Tony Snow Tries to Blame...Guess Who?...For NoKo Nukes;
Drum Links to Fred Kaplan With the Real Story
Anybody else remember Bush coming into office with a bunch of hogwash about accepting personal responsiblity? Which, of course, lasted for about a day, after which everything under the sun was Clinton's fault. Well, here they go again. But we in the reality-based community prefer the facts. If you're interested, follow the link.
Drum Links to Fred Kaplan With the Real Story
Anybody else remember Bush coming into office with a bunch of hogwash about accepting personal responsiblity? Which, of course, lasted for about a day, after which everything under the sun was Clinton's fault. Well, here they go again. But we in the reality-based community prefer the facts. If you're interested, follow the link.
posted by Winston Smith at
7:38 PM
20 Comments:
Drum: "Clinton threatened the North Koreans with war if they went down this road..."
Be serious. Reality-based? War? Clinton? "We?"
Do you have contradictory data at your disposal? If so, do share...
Oh, I suppose he "threatened." As for what that meant, three words: Black Hawk Down.
Sorry Tom, but the botched mission in Somalia had repurcussions in the area of humanitarian missions (see our failure to act in Rwanda.)It had little impact on North Korea, which was threatened mostly by having the shit bombed out of them.
Not only that, but Somalia was not *Clinton*'s intervention; he inherited it from Bush I. So there was no progression from threats to action under Clinton.
Not that I necessarily disagree with Bush I's decision, but still.
The botched mission had other repercussions...
"After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished.
Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared.
They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. ... As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger.
He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families.
Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers.
America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim." ---O. bin Laden
Uhhh....lotsa points to make here, but let's just cut to the chase: what on Earth does OBL's opinion have to do with North Korea producing nukes?
It is my opinion that neither Kim Jung-Il nor anyone else took any Clinton administration threats of military action seriously.
Perhaps "bombing the shit" out of them, but not war itself.
Had Kosovo turned into a tough slog, and judging by Black Hawk Down, I'm skeptical if we would have stuck it out.
whew, Tom...that's about as big a stretch as one can stretch.
OBL--who never says anything except for political effect--makes some claims about Clinton, then you somehow figure that he really thinks that (contra well-known evidence that it's Reagan's tail-between-the-legs retreat from Beirut that first convinced Islamic extremists we were wimps), and they you somehow figure that KJI thought the same thing...
There's no way I'm buying that...but fortunately we have better evidence than that super-speculation. Clinton kept NoKo in line and basically going in the right direction. Bush botched it.
Clinton was just a better and smarter president than Bush. He figured out how to handle a whole bunch of tough problems, even if that meant just keeping things from boiling over until we could find another opening.
So, sorry. The generic "Clinton did it" excuse for every bad thing that's happened since 2000 simply isn't going to work.
C'mon, man. I can't believe you really believe that stuff.
Clinton papered over the Nork problem. You may believe anything else you wish.
Do you think we would have stuck it out in Kosovo if it had got bloody? Based on Clinton's record, I do not.
BTW, Saddam distributed copies of Black Hawk Down to his troops.
And you are correct about Reagan. However, Islamofascism as we know it today did not exist. It was simply Israel's problem and the world was unconcerned as long as it was just Jews getting slaughtered.
This is not to say Reagan's withdrawal didn't hurt. It did.
The Republicans would have made it Hell for him if Kosovo had gotten bloody.
As good as Clinton's presidency was, we'll never know how good it might have been if he wasn't constantly fighting a defensive war against the American right.
We'll also never know what Clinton would have done in Somalia without the Republicans hounding him at every turn.
With all the right's cries of "treason!" over the past 5 years, one wonders how they should judge their own actions in the '90's...
And _Black Hawk Down_ is a pretty stupid book to hand out. There's not much in there about the politics...it's mostly about two things: (a) what total badasses the American military are, and (b) how they open themselves up because of their great concern for their buddies...even their dead buddies. If OBL thought there was a lesson to be learned there, that was probably it.
Nice try, but eventually Bush WILL have to take responsibility for at least SOME of his failures. Clinton didn't do it all.
Nice try, but you still just can't resist characterizing my arguments. ;-)
Almost everything you write about the GOPs hounding Clinton is true in spades with the parties reversed for Bush.
But "Clinton would have done x except for GOP flak," even if true, illustrates my point. Bush does what he thinks is right, damn the polls, flak, and torpedoes.
You may see Clinton's sensitivity to such things as proper leadership qualities for this republic; I do not.
BTW, do you think Clinton would have stuck it out in Kosovo?
(I thought Tony Snow's remarks were quite temperate, and good on him. Clinton did the best he was able.)
TVD, the Republicans had the majority in both Houses of Congress since the '94 elections, so to characterize Clintons' problems as "GOP flak" is rather oversimplifying the matter, to say the least.
If you really think that Bush does what he thinks is 'the right thing', then there's a bridge over the Tule River I'd like you to have a look at......
Bush doing the right thing
But in fact, the Bush administration is a frequent consumer of polls, though it takes extraordinary measures to appear that it isn't. This administration, unlike Clinton's, rarely uses poll results to ply reporters or congressional leaders for support. "It's rare to even hear talk of it unless you give a Bush guy a couple of drinks," says one White House reporter. But Republican National Committee filings show that Bush actually uses polls much more than he lets on, in ways both similar and dissimilar to Clinton. Like Clinton, Bush is most inclined to use polls when he's struggling. It's no coincidence that the administration did its heaviest polling last summer, after the poorly received rollout of its energy plan, and amid much talk of the "smallness" of the presidency. A Washington Monthly analysis of Republican National Committee disbursement filings revealed that Bush's principal pollsters received $346,000 in direct payments in 2001. Add to that the multiple boutique polling firms the administration regularly employs for specialized and targeted polls and the figure is closer to $1 million. That's about half the amount Clinton spent during his first year; but while Clinton used polling to craft popular policies, Bush uses polling to spin unpopular ones---arguably a much more cynical undertaking.
And the Bush '04 campaign employed pollsters including Jan van Lohuizen, who you'll find mentioned in the article I linked to.
Sorry to burst your bubble, TVD, but believing that the WH doesn't pay attention to the polls because of who is in the office is like believing that a horsehair put in a bottle of water will turn into a worm.
Don't be silly, Tom.
The right hounded Clinton viciously from the very beginning--from before he was even in office.
It took years of lies and incompetence--including one quasi-stolen election--for the left to become vicious about Bush.
The viciousness is approximately equal. Thing is, Bush can plausibly be said to deserve it, whereas Clinton clearly didn't.
Nice job trying to divert attention from the original point about Korea, though.
Still characterizing my arguments, I see.
"Silly..."
"Burst your bubble..."
Sorry guys. Gotta get past that part first. If I do it to you, you hereby have the right to call me on it.
In the meantime, the DA jumps in only when TVD is surrounded. Piling on, 15-yard penalty. Disappointing, hardly avenging.
Of course Bush/Rove look at polls. Whether that determines their course of action or simply their line of rhetoric are two entirely different things.
I think Kim Jung-Il laughed at any threat of war from the Clinton administration, WS. My original point. What he should have done was spend all that international capital he built up as the non-Reagan/Bush and engaged China, the Norks' patron, in a legitimate settlement.
On the other hand, per Lawrence Kaplan, maybe all this nonsense about better plans and moral high ground is just that, nonsense. Perhaps Machiavelli was right after all, that nations and peoples act in their own perceived self-interest, and ally themselves accordingly.
Realpolitik, the Nixon Nazis (and FDRs and Trumans before them), used to call it. They, and I, do have a weakness for Hobbes. The Chicoms, even more.
TVD, if you don't want to deal with the anguish, suffering, and heartbreak of moi 'piling on', then the remedy to your problem, as I've pointed out in the past, is quite simple:
Don't make any statements/assertions that are falsifiable.
Of course Bush/Rove look at polls. Whether that determines their course of action or simply their line of rhetoric are two entirely different things.
But in fact, the Bush administration is a frequent consumer of polls, though it takes extraordinary measures to appear that it isn't.
But pretending that they don't look at polls while doing so for whatever reason is okay?
You remind me of the old saw about lawyers:
If you have the law on your side, pound the law.
If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts.
If you have neither the law or facts on your side, pound the table.
O.k., provisionally ignoring all the other issues here, you're point comes down to this:
"I think Kim Jung-Il laughed at any threat of war from the Clinton administration."
You haven't offered any evidence for this point. The original points were:
(a) Bush's policies have apparently failed.
(b) Once again, they refuse to admit they were wrong.
(c) Once again, they blamed the failure on Clinton.
(d) But they're full of shit (see article).
Now, after a long, winding trail through OBL, Black Hawk Down, etc., etc., that's what your argument comes to?
C'mon, man. It's nothing more than a hunch, unsubstantiated by any of that stuff about OBL, and not relevant to the point. Clinton didn't rely on the threat of force. Things didn't get that far because diplomacy was quasi-working. Working more than anything Bush has done.
Clearly the Norks don't take any threat of war from Bush seriously either, else they wouldn't have lauched.
The difference is that Clinton didn't push it to that point. Hence didn't make us look like a chest-pounding paper tiger.
Some day guys on your side of the fence really are going to have to admit that Bush can err.
If course Bush can err. But does doing so help our democracy or merely aid our enemies?
I disagreed with Drum, whom you linked, and offered my opinion that the Norks laughed off any threat of war from Clinton. Asked why I thought it was so, I cited Clinton's record. Pretty straightforward.
I don't believe Bush has threatened the Norks, and indeed has stood back and let those whose fault it is (China) and those who have more to worry about (Japan) smoke themselves out. Good policy, to my mind.
As for letting the polls dictate action, Bush holds to many unpopular positions. By contrast, one need only consult Dick Morris for an account of how Clinton's presidency was poll-driven.
I believe I've been completely logical about the whole affair, Captain.
As for letting the polls dictate action, Bush holds to many unpopular positions
And he uses the polling data to spin them, while at the same time pretending that he doesn't use polls at all.
Can you spell 'mendacity', boys and girls?
By contrast, one need only consult Dick Morris for an account of how Clinton's presidency was poll-driven.
Yes, this was known when Clinton was in office, and Clinton perhaps downplayed the role of polling in his Adminstration, but he didn't pretend that he didn't listen to polls at all as has the current malAdministration.
I believe I've been completely logical about the whole affair, Captain.
Nobody has accused you of an emotional outburst, so your defense makes no sense.
Does anyone seriously doubt that they play up the "Bush doesn't listen to polls" line because polls tell them that people like it?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home