« Intelligent Design | Main | Did Invading Iraq Make Us Less Safe, Part 26 »

February 25, 2005

Comments

SKB has a nice response to that Rapper/Blogger piece.

The US ambassador to Canada reacting to Canada's decision not to participate in the US missile-defense shield: "We simply cannot understand why Canada would in effect give up its sovereignty" [...]

"Incidentally, aside from the preparation/aftermath of the war in Iraq (which I've discussed ad infinitum), I'm of the mind that Bush's foreign policy has been relatively sound -- and, certainly, no worse than Clinton's."

Even without making the "And beside that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln" jokes, I think this is too charitable.

In my view, for major items on the negative side of the ledger we have the failure to pursue Al Qu'eda (largely for fears of offending Pakistan) while insufficiently reacting to the AQ Khan proliferation group (again, for fear of offending Pakistan -- if Pakistan wanted to protect Khan, its price should have been full cooperation in the hunt for Bin Laden, et al.), the similar-to-Iraq failure to follow through on post-war Afghanistan, the single-minded pursuit of deploying a missile defense system for the headlines without a successful test in anything approaching real-world conditions, the near trade war over the nakedly political steel tariffs, the failure to move the Doha round of trade talks forward by refusing to make a deal on farm subsidies, the precarious international economic position we find ourselves in with our closest competitor also being our primary financier, and the support we gave an attempted coup in Venezuela (and I'm not even including North Korea, which is clearly not a positive, but I am not sure what would have been a better course). What do you see as balancing these on the positive side?

I will agree that the response on Hariri was proper, though.

How about the debacle of Kyoto and the ICC? I'm not a big fan of either, but they were good starting points for discussion and if we had been willing to discuss them rather than dismissing them out of hand we might have got something reasonable. And our support for Uzbekistan and Azerbejan and letting Mushareff off the hook on AQ Khan hardly lends credence to Bush's rhetoric about spreading democracy.

I will hold you personally responsible if I start reading blog posts from Dr Drez.

""Bloggers are the new Rappers" meme-du-jour:"

Does that mean I'm in the ObsWi posse? Awwwww yeeah. That's just how we roll.


On Bush's foreign policy. . I agree that the rest of it has not been as bad as the runup to the predetermined Iraq war, for what that's worth. There's principle and execution. I find Bush's foreign policy principles (societal liberty and democracy, aid to the needy) sound. His execution is improving. He might even be good at it by the time he leaves office.

Add to my list of negatives the acquiescence in Russia's steps away from democracy (maybe Bush needs a new prescription for his special soul-reading glasses) and the failure to devote necessary resources to safeguarding nuclear materials.

Fantastic complete misinterpretation of Kos, Von!

He:
1)Runs a hugely successful blog
2) has a full time job
3) is raising a 1 year old son
4) said he only gets to read when he's on the road.

You wouldn't be just a tad (a huge friggin' tad) biased now, would you? Or is it just jealous of his accomplishments?

wilfred, ease up on the vonsterizing.

Wilfred has declared before that he'll defend Kos, rilkefan. Anyone taking Kos to task should expect it. I've received similar responses for critiquing Reynolds. Some blogs are considered more sacred than others. You criticize knowing that their fans will object.

I don't think Von is jealous of Kos, mind you (we're not trying to do the same thing at all here), but I understand why folks are loyal to Kos. His community is one of the only lights in the darkness for many liberals.

That EnvironGuy post is as easily turned right on its own head: The same kind of people who believe in Creationism believe in the Bush Doctrine for the same reason; despite the absence of any evidence for its truth, and in the face of massive evidence against, it becomes an article of faith without which the believer's identity is incomplete.

"Complete misinterpretation" of Kos? Friend, he's a partisan. I'll accept that others think he's doing God's work (just as some must think that Hindrocket is the shiz-nit), but don't ask me to hold off. I'm on the other side according to him.

von

Well we know who the Gangsta Rappers are. Funny I thought concervatives didn't aprove of that sort of behavior.

Edward: "Wilfred has declared before that he'll defend Kos, rilkefan. Anyone taking Kos to task should expect it."

I think Kos deserves defense - just not ad hom defense...

von: "I'm on the other side according to him."

Are you? Thought you were with Dan Drezner in limbo back in November.

I agree wilfred could have brought it down a notch, rilkefan, but von's suggested more than once his skin is tougher than that of most.

Thanks Edward. I have indeed said before that I won't listen to Markos bashing. If you don't like DKos fine, but no personal attacks on the man, and I don't care who says it here, i will respond as i treat everyone here equally, main page diarist or visitor.

Funny how Kos and DKos bashing happens frequently but these same people pitch a hissy if someone says same about a couple of right-wing blogs (who are beyond partisan).

If this blog is to be the meeting of left, right and center, i don't appreciate seeing him attacked personally (and misquoted to boot). If this site is no more than a brother blog to right-wing sites where you toy with the liberals, then have the cajones to say so.

Funny how Kos and DKos bashing happens frequently but these same people pitch a hissy if someone says same about a couple of right-wing blogs (who are beyond partisan).

That would not, however, be von.

I think this blog does a really wonderful job of being a civil meeting place, a community of people who discuss without the hating. Just because a post contains a criticism of Kos (who, by the way, I read regulary) doesn't make this a rightwing blog. The intent is to be right and left.

l

lily, it's okay to criticize when you're accurate and have a valid point. In this case it was misquoted and misquoting and belittling someone inaccurately is still far from ok in my book.

von: I have to echo dantheman now that I've recovered from thinking about hatred. I think Bush's foreign policy has been horrible, even leaving aside the war (to the extent that one can. I mean, its effects on other issues, from our inability to credibly threaten military anything to the effects of paying for it on our financial situation, are huge.) North Korea. Damage to relations with Europe, which affects, among other things, cooperation in the WoT. Everything he said about Pakistan and al Qaeda. The squandering of the opportunity to do right and do well simultaneously that was the invasion of Afghanistan. Failure, until a few days ago, to do anything on Russian loose nukes. One could go on and on.

Wilfred, the same post contained much more specific criticisms of Joe Carter and Hindrocket. My word, I've probably attacked Kos (including this post) three or fewer times. I've attacked Powerline at least thrice, Malkin thrice, and LGF more than four times. And I'm a goddamm card-carrying member of the ACLU, although I can do without their pro-abortion advocacy (and occasional left-wing politically-correct silliness).* My most significant pro bono work has been for the Lambda Legal Defense Fund.

Are you? Thought you were with Dan Drezner in limbo back in November.

I'm far closer to the Republican party on most small-government issues, and I am in the beginnings of noodling about the possibility of running in the next state Rep. election. Our Rep. is a Dem. party hack, but our last Republican nominee -- who lost my vote by sending a below-the-radar gay baiting mailing the day before the election -- was worse. And a moderate of my temperment is a better fit for the Republican party, since I'd mainly propose adjustments to Republican platform items rather than repeatedly cross the aisle away from Democratic ones.

(By the way, I thought Wilfred's criticism of me no more ad hom than my criticism of Kos, which provoked him. There's gonna a few words anytime left meets right [or center].)

von

*Well, I will be again when I send in this year's check.

hilzoy--what'd he do about Russian loose nukes a few days ago? Are they finally dealing with it?

von--what on earth makes you think the Republican party is the party of small government?

Maybe I should think of you as an old school Republican and a hopeless optimist at heart. Not even an Eisenhower or Rockefeller Republican, as your economic desires seem far to the right there--somewhere between there and a Goldwater Republican, and certainly not a DeLay Republican, but a Republican nontheless. A Hagel/Lugar Republican maybe? When I think of you as a "moderate", I think, "today's Republican party should have sent any true moderate running for the hills long ago".

and I am in the beginnings of noodling about the possibility of running in the next state Rep. election.

Way cool!!!

Let me know if you need a low-key, won't rattle the mid-Westerners with elitist ideology, speech writer...just kidding.

keep us posted.

I'm not a big fan of either, but they were good starting points for discussion and if we had been willing to discuss them rather than dismissing them out of hand we might have got something reasonable.

Except that's not what was done. What was done was our president signed a treaty without squaring it with Congress first. He might have been successful, though, in sparking debate where before there wasn't much.

Katherine: Bush and Putin announced an agreement to speed up the process of securing Russia's nuclear sites a few days ago. See e.g. here:

"A senior administration official who took part in the nuclear talks said that the goal of the accord was to "accelerate the process" of securing Russian stockpiles. Under the agreement, the official said, most of the excess weapons fuel in Russia would be secured or converted to commercial fuel by about 2008, four years earlier than expected at the current pace of work under a plan that has been in place since after the cold war.

The slowness of the multibillion-dollar program became a heated topic in the presidential campaign, when Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, accused Mr. Bush of moving far too slowly in addressing what may be the biggest single proliferation risk in the world. Administration officials rushed to reach an agreement that would jump-start the efforts, and to show that Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin could cooperate, even as they disagreed on democratization issues.

"It was an important statement," said Matthew Bunn, a Harvard nuclear specialist who worked with Mr. Kerry's campaign last year, "because they put both presidents' names on a document that said this has to be taken seriously. And that is important because Russian security officials have been acting as if protecting a few more secrets from the U.S. is more important than protecting nuclear materials from falling into the hands of Osama bin Laden." "

Von -- what Katherine said about small government.

von--what on earth makes you think the Republican party is the party of small government?

Call it the triumpth of hope over reason.

excellent.

you know, we may have Condi to thank for that. And good for Senator Obama for raising it at the confirmation hearings.

and von, I forgot to say, as to the state rep thing: cool. Howard Dean would be proud. (I doubt he has much in common with you ideologically--I just mean, his 527 focused very heavily on convincing people to take a shot at running for office.) Let us know if there's a way to help.

Call it the triumpth of hope over reason.

More like hope over experience ;^). However, I am glad that von is on the path to being ObWi's Gramsci.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad