Look who isn’t ceding a national security issue to the Republicans.
The shock waves of the North Korean nuclear weapons test rumbled through the 2006 campaign Monday, with Democrats quickly seizing the chance to argue that President Bush and the Republicans had neglected the North Korean threat.
I’m not of any mind that just overnight Democrats can roll back Republican gains on the issue of national security, but until very recently the Dems weren’t even showing up for the debate. The facts on the ground in Iraq and in the War on Terror have pushed people away from the failed Republican policies. It’s up to the party of Truman and Franklin Roosevelt to not walk away from this most central of issues in our time.
Well, normally one of Bush’s patented world-class fuckups would end up benefitting him–scare the public, make them Republicans. Unfortunately for him the public is too busy thinking about man-on-boy sex to be scared right now.
Notice that Ian or whichever troll isn’t defending Bush here. I do await their attempts to blame Clinton, even though Bush has had four years to solve this since North Korea first went public, their attempts to blame Nancy Pelosi, wondering what did she know and when did she know it, and their lauding of Kim Jong Il.
Unfortunately, the Dems are no longer the “party of Truman and Franklin Roosevelt”. They are the party of McGovern and Eugene McCarthy.
They are the party of McGovern and Eugene McCarthy.
Pfft. I wish!
Well, all the debate hre centers around how this issue can be used to get Bush. I have yet to hear anybody seriously discuss options etc. I think there is very little that we can do PRACTICALLY in the short run – whether its Bush, Guliani, Gore or Ms Clinton as Pres. And I say again, we should be using our scarce tax dolars in the Mideasta nd South America first; over the Far East.
Japan and Korea are traditonal enemies and they are one each others doorsteps. Let them handle it. We’ll send a token force.
See, I can fix ya farn policy.
How Republican of you, Dugger. Ignore it until it becomes a problem then let someone else deal with it.
Yes, we are mad at Bush. For five years liberals have been saying North Korea, North Korea. Bush did nothing or worse. Kind of frustrating, eh?
The Bush foreign policy is a good example and warning to women to have their monthly BREAST SELF EXAM. Catch that cancer early girls.
South America? Brilliant. Maybe we should spend 50 trillion dollars on an illegal immigrant missile defense shield.
How brilliant am I??
Well I have been espousing the Japan-China-centric option for dealing w/N Korea for several days now and this morning I see from leftist Yahoo that China is beginning to make noises against N Korea.
Now listen to the foreign policy master of OW.com, insignificant leftist grasshoppers:
Pay attention to NK, but let the in-theater powers, primarily Japan and China, handle it. If they can’t, then let them come to us and we will consider aiding them for considerations in return.
Dugger, foreign policy genius or mastermind? Or both?
Yahoo is leftist now?
Honestly, how the hell is your brain constructed?
I think he specifically means Yahoo News, which basically gets everything from the AP I think. The AP you’ll recall is so leftist they recently had to apologize for calling Mark Foley a Democrat, whereas FNC is so moderate that when they did the same thing, they didnt. I think his assesment of them being leftist is rooted in the mere fact that they report the news. Therefore they are teh librul. Quod ergo demonstratum.
But just to differentiate, we have North Korea, and we have Iraq. Both countries have been hostile to the US in the past, are run by dictators who brutalize their people (I’m talking about when Saddam was in power here) and have had plans to develop a nuclear weapons program (Korea’s, incidentally, more provable at the time than Iraqs was). Now, you are advocating that N. Korea be handled by its immediate neighbors, China and Japan, and that we get involved as a last resort. What say you then to the idea that we should have just let Pakistan and Saudi Arabia handle Iraq, what there was of it to handle, and not have gotten involved at all?
Oh, forgot to apoloze for how anti-intellictual and nasty my post was just now, being as it was pulled from the depths of my hate-mode. My most humble apologies go out to anyone who was offended by my asking a question intended to achieve intellictual consistency. I’ll be off to commit seppuku now. Hold my calls.
I think I mean my opinion re Yahoo. I consider Yahoo and Google – yours. They are fashionbaly leftist in orientation and outlook.
And I don’t and have never particularly argued for the wisdom of going into Iraq in the first place. I do recognize we are there and I do reject conspiracy theories re Bush and evil intentions or even incompetence re Bush for going into Iraq. And I do say the jury is still out on Iraq.
And I say again. If our resources are limited, as they are, and we have to focus on one verus the other, it makes more sense to focus on the Mideast verus he far Ertas. No one has refuted that at all.
And I still haven’t heard one sensible alternative from the left on any of this.
They’re search engines. I think it’s that thing about the truth having a liberal bias again.
How do you live with this much paranoia?
Nimrod,
They are more than search engines. Have you looked at Yahoo?
…Okay, I’ll bite, what is it about google and yahoo that make them leftist then? As far as I can tell they are search portals that also provide content conduits through, for instance, google video and yahoo video, news portals for AP, Reuters, etc., games, advertisement, free websites, etc. I’m honestly curious here, what makes these things Liberal, or is it something else that I’m not seeing as I sit here “looking at yahoo.” I certainly youre not just hoping to rest on the presumptive self-evidence of your statement as proof of its veracity.
Rex, Why bother. I think they are leftish. I fully acknowledge I can’t prove they are leftist. Just as you couldn’t prove to me Fox is biased. That opinion re Yahoo is based on what I see day to day (News, primarily but sometimes entertainment)using their home page as my homepage. It may well be that they are merely reflecting the bias that is in the wire services like Reuters.
The Google I use is a pure search engine without content so the Webpage itself is devoid of bias. But current Google/ig, for instance, had an article from the Guardian that I think is leftist in slant (but they fluctaute).
…so then you are admitting that your perception of Yahoo and Google being liberal is based in your view that news organizations are typically liberal, and that Yahoo and Google, by virtue of providing access to these services, are what exactly, guilty of collusion and conspiracy to repeat what newswires say?
As far as Fox now… well that seems a bit of a challenge. Tell you what, I’ll even let you define the terms of the game. What would it take, honestly, for me to provide to you that would show you that Fox has a conservative bias? Distortion of facts in ways that benefit republicans? Omission of facts that would benefit democrats? Treatment of one type of guest over another? Selection of guests? Lets seriously be reasonable about this, what would it take for you to be convinced?
Merely pointing out that Bush is a screwup doesn’t make one serious on national security.
If the Democrats issued a call for international sanctions, that would show some seriousness.
rex
“so then you are admitting that your perception of Yahoo and Google being liberal is based in your view that news organizations are typically liberal, and that Yahoo and Google.. etc”
.
No. Not at all. I don’t live and die worrying about Yahoo’s bias. But it is bias that I see day by day – not an assumption based on their status as a media outlet.
For instance, this morning – Yahoo News. There is a front page lead: 655,000 Iraqis Die Because of War. Thats it. If you were to click on the item and go the back pages you would discover that many have doubts about the study and there is significant opinion that it was put out to infuence the election. But you don’t get that on page one. Looks like those mean ol’ Republicans have killed 655,000 Iraqis. Gee, we’d better elect a Democrat. I am always suspicious when a liberla neews outlet cites as news: “a study says”. I smell political agenda right away.
And I guess I’m not clear. I don’t say Fox is not a conservative outlet. I said you could not ‘prove’ it to me, like I acknowledge I can’t prove to you Yahoo is biased. My perceptions suggest to me they are, but I understand my worldview is not yours – and vice versa.
I did a quantitative, weighted study (a few years old now)of all media outlets and it shows about a 70-30 liberal bias. I rated Fox conservative in the study. But , as is true of any study, it has to have subjective judgements as to what is and is not bias. ANd there both ideologues and reasonable people can disagree.
…hold on, I cant prove to you that FNC is conservative, but youve reached that conclusion in your own study? Seriously, what exactly are you talking about at this point? Are you saying like you cant prove to me that I’m sitting in an office chair typing on a keyboard, even though I can tell you that I am?
And as far as the Iraqi death toll, do you not think they’d be saying the same thing if Clinton were in office? Its the freaking News, man, their trade is in sensationalism, which gets them readers, and they find the laziest way to accomplish it. If the Heritage foundation released some study on the other end that said something like “only 5 iraqi civilians have been killed since the start of the war” or something, that too would be getting the same front page play (though albeit with more skepticism, this claim being more patently false on its face, I’m just saying for purpose of comparison). The press has a lot of problems, mostly with them being lazy and dishonest on general principle. Their lazy dishonesty may make them seem liberal to you now, but in 2000 when they were repeating verbatim the lie that Al Gore claimed credit for creating the internet, in 2002 when they uncritically reported the administrations case for the war in Iraq when several intel officials at the time were wary of it, and in 2004 when the swift boat scumbags for self-aggrandizement were saying Kerry had shot himself three times to get his purple hearts and had got his gold medal by shooting a child lying face down in the mud, can you see how that makes the media look conservative instead?
“I can’t prove to you that FNC is conservative, but youve reached that conclusion ”
Exactly.
Because on one hand, we are talking opinion, on the other proof. I go half way here and say I have my opinions about bias but I recognize them as such – opinions (bias is most often a subjective judgement). On the other hand your assurance that the MSM or Yahoo is not biased, won’t suffice for me – likewise – for I regard it as your opinion. The fact that you don’t regard the Yahoo item as biased confirms to me that we would not, fundamentally, agree re what constitutes bias.
What if Dugger Inc does a study and concludes that democrats are all theives. And then Yahoo has a headline that says nothing more than: Study Shows Democrats are thieves. But of course on the follow-up page, the article would explain that Dugger is a rabid political partisan who’s studies just might be tinged with political bias. That wouldn’t be bias? You could question the ‘unquestioning ‘ headline. You could question even using the ittem as a news item. Well, thats how a feel about a headline that advertises a hugely disproportional death rate for Iraq – a few weeks before the election. Amnd even moreso, becasue Yahoo pretendds it doesn’t show bias so by stating the study results in a headline without any caveat on that page, it looks like ‘fact.’