statement by her client”
She was passing communication from her client, convicted terrorist Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman (whom she has called a “freedom fighter”), who otherwise could not have communicated with outside terrorists very well as he was in prison, to Al Queda affiliate terrorist group Gamaat al Islamia for which the Sheik was a leader. This was the group who, among other terrorist acts, was responsbible for the murders of those Japanese and Euro tourists in Luxor in 1997. At least one message she delivered was that the Sheik wanted to end the group’s ceasefire in Egypt.. in other words, at the Sheik’s orders delivered by Stewart, an order was given to literally ‘start the killing’. That Reeves, is what you have characterized as “releasing a statement from her client”. Too pathetic and dishonest for words.
And contrary to Reeve’s assertion, even the lefty judge acknowledged that her message likely had “lethal” consequences in his words. She was convicted for aiding TERRORISTS, not for issuing a PR statement.
Paddy O'Shea
Clinton Derangement Syndrome is just a little bit harsh I think. More likely it had something to do with Georgie’s unfortunate childhood. When you grow up in the kinds of old New England genteel surroundings of the Brahmin Bushes, you come to believe that blame is something best assigned to the help.
Blaming others is not Georgie’s fault.
The Other Steve
And Clinton’s tax hike in 1993 was going to cause the economy to collapse.
We’ve heard it all before. You guys are so full of bullshit, you don’t even know what the bull looks like any longer.
Steve
Eh, not quite. When you represent a terrorist, before you can get access to meet with them in person you have to sign a set of “Special Administrative Measures” which provide, among other things, that you won’t help pass any messages from the prisoners to a third party. It’s not like it’s some obscure statute somewhere that she happened to violate.
There was actually a Law & Order episode based on this case, if anyone has seen it. It was pretty good.
ThymeZone
It says that around half the American people are bad.
For that, I’d expel the Darrells of the world from this country as unwelcome. Go live somewhere else, who needs that kind of shit?
Darrell
More leftist simplemindedness. No Casey, it doesn’t mean the “GOP is the best we can do”, it simply means the alternative is worse. It means we need better Republicans, not more Democrats of the type usually found in Congress.
The Other Steve
She also was Osama bin Laden’s personal housekeeper!
Obviously the case against Stewart must not be as clear cut as Darrell claims, or he wouldn’t be adding this extraneous bullshit.
Cyrus
Suddenly I’m curious, where did “Nork” come from anyway? I’m pretty sure I’ve never heard it before this thread. I googled it, and there are only 1,260,000 hits – not a tiny number for a slang term, but it includes several acronyms and a neighborhood in a British city, a fictional character, and a slang word for “breasts” according to a Wikipedia disambiguation page. The North Korean usage is less than half the first 10 hits, so I assume this is new and/or unpopular.
Norks: because people who can’t talk about those strange foreigners without making up nicknames for them are people who understand the complexities of national security.
While I’m at it, why is it that every good example I see of damning with faint praise is aimed at principled conservatives? We could have written a book about such material aimed at John himself, I loved Ezra Klein’s post about Bill Buckley… etc. And now O’Rourke as well. It just seems funny.
DougJ
Stick this one in the time capsule.
W.B. Reeves
Alas poor Darrell. James Baker has publicly stated that the North Koreans had rudimentary nuke back when he was on the President’s staff and he wasn’t refering to either Clinton or Bush 43.
Darrell
Yeah, it’s not like she was actually convicted on terrorist charges or anything.. oh, wait.
ThymeZone
Jackalope time for Darrell again.
Fucker is predictable, I’ll say that.
The Other Steve
BTW, this is the indictment in case anybody wants the truth rather than Darrell’s wild version
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/uslstwrt111903sind.html
demimondian
W.B. — I really, really hate to give aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States, but…Lynn Stewart knew what she was doing, and her actions, it seems, had direct consequences.
You see, within days after she released the commend from the Sheik, the Muslim Brotherhood rose up throughout Egypt. Its members had been waiting for a signal, which she provided. More, during trial, evidence was provided which showed she knew she was passing a message to the outside world — although she almost certainly did not know what the message was intended to mean.
The last of these speaks to the sentence leveed against her. At her age, given that she believed sincerely that she was acting in the best interests of her client, and since it very important that attorneys be free to act in the interest of their clients, the judge felt, I think correctly, that making an example of her would be worse than letting nature take its course.
Tsulagi
I’ve been hearing this even further fallback meme from some I know. “Okay, we’ve fucked up and may lose the House or Senate, but the Dems will be worse in two years.” If I see it, then I’ll believe it.
But I have full faith in George and his Foley boy Republicans. In six years they’ve already set a bar that should last at least the millennium. Terri Schiavo could have governed by videotape better than these idiots.
ThymeZone
She’s fucking 67, not 107.
WTF?
jaime
Yes.
-Worse than North Korea getting the bomb.
-Worse than an significant increase of Iranian power.
-Worse than Iraq turning into Iranghanistan.
-Worse than half the country hating the other half.
-Worse than being China and Saudi Arabias economic bitches.
-Worse than looking into the face of our leader and knowing he is an idiot and a liar (about more than what he did with his penis).
-Worse than our air, water, and food being pumped full of poisons.
-Worse than our national debt exploding.
-Worse than the price of gas doubling in 6 years.
-Worse than a whole city disappearing under water.
-Worse than having a congressman a month hauled off to prison.
-Worse than Raping Brown People with Cattle Prods and pretending to drown them now being the Christian and American thing to do.
-Worse than the middle class paying more for health care/ education/ housing/ food while their leaders pretend they are looking out for THEM?
You throw that ‘leftist’ word around, but you, Darrell are a Bolshievik through and through and through. Keep the red, but ditch the elephant. The wall is collapsing all around you Darrell. Something tells me, you’d be in a tank, rather than dancing on it when the wall does collapse.
Darrell
Well given that NK didn’t open up to inspectors until 1992 for the first time, Baker may know what he’s talking about, or more likely, he was relying on one of the CIA’s “slam dunk” intelligence assessments. Seems a long time (15+ years) between ‘rudimentary’ nuke bomb and actual nuclear explosion. Clinton’s plan obviously kept the Norks contained..
The Other Steve
Didn’t say that, did I?
I even linked to the indictment, which I think is frankly pretty damning.
So why all the extraneous bullshit?
Tulkinghorn
–There was actually a Law & Order episode based on this case, if anyone has seen it. It was pretty good.
Didn’t they get Holly Golightly on this rap, too?
demimondian
TZ, she’s going to be spending the next few years in prison. I doubt she’ll see 70, and I’d give you Bears over Cardinals odds that she won’t see 75.
Tulkinghorn
In any case Truman Capote was a Democrat, so the example does not hold.
ThymeZone
If the CIA’s assessments are no good, why did we start a war over them?
If Baker should know that they’re subject to strong questioning, why didn’t Bush ask more questions, do more inspections, take more time, get more facts?
Why are we now mired in a useless war destructive to our country and to our interests because of CIA “slam dunk” analysis? Because our president didn’t know what the fuck he was doing?
Darrell
Actually dumbass, you did
The case was so clear cut as to result in her conviction
The Other Steve
It’s not so much that she passed messages. Rather she allowed her translator to pass messages.
It was the translator who committed the crimes. Her crime was being aware of it and allowing it to continue and even aiding it by covering their conversations.
I don’t have any sympathy for her, she knew what she was doing was wrong. But I am puzzled by why Darrell feels this desire to overplay it?
The Other Steve
So why all the bullshit?
Why not rely on the indictment? Why do you have to add stuff that isn’t there?
Darrell
Well said. So you acknowledge that she knowingly aided terrorists, likely resulting in deaths, yet you feel she deserved a wrist slap sentence because of her age and because “she believed sincerely that she was acting in the best interests of her client”
So demi, as long as a someone aids terrorists resulting in deaths or acts as a traitor to their country for that matter, it’s not so bad, just as long as they “sincerely believed”.
Incredible really.. that you hold that position.
ThymeZone
I don’t think even scs could have written a more salient post than that. Maybe Bill Frist should examine her? By video, of course.
It looks to me like the government was hoping for a big sentence to cover up the fact that their “war on terror” can’t do better than bagging an elderly, ailing woman who obviously is not a terrorist.
Between the Terror Threat Color Code and the sweeps of old ladies, I was feeling a lot safer until today.
The Other Steve
Which deaths?
I’m not finding this in the indictment.
As I read it, demi said that’s what the court said.
Why all the bullshit?
The Other Steve
You know Darrell you never did answer my question about Posada Carriles.
When is Bush going to return Carriles to Venezuela to face the charges of his blowing up an airliner in 1976?
ThymeZone
Beat your fucking chest, you idiot. Maybe you’ll break your ribs.
Darrell
She also passed messages herself in the form of a press release. Read your own link halfwit
Exactly as I characterized it upthread. She passed along the Sheik’s messae to his followers to end the ceasefire and start back with the killing. She also knowingly deceived prison guards to allow the translator to pass messages.
What is it about TOSser that makes him downplay and minimize Stewart’s role in aiding terrorists?
The Other Steve
BTW, it’s funny reading this thread.
Darrell seems to be so proud that he’s able to distort anything and everything people say.
But what does he gain? He proves that someone said something they didn’t actually say or believe?
How does that benefit the Darrell?
Darrell
The Sheik issued a directive to his terrorist followers delivered by Stewart to end the cease fire, to start killing again. Are you so dishonest as to assert that this actions didn’t result in more killings? I think you really are that dishonest.
ThymeZone
How did playing Dracula benefit Bela Lugosi?
Darrell
To the contrary, I am using your own words verbatim to show you for the lying jackass you are. You’ve been caught red handed lying and distorting, and as usual, you’re now backpeddling and will undoubtedly soon disappear. It’s your modus operandi.
The Other Steve
No, you said she was passing messages, this was in response to someone pointing out that her main crime was issuing a release.
What you linked said she issues a release, just as the original person said.
So why all the bullshit? Why try to trump up what she did when the indictment is already damning enough?
The Other Steve
The indictment says threats of violence. If there was deaths directly resulting, wouldn’t it have said something about that?
Why are you accusing the justice department of being dishonest?
Darrell
She did. From your link:
That certainly qualifies as “passing his message” in any book. Too bad you don’t have the honesty to admit it.
Andrew
PJ O’Darrell is really on a roll. I’m interested in travelling back to the 1980’s in his special time machine, in order to fight the North Koreans before they go nuclear (but primarily to make out with a 19 year old Phoebe Cates).
The Other Steve
I’m a lying jackass because I disagree with your opinions?
interesting.
Darrell
What the hell did I “trump up”. She really did pass messages for the Sheik to his terrorist followers. One of which was for them to drop the cease fire and start killing again as even demi acknowledges. Your and WB Reeves are all alone on this one TOSser
The Other Steve
Interesting, this is what you had to say when someone pointed that out before:
Why the flip flop? Can’t you get your story straight?
The Other Steve
hmm…
let’s be clear about what you are referring so benignly as “consisted of releasing a statement by her client”
Paddy O'Shea
Darrell must have one enormous ass because he sure pulls a lot of shit out of it.
The Other Steve
You know Darrell you never did answer my question about Posada Carriles.
Darrell
What “flip flop” halfwit? She was passing communication from her client to his terrorist followers. God you’re dishonest. We’re not talking about opinions, we are talking about actions and a conviction in a court of law. You have disputed a point of fact with this statement:
When it was pointed out that she herself, not just the translator was passing messages, you dishonestly assert that this was a matter of “opinion”. Do you see what an idiot you are?
The Other Steve
Anyway, I gotta go.
Darrell, you can go back to playing with yourself now. I hope you are saving the world from the evil people who present indictments as facts and not trumped up stories!
Tsulagi
That would be never because pappy pardoned Carriles’ partner in the airliner bombing, Orlando Bosch. The only president to ever pardon a known, convicted terrorist. Thank God the Republicans are in charge.
The Other Steve
She issued a release. You admitted so yourself. Those are the facts in the case.
So why all the distortion?
Funny, what I’ve said is exactly what is in the indictment.
Why can’t you just rely upon the indictment? Why do you have to distort the whole thing into something bigger than it was, when the indictment is already pretty damning?
The Other Steve
And seriously, I gotta go.
I don’t even give a rip about Stewart. I just can’t stand seeing people distort things. You can have your own opinions, but you don’t get to make up your own facts.
W.B. Reeves
The fog must be absolutely blinding by now since Darrell apparently can’t see that the above characterization is not mine but that of the article he himself cited.
Yes, sad to say, completely fogbound. What the judge actually said follows:
Doesn’t sound like “likely lethal”, more like not lethal at all. In point of fact the word “lethal” doesn’t appear in either of the articles cited by Darrell. Neither is there any reference to Darrell’s assertions about the contents of the statement that Lynn Stewart released.
To be fair to Darrell, it’s possible that in his befogged condition he may have posted the wrong links. Perhaps he’ll provide us with other citations that actually back up his claims. If so, I’d suggest he actually read them before posting rather than just skimming the headlines.
Darrell
Has there ever in history been a more textbook example of projection?
Where in the indictment does it say
No, she herself passed messages to the Sheik’s terrorist followers on his behalf in the form of a press statement. That is what the indictment says. You are blatently lying when you claim that you said “exactly” what was in the indictment as I have already demonstrated. You’re just too dishonest to own up to it.
Zifnab
In other news, Darrell still refuses to respond to our inquires regarding his taste in pie.
Steve
It’s amusing to watch Darrell harden his position as a thread goes on. At first, he tells us the judge said Stewart’s actions “could” have lethal consequences. After repeating this a few times, he realizes it doesn’t sound tough enough, so all of a sudden we’re told the judge said those same actions “likely” had lethal consequences. That’s the way he argues… even when he starts off with a true statement, every time he repeats it he changes an adjective or adverb to “toughen it up”… even when it results in altering the truth.
You can see this in any Darrell thread… in another 100 posts, she’s going to be building bombs herself.
Zifnab
I don’t see what the problem is. She was convicted, she got jail time, the law has been served. The judge deemed that throwing a little old lady in jail for the rest of her natural life was not necessary. And the GOP wet itself because he refused to throw the book at her.
What she did was wrong. She was punished. The end. I don’t see much of a debate, other than what a joke the Bush Administration is if this is the best their Terror Legislation can manage after five years.
Darrell
Glad to see you still don’t have a shred of credibility WB
Darrell
If a child rapist got sentenced to 2 years probation, you could say the same thing. What they did was “wrong” and they were “punished”. Not nearly as cut and dried as you make it to be.
Darrell
Steve, consistently you focus your criticisms on some tiny shade of grey with me, not a substantive point, while you don’t say a word about the others who get caught in blatent lying and distortion. That says it all about your lack of character.
Steve
And the fact that your only response is “other people do it too!” says a lot about you.
Perry Como
Can you prove she wasn’t building bombs? This is why Democrats can’t win elections.
cd6
Wait, Clinton is to blame for NoKo getting the bomb because he failed to bomb NoKo’s bomb producing/plutonium enriching facilities?
Did I miss when Bush bombed those same facilities to prevent NoKo from getting the bomb? Maybe I was in the other room or something.
Phoenician in a time of Romans
I realised just how intellectually bankrupt O’Rourke was when he spent an awful lot of time poking fun at Nicaruaga and (probably rightly) blaming its backwardness and follies on Communism, and then wandered around El Salvador noting bodies in gutters and mass disappearances as if they were natural disasters, lo, descended from the heavens devoid of context…
Tsulagi
Not if they were a Republican politician. They would simply claim they were a drunk and enter alcohol rehab. Works for all crimes.
Zifnab
So you’re comparing her to a child rapist? See that behind you Darell? That’s a shark. You appear to have cleared it admirably.
ThymeZone
You could get his boss elected Speaker of the House?
The Other Steve
There’s your more textbook example of projection
demimondian
It’s a fucking jackalope — why do you folks play? Yes, she got two years, four months. That’s plenty.
It may come a surprise to you, but attorneys have a job, and it isn’t to work for you and me; it is to represent their clients. Defense attorneys work to get people off when they are not proven guilty beyond a reasonalbe doubt, or, if they’re in jail, to get them out when the law allows. That means working with them, in their terms, to get them to make the smart decisions, even if they make them for bad reasons. They need to act to protect the rights of their clients to communicate with the outside world *when those clients have those rights*. It is a very rare prisoner who’s lost that civil right.
Lynn Stewart genuinely thought she was doing her job. She felt that her duty to her client superceded the SAM. She was wrong — but she was wrong for the right kind of reason, because she was trying to serve her client aggressively and thoroughly. THAT WAS HER JOB.
Sorry, D-boy, I know you like pie and all that, but Lynn Stewart was trying to do her job. She should have stopped and asked herself if in so doing, she was actually doing it, and, for that misjudgement, yes, she should go to jail. But I’m sorry, she isn’t being punished so you can get your rocks off dreaming about her being given the Abu Ghraib treament, and the judge, unlike the American right, remembered that.
demimondian
Oh, and to bring this back on topic — the reason that O’Rourke is wrong about this is best exemplified by this judge in New York, who persisted in doing her job, in making her part of the justice system work, despite the abuses of the system by a bunch of opportunist thugs with big words.
In an environment where judges have been murdered, the courage to stand up to the legislators who threaten them shows that government can and does work, in the hands of people who care about it doing its job. The Republicans have been about power for power’s sake for some time now, and, so, no, P.J….nothing can be worse than that.
stickler
Way, way upthread, was asked:
Obviously, somebody hasn’t seen either version of the Manchurian Candidate. I’d say the evidence is clear: George W. Bush is a North Korean sleeper agent. How they got to him in East Texas or Louisiana, I’ll never be able to say. Clearly, he never got anywhere near Vietnam or Korea. But get to him, they did.
Phoenician in a time of Romans
Thus the real need is—and has always been—for the US to provide an emergency escape hatch for NK’s officials to be able to give up power safely. Clinton instead bribed them to delay developing the Bomb and thus just slowed things down, but Bush hasn’t even done that.
In ramshackle regimes built around dictators, delaying and slowing things down is doing something – all men are mortal.
Consider – Saddam Hussein is nearly 70 years old. If left alone, the fucker would have soon been dead. There most likely would be a nasty coup or struggle for power between his sons and other parties, and it is likely that a small show of force at that point by the US would have had a big effect on which faction prevailed (its very hard to run a civil war when your opponents can ask for an airstrike on any of your headquarters).
The end result would probably have been moderate bloodshed and a more liberal oligarchy or dictatorship accepted by the Iraqis and willing to engage with the world. Which is better than the situation now. AND which was obvious to anyone considering how exactly governments installed by occupying armies are considered by their subjects.
Would this work in North Korea? Possibly – it may be bloody, but I can’t see a less bloody alternative.
Tsulagi
Tell that to Rummy. Came as a surprise to him that JAG officers would actually follow the Constitution and USMJ. The JAG officer, Charles Swift, who successfully brought the Hamdan case to the Supreme Court was recently rewarded by being forced out of the Navy.
The Other Steve
I think we need to look back at US Politics and ask ourselves.
At what point did a former Soviet Premier start sounding more rational than the US President?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15306580/site/newsweek/
ThymeZone
In Gorbachev’s case, in about 1985.
Pb
The Other Steve,
Your quote reminds me of another quote:
I wonder what today’s Republican party would say to that; I’m not sure that they would recognize it at all.
No, they’d ridicule it. To them, Eisenhower would no doubt be a treasonous terrorist appeaser.
Steve
My dad is constantly amazed that the current GOP has managed to make Eisenhower look like a visionary genius. He sure seemed like a buffoon at the time, but in hindsight, it sure seems like he had a lot of wisdom to share.
Pb
Steve,
I agree, but then again, I’d be liable to say the same thing about Carter’s energy policy. However, in that one speech I mentioned, (better source here) Eisenhower did a great job of predicting The Cold War:
And of course there’s another quote from his Farewell Address that has gotten some noteriety as well:
But there are a lot of other good quotes and cogent observations in there as well:
The Republican party would be much better off if it still had more men like Eisenhower. But remember, due to the unilateral decision to invade Iraq, John Eisenhower–the son of the former President, and a Republican for 50 years–switched his voter registration to Independent, and endorsed John Kerry. He was pretty clear as to why he was doing so as well:
jaime
Because he is an intellectual coward. Plain and Simple. You could write the question on a piece of paper and drive it into his right eye with a nail and he will look past it.
If he can’t answer a question he moves the goalpoasts or ignores the question altogether. It’s part of his Bolshievik training. There are countless examples of this. Being correct isn’t important. It’s being loud…and loyal.
Bruce Moomaw
Getting back to O’Rourke for a moment, guys: Read a few of his Nineties pieces for the American Spectator — in which he totally shamelessly sucks up to his particular right-wing audience in THAT magazine by jeering at “stupid and vile Senator Kerry” and “Kleagle Klinton” — and I suspect you’ll cease to find him funny and start finding him as disgusting as I do.
John D.
*What* meme?
Darrell, I was alive, sentient, and paying attention all through Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton. I don’t need some meme to discuss those times. The nattering on of politicians and talking heads during that time wasn’t a myth, as much as you’d like to think it was.
Did you have any sort of a point?
If the lockdown and inspections were not working, why exactly, did they have to break the IAEA locks to get back into the plant? Why did they choose not to do so until after Bush repudiated the framework we had in place? Why are no inspections and controls better than some inspections and controls?
You seem to feel that any problem with a plan invalidates the plan. I’m firmly in the camp of doing what you can in order to mitigate any failures in a plan.
So, since you feel they plant should have been bombed out of existence, why did Bush I or Bush II not do so? And where is your scorn for them?
I’m being consistent — I think commiting an overt act of war on North Korea is (and was), at its very best, stupid. You, on the other hand, have waxed rhapsodic about Clinton’s failures to “take out” said plant. Why no scorn for everyone else?
chopper
almost every single one of your posts. ever.
Zifnab
see: Evolution, Global Warming, the Birth and Death of the Electric Car, Social Security, the Page Program, Pre-plan D Medicare, pre-Faith Based government support of charity, phased troop withdrawls, …. the list goes on.
All of them were riddled with “problems”.
DougJ
The last 40 plus years of American history can be summarized as follows:
1963-1976: All Johnson’s fault
1977-1992: All Carter’s fault
1993-2008: All Clinton’s fault
W.B. Reeves
Just a point of clarification vis a vis Steve and Demimondian’s points. As I said above, I believe Lynn
Stewart did violate the statute in question. As an attorney and officer of the court she can’t escape
responsibility for her acts. Once again, “she must pay the piper.” Whether or not the statute itself is good
law is a separate question from Stewart’s professional turpitude.
Regarding whether or not Stewart’s actions caused the deaths in Egypt, that is highly speculative. I refer
you to the following passage from the indictment (thanks for posting the link):
This would seem to indicate that Rahman was removing himself from the debate over the Egyptian
ceasefire rather than issuing a directive that it be abandoned. This is likely the reason that Stewart was only
charged with giving material aid rather than actual terrorism. It could be that this was simply a ploy on
Rahman’s part. He may well have known that such abstention would make a renewal of hostilities
inevitable and wanted to preserve deniability. If so it appears to have succeeded.
Presuming that the facts alleged in the indictment are true they are damning. The best that can be said for
Lynn Stewart under such circumstances is that she was a naive dupe.
I’d like to add that my own interest in this matter is the same as Steve’s. I don’t find partisan distortion
acceptable regardless of its source. It is this that sets us apart from Darrell who doesn’t give a fig for facts,
accuracy or common decency if they get in the way of his increasingly manic prejudices and sheer bloody
mindedness.
ThymeZone
Eisenhower was anything but a buffoon. But he was president at the dawn of the television age, and he was not telegenic. He neither looked nor sounded the part of a president on tv.
It wasn’t long before we had Reagan, a real buffoon, who both looked and sounded the part of a president, but was a collossal moron.
Which is not to say we didn’t have real idiots before the age of tv, but tv has changed the problem set considerably.
Andrew
Comparing W. to Eisenhower is one of the more depressing thought experiements one can undertake.
ThymeZone
I am not concerned with what Repubs are saying about us today.
Soon, they will greet us as liberators.
Steve
I probably chose my words poorly when I attempted to paraphrase my dad. I always try to learn from the experience of my elders, not to mention my betters.
Punchy
Just wait until the next “must-pass” military spending bill has some tucked away, hidden, secret provision to add G-dub’s mug to Mt. Rushmore. It’s not a matter of if, but when.
The Other Steve
I think you are being grossly unfair to both Eisenhower and Reagan, but I have a different point to make.
We now have GW Bush who neither sounds or looks the part of President on TV, in person, or on paper, but is also a collosal moron and a buffoon.
How do you explain that?
Hyperion
thank you for a cogent observation.
also it has nothing to do with darrell!
docg
I am most curious as to why Darrell posts here. It most be in part to an extremely nasty masochistic streak. Whip me, beat me please. May I have another, sir? Was the Scoutmaster that violated him also a sadist? Add a dollop of narcissism (they know I am a serious political player!), with a touch of histrionics (look at me, look at me!).
His sole argument: Democrats (that’s Dems, for dehumanizing purposes) are dishonest and untrustworthy about (insert topic under discussion here). Any attempt at discussion after that is like holding down a retarded person until they shit their pants so you can laugh at them. Shameful and pointless.
docg
I am most curious as to why Darrell posts here. It must be in part to an extremely nasty masochistic streak. Whip me, beat me please. May I have another, sir? Was the Scoutmaster that violated him also a sadist? Add a dollop of narcissism (they know I am a serious political player!), with a touch of histrionics (look at me, look at me!).
His sole argument: Democrats (that’s Dems, for dehumanizing purposes) are dishonest and untrustworthy about (insert topic under discussion here). Any attempt at discussion after that is like holding down a retarded person until they shit their pants so you can laugh at them. Shameful and pointless.
Andrew
Was Barb a drinker too?
ThymeZone
Really. Eisenhower was telegenic and didn’t look and sound like a buffoon on tv? I guess your memory of the time must be better than mine, then.
Really. You don’t think Reagan was a real buffoon, with his simplistic good v evil worldview, his total lack of literacy in history or any of the liberal arts, or law? The man was a fucking movie actor pretending to be a president. At that, he was often quite good, of course.
ThymeZone
Explain what? How the guy became president?
I think recent history is self-explanatory. The GOP manufactured him into a president. He’s an idiot.
What’s to explain?
ThymeZone
Darrell is a figment of our imagination.
In reality, he’s an eigth-grade class project aimed at poking holes in the blogosphere.
Pb
How tens of millions of Americans still voted for him (twice). Sorry, John…
Pharniel
what’s really depressing is the fact that most of the right wing blogs i surf are talking about how the republicans need to ‘get serious’ campigning and working a smear campign, as if there’s some sort of magic conspiracy against them, and that they are just not fighting hard enough, because the world will end if the dems get elected. Because burlarising one’s own HQ and getting another guy sent to jail for it isn’t ‘hard enough’.
and you wonder why america is fed up?
Why do i get the feelign that the end of the world is the end of the one party rule when it’s shown how incompetent they are?
seriously, people need to put the fucking cool-aid down.
oh. and if we had bombed the nk plants in the 90’s, soul would be missing as little mr. wonely would have decalred war and started shooting.
Pb
My understanding is that the GOP is pouring money into attack ads, but that they aren’t turning out to be as effective as they had hoped. So it’s not like they aren’t trying–they just aren’t trying anything new.
Pharniel
Which is sorta my point. They’ve already commited felonies, slander whisper campigns and villiany on the scale of the chicago machine or imperial rome, they can’t step up anymore.
this zero-sum bullshit is just getting to me.
Darrell
Ah yes, the ever so eloquent left.
Am I similarly ‘dehumanizing’ Republicans when I refer to them as “Repubs”? Do you see what an idiot you are? Has it finally dawned it you yet?
W.B. Reeves
I see poor Darrell has graced us with a new link. I couldn’t have wished for a better illustration of his partisan pixilation. This is highlighted by the fact that he thinks that in doing so he has savaged my credibility whereas he has clearly savaged his own.
To recap, I pointed out that the original links cited by Darrell made no reference to the judge commenting on the lethality of Stewart’s actions. I suggested at the time that Darrell might have posted the wrong links in error. Darrell promptly proves me right by posting an entirely new link wherein the reporter attributes such an opinion to the judge.
Recall that this was after Darrell claimed that the judge said Stewart’s actions were “likely lethal.” What did the judge actually say? According to the Chicago Tribune article newly linked by Darrell, Judge Koeltl spoke of “potentially lethal” actions.
Now potential has a fairly specific meaning. To whit, something that has’nt happened, may never happen but might just possibly happen at some future point in time, rather like the project of building “democracy” in Iraq.
“Likely” has an entirely different and unreconciliable meaning. That being something more likely to happen than not.
So Darrell claimed that Judge Koeltl had said that Stewart’s actions were likely to have lethal consequences. His own link to the Chicago Trib shows this to be utterly false. The Judge simply opined that such consequences were not outside the realm of possibility. Moreover, we know from these same links that Koerner went on to state affirmatively that the absence of any resultant deaths figured into his sentencing decisions.
At this point I’m half convinced that poor Darrell doesn’t really grasp how spurious his arguments and claims are. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he were to post here claiming that there is no distinction between his misrepresentation and what was actually attributed to the judge.
I begin to believe that Darrell is simply not cognizant of the disconnect between what is actually said and what he wants to hear. Hopefully this inability to distinguish between the real and the fanciful is limited to his politics. If it were to permiate his personal and professional life as well, I can only imagine how isolated an individual he would be. People tend avoid those who can’t be trusted to read a newspaper accurately. He might well become one of those frustrated lost souls filled with pent up rage, constantly seeking targets for his bile. A human boil spewing toxic puss. A sad thought surely.
Of course I can understand why many, perhaps even most, would take him to be a mere chiseling, partisan hack without a shred of integrity. However, I prefer to be generous.
Poor Darrell.