July 31, 2004
U.S. Shifts Stance on Nuclear Proliferation Treaty
And the arrogant disregard for the wishes of other (inferior) nations by the Bush Administration continues apace. According to the Washington Post,
…the Bush administration declared this week that it will oppose provisions for inspections and verification as part of an international treaty that would ban production of nuclear weapons materials.
How much lower does American prestige have to fall before Bush gets it? We are not alone; the United States as powerful as it is still depends on the goodwill of other nations. And the Bush Administration’s stance on this issue makes little sense even under the dim light of a Yankee Candle. What good is a nuclear proliferation treaty that cannot be verified by inspections?
It has taken ten years to negotiate this treaty, and the Bush Administration would make it all but worthless by refusing to support the inspection and verification process. They—the Bush Administration—site cost as the primary reason they wish to dump the inspection and verification process.
Since it is the U.N. that will be conducting the inspections, shouldn’t that body concern itself about the cost of the inspections? And what exactly would cost so much; the monitoring equipment, the cameras, the SUV’s, the white paint needed to cover the U.N. vehicles, the black pained needed to adorn the U.N. moniker on the doors of the vehicles, the salary of the inspectors, what? And it seems to me that the continued security of the U.S. and its allies (the ones we have left) against the continual and very real threat of nuclear proliferation would be worth any cost. Or perhaps I am being naive…perhaps, perhaps, perhaps…
Yet if an Arab country with a lot of oil didn’t follow a treaty, Bush would use it as a reason for war.
Posted by: entertainment news at July 31, 2004 10:13 PMI guess they want their new nukes. It is a head-scratcher, Ciggy. I guess they don’t want to know about nuclear proliferation until the smoking gun is a Mushroom cloud over one of our cities.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 31, 2004 11:25 PMI’m no psychic, but I think I know exactly why the US has taken this position—it’s because the UN is the one who would administer it. The UN has demonstrated again and again that has no interest in actually implementing and enforcing its findings and resolutions regarding weapons development.
That is, unless the country in question, the one they all hate in unison, is Israel.
If this went through, the UN would continue to ignore North Korea and Iran and insist on their right to go through Israel with a fine-toothed comb. It’s nothing but a way for the UN to pursue their single obsession of attacking and weakening Israel while giving everybody else a free pass.
If the UN were given teeth on the matter of nuclear proliferation, the only one they’d bite would be Israel.
Down with the UN!
Posted by: Martin at August 1, 2004 12:50 AMYes, a good observation: “Yet if an Arab country with a lot of oil didn’t follow a treaty, Bush would use it as a reason for war.”
Does anyone remember that Bush et al were ready to take on North Korea because they backed out of an agreement that was made under duress during the Cointon Administration about the U.S. providing them with aid/assistance if they wouldn’t build nuclear power plants?
It is okay for the Bush Administration to back out, I guess, because they weren’t the ones who signed on to it. Just like they didn’t sign on to the U.S. Constitution, so its provisions don’t apply to them.
But we all must understand that there is an acceptable double standard when you have God on your side.
Posted by: Steve at August 1, 2004 01:37 AMWe knew as early as 1998, when North Korea started testing missles designed to deliver nuclear warheads, that they’d already violated the agreement that they’d used to blackmail the ever-gullible Clinton and Carter with.
And we now know—and the North Koreans have even ADMITTED IT—that their secret nuclear weapons programs were being continued and even intensified throughout the late nineties. So are we just going to pretend that they were violating their agreement because of Bush before Bush even came into office? I guess in the Democrat’s Michael Moore universe, we’re going to pretend just that. It’s Bush’s fault that Clinton was conned.
But what a shame that Bush didn’t send massive amounts of blackmail money to a regime that we knew had already cheated on their end of the bargain. After all, appeasment and pay-offs to those who threaten us is just sound policy according to Democrats.
Posted by: Martin at August 1, 2004 02:06 AMMartin—
How exactly did the North Koreans blackmail Carter and Clinton? And isn’t the U.N. all over Iran and South Africa, trying to get them to come clean on thier nuclear programs?
Posted by: V. Edward Martin at August 1, 2004 07:15 AMThe UN has demonstrated again and again that has no interest in actually implementing and enforcing its findings and resolutions
HELLO! The United States has a VETO on the Security Council. If the UN passes a resolution, it’s because the US wants it passed.
The UN doesn’t have troops of it’s own. It relies on troops loaned by member nations. The United States loans the most troops to, and leads major UN actions. If the UN isn’t enforcing resolutions, it’s because the President of the United States is unwilling or incapable of convincing UN member states to contribute forces.
But what a shame that Bush didn’t send massive amounts of blackmail money to a regime that we knew had already cheated on their end of the bargain.
Bush actually continued to send nuclear fuel to North Korea after they pulled the plug on the IAEA monitoring equipment.
And Martin, if NK nukes are such a huge problem (I think they are), why is Bush letting China(!) take the lead in disarming them?
The Korea phenomenon observed reveals the difference in treatment between those who are IN the Nuclear Club, and those who are not quite there yet.
If you are IN the Nuclear Club, tactics and negotiations are very delicate, very subtle, very oblique, and war is avoided at all costs.
If you are NOT in the Nuclear Club, you get various forms of heavy-handed treatment from either the U.S. (Iraq), the U.N. (South Africa), or both (Somalia), and this is whether you are seeking the nukes or not.
If one were a true pacifist and genuinely despised conventional war in any form at any time, one would really want everyone to be in the Nuclear Club. Then Iraq-style wars anywhere would always be unthinkable and never on the table at any Security Council, anywhere.
Do you think the “Cold War” would have remained “Cold” if neither side had nukes?
What Korea achieved by attaining nuclear weapons is a guarantee that our cold war with them will remain cold.
It is my understanding that the treaty in question is a voluntary treaty, or is that no the case? As in, there are provisions that state that nations can pull out due to various concerns, even once ratified? I should take a look at the text to found out. If that is the case, however, then comparing said treaty to ‘enforcable/compulsory’ treaties is a straw man argument.
I think we should probably all read the thing before we start debating the merrits of this decision.
Posted by: damon dimmick at August 1, 2004 12:39 PMTangent: Our whole nuclear posture is crooked. Here in Utah, the administration’s push for renewed nuclear weapons testing has a few folks upset, as it should everyone. In a recent panel to discuss expanding RECA, a University of Utah researcher noted that allowing claims from anyone exposed to nuclear fallout from past weapons testing would mean eligibility for anyone in the US during that time. She also mentioned more fallout ended up in Iowa than it did in Utah or Nevada.
The administration’s push for renewed testing has been going on for some time, as many of you probably know. They got rid of the National Nuclear Security Administration after they backed out of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty so we can go ahead with the Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review and expand our nuclear arsenal.
There’s also our use of depleted uranium weapons which never seems to get much national media attention.
I think this administration’s tact in handling the entire spectrum of nuclear policy, including the example of this article, has been absurd. I’m still not sure if they’re just inept or aggressively overconfident (or both). Either way, it doesn’t inspire confidence in me.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at August 1, 2004 12:51 PMJoseph, they are too short-sighted to see that nuclear threat buildup by the U.S. will not enhance peace in the long run, and they are frightened by the world they live in. They believe a nation can survive by being the best offensively equipped and striking fear into the hearts of potential enemies. Funny thing about fear though, most people confront their fears as part of maturation.
Thus self-fulfilling prophecy kicks in - BIG TIME! Kerry and Edwards have hit upon a word that should resonate - wisdom! Something totally lacking in the Whitehouse at this time.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 1, 2004 02:05 PMKerry and Edwards talk about “wisdom”? Like seating Michael Moore in a position of honor next to former Presidents type “wisdom”? Or, demanding that all U.S. military action await international approval and micromanagement going forward type “wisdom”?
Like keeping our alliances strong in the event we need their assistance “Wisdom”. It is an elementary concept children learn in the school yard - a strain for some, but, to most, a fairly easy piece of wisdom to grasp.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 1, 2004 03:03 PMWhat “assistance” is likely to be had by a small gaggle of bureaucrats in powder-blue berets? They don’t have the capability to assist us, even if they did have the intention to do so.
Europe’s power is purely economic, and that economic power is enabled largely due to their trade surplus with us. As we walk away from them, it should pull the loose thread which unravels that power. Then they’ll have neither military brawn nor the power of the €. And then what is Russia going to do for them? Offer them spent Uranium rods as payment for Volvos?
David, you think this is a schoolyard, but really the situations are far more grown-up and complex.
Like seating Michael Moore in a position of honor next to former Presidents type “wisdom”?
Eh? What does this impromptu nonevent have to do with anything?
Or, demanding that all U.S. military action await international approval and micromanagement going forward type “wisdom”?
It’s rather obstinate of the right to continually characterize Kerry as some lap dog to the UN. Kerry will invoke unilateral military force when required. The major difference is Kerry won’t burn bridges with important allies while doing so. If unilateral action can be avoided, Kerry will work to build an international consensus and exhaust diplomacy rather than exasperate the international community and exhaust the military.
Micromanagement? You mean the kind of micromanagement that might have remembered the body armor and armor plated vehicles when going to war?
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at August 1, 2004 03:52 PMSo Ciggy,
I take it you disagree with the U.S. participation in NATO—and the U.N. for that matter—and that we should pull out and the world should go back the way it was pre-WWI? And are you further stating that the U.S. has no use for alliances, and that by building up an arsenal of nuclear weapons will ensure of safety going forward? And just when in a conventional setting would you advocate using nuclear weapons? Of should they be preserved only for madman like Saddam and Castro?
Posted by: V. Edward Martin at August 1, 2004 05:14 PMJoseph Briggs said:
“If unilateral action can be avoided, Kerry will work to build an international consensus and exhaust diplomacy rather than exasperate the international community and exhaust the military.”
That was downright poetic Joseph, and I thought it should be repeated. Good show!
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 1, 2004 06:27 PMJoseph,
What does this impromptu nonevent have to do with anything?
Moore’s status in the Democratic party is hardly a “nonevent”. It’s a bold statement of where the Donkey rides. “They are not ‘insurgents’, they are the MINUTEMEN, and they will WIN!” Good luck with that message, the message that the people blowing our guys to bits are the good guys.
Kerry will invoke unilateral military force when required.
Kerry himself apparently didn’t get the memo on this promise you’re making on his behalf. Show me one speech anywhere which even alludes to such an intention.
You mean the kind of micromanagement that might have remembered the body armor and armor plated vehicles when going to war?
That’s kind Kerry voted against. The kind he’ll vote FOR will be for permission from Kofi Anan to be required before a patrol can fire back when shot at.
V. Edward,
I take it you disagree with the U.S. participation in NATO
It’s a cold war relic, formed to defend against a threat which no longer exists.
and the U.N. for that matter
No, stay in the U.N. That’s fine with me. Russia didn’t beg for a Mother May I from the U.N. to invade Chechniya, and we could display a similar show of independance when or if shown necessary for our national security. That is, if we ever get a candidate to have the ever-elusive combination of brains and spine. We would be no more “cowboy” than anyone else who’s honest out there, when acting to defend ourselves.
and that we should pull out and the world should go back the way it was pre-WWI?
Pull conventional troops out where they are not needed (like Germany), most definitely. The world could never be like it was pre-WWI, and neither would we, but that’s no excuse to have troops in places where they bring us no defense value whatsoever.
Negotiate internationally in the interest of trade and information on terrorists, by all means, but the extreme interventionist approach taken during the cold war is a bit old hat, and not really appropriate when the twin threats of Islamic violence and European economic sucker-punching don’t really call for that. You don’t need armored divisions to locate and take out 12 thugs in a given country. You need about 30 Richard Marcinko types, whose presence in a host nation would, if the mission goes right, not even be noticed.
And are you further stating that the U.S. has no use for alliances
I’m stating that the word “alliance” is by far overused these days, and that governments that intentionally heat up rhetoric against us, and foment gigantic street protests among their own people, and perpetually vote against us in the U.N., can hardly be considered “allies”.
The first step in fixing a problem is to recognize that the problem exists. I seem to be the only one willing to do that. Once we’ve stepped beyond that, the question becomes one of what, in our national strategy, will be the cost of doing what is necessary to regain the alliances which essentially evaporated along with the Soviet threat. And compared to the benefit of pursuing it, would it be worthwhile? A case MAY be made, but I’ve yet to see it.
It’s likely the cost will be further trade concessions and wrapping our military in a web netting of European bureaucracy. And the benefit will be what? The occasional platoon of blue-hatters to watch our people die? That’s dollar cost for penny value, if you ask me.
and that by building up an arsenal of nuclear weapons will ensure of safety going forward?
We already have an arsenal of nuclear weapons. Anything beyond what is required to blow up the world ONE time is wasted, in fact, so convert the excess to be used in the generation of nuclear power. One idea from Kerry I would shamelessly steal: that of converting to hydrogen fuel for our transportation infrastructure (which would be generated by nuclear power).
And just when in a conventional setting would you advocate using nuclear weapons?
Never in a conventional setting. Only as a response to a first nuclear strike against us. It’s unlikely anyone currently in power other than Kim Jong Il would be zany enough to try that though, and even then, one would hope his missiles could only take out California, Alaska, and Hawaii. Not really a fair trade for turning South Korea into an island, but oh well.
Al Qaeda might get a hold of WMD for an attack, but then Hans Blix is all over that issue, to protect us, right?
Posted by: Ciggy the Green Hawk at August 1, 2004 06:31 PMInteresting exchanges here.
Frankly, I’m not sure what the best course of action here is. The U.N. was never meant to be or ever will be a World Policing organization. I don’t get why anyone thinks it should be or is. It’s concept was to open diplomacy and by that means help resolve conflict. I think it functions in that regard.
I don’t know why the U.S. has changed policy here. I don’t think the U.S. has ever relied on the IAEA for intelligence. It seems a useful tool in negotiating, but it isn’t a deterence to nuclear spread. The genie has long been out of the bottle, and I don’t think it is possible to stop it’s wider spread. You can interfere with it, and interupt it when detected, but I think it’s inevitable that someday nukes will be used to gain power by someone other than the U.S. It may be a miscalculation resulting in massive annihilation of many innocents, but it will happen. It won’t be the end of the world. Japan has recovered.
If we go 100 years without their use again, it would be surprising to me.
Posted by: Greg at August 1, 2004 07:01 PMKerry will invoke unilateral military force when required.Kerry himself apparently didn’t get the memo on this promise you’re making on his behalf. Show me one speech anywhere which even alludes to such an intention.
In Kerry’s nomination acceptance speech Thursday:
Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security.Posted by: Joseph Briggs at August 1, 2004 08:23 PM
You mean the kind of micromanagement that might have remembered the body armor and armor plated vehicles when going to war?That’s kind Kerry voted against.
FactCheck.org’s take on this distortion of the issue by the Bush camp.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at August 1, 2004 08:36 PMWhat does this impromptu nonevent have to do with anything?Moore’s status in the Democratic party is hardly a “nonevent”. It’s a bold statement of where the Donkey rides. “They are not ‘insurgents’, they are the MINUTEMEN, and they will WIN!” Good luck with that message, the message that the people blowing our guys to bits are the good guys.
So what is his status?
I admit, having Moore seated next to Carter was an undignified moment and I agree that Moore is an unrepentant moron, but what does this have to do with Kerry and his wisdom you called into question? The event says everything I would expect it to say about Michael Moore, that he is a vainglorious prick who is willing to defame Carter by his proximity for his own publicity and juvenile amusement. It implicates nothing of the Democrats except that they weren’t smart enough to put MM in the cage Free Speech Zone&trade outside.
Kerry’s speech, via Joseph:
Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security.
Then Kerry has contradicted himself. What a flip-flopper. Will he vote for the U.N. before he votes against it, or what? And if this is truly his intention, how is his criticism of the current administration substantial in any way other than that there was faulty intelligence? Does he promise a perfect CIA in the first 8 months of his tenure?
re: M. Moore
So what is his status?
Seated next to Jimmy Carter, and hugged by Tom Daschle. That’s not exactly a pariah.
I admit, having Moore seated next to Carter was an undignified moment and I agree that Moore is an unrepentant moron
The official leadership of your party disagrees, and has elevated Moore’s status on your behalf. To the DNC, Moore SPEAKS FOR YOU.
what does this have to do with Kerry and his wisdom you called into question?
If he can’t keep morons off the podium, how will he keep them out of the cabinet? Or the SCOTUS?
The event says everything I would expect it to say about Michael Moore, that he is a vainglorious prick who is willing to defame Carter by his proximity for his own publicity and juvenile amusement. It implicates nothing of the Democrats except that they weren’t smart enough to put MM in the cage Free Speech Zone&trade outside.
What did Moore do, put a GUN to Kerry’s head? No, the DNC considers Moore a popular and populist voice, and they think he’s a vote-getter. Well it loses my vote. A swing vote in a battleground state, BUH bye.
The Democratic Party is a diverse group of people with varying beliefs and priorities. Nonetheless, I can assure you there is no official statement anywhere saying that Moore in any way speaks for the Democratic Party. Moore doesn’t speak for me either. My assessment of him was exaggerated to emphasize this very point.
Are you saying that Dems can’t associate themselves with Moore? Because I have no problem with them doing that, publicity mongering though it may be. Moore is entitled to being an idiot. Politicians who associate themselves with him can suffer what they may but I think you presume too much to say Moore speaks for Democrats in any way other than circumstantial association. And this insistence of some connection to Kerry is unfounded as far as I know.
No, the DNC considers Moore a popular and populist voice, and they think he’s a vote-getter. Well it loses my vote. A swing vote in a battleground state, BUH bye.
I’m very sorry about this. This is exactly why I ranted so about Moore. I despise the publicity he gets because of this assumption that his opinions are the opinions of all Democrats. It is counter-productive because he is such an idealogue. I wish Dems wouldn’t associate themselves with him but I don’t think it justifiable to use that against them if they do. I was only joking about putting Moore in the FSZ - I actually don’t feel he should be ostracized though I might wish for it. Moore has a right to his opinion. As long as it doesn’t influence or guide actual policy then he is a harmless court jester.
I think saying Michael Moore represents Kerry is like saying Ann Coulter represents Bush.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at August 1, 2004 10:27 PMJoseph,
The Democratic Party is a diverse group of people with varying beliefs and priorities.
Sounds like a party’s handy excuse to never mean what it says, and walk 180 degrees away from their talk.
Are you saying that Dems can’t associate themselves with Moore?
They can and they do. Readily. He’s become even more of a defining member of the party than George Soros.
And this insistence of some connection to Kerry is unfounded as far as I know.
I will ask you again: did Moore put a gun to Kerry’s head to get put on the podium? It’s a simple yes or no question. Take your time to think about your answer.
I wish Dems wouldn’t associate themselves with him but I don’t think it justifiable to use that against them if they do.
So you want the party to have its cake and eat it too. I figured that much. The party of “we voted for it before we voted against it”.
Yeah Ciggy, it really sucks to be inclusive and tolerant, huh? Maybe that’s why Democrats get like 50% of the popular vote and Green Hawks like you can’t get on the ballot, right? This nonstop vitriol of yours must win your “party,” what, two signatures per million? Your “debate” of the issues is the equivalent of a spit in the face. Good luck with that attitude.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at August 2, 2004 07:11 AMIt is my understanding that the treaty in question is a voluntary treaty,
Yes it is, damon. Sandy Berger talks about it in an essay about Democratic foreign policy.
The existing Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) established an important norm. Since 1975, South Korea, Argentina, Brazil, Taiwan, South Africa, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Ukraine, and now Libya have reversed course and given up their nuclear weapons programs under its auspices. But the NPT remains flawed, because it permits countries to develop all the building blocks of a nuclear weapons program and then to withdraw from the treaty without penalty once they are ready to enrich uranium or produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.
Berger says the treaty needs to be strengthened. It’s an interesting essay. Since Berger was one of Kerry’s foreign policy advisors, you can bet that Kerry’s foreign policy will look pretty similar.
Joseph,
Yeah Ciggy, it really sucks to be inclusive and tolerant, huh?
To the point of internal inconsistency, hypocrisy, and campaign trail lies, then yes, that does suck. It serves the American people very poorly.
At what point does pandering for votes have to give way to staying on message? If you’re in the DNC stratosphere: never.
Maybe that’s why Democrats get like 50% of the popular vote and Green Hawks like you can’t get on the ballot, right?
The Bandwagon fallacy works well in asserting political power, but it falls short in arguing the essential rightness of an idea (if a consistent idea is to be had within a party such as the binary mainstreams which behave as one single party when you scratch the “tastes great, less filling” vapid surface).
Your “debate” of the issues is the equivalent of a spit in the face. Good luck with that attitude.
Logic stings. I understand that and am okay with it. It may be more expedient for me to ply you with offers of government handouts, social programs, and pork targeted to your community to one-up the other parties’ promises, but I think Roman style patronage is already too endemic in society today. Or perhaps I should stroke your ego with speeches about “great Americans”, and pump up the fluff level to the red zone. But I just don’t have that in me. This may doom me to being a Party of One, and I’m okay with that.
Perhaps the critics of Democracy itself will be proven right in the next few years, with your aid.
One quip by a Tory during the American Revolution comes to mind: “I would rather be governed by one tyrant three thousand miles away, than three thousand tyrants one mile away!”
You have yet to point out any internal DNC inconsistency, hypocrisy, or campaign trail lies. Instead of “stinging logic,” you’ve bandied about condescending invective and juvenile quips. You bit on the bandwagon comment but can’t discern what was meant by it. You virtually admit as much later in your comment.
And you misrepresented yourself as a swing voter. You are an extremist who wants a candidate who will swing to you.
I wish you all the happiness in your political world of one, Ciggy. Keep thinking you are the only one who sees the truth, write your manifesto and build your letter bombs. I look forward to your 15 minutes.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at August 2, 2004 01:06 PMJoseph, how about the flip-flops on Michael Moore’s status within the party? Where is he? At the top? At the bottom? Inside? Outside? He’s a moving target, precisely because where he “is” always has to depend on the audience. If it’s to the hardcore left who won’t be satisfied until we’re all praying to Mecca, Moore is on the “inside”. If it’s to ordinary mainstream America, Moore has to be kept “outside”. He is the Schroedinger’s Cat of the Democrat Party.
Does he time-travel?
Joseph:
You claim that Moore does not “speak for” the Democratic party.
I can assure you there is no official statement anywhere saying that Moore in any way speaks for the Democratic Party.
Of course there is no “official statement”, but not just anyone gets a front row seat. By including him in the way they did, you of course understand that they tacitly show agreement, or at least acceptance, of Moore. For instance, were the Republicans to include someone like David Duke in a front row box, sitting with past leaders of the Republican party, you’d kind of expect some kind of backlash over that representation, wouldnt you.
Conventions are mostly about image. They are pre-packaged photo and speaking opportunities. And the image the Dems presented is one of accord with Mike Moore. That they choose to associate with someone of his ilk is telling. Perhaps they are doing it just to benefit from his popularity with the left—-if so, this is simple venal politicking which they say they dont do. Or have they already flip-flopped on that stance as well?
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 2, 2004 02:40 PMjoebagodonuts, I have no details on what exactly happened that night, just gossip, which is why I characterized it as a nonevent. I heard that one of Carter’s aids saw Moore and waved him over to the stairs leading up to where Carter was seated. After fawning over the chubby nitwit, he invited Moore to sit with Carter. For a few minutes only. This is the most forgiving story as it applied to Carter. I can’t find anything online that corroborates this but since the rest of what I could find is of equal veracity, I’ll let it slide.
For your sake, I also checked out some articles to the right. A National Review Online opinion and this, which is the most damning hearsay, but only to Carter and only if I can find some corroboration - the guy who wrote the article sounds pretty fundie (it’s on World Net Daily).
Here is what they say about it on MichaelMoore.com. The only reason I bring this link up is because it says that Moore wasn’t even invited to the convention. He has some investment in saying this since he (for some reason) wants to appear non-partisan (as if anyone would buy this), so the site might be lying.
There’s some other articles, like another whopper from Ann Coulter, but I couldn’t find anything that added any facts. So that’s what we’re left with: gossip. If you’ve got anything on this I’d be happy to read it.
I understand completely why everyone on the right loves bringing up Moore to bash on Dems: it’s too easy. And I won’t deny that he has liberal populist appeal. I can’t help that, neither can the Democratic party. And yes, any unthinking Dem that associates themselves with Moore for the sake of publicity probably should get a love tap upside the head along with some political therapy - including DNC leadership. As far as image, I tend to agree, which is why I characterized it as undignified. But in the end, the Dems do allow for freaks like Moore. No matter how many times Ciggy wants to talk about summer footwear, tolerating Moore is completely understandable and in no way shapes the Democratic platform. Any way I look at it, I see no substantive indictment of the Democratic Party. It is an unfortunate nonevent that bears no relevance to either this thread or the issues facing us in the election.
David Duke is not an appropriate comparison to Moore. Duke held office. I think the Ann Coulter comparison works best.
Oh, by the way, do you know who is giving the opening prayer at the Republic National Convention? You won’t hear one bad word out of me about Republicans or their platform for this choice.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at August 2, 2004 06:57 PM“After fawning over the chubby nitwit,” should be “After the aid was done fawning over the chubby nitwit,” not Carter.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at August 2, 2004 07:00 PMany unthinking Dem that associates themselves with Moore
…like Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter…
tolerating Moore is completely understandable and in no way shapes the Democratic platform
It summarizes the Democrat platform and outlines the one virtue of Kerry the Democrats feel most comfortable with touting to the world: he’s not Bush. The Daily Show put it in a far more witty way, but there you are. Moore says “anybody but Bush”, and Kerry is not Bush, therefore, Moore by implication says “Kerry”. And the crowd of witless jerks led into silly sand traps of non-thinking by a joke of an educational system (THANK YOU SO MUCH, NEA) are more than happy to let Moore speak for THEM. So yes, Moore IS a vote-getter. The “chubby nitwit” just happens to get votes from out of the vapid bottom-chum of society, and as such is the secret weapon the Democrats really wish would remain secret.
“Uh, duh, the President looks funny gettin’ his hair combed… uh duh, that means he’s Hitler.”
You have met the ignorant and misled ones mentioned by Orwell at the end of FrightenHype 9/11, and they are not in the FSZ, they’re seated next to your former Presidents, next to the shining examples of your greatest achievers. Don’t think a shower will rub off the stink, either. It won’t.
Republicans are praying at their Convention? Silly bastards. It’ll be their turn for my wrath, next.
The “chubby nitwit” just happens to get votes from out of the vapid bottom-chum of society
I thought liberals were intellectual elitists?
The ideas come from the top of the ivory towers, but the power comes from the promise of social pork to the rabble at the bottom in exchange for their votes. Old Roman patronage, back in style.
The methodology is: rob from the middle class, give 12% of it to the poor, and pocket the difference. The left and right sides of the binary parties both do it, only the left’s pork is more domestic social (“butter”) and the right’s pork is more military/industrial (“guns”). Either way, the bureaucrats get the power, and the country inches that much closer to resembling Bolivia.
When the so-called “left” comes at you saying they’re going to “raise taxes on the rich” beware. Number one, they never mention the SHELTERS, which obviate the nominal tax rate applied to the wealthy. 99% of 0% is still 0%, so the wealthy who are in the know will happily support the 99% nominal rates. Soros himself won’t pay a dime more with 1000% more taxes in the nominal rates. But if you talk about removing SHELTERS, that’s when the so-called “left” really run scared, because then the rich elites who have been able to get by on just lip-service to social justice, will have to actually fork out for their professed ideals with their own money. And they will likely abandon it. Creeps like Theresa “shove it” Heinz isn’t about to live in a shack and rebuild the ghetto with her personal fortune. No way.
You guys only THINK that’s the “left”. They’re relieving themselves down your back and telling you it’s raining.
Intellectual elites? Yeah. They’re the monetary ones, too, attending the same cocktail parties as those Bush addressed as his “base” in FrightenHype 9/11.
Good luck with all of that.
Good luck with all of that.
Thanks! :)
Bottom line is, we have a war time President whose success depends upon war. What better way to insure a perpetual war stance by America than to sanction nuclear proliferation by taking the position that the U.S. has the right to further develop new nuclear weapons and hold on to and build up its stockpiles? In so doing, it challenges other nations in the world to keep pace with our nuclear development. This is what Bush calls leadership. He leads the world toward another brink of nuclear holocaust by leading the world in nuclear weapon development and armament.
And we sheepishly follow his lead out of fear. The very fear this President has done everything in his power to instill in us. Bush is the most dangerous President of my lifetime. He is leading our people towards destruction all in the name of safety and security. George Orwell predicted a renewal of such leadership in “1984”.
Posted by: David R Remer at August 7, 2004 05:50 PMI need to qualify my “hawk” status.
In Special Operations and Intelligence operations, I’d call myself an “extreme hawk”. If things can be done that way, do them and do them yesterday. Keep a lid on it and it won’t blow up politically with snooty Eurotrash player-haters.
In Conventional operations, I am a “moderate hawk”, meaning that I wouldn’t shrink from going into a conventional war if necessary, either by way of defending U.S. citizens, a truly VITAL U.S. interest, or in defense of a (REAL) ally. If it’s done, it should be with great deliberation in the Congress culminating in a declaration of war, and a call-up of Reserve forces, which would be the bulk of the conventional Army (and with active duty playing mostly the role of “train the trainer” in peacetime—acting as a live laboratory of the best of the best of the latest tactics and overall military knowledge, for training or retraining the Reserves).
For NUCLEAR conflicts, I consider myself a nuclear DOVE. I would work vigorously to get a multilateral treaty going whereby each nation agrees to destroy parts of their arsenal at simultaneous agreed-upon times, until eventually each nation is void of any weapons-grade nuclear material. To that end I’d put whatever teeth into U.N. resolutions necessary to do that, and if it takes a U.S. lead in paring down its arsenal first (going from being able to destroy the world ten times over, to merely nine times over, just to “prime the pump” of nuclear disarmament), then so be it.
And if some nation appears to be sharpening its nuclear teeth illegally, well, see my comments above about Special Operations!
