February 11, 2008

"Half the Democrats are going to vote for McCain, and I'm going to be one of them."

Says Mickey Kaus. [WARNING: video.]

For a more subtle analysis of how McCain will succeed within the Electoral College structure, read this.

AND: Don't miss the fact that Mickey's statement is a year old. I'm noticing it because he linked to it today. I knew it was old because he just recorded a Bloggingheads with Bob Wright and he was not wearing that shirt. The funny thing is how much it sounds like something he could say today.

95 comments:

George said...

And the other half, I think, believe this about Obama...

"Obama is a uniter who will exit Iraq and talk with our enemies instead of attempting to bomb them into an attitude change....Obama is smart enough to understand you cannot bomb enemies into an attitude change and it is a waste of money to even try."

That's from a Ron Paul supporter named Mish Shedlock who runs a ultra-bearish finance website.

What a fantasy...

Doyle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Doyle said...

No one crosses the line between contrarian and outright stupid more frequently than the Mickster.

garage mahal said...

Mickey Kaus is a Democrat in the same sense as Flipper was a "linguist".

Doyle said...

I was gonna make that point, GM, but obviously Althouse readers LOVE fake Democrats. Why else would they read Ann?

Paddy O. said...

Althouse readers LOVE fake Democrats.

Well, yes. Because the real Democrats can't have an opinion until party bosses tell them who they are going to vote for.

Doyle said...

All Ann's opinions are those of Republicans.

Middle Class Guy said...

I think all these people are blowing smoke. Dems claiming to vote for Repubs, Repubs stating they are voting for Dems or staying home.

It is all talk to get discussion going and people to read or listen to what they will say next.

Once everything sorts itself out it will be Kumbayah time. The Repubs and Dems will back their candidates and we will have forgotten their angry missives.

Doyle said...

No one really believes that Dems are going to vote en masse for John McCain. Use your head.

Freder Frederson said...

All Ann's opinions are those of Republicans.

Doyle, you dolt! don't you get it yet? Ann and Micky are the only true democrats left.

Oh yeah, and Lieberman too.

The Drill SGT said...

My wife, a 53 y/o Dem who has never voted for a Republican is considering voting for McCain. Why?

I'm not sure yet, but I am trying to gently encourage it :).

1. a professional woman (Federal lawyer), who though she didn't want Bill impeached was disappointed with Hillary's support for a serial philanderer. Call that a traditional feminist rationale.

2. she's old and cynical enough to think that all of Obama's pitch about hope is a pandering fantasy. She isn't in to fantasy.

3. she's a Army Guard Colonel (Lawyer) on weekends and thinks that the war was a mistake and would like us to come home, but recognizes that unilateral withdrawal is losing and will result in a worse outcome. Maybe she learned something at C&GSC.

It will be interesting to see her decision process as the campaign proceeds.

former law student said...

Ann should warn that she's linking to a video. I'd rather read than watch a would-be pundit pontificate.

drill sgt: Hope wins Presidential elections for the Democrats: Clinton ran on hope (Dope from "A Town Called Hope"); Carter ran on hope ("Why Not the Best?); JFK ran on hope and change ("The New Frontier"); FDR ran on hope ("The New Deal").

former law student said...

Mish Shedlock

Reminds me of Etaoin Shrdlu.

MadisonMan said...

I could also see myself voting for McCain, especially if Hillary! is running against him. I tire of the Clinton/Bush gang. McCain will have to work for my vote, however -- if he ties himself too tightly to Bush in an attempt to appease the disgruntled conservatives, I'll hold my nose and vote Clinton. (And wouldn't you think he'd want MY vote vs. millions of Conservatives! (grin) ) It would be my second vote for an R president, the first being the vote against Mondale/Ferraro (esp. Ferraro).

If Obama is the candidate, it'll be harder to peel my vote from the D column.

I should add that future events and Vice Presidential picks could change my thinking on this. In fact, they could (WILL!) change everyone's thinking so I'm not going to be spending too much time thinking about this. This is advice I'd give to just about any pundit.

Roger said...

i tend to ignore any statement following this clause: " I am a lifelong democrat/progressive/conservative/rrepublican, but this time I am voting for ...............
Media BS

UN Observer said...

Mickey's pathetic argument is disproven, of course, by all the recent Democatic contests.

The large point that Mickey is overlooking -- one proven in the recent Republican contests -- is that half the Republicans hate the idea of voting for McCain.

Balfegor said...

"Half the Democrats are going to vote for McCain, and I'm going to be one of them."

That's pretty surprising. I thought, based on earlier remarks he'd made in his blog, that he was almost certain to vote for Clinton II (because she's least likely to engage in a messianic push for immigration violation amnesty, as Bush II and McCain did, and Presidents McCain and Obama would). I can't see the video -- is this after deciding Clinton II is likely to lose the nomination to Obama?

Doyle said...

if he ties himself too tightly to Bush in an attempt to appease the disgruntled conservatives

IF??? What's it gonna take?

Balfegor said...

I could also see myself voting for McCain, especially if Hillary! is running against him.

I'm sort of on the opposite side -- everything I ever found creepy about McCain (his media cult, etc.) has pretty much fallen by the wayside at this point, since I see now, in Obama's apotheosis, just how bad it can get. I'd still probably vote for Clinton II over McCain, although I am less and less certain of that, but between McCain and Obama, there's no contest -- McCain with gusto. And that's a sentiment that has only increased as Obama's campaign has veered creepier and creepier.

Henry said...

ADDED: Now, what can I say today that everyone will disagree with?

Ann at 7:19 AM.

That didn't take long! Quoting Mickey Kaus is like pulling Doyle's bell rope. Hark, I hear the clapper.

Verso said...

For the record, that episode of BHTV is a year old -- from February 2007.

Fen said...

Freder: Doyle, you dolt! don't you get it yet? Ann and Micky are the only true democrats left.

Easy Tiger. Ann's not the one with a litmus test to identify heretics, you guys are.

Madisonman: McCain will have to work for my vote, however -- if he ties himself too tightly to Bush in an attempt to appease the disgruntled conservatives -

Don't worry about what McCain promises the GOP base. He'll betray us the moment he steps into office.

And yes, given the choices, I have no choice but to vote for him, despite how much I despise him.

Doyle said...

I resent the implication of "litmus test" Fen. Ann doesn't just depart from party orthodoxy on one issue (like, say, accusing Democrats of treason). She's a full-service wingnut. She's even taken a shine to supply side economics.

SteveR said...

The smart money is on "none of the above".

rhhardin said...

Isn't it about time for the Pope's annual Valentine's Day message?

It would fit in with Obama's campaign.

Hope, change, and chocolates.

Fen said...

Ann doesn't just depart from party orthodoxy on one issue (like, say, accusing Democrats of treason).

Sure, thats why she keeps voting Democrat.

I just figured out why the Democratic party needs to have super delegates. And why the GOP doesn't.

Palladian said...

Wow. Doyle seems... frightened.

Doug said...

Fen's right, Democrats are the least tolerant of dissent. When someone departs from the party orthodoxy, we shoot them in the face. Why, we hate that even more than whites dating black women!

Fen said...

When someone departs from the party orthodoxy, we shoot them in the face.

Metaphorically, yes you do. This blog is infested with Democrat trolls who seek to disrupt & derail because they are intolerant of a Democrat who criticizes her own party.

Zeb Quinn said...

Why is Kaus right? Why will there be a thundering herd of Dems voting for McCain? Why is the Obama candidacy ultimately only so much toast?

Allow me to put this into the vernacular of Rosie O'Donnell: Three words. "The Wilder Effect." Google it.

Hint: It's what Dems do when once they finally get themselves in the insular privacy of the voting booth when there's a black guy on the ballot.

Doug said...

Ahh, that was lovely, Fen. Instead of doing what any reasonable person would do, i.e. shutting up when your stupidity has been laid bare for all the world to see, you just keep on being stupid.

You still haven't come up with those murder statistics regarding white guys who have dared to date African-American women, by the way. What's the holdup? Is our nation's law-enforcement community stonewalling you because they don't want people to know the truth?

MadisonMan said...

Don't worry about what McCain promises the GOP base. He'll betray us the moment he steps into office.

I'm not sure I should be voting for a panderer. Isn't that why Romney got the heave-ho?

If McCain does promise the moon to Conservatives and comes back and shoves in the shiv, well you're voting with your eyes wide open, seems to me.

Doyle said...

Intolerant of dissent? Which party spent 2002-2007 characterizing the opposing party as rooting for the terrorists (because they didn't think invading Iraq was a good idea)? Who wanted NYT reporters to be jailed for exposing illegal government surveillance?

If I recall noted free speech activist Ann Althouse didn't have much to say about that.

PatCA said...

I feel like Mickey does. But I no longer consider myself a Democrat. I'm curious why people stay in the party when they believe, IMO rightly so, that the party doesn't stand for anything they support any more?

I changed my registration to independent and wrote and told them why. Obviously, it meant nothing to them. Is staying in then better?

Doyle said...

PatCA -

I think the most likely answer is because it's rhetorically advantageous to claim to be a member of the group you spend all your time criticizing.

If a Democrat is saying [bad thing X] about Democrats, it must be true!

Balfegor said...

I'm not sure I should be voting for a panderer. Isn't that why Romney got the heave-ho?

Well, you're stuck with three Grade A panderers now. But two of the three are incompetent at pandering -- Clinton II because she's so obviously insincere about it, and McCain because even when he tries to pander, he can't help but express his disdain for the groups he's pandering to (e.g. on immigration). If you're stuck with a panderer, shouldn't you want one you can see through? There's a kind of perverse honesty there.

Gahrie said...

1) Doyle, the conversation was about internal dissent, so your last comment, as usual, was completely off topic.

2) The Democrats are currently in a civil war between the old machine Democrats of the limosine liberals and the nutsroots progressive Democrats of the aging boomers. The nutsroots are all going to support Obama now, because they only one they hate worse than the Clintons is Pres. Bush.

3) McCain needs to do more than get close to Pres. Bush to appease conservatives. Most of us don't consider Pres. Bush to be all that conservative.

4) It will be interesting to study the Democratic voter break down this election, especially if Obama is the candidate. I'm betting that among the 30+crowd you will see some of the Wilder effect, (then again my 70 year old White, Liberal Aunt is literally crying over the chance to elect a Black man president, so much so that she is willing to toss her former favorite Hillary down a well) but among those under 30 you'll see a reverse effect. Racism is pretty much dead among our youth, and much of our white youth in fact glorifys all things "Black"

Doyle said...

Doyle, the conversation was about internal dissent, so your last comment, as usual, was completely off topic.

We're all Americans first, douchebag.

Doyle said...

Or I could bring up the booing of your presumptive nominee.

SGT Ted said...

Which party spent 2002-2007 characterizing the opposing party as rooting for the terrorists (because they didn't think invading Iraq was a good idea)?

Because when you go to war, you don't give the enemy propaganda tools to use against the war effort and you don't undermine the Commander in Chief when there are troops in harms way. You respect the Democratic process, rather than conduct a subversion campaign using "dissent" as an excuse to take actions that embolden a sworn enemy. You don't advocate giving Constitutional rights to those sworn to destroy the Nation and impose Sharia law in place of the same Constitution. You don't advocate and confer GC rights on those who don't apply those rights to us and who don't believe in Human rights at all.

You don't get to compare our Armed Forces to Nazi's and Communists or call them war criminals and then pretend that there are no consequences to your words. You don't call the Commanding General of a successful counter insurgency campaign a liar with no proof and then expect not to be called out on it. You don't say that a country liberated by your own Army was better off under a dictator who ran his people thru wood chipper and buried people in mass graves and expect to be referred to as a patriot. When the Armed forces prosecutes those that committed the offenses at Abu Ghuraib, you don't say that we re-opned Saddams torture chambers deliberately and intentionally.

With those words and actions, they night as well be rooting for the terrorists.

Palladian said...

"Racism is pretty much dead among our youth, and much of our white youth in fact glorifys all things "Black""

Which are just the kind of things that, to his credit, Obama doesn't represent.

He's black without the baggage of the worse aspects of American black culture.

Still not necessarily a reason to vote for someone.

dbp said...

Everything SGT Ted says! Plus, when a prominent fimlmaker calls the terrorists "freedom fighters", no other conclusion makes sense than that he is rooting for them. Therefore rooting against our armed forces.

He was (of course) given a place of honor at the Democratic convention in Boston...

Middle Class Guy said...

Sgt Ted...
With those words and actions, they night as well be rooting for the terrorists.



They were.

garage mahal said...

Here are some more terrorist lovers:

"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)


Funny thing is, we won that war in 78 days without a single killed in action.

garage mahal said...

On Bosnia of course.

SGT Ted said...

And as far as Democrats tolerating dissent?

Joe Leiberman, (I) Connetticut

Middle Class Guy said...

Doyle said...
Intolerant of dissent? Which party spent 2002-2007 characterizing the opposing party as rooting for the terrorists (because they didn't think invading Iraq was a good idea)? Who wanted NYT reporters to be jailed for exposing illegal government surveillance?




What party did an elected US Senator, who sent a threatening letter to Disney over a dumb movie depicting Bubba in a bad light, belong to? What party did an elected US Senator belong to when he sent a letter to the company that produces Limbaugh demaning action against Rush for his commentary? What party does Harry Reid belong to?

What party does Hillary Clinton belong to? The elected US Senator who just sent a threatening letter to MSNBC DEMANDING a change in the coverage of her campaign?

Don't US Senators swear to uphold the US Constitution? Doesn't the First Amendment guarantee freedom of speech/expression? Are elected Democrats immune from upholding the Constitution?

Rich B said...

Boy that one was guaranteed to get the reality-based community worked up.

dbp said...

Well Garage, that is an impressive list of how to responsibly criticize an administration.

Calling our enemy "freedom fighters" and calling for "a million Mogadishus" are irresponsible ways.

Too many jims said...

This diavlog was originally posted just over 2 years ago. It would be interesting to see if Kaus still stood by his prediction that McCain was going to win 70% of the vote.

SGT Ted said...

Funny thing is, we won that war in 78 days without a single killed in action.

Notice a distinct lack of calling our troops murderers, terrorists and Nazis. Notice not saying the Bosnians were better off under the boot of the USSR than under US/UN occupation.

Notice no Republican declaring the Bosnian campaign "failed" and "lost" despite evidence to the contrary.

And notice no Democrat calling to bring our troops home from Bosnia.

Not even comparable.

MadisonMan said...

Doesn't the First Amendment guarantee freedom of speech/expression?

Please stop ranting. Has Hillary enacted a law curbing freedom of speech? No. The Constitution is surviving.

Too many jims said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Balfegor said...

Funny thing is, we won that war in 78 days without a single killed in action.

Well, yes, we "won." No one was killed in action, because the only thing we did was bomb people. Not that a commitment of ground forces would have helped anyone. Such ground forces as were present, such as the Dutch forces at Srebrenica, were famously ineffective at preventing the ongoing genocide. Actually, "ineffective" makes it sound as though they made some attempt to stop the mass murder and failed -- there are reports that the Dutch forces stood by and watched instead (which is why the Dutch government is being sued now for abetting genocide). It's not hard to avoid casualties when you stand by and let people get their genocide on.

Please stop ranting. Has Hillary enacted a law curbing freedom of speech? No. The Constitution is surviving.

To add to that, freedom of speech has traditionally been limited by torts like slander and libel and so on. Protection is more limited for public figures, but at least as re: freedom of speech, there's long been that tension between freedom of speech and personal dignity.

Gahrie said...

Doyle, the conversation was about internal dissent, so your last comment, as usual, was completely off topic.

We're all Americans first, douchebag.


You really have no idea how to engage in a formal argument do you?

Your reading comprehension skills are poor, your reasoning suspect and your constant resort to ad hom is tiring.

Jeremy said...

gm,
We "won" that war in 78 days, but 13-years later the peace is still enforced by occupying foreign troops. The government is still overseen by foreign High Representatives who maintain an artificial ethnic partition of the country.

78 days to win the war. 13 plus years to maintain the peace.

Too many jims said...

AND: Don't miss the fact that Mickey's statement is a year old.

My prior comment preceded Prof. Althouse's update but I would note that the original diavlog is 2 years old rather than 1 year old (click on the links to the right). Accordingly it preceded a ton of stuff that has happened, most notably the 2006 elections and erosion of conservative support for McCain.

But Ann is right that Kaus still holds the same positions as he did then. I just find it hard to believe that he thinks half of Democrats are going to vote for McCain and that McCain was going to receive 70% of the vote. I assume that was hyperbole even at the time but reflected a kind of confidence about McCain's prospects. I can see being confident about McCain's prospects now but not that confident. I guess that Kaus saying he can't believe he said it reflects a change in his views on, at least, that aspect.

Doyle said...

You really have no idea how to engage in a formal argument do you?

Support the Troops!

Verso said...

SGT Ted doesn't like freedom very much.

Doyle said...

Obama has been Mickey's pick as most likely next president for a few weeks.

It doesn't really sound like something he could say today, because it's so foolish.

Middle Class Guy said...

MadisonMan said...
Please stop ranting.

I am not ranting. I am pointing out that there is a real ethical dilema when elected officials use the power of their office to intimidate and stifle expression.

I am also pointing out the hypocrisy of people complaining about expression being stifled by the Executive Branch.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Freder said: Oh yeah, and Lieberman too.

Freder

Outside of Liberman's consistent support of the war, can you share with me any of his other non-Democrat policies?

Doyle said...

Well he's campaigning for John McCain.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Outside of Liberman's consistent support of the war, can you share with me any of his other non-Democrat policies?

Doyle said...
Well he's campaigning for John McCain.


Well Doyle, for most conservatives, that raised more concerns about McCain than it does about Lieberman.

Then again let his voting record speak for itself. Hardly what anyone could consider a Republican.

Doyle said...

Well Republicans liked him enough to pick him over their own nominee in CT, so he's gotta be doing something right!

Hoosier Daddy said...

Well Republicans liked him enough to pick him over their own nominee in CT, so he's gotta be doing something right!

Yes Doyle because the CT race between the GOP nominee and Lamont was oh so close.

Lets see, we (GOP) have zero chance to win, Lamont is anti-war, Lieberman is pro-war outside of that, no policy difference. Yeah, hard call to make there.

Seriously Doyle, outside of the war, what exactly are Lieberman's GOP bona fides?

Doyle said...

You're the Republican who loves him. You tell me!

I'm not interested in what party he belongs to now. I'm just glad he was run out of my party like the odious, lying, backstabbing piece of garbage he is.

Doyle said...

I mean Holy Joe has had his tongue up W's ass since 2002 and you know it. Iraq, wiretapping, Iran... the whole gantlet.

Fen said...

Doyle: Which party spent 2002-2007 characterizing the opposing party as rooting for the terrorists (because they didn't think invading Iraq was a good idea)?

Nope. Your strawman betrays you. Some kind of commitment and consistency I guess, to keep your head from exploding.

1) we characterized your side as traitors because after you voted to liberate Iraq, you undermined the war effort with enabling propaganda to gain political traction. Blood for Power.

Who wanted NYT reporters to be jailed for exposing illegal government surveillance?

No. We wanted a NYTs reporter jailed for exposing several classified operations that were NOT illegal.

Doyle said...

Sure, Fen. Whatever you say.

Fen said...

Doyle, we wiretap international calls from suspected terror orgs into the US. You complain of being called a traitor, but if you're getting phonecalls from AQ in Pakistan, I want the government to listen in.

You're also ignoring international internet traffic that bounces though servers in the US.

And defending a NYTs reporter who outed our cell phone intercepts to AQ and blew a good source of intell for us.

And you're forgetting that NSA intercepts are used to gather warfighting intelligence, not evidence for a criminal prosecution.

Fen said...

Doyle: Support the Troops!

See? The only time you use that phrase is as a punchline.

Doyle said...

Fen with you around I have no need for punchlines.

Fen said...

Doug: Instead of doing what any reasonable person would do, i.e. shutting up when your stupidity has been laid bare for all the world to see, you just keep on being stupid.

How is that? Are you oblivious to all the Democrat trolls who swing through here just to take cheap shots at Ann because they don't like her brand of Democrat? Clueless.

You still haven't come up with those murder statistics regarding white guys who have dared to date African-American women, by the way. What's the holdup?

Still? I never said I would. I see whats bothering you though. I premised that blacks are the most racist demographic in America. Three guesses why that disturbs you.

SGT Ted said...

Verso is an idiot who thinks slandering soldiers doing their jobs equals principled dissent.

Hoosier Daddy said...

You're the Republican who loves him. You tell me!

Actually I don't have much use for Lieberman's policies, Iraq notwithstanding.

I'm not interested in what party he belongs to now. I'm just glad he was run out of my party like the odious, lying, backstabbing piece of garbage he is.

Which means he can be pro-abortion, pro gay rights, anti-tax cut, pro universal health care, pro-amnesty, pro-stem cell but deviate from the platform and support Iraq and he's an apostate?

Is that what you're saying?

Fen said...

Fen with you around I have no need for punchlines.

My point stands. You claim we're all Americans but this war is tribal for you, Democrat VS Republican. If the war had been launched under a Democrat you would be sitting on your hands right now.

Doyle said...

Hoosier what more do you really need to know here? I had no great love for Joe Lieberman when he was VP nominee. Since that time he's supported the worst foreign policy disaster in modern times and accused those with the judgment to oppose it of treason. Do you really think I give a damn if he supports universal health care?

Doyle said...

Hoosier - let me put it this way: Why should we have to put up with Joe Lieberman when there are lots of Democrats who DON'T take Bush's side on national security?

Most of the COUNTRY doesn't take Bush's side on national security fer Chrissakes.

Kirk Parker said...

George,

"you cannot bomb enemies into an attitude change"

Roger that!

Say, it's been a long time since I've seen any sign of the Third Reich or the Japanese Empire. Anybody have an idea of what happened to them...?

Fen said...

the worst foreign policy disaster in modern times

Hardly. The worst was Clinton allowing Pakistan and N Korea to go nuclear.

During the early Clinton years, hard-liners and so-called conservative hawks advocated a pre-emptive strike to halt North Korea's nuclear weapons development before it could field an atomic bomb. Instead of taking the hard line, President Clinton elected to rely on former President Jimmy Carter and decided to appease the Marxist-Stalinist dictatorship.

Carter met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang and returned to America waving a piece of paper and declaring peace in our time. Kim, according to Carter, had agreed to stop his nuclear weapons development.

The Clinton appeasement program for North Korea included hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, food, oil and even a nuclear reactor. However, the agreement was flawed and lacked even the most informal means of verification


http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/7/164846.shtml

And its way too early for even the experts to weigh in on whether Iraq has been a foreign policy "disaster". Like writing your NFL post-game analysis in the middle of the 3rd Quarter. C'mon Doyle, you may be hyperpartisan but you're not stupid.

Balfegor said...

Hardly. The worst was Clinton allowing Pakistan and N Korea to go nuclear.

In fairness, I think North Korea took the critical steps under Bush I, around 1990-1991, when they shut down their reactor briefly to remove an unknown quantity of plutonium. That's probably what was ultimately weaponised. Clinton's stupid deal did leave them free to pursue uranium enrichment, but I don't think there's any indication that they've succeeded in weaponising uranium yet.

Re: Pakistan, arguably our diplomatic failures in the 1997-1999 time frame were more extensive than just allowing Pakistan to declare its nuclear status. After the 1998 detonation, Pakistan and India entered the first hot war between two nuclear armed states (1999 Kargil War) -- probably the closest the world has ever come to an actual nuclear exchange. In 1999, the democratic (or at least semi-democratic) government of Pakistan was then overthrown in the military coup that brought Musharraf to power. The extent to which these were preventable developments is debatable -- particularly as Pakistan's clandestine uranium enrichment program dated back to the 1970s, and Pakistan's military has exercised considerable control over the political classes for almost since Partition -- but whatever the reason, I think we can agree these were pretty awful developments that left the world much less secure than it had been.

The next president, whoever it is, is probably going to have to spent a lot of time handling the fallout. Hopefully not literally.

Doug said...

I premised that blacks are the most racist demographic in America. Three guesses why that disturbs you.

Your exact words were, "Being shot in the face for dating a black woman is still a high probability." All I wanted was a clarification of how high, and you haven't given one.

But go ahead, take your three guesses as to why I'm so disturbed by your casual racism.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hoosier - let me put it this way: Why should we have to put up with Joe Lieberman when there are lots of Democrats who DON'T take Bush's side on national security?

Doyle, I never said you had to and you're simply moving the goal posts on the discussion. Problem is people like you and Freder think Lieberman is some closet GOP because he supports the war. If you want to throw him under the bus over it, be my guest, no skin off my nose. All I'm saying is that a cursory look at his voting record would show he's hardly in the GOP camp. It just proves the point that you step off the reservation on one issue in the Dem Party and its permanent exile.

Since that time he's supported the worst foreign policy disaster in modern times

Well I am certain that JFK and LBJ are now at peace since you and the rest of the Democrats have decided that that little misadventure in SE Asia they got us into some 40 years ago is now second fiddle.

Middle Class Guy said...

SGT Ted said...
Verso is an idiot who thinks slandering soldiers doing their jobs equals principled dissent.



While refusing to accept the fact that they protect his right to spew bilge.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Funny thing is, we won that war in 78 days without a single killed in action.

On Bosnia of course.


Yes of course. That was the war in which Bill Clinton got us into with Serbia which posed no imminent threat whatsoever, did not have authorization from Congress nor authorization from the UN Security Council and was done under the NATO banner in direct violation of the NATO charter considering no NATO member was attacked. Now 13 years later and its still under military occupation.

So you're all for a good war as long as no friendlies get hurt is that it?

The Drill SGT said...

Funny thing is, we won that war in 78 days without a single killed in action.

on our side of course. flattening Serbian civilians didn't seem to bother Code Pink then

somefeller said...

So you're all for a good war as long as no friendlies get hurt is that it?

Actually, achievement of one's military goals with little or no casualties on one's side sounds like the very definition of success. Why wouldn't that be something worth supporting, assuming the underlying war is justifiable?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Actually, achievement of one's military goals with little or no casualties on one's side sounds like the very definition of success.

Certainly does and I don't dispute it.

Why wouldn't that be something worth supporting, assuming the underlying war is justifiable?

Emphasis mine. Justifiable is the rub isn't it? When I weigh all the opposition to Iraq from 'illegal', 'no imminent threat', 'unnecessary', I do have to ask why Code Pink and the Cindy Sheehans weren't screaming to the high heavens when Bill was bombing Serbia from 30K feet?

As for my comment, I have brought up the Serbian war before on this forum and the usual responses I got were 'well, we didn't lose 3000 soldiers!' So as I said, to some people war is fine as long as no one gets hurt on our side.

Fen said...

Doug: But go ahead, take your three guesses as to why I'm so disturbed by your casual racism

Mine? You are the one implying that blacks can't be racist ...because they are black.

Why do you think the Jena 6 targeted an innocent? Because he was white.

And you're distrubed [still hanging on to a quote from last month] because admitting that blacks are the most racist demographic in America would undermine the moral authority you grant yourself for being "against" racism [against it, only if its directed against blacks].

Fen said...

Actually, achievement of one's military goals with little or no casualties on one's side sounds like the very definition of success.

Like Iraq, where the percentage of American casualties is the lowest in history.

Doug said...

When did I imply that blacks can't be racist just because they're black?

My point this whole time has simply been to point out that your whole whites-get-shot-in-the-face-for-dating-black-chicks "argument" -- which you have yet to prove, or even explain -- demonstrates a level of idiocy that clearly proves you have no business lecturing anyone else on racism or prejudice.

Again, I've dated African-American women before, and managed never to get shot. You're telling me I should've been fearing for my life the whole time?

Memories of the Willow Tree said...

Clinton? or Barack Hussein Obama? Not sure who I wish to lead us into a new direction? So confusing, I mean on the one side you have Hillary Clinton who dodged sniper fire in the Balkans war and is a great socialist (giving tons away for free to hte needs) and then we have Hussein Obama who will no doubt have his fantastic friends and his wonderful reverend helping him with international and domestic issues.

Maybe I should just pick straws?

ayumiyu20 said...

wonderful work! the way you discuss the subject i'm very impressed. i'll bookmark this webpage and be back more often to see more updates from you.

ayumi
www.brfe.net

sarah lee said...

I really enjoyed reading your article. I found this as an informative and interesting post, so i think it is very useful and knowledgeable. I would like to thank you for the effort you have made in writing this article.


edupdf.org