Cynical Nation

Does this mean that the 30,000 U.S. military hostages in South Korea can finally come home after 54 years?

No, that isn't right at all. I wrote, "I have a funny feeling that China had more to do with success in these talks than the US." Hardly a statement giving all credit to the Chinese. My statement was borne out by the articles I read which, among other things, said that the draft of the new agreement was circulated by the Chinese (I believe last Friday) and that John Bolton does not like this agreement and will recommend that Bush not sign it. So the next thing you have to do is blast the agreement, and then blame Clinton and...of, you did that already. You are proactive.

If there are any problems, be sure to blame Clinton.

Of course, blame Clinton.

Only Democrats get duped, remember?

Is that a variation of IOKIYAR, fred, or is it a new Law of Politics entirely? I can't keep up these days.

> So the next thing you have to do is blast the agreement, and then blame Clinton and...of, you did that already. You are proactive.

If there are any problems, be sure to blame Clinton.

Well, I blamed Clinton (rightly) for the 1994 deal. Bush gets the rap for this one. That seems to make sense to me.

But if you're looking for that kind of mindless, "everything is Clinton's fault" right-wing hyperpartisanship, I'm sure you can find it out there. But you won't find it here, and I think your characterization is unfair.

Sorry to have mischaracterized your China remark, BTW. I've amended my original post.

It's not the perfect outcome, but it's the best that could be achieved in the present situation. For that the administration deserves some credit.

I know you don't do that mindless, blame Clinton stuff, Barry. I just see it so much I expect it. My bad.

All right, here's another question. If we were to replace fred with an automated Perl script that periodically posted "It's Clinton's fault" at quasi-random intervals, how many years would it be before someone would notice? ;-)

"Well, I blamed Clinton (rightly) for the 1994 deal. Bush gets the rap for this one. That seems to make sense to me." (BNJ)


The Clinton administration WAS rightly blamed for that earlier fiasco and for allowing Bernie Schwartz (Loral) to seel advanced guidance systems to China.

Here is, in my view, one of the most astute political commentaries on that 1994 deal courtesy of David Zucker;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hzH6X8g34Y&mode=related&search=

"IOKIYAR" stands for what?

"Is Ossified Korea, Ill, Yearning (for Atomic Reactors"

Thanks, DBK. I'll even go you one better. I think Clinton was a good president. I wasn't blogging back then, of course, so everyone assumes that since I voted Bush in 2004 that I must hate Clinton. Tenor of the times, I guess. :-)

fred, IOKIYAR stands for It's OK If You Are Republican.

And BNJ, it's your non-ideological appreciation for things, the fact that you can recognize what is good without it having to be attached to a specific ideology, that I appreciate about this site.

And I thought it was the babes.

I think Clinton was a good president.

I agree with BNJ on this statement,Clinton certainly made mistakes, overall I think he was a good President. IMO, Bush is also a good President, although dealt a much weaker hand than Clinton was, since the events of 9/11. Bush has also made some seriously damaging mistakes. IMO, Afghanistan and Iraq aren't mistakes.

.

> ...although dealt a much weaker hand than Clinton.

Yeah, it has to be said that Clinton got dealt a lucky hand, and he was relatively untried by crisis. (Or perhaps it's more accurate to say that the crises he dealt with were of his own creation.) Still, credit where credit is due. He was a successful and able leader for eight years.

Barry, someone hijacked your screen name to post nice things about Clinton. Don't take it persoanlly when some respond negatively, ya liberal.

When did Clinton (and I think we're talking about BILL Clinton) become a "Liberal?"

A little revisionism!

Clinton's first two years he warred with a Democrat controlled Congress.

When Gingrich came to power, he jumped right aboard that "Contract WITH America."

Welfare Reform, spending cuts, the whole nine yards, or at least 7 of the 10 plancks.

So, could he hvae been better (like ten out of ten)?

Of course, but no body's perfect.

The worst aspects of the Clinton administration had little to do with Clinton himself - the Loral scandal, Madeleine Albright's 2000 trip to N Korea, Reno's using the FBI & BATF as her own private "brute squad" against unfavored groups (Branch Davidians and Separatists living out in "the hoot," like Randy Weaver)...Bill Clinton himself, was no Liberal.

In fact, his greatest contribution was leading the DLC's takeover of the Democratic Party with their view that, "The Great Society philosophy that had dominated the Democratic party since the Johnson administration had run its course and advocated "new thinking" incorporating free-market principles. The group advocated economic policies, such as decreased government regulation of big business and trade agreements that often conflicted with the views of traditional Democratic constituencies, especially labor unions."

It must be opposite day...did you just write something complimentary about Bill Clinton JMK?

Now if you start preaching from the Koran I'll be looking around for Rod Serling to walk out from behind a door somewhere... :)

Come on! Bill Clinton worked better with Newt Gingrich than he ever did with Tom Foley.

The Loral scandal and the Reno abuses at the Justice Department were horrific, but they weren't Bill Clinton's doing.

Come to think about it, perhaps no one F'd up America more than Janet Reno!

She went and persecuted a decorated former Green Beret (Randy Weaver) and a relatively harmless religious nut (David Koresh), when she could have and should have been engaged in ferreting out some of the many terror cells that existed here during her tenure.

But Bill Clinton - 7 of the 10 plancks of Newt's Contract With America - not bad!

I'm willing to bet money North Korea won't do anything to go back on a deal. Unlike agreements with the PLOs and Hamas..es..of the world, who can renege at will since they're surrounded by sympathetic countries, N. Korea has a very large, very willing to wipe it from existence if need be neighbor in China.

Fred, I'm not sure what JMK's stardard operating procedure is when commenting re Clinton and other prominent liberals. The partisan divisiveness that excludes most bloggers from admitting that a politician different from their preference was good is childish and ridiculous. IMHO. I consider myself to be a classic liberal and I support the current US foreign policy in Iraq and the middle east. My experience with blogs is that an overwhelming majority of anti-war bloggers are unwilling to accept that I'm a liberal.

.

Ought --

By any objective measures I would be considered a "classic liberal" on many issues (environment, income disparity, social safety net), libertarian on most issues and conservative on only a few issues (low taxes, small government, and a hairy-chested foreign policy). As far as the liberals that I encounter on a day-to-day basis (and believe me, I work in the belly of that beast) are concerned, I'm the worst sort of Christofacist, Rethuglican, neo-nazi possible because I don't fall into line on the entirety of liberal dogma.

There are people at my workplace who refuse to work with me because I unashamedly admit to having voted for George W. Bush twice. Well, I also voted for Bill Clinton once (1996) and have no regrets about that vote. To me, Clinton wasn't so much a bad president as a waste in office. So much could have been accomplished in the post-Cold War era that simply wasn't.

We could have been well on our way to energy independance, had Clinton and Gore been as earnest about the environment as they now pretend to be. Poverty could have been eliminated in the U.S. with a few well directed programs designed to assure equality of opportunity rather than prescribe equality of outcome. A small fraction of the FY00 surplus would have eradictated many diseases in the third world -- especially Africa. That and more wasn't even seriously attempted because of Clinton's venality.

JMK.. The Ruby Ridge incident where Randy Weaver was shot was in August of 1992. Also the first raid at Waco happened in February 1993 before Reno took office in March 1993.

While Reno deserves and took responsibility for the Waco disaster that happened 51 days after the first siege, the "persecution" of both Weaver and Koresh began during the previous administration.

I'm not sure what JMK's stardard operating procedure is when commenting re Clinton and other prominent liberals. (Is ought)


I’ve explained it, but I’ll happily do so again, Bill Clinton was not a contemporary “Liberal” (Left-wing politician) by any stretch of the imagination.

He was THE candidate and one of the founders of the DLC whose mission it was to challenge the entrenched Liberal orthodoxy of the Democratic Party, believing that “The Great Society philosophy that had dominated the Democratic party since the Johnson administration had run its course and advocated "new thinking" incorporating free-market principles. The group advocated economic policies, such as decreased government regulation of big business and trade agreements that often conflicted with the views of traditional Democratic constituencies, especially labor unions."

The DLC’s platform was somewhat “Classically Liberal (Libertarian) and that’s probably the main reason why Bill Clinton dealt better with Gingrich than he did with Foley.


“My experience with blogs is that an overwhelming majority of anti-war bloggers are unwilling to accept that I'm a liberal.” (Is ought)


Come on ought!

Are you actually claiming surprise that Liberal Democrats don’t accept Libertarians (Classical Liberals) as “Liberals?”

That term has been co-opted (hijacked) for a good long while now. Libertarianism is anathema to contemporary Left-wing "Liberalism."

"JMK.. The Ruby Ridge incident where Randy Weaver was shot was in August of 1992. Also the first raid at Waco happened in February 1993 before Reno took office in March 1993." (PE)


You're right about Weaver PE...I tend to blame Reno for more than her share. She was the Florida version of New York City's Liz Holtzman - 110% anti-cop.

But she was condemend by COngress for using those tanks in the April 19, 1993 raid on that Waco compound;

“But we must never forget that Reno presided over the worst disaster in the history of American law enforcement — Waco.

More than 70 men, women, and children lost their lives when Reno approved an FBI assault on the Branch Davidian residence in 1993. Reno was hailed for "taking responsibility," but she launched a cover-up, telling reporters that the FBI assault was necessary because she had received reports that "babies were being beaten." One week later, Reno admitted in congressional testimony that she had no evidence of child abuse.

She subsequently appointed her crony, Richard Scruggs, to conduct an investigation into the incident. No one was very surprised when Scruggs's report exonerated Reno and the FBI.

When Congress held extensive hearings on the incident in 1995, Reno tried to place all of the blame on the Branch Davidian leader, David Koresh.

When asked about the propriety of using tanks to smash into a building containing children, Reno managed to keep a straight face while comparing the tanks to good "rent-a-cars." The House Committee subsequently issued a finding that Reno's decision to approve the FBI tank assault was "premature, wrong, and highly irresponsible." That finding was lost in the partisan din — as the Democrats shouted about the National Rifle Association, the proliferation of right-wing militias, and the Oklahoma City bombing.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-lynch090501.shtml

Are you actually claiming surprise that Liberal Democrats don’t accept Libertarians (Classical Liberals) as “Liberals?”

I suppose we're confusing true liberalism with what many now refer to as being "progressives". Because I'm a liberal in truer sense of the word, I have some rather large problems when discussing politics with this crowd.

I've asked many how they can rationalize their worldview that appears to me to be extreme hypocrisy. Their viewpoint is colliding with their supposed "progressive values" such as womens rights, homosexual rights, their opposition to racism and religious intolerance. All of these values stand in stark contrast to Islamism which "progressives" unfailingly are apologists for. Instead, they blindly oppose American policy which is in defense of these basest values. It just doesn't make any sense. I've asked many to try and rationalize this position and yet not a single progressive has been able to do so. Without fail the progressive responds in one of two very different ways, either lashing out in an extreme incoherent rage or by complete stupified silence. I find that todays' progressives are characterized by this astounding level of hypocrisy.

.

I doubt you'll get a good answer to that question.

Some will simply say, "There is no real threatr from pan-Islamism," but they are woefully wrong.

Europe is close to the tipping point now, with countries like Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, even England witnessing the Muslims in their midsts breeding them into minorities within their own countries.

It is entirely conveivable that we could see "Eurabia," Islamicized Europe under Sharia Law by the middle of this century.

Should that occur, it's highly doubtful that America, Canada and perhaps Australia could stand alone against such a globalized force of 1.2 billion adherants that is becoming increasingly more radicalized, in response to what they see as the weakness of those that would oppose them.

Very, very few "Liberals" seem to get the idea that the West in a fight for its life right now.

Though I may disagree with you on some issues, I do commend you for seeing this reality.

While very doomsday-ish, I think even in this situation, as in the N. Korean, we'll have more allies than Canada and Australia, in the form of China. India as well, now that I think about it. The two countries in Asia that are fighting over who gets the hegemon aren't going to put up with a bunch of upity fundamentalists who could damage their economies.

The peoblem, to date, is that the Chinese tend to see us as their biggest rival and the biggest obastacle in the way of the Chinese era.

They haven't been very helpful.

Neither has Russia, despite having its own Muslim problem.

Perhaps its a function of those countries feeling the same way many naive Westerners do - "That it's only a bunch of primordial cave dwellers, how much harm can they do?"

The problem is much more insidious than that. It's not that the West can't win, it's that it doesn't see there being any need, or even anything to win.

The problem, to date, is that the Chinese tend to see us as their biggest rival and the biggest obastacle in the way of the Chinese era.

They haven't been very helpful.

Neither has Russia, despite having its own Muslim problem.

Perhaps its a function of those countries feeling the same way many naive Westerners do - "That it's only a bunch of primordial cave dwellers, how much harm can they do?"

The problem is much more insidious than that. It's not that the West can't win, it's that it doesn't see there being any need, or even anything to win.

Europe is close to the tipping point now, with countries like Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, even England witnessing the Muslims in their midsts breeding them into minorities within their own countries.

I also think that there's a series of tipping points that are occurring right now in Europe, but the tipping points are current and will effect the continent long before Islamic population growth reaches critical mass.

IMO, these series of tipping points are the Danish cartoon fiasco, the assasination of vanGogh in the Netherlands, the carbercues in France and the suicide attacks in Madrid and London. These events are changing Europeans' opinions towards Muslims. The Islamists simply don't have the patience required to allow their population growth to overtake another society. If such were case, Islam wouldn't be Islam anymore (and therefore) it wouldn't be nearly the dangerous threat that it is.

....here's an excerpt from a blog essay I read a few days ago.

We not only want our immigrants to work in America, we want them to become Americans first and immigrants second.

3. The Classic European Response: "YOU will never be US."

NOT SO IN EUROPE where xenophobia is a tradition and recurrent racism a hobby; where the expectation of immigrants was, from the start, that they would come in, do a bunch of scut work, and leave the rest of Europe to the Europeans. After all, the deeper thought goes, you can't really expect a Muslim from Morocco to every be a "a real Frenchman," "a real Italian," "a real German," or a "real Englishman."

The inner fixations on race and origin are much more firmly held in Europe than in the US. Regardless of the talk about assimilation heard widely in Brussells and the traditional capitols of Europe, the fact remains that for many decades everyone that was staunchly European was quite content to let "their" Muslims live apart. Now, with the advent of the rising birthrate and violence emerging from the various Muslim ghettos in all the major and most of the minor cities, Europe is starting to re-examine their "Muslim problem" in search of a solution.

And Europe, right up to the war now on simmer in the Balkans, has a distressing habit of coming up with solutions that are all too final. Groups within Europe that do not fit into Europe, that dwell in ghettos and keep to their own language separate from the larger society, are often expelled or excised. In a way, although Germany took the point, the Holocaust was Europe's way of getting it's Jews to leave. Where to? At the time it didn't matter, just so long as they were -- in one way or another -- gone. Gone to Israel. Gone down under the ground. Gone up in smoke. It didn't matter as long as the Jews got gone, did it? France and Poland were happy to play. Russia? It was right there all along and continued the work after the fall of Berlin right up until... well, it really isn't over, is it?

4. "Past Policy is No Guarantee of Future Policies"

TO DATE, the policies of the various European governments is to avoid Holocaust 2.0. After all genocide is not only unhealthy for children and other living things, but bad for business and a quasi-socialist economy that already has enough problems, thank you very much.

Socialist-powered policies which have penned up Europe's exploding Muslim population are being redoubled in funding, intensity and "sincerity", especially in light of the London bombing and French riots. Sensitivity towards the needs and issues of the Muslim youth of Europe becomes even more sensitive. Efforts to educate the non-Muslim populations of Europe towards an even more benign view of Islamic needs ( 'A religion of peace stained by the actions of a fanatic few.') are expanded. European leaders speak incessantly of tolerance and the time it takes for Islam to find its way and become, at last, truly European. And the various Imams and leaders of the INE (Islamic Nations of Europe) stage photo-ops shaking the hands of these understanding leaders the besieged EU. The Imams know the premise of Europe's policies to be false, but they would be poor leaders if they did not use it to buy all the time that it can.

The policies of the United States parallel these European attitudes. They counsel tolerance, patience and understanding at home while taking the same sheaf of ideals and adding the forced imposition of democracy abroad as the recipe for assuring Islam's ultimate assimilation into the West. Indeed, the schism here, as noted at the beginning of this essay, is over how much force can be used to impose our way on a religion and a culture in a part of the world that is not known for its love of democracy and individual freedom. Where Islam has always found its version of freedom in submission to its theocracy and the melding of the individual into the mass, the big bet the Bush administration is making is that man is everywhere the same and everywhere yearns for "Freedom, American Style."

5. What If?

ALL WELL AND GOOD if the current leaders and policy makers in Europe and America are right; if Islam can be, with enough time and money, assimilated into the Western way.

But what if they are wrong ?
................
here's link to the entire essay and blog comments:

http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/006473.php

.

"The Islamists simply don't have the patience required to allow their population growth to overtake another society. If such were case, Islam wouldn't be Islam anymore (and therefore) it wouldn't be nearly the dangerous threat that it is." (Is Ought)


A very good point, though in Europe, at least, they have both going for them - a swelling population and a militant vanguard that openly taunts those governments while espousing Eurabia - all of Europe under Sharia Law

I agree with the author of that piece you quote - genocide is "unthinkable but not inconceivable."

I can't believe we used DIPLOMACY when we have perfectly good nukes that we could have used against North Korea.

Yeah, Bailey. Never mind all that nuclear fallour potentially spreading over the 1.2 billion + people in China, or floating back over Alaska and Canada. Reeaal good idea there.