Althouse: Don't show this ad!

October 10, 2006

Don't show this ad!

Noooooo! It wouldn't be nice! Must be niiiiiiiiiice. So they're not showing it, and it's a good thing no one can see it.

ADDED: Is this the future of political advertising? You don't need to buy ad time anymore. And you don't need to worry that people are fast-forwarding over your commercials. You just make the kind of ad that people want to embed and link and click to. You can disassociate yourself from it and say you're not responsible for whatever it is that makes it enticing, and stand back as millions watch it, rewatch it, and get others to watch it. What a strategy. And I'm not saying it's bad. I like the way satire makes different people pay attention to politics -- not just your dreary politicos -- and I like the way it sharpens minds -- unlike the somber sonorously narrated traditional ads with their crude, piano-tinkling efforts at manipulation. I'm just waiting for someone to say this must be regulated.

63 comments:

The Commercial Traveller said...: Some idiots have apparently "tagged" the ad as "containing offensive material," a designation that means foul language, pornographic images, or violent content.

That way, no can watch without signing up for YouTube.

Two theories:

1) YouTube is using the Drudge links to drum up members.

2) Angry liberals tagged it so that less people will hopefully see it.

Either way--lame. There's nothing remotely age inappropriate about the video.; 10/10/06, 6:45 PM
Joan said...: C, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm not signed up for or registered for anything at YouTube, and I could see it just fine.

It was classic, particularly the "We are not making this up" screen graphic.; 10/10/06, 6:55 PM
The Commercial Traveller said...: Hmmm, maybe they looked at the tags and immediately removed them.

It is a great satirical ad. And a great example of how to maintain the high ground: refuse to run it out of "good taste" and yet let news organizations play the commercial for you: win-win.

Free advertising + people watch an awesome ad + you get insulated from the critics because you never ran the ad.

Brilliant. Call it the opposite of those who tried to get people not to watch _The Path to 9/11_ and then ended up making it more well known than it otherwise would have been.; 10/10/06, 7:24 PM
john(classic) said...: Simplistic! Insulting! Unfair!

But funny.

Political advertising may not be the same.; 10/10/06, 8:12 PM
DaveS said...: Drudge streams it straight to his site. The Austin Bay link directs you to You Tube. I guess the 18 year old verification is only imposed if its served up straight from their own pages.; 10/10/06, 8:30 PM
Anonymous said...: That ad feels much more Parker/Stone than Zucker, I wonder if they had a hand in it, but decided to keep their names of off it for some reason.; 10/10/06, 8:31 PM
Revenant said...: I think the commercial fell into the SNL trap -- starts off funny, goes on too long. It would have been better at 60 seconds instead of 90.; 10/10/06, 9:10 PM
Brian Doyle said...: Too hot, huh? Too below the belt?

I suspect that's not the actual reason why they're passing on it. They probably just don't think it's the best possible use of an ad buy.

Points for production value, but too tongue-in-cheek to really scare people. You need something Cheney-esque for an "issue ad" like this.

Also, Mssrs. Parker and Stone sort of set the gold standard for KJI parodies.; 10/10/06, 9:12 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: The video is funny. Unfortunately, the message it sends is true.; 10/10/06, 9:16 PM
Hazy Dave said...: Zucker has Madison roots with the Kentucky Fried Theater, right? Funny. (Hey, nobody would try to score political points by showing some old photo of someone from the Bush administration hanging with Saddam, right?)

Oh, buck, of course no one would dare laugh at the President or make a fake ad critical of his person or policies! That would be flouting the Suprubiclean Court's recent Suspension of the Bill of Rights Decision!; 10/10/06, 9:24 PM
Simon said...: It's genius. Even if it's fake, it should be run in the first commercial break during Letterman and the Daily Show for the next month.; 10/10/06, 9:25 PM
Unknown said...: We all know why the GOP passed on it: because as we all learned in 2004, "fake but accurate" doesn't sell. :-)

Funny, funny stuff!; 10/10/06, 9:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Yup - trying to piss off North Korea for the last five years by labeling them a part of the axis of evil has really worked wonders.

I thought Bush was supposed to "protect" us, by stopping North Korea from getting a nuclear bomb. Well - he failed.

An administration run by children - who can't take responsiblity for anything.; 10/10/06, 9:29 PM
PSGInfinity said...: buck:

"Zucker's political acumen is about as flat as his humor."

Nice start, but then you move off on a tangent. Why is his acumen flat? Are there inaccurate statements? (Hint: no) Are the "dots connected"? Is the logic properly developed?

You could have gone someplace good with your post, but instead you went off on a deranged Bush tangent.

Remember: Err Amerikka, BusHitler, The Bush Assassination film, etc, etc etc. You haven't done this because you can't. You've lost your sense of humour, along with your mind.; 10/10/06, 9:30 PM
Simon said...: DTL:
"Yup - trying to piss off North Korea for the last five years by labeling them a part of the axis of evil has really worked wonders."

Right! Gee - why didn't I think of that? If only we hadn't made disparaging remarks about them - that was what drove them to build a nuclear weapon! As we all know, right up until Bush made that speech, the nuclear impulse had never sullied their pristine minds.; 10/10/06, 9:35 PM
DRJ said...: Prof. Althouse says it's a good thing no one can see this ad - but I suspect she's employing dry wit because (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) we can see the ad at Drudge or YouTube. Then Prof. Reynolds aka the Instapundit links here, commenting that he agrees with Ann Althouse that it's a good thing nobody is showing the ad.

Not that it matters but I sense our favorite law professors aren't on the same page. Either that or I'm confused.; 10/10/06, 9:39 PM
Tano said...: Seemed really retarded to me. I can understand why it is not being run - there must be a few grown-ups left in the Republican party.; 10/10/06, 9:51 PM
John Stodder said...: Prof. Althouse says it's a good thing no one can see this ad - but I suspect she's employing dry wit because (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) we can see the ad at Drudge or YouTube.

By gum, DRJ, you might be onto something there. Do you suppose Ann would be that sneaky? I wonder...; 10/10/06, 9:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Simon - Maybe if our foreign policy amounted to more than name calling, we'd actually be able to get some foreign policy success stories.

North Korea has the bomb (or is about to) and we're wasting out time trying to install "democracy" in Iraq, a country which posed zero danger to us. Iran - another country that is a real threat - is being ignored.

But you're happy - because Bush called him evil. The right-wingers sure are simple minded and sure are easy to please.; 10/10/06, 9:59 PM
Red A said...: North Korea calls us names all the time, i.e. imperialists, etc.

Iran calls us the Great Satan.

Now, according to people posting comments here, that means Iranian and North Korean policy should be failing - because, you know, if they didn't call the US names, we'd be talking seriously with them.

Truly these folks are idiots if they think Iran and North Korea are willing to make a deal, but Bush just won't do it.

The fact is these countries really, really want nuclear weapons. Sure, they will string you along for aid, but in the end they will get them.

Unless you bomb them to hell and back, but that's not going to happen in either case, before or after Iraq.

The only thing we could have done with North Korea is to impose a blockade but with S. Korea and China not doing it, it wouldn't help.

Clinton's attempt to square the circle wasn't that bad - we had to try some sort of deal, but the result is that the Norks have ZERO credibility, and they should be the ones working to restore trust if they are serious about negotiating.

Since they are not doing that, it means they are not serious about negotiating away their nukes.

Same with Iran.

Bottom line, can't blame Bush or Clinton 100% for North Korea.; 10/10/06, 10:13 PM
Don Surber said...: Yea, Drudge only gets more hits (14 million) per day than the cable news outlets (3 million) plus Sponge Bob Square Pants (4 million) plus the Daily Show (1.5 million) plus CBS News (5 million) plus Rachel Ray

OK, maybe not Rachel Ray; 10/10/06, 10:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Red A - I think you can blame Bush, because they acquired nuclear weapons on his watch.

Israel stopped Iraq from getting nuclear weapons by bombing them. I wouldn't favor the military approach with North Korea, but I do think we could have used economic incentives to persuade him from getting nuclear weapons.

Bush's foreign policy is not actually getting any results. And he has to be held accountable for that.

I favored the Iraq War (thinking there were WMD's there). But I expected Bush to be able to win the war. He hasn't (thus far), and I will hold him responsible for that. If he pulls off a miraculous success, I'll admit I was wrong.

But let's remember. Bush doesn't live in the real world. He doesn't even read newspapers or watch the news for crying out loud. He only knows about stuff that is filtered through his advisors.; 10/10/06, 10:27 PM
Synova said...: How could economic incentives work on North Korea? There's nothing to take *away* and how giving them stuff would work to remove nuclear ambitions I can't even imagine.

The past as shown that economic sanctions are a loss for us because rather than blame the bad policies of the nation we've put sanctions on for the economic hardship that results, *we* get blamed. Those mean Americans who don't care if poor little children starve and die.

Plan on it. Sanctions are a bust.

Incentives... pay offs or protection money? A carrot without a stick is useless because there's no forced choice. Taking the carrot means absolutely nothing... as we've seen. There still is no *dis*incentive to continue to go after nuclear capability.

Anyhow, I'm starting to think that when it comes to nukes we should adopt strict isolationist tactics, since it seems we're the only ones in the whole freaking world that feels it necessary to do anything to prevent proliferation, why bother.

It's not like we get any support or thanks for trying or anything.; 10/10/06, 10:54 PM
Tim said...: downtownlad is right, it's all Bush's fault. Before Bush, America didn't have enemies. Before Bush, North Korea and Iraq were as peaceful and non-threatening to the US as Canada (that is, were Canada actually a nation rather than an address). Before Bush, Iran and North Korea had no ambitions whatsoever to acquire nuclear weaponry. Before Bush, the Clinton Administration deftly handled all potential threats to America, and America was never stronger, more respected and more peaceful than it was then, back when we had an Administration not run by children, because, as downtownlad can surely attest to all of us, children don't get blow jobs off to the side of the Oval Office.

What was downtownlad's point about not living in the real world?; 10/10/06, 11:42 PM
Anonymous said...: blowjobs?!!!

i was sorta buying the comments about how the the us approach to n. korea has failed under several administrations until tim brought it all back, reminding us what is most relevant when discussing clinton...

blowjobs.; 10/11/06, 12:05 AM
Brent said...: The money line - the one that boils it down to the difference between Republicans and Democrats:

There is evil in the world

If you recognize evil, you will vote Republican this fall.

If you look for "root causes", an explanation for "why do they hate us", or just don't care - the Democrats are your party.; 10/11/06, 12:05 AM
Revenant said...: Yup - trying to piss off North Korea for the last five years by labeling them a part of the axis of evil has really worked wonders

What a breathtakingly stupid thing to say. What do you do for an encore -- accuse Mel Brooks' "The Producers" of making Nazis angry at Jews?; 10/11/06, 12:13 AM
E Buzz said...: "I wouldn't favor the military approach with North Korea, but I do think we could have used economic incentives to persuade him from getting nuclear weapons."

Wow, the ignorance of this statement is amazing.

But yeah, "economic incentives" worked with the USSR and Cuba...; 10/11/06, 12:17 AM
Tim said...: Chris,

I guess hyperbole in service of a point was a mistake. So, no, it's not about Clinton - its about downtownlad's utterly facile notion that Bush is entirely responsible for the NoKor's possibly lighting off a nuclear device because they were "trying to piss off North Korea for the last five years by labeling them a part of the axis of evil has really worked wonders," because they are "an administration run by children - who can't take responsiblity (sic) for anything."

And because downtownlad is such a fair minded dude about these things, he wants to ascribe responsibility to Bush for everything.

PS: Just to be clear, the reference to Clinton was made in terms downtownlad would be sure to understand.; 10/11/06, 12:33 AM
Ed said...: If I was part of the Republican leadership, I wouldn't run the ad either. First, Madeline Albright isn't running for election. Second, if you want people to vote for you, then you don't want to talk about all of the other party's failings from more than five years in the past; instead, you want to get your own message out - what you will do as the government and what policies you will propose and support. This ad, although funny, doesn't attack a current foe nor present the Republican party position, so it simply doesn't work as a political ad for the GOP.; 10/11/06, 1:32 AM
Ed said...: Seven Machos, I hope your 1:22am comment was meant to be sarcastic. North Korea pursued a nuclear weapons program throughout the 1990s, even after promising the Clinton administration that it would cease.; 10/11/06, 1:34 AM
reader_iam said...: In fact, N. Korea--read Kim Jong-Il--is hypersensitive to words, including Bush's. But that's really not the the crux of the matter.

To copy from comments I made at another group's blog (which crossover I am particularly acknowledging only due to a crossover that I know exists):

“Fun” quotes from the late Kim Il-Sung [Kim Jong-il's dad, and still "Eternal President," even in death]:
“Our republic began with the sublime responsibility toward the cause of world peace and has tenaciously struggled to deter the imperialists’ nuclear arms race and maneuvers for a nuclear war.” (exact date unverified [post-1970?])

“If you bomb our cities, we will bomb your cities; if you kill our children, we will kill your children.” (exact date unverified, 1970s?)

“We consider that the United Nations has no right to discuss the Korean question nor has it any right to meddle in the domestic affairs of our country. The Korean question should not be discussed by foreigners in New York or Washington, it should be discussed in Pyongyang or Seoul by the Koreans themselves.” (1962)

“The most important thing in our war preparations is to teach all our people to hate U.S. imperialism. Otherwise, we will not be able to defeat the U.S. imperialists who boast of their technological superiority.

Therefore, we are intensifying ideological education, to imbue the people with hatred for U.S. imperialism. I think this is quite a natural and correct thing for us to do. We do not have to stop the anti-U.S. education we have been giving to our people or conceal the fact that we are educating them in anti-U.S. ideas just because you come to our country, do we?” (1972)

This N.K. thing has been brewing for a long time, it appears."; 10/11/06, 1:40 AM
Joe Giles said...: Before Bush, North Korea was a tropical paradise.

And KJL had a finely tuned sense of fashion.; 10/11/06, 1:59 AM
John Stodder said...: Maybe the problem is that Bush hasn't yet apologized to North Korea for the Korean War.

Clinton wanted to apologize, but the Republicans impeached him so he got distracted.; 10/11/06, 3:14 AM
Headline Junky said...: If the Republican leadership didn't want the ad aired, how is it that it's gotten such a widespread showing? Most folks would kill to have their YouTube video get that much exposure.; 10/11/06, 4:00 AM
Ann Althouse said...: PSGInfinity: "Why is his acumen flat?"

Sit-ups?; 10/11/06, 5:49 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Daryl Herbert: 'If the Republican leadership didn't want the ad made, they would not have commissioned it. But as long as they don't run it on the TV, they don't have to take responsibility for it--at least, not nearly as much responsibility. The Democrats would look kind of dumb whining about an internet movie, whereas whining about television ads is an American political tradition."

All true, but we need to see a big problem here. This is the future of political advertising. And if the other side complains even more people will click over to the ad. And one side seems hip and funny -- like "South Park" -- and the other side looks cluesless.

You don't have to buy ad time anymore. You just have to make an ad that makes people click. And bloggers link.; 10/11/06, 6:01 AM
goesh said...: - sure beats the hell out of those dumb, traditional signs posted all over that nobody reads and everybody wants to throw eggs at...I'm goesh and I approve this message. Don't you get sick of that too?; 10/11/06, 6:46 AM
Simon said...: downtownlad said...
"Simon - Maybe if our foreign policy amounted to more than name calling, we'd actually be able to get some foreign policy success stories ... But you're happy - because Bush called him evil. The right-wingers sure are simple minded and sure are easy to please."

Reagan called the Soviet Union what it was and pushed a policy that declared the collapse of the Evil Empire as its end. It worked. Bill Clinton tried a different approach with North Korea, and we cal see how well that worked out. Unless you seriously believe that North Korea only became a problem in the last six years, blaming it on Bush's rhetoric is preposterous. The policy you are advocating FAILED. So at very maximum, your criticism of Bush amounts to this: Bush changed a failing policy, and his alternative has not made up for all the shortcomings of the previous, failed policy.

North Korea has, in point of fact, been trying to acquire nuclear weapons for decades, but presidents prior to Bush 41 had a reasonable excuse that they were fighting the cold war - you can't blame North Korea on Carter or Johnson or Ford, and certainly not Nixon (heck, by opening a dialogue with China, Nixon probably laid the essential groundwork for the later six party talks). So if there is blame to be spread around, it falls on Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43. But the lion's share of that blame must fall on the Clinton administration.; 10/11/06, 7:28 AM
Tim said...: "No one ever claimed economic incentives were guaranteed to work. They were our best (really, our only) option.

Second-guessing the sanctions without suggesting an alternate strategy is thus useless and unfair."

Presumably you meant both economic sanctions for non-compliance and economic incentives for compliance.

Regardless, your complaint falls flat on two points. First, because the Agreed Framework provided the NoKors with fuel oil and two proliferation-resistant nuclear power reactors if they complied, but they cheated (i.e., they wanted and pursued nuclear weaponry regardless - not to extort the US for economic goodies). Additionally, the SoKors have been giving the NoKors massive economic assistance for a decade or more, yet the NoKors still progress toward nuclear weaponry. So incentives weren't going to work, (and would have rewarded bad behavior) as had already been proven.

Second, economic sanctions were always a non-starter, primarily because neither the Chinese nor the SoKors want a destabilizing collapse of NoKor as they fear mass exodus of starving refugees they have not the infrastructure nor other resources for which to properly care for refugees.

Now that the NoKors have indicated they have nuclear weaponry (albeit not proven), the SoKors and Chinese might rethink the equation; regardless, both are critical to any solution to the issue, and, notwithstanding downtownlad's Bismarkian foreign policy acumen, Bush cannot be faulted for not aggressively including both the Chinese and the SoKors in this matter.; 10/11/06, 7:30 AM
Simon Kenton said...: I wish Bush would come out in his press conference and tell the truth for once: Bill Clinton planted saboteurs in the NORK nuclear weapons program.; 10/11/06, 9:09 AM
Fatmouse said...: Republicans have little positive to run on

How about the economy, stupid?

South Park hasn't been hip and funny for several years

Incredibly mysterious how South Park suddenly became unfunny when they started making fun of liberal ideals, no?

But I bet you looooove the Daily Show, since it tells you what you want to hear.; 10/11/06, 9:57 AM
Michael Sweeney said...: Jerk:
Ha,ha, "South Park hasn't been funny for several years." Gee, let me guess.... They stopped being funny about the time that you decided to make your Democratic partisanship the most important thing in your life? About the same time that you realized that you had been laughing at Republican jokes? (I bet that still sends a shiver of shame up your spine!). About the time that you decided the Daily Show was the only non-news program you were going to watch?

Lighten up, Jerk. Of all things in life, "political purity" is about the least respectable.; 10/11/06, 10:14 AM
Simon said...: salvage said...
"Hey how many nuclear (or as your Dear Dubya would say noookular) tests did Kim have while Clinton was President again?"

That's like asking how many Law Review articles Ann submitted while she was in elementary school. It's meaningless to ask how many tests they carried out at a time when they had not yet developed the ability to do so. Rest aassured: if they had posessed that capability during the Clinton administration, they would have used it.; 10/11/06, 10:49 AM
Clyde said...: Yeah, this is brilliant. The most brilliant part is the way that it's being framed by Drudge as "too hot for the Republicans to use." That just makes people more interested in watching it.

As for the Republicans not using it, balderdash! They ARE using it, but not on television. It was NEVER MEANT to be used on television! Why? Because it's 1:32 long. A TV spot will be either 30 or 60 seconds long, no longer. It's too long for television, but NOT too long for the Internet!

This is a viral Internet political ad, and it's spreading like influenza in a crowded environment. People are watching it, linking to it, putting it on their web sites, and telling their families and friends about it. How many sites have you seen it on today? I've seen it on at least eight or nine myself. And it's now on mine, too.

Also, IMHO, it's a viral "pump up the base" ad, because it's targeted at Republicans to get them to go out and vote on November 7th, no matter how disgusted they are with the Foley mess or immigration or anything else other than national security. This ad shows that the Democrats are an unserious party in a serious time.; 10/11/06, 11:21 AM
Headline Junky said...: Daryl Herbert & Ann,

That was my point. A Drudge headline about a disavowed ad is like telling someone "Don't think of a blue elephant." This was an orchestrated "failed" ad campaign. And you're absolutely right, Ann. The net becomes the new method of marketing "unauthorized" political product. What's the world coming to when our best political minds are playing catch-up to Paris Hilton?; 10/11/06, 11:39 AM
Laura Reynolds said...: "Hey how many nuclear (or as your Dear Dubya would say noookular) tests did Kim have while Clinton was President again?"

Same as now ... zero Anyone can fart in a tunnel.

BTW, the ad is probably too complicated for about 90% of the voting age public to understand but funny nonetheless.; 10/11/06, 11:42 AM
Evil HR Lady said...: I absolutely believe this is the wave of the future. The blogosphere is going to gain more and more influence.

If I were a Republican leader, I wouldn't show the ad officially either. But, I would send a copy to Matt Drudge.; 10/11/06, 12:09 PM
John Stodder said...: "South Park" not hip and funny anymore? That's ridiculous. One would make such a comment only because their satire hit a nerve. They hit lots of them, especially last season. But creatively, Trey and Matt are peaking, and their audience is still huge.

Off the top of my head, I recall the most recent season featured the famed (and brilliant) "Trapped in the Closet" episode, the episode in which everyone in San Francisco is so self-satisfied that they smell their own farts, and the episode that said farewell to Chef. I think the SF episode also mocked the smugness of hybrid drivers. I realize that pissed off a lot of liberals, but the point of the joke wasn't that hybrids are bad. It was that people who drive hybrids are too full of themselves.

Let's face it: Unlike when I grew up, satire is not exclusively the property of the left.; 10/11/06, 12:10 PM
Brian Doyle said...: satire is not exclusively the property of the left.

As this ad shows, however, the right has a lot of catching up to do.

The right's specialty is still unintentional self-parody. (See: Atlas, Pam); 10/11/06, 12:20 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Lest we forget, there was also the recent SP episode where the picture of Mohammed was blacked out, etc. I wonder where else in the media has the idea of a double standard here and catering to the Moslems being made so pointedly.

Still, in their best of ten seasons special recently, my favorite is the Scientology one. I had to explain to a teenager why Tom Cruise was in the closet. But it is still absolutely hilarious, esp. after you have had a chance to interact with that "church".

I watch Daily and come away with, what? Cobert is, IMHO, better. But with Daily, if you don't start with the liberal mindset, it really isn't that funny. It was edgy and funny at first, but after the 1,000th Bush is Stupid joke, it becomes rather stale too.

And, I still can't help but think of Kim Jong il and his atrocious accent whenever I see Alex Baldwin or hear his name, thanks to Team America.; 10/11/06, 12:39 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: The add is quite funny, and pretty good at getting its message across. Of course, it helps to know who Madeline Albright is and the part she played in the Clinton Administration. And that might be the weakness with a general audience.

I will be interested to see if any major media pick it up to comment upon. Obviously, if so, it would almost have to be Fox, since it wouldn't make as much of an impression over the radio.

Finally, it will be interesting to see the Democratic response to this. Last time I remember them trying something like this, it was the moveon.org Bush=Hitler stuff. Not quite in the same league.; 10/11/06, 12:44 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Doyle,

I am not quite sure why this add is self-parody. It seemed to be just the opposite, parodying the antics of Albright and Clinton.; 10/11/06, 12:46 PM
garage mahal said...: Bush changed a failing policy, and his alternative has not made up for all the shortcomings of the previous, failed policy.

"Failure" =1994-2002 -- No plutonium production. All existing plutonium under international inspection. No bomb.

"Success" = 2002-2006 -- Active plutonium production. No international inspections of plutonium stocks. Nuclear warhead detonated.

Are you suggesting, in hindsight, that Clinton should have adopted Bushs policy of basically doing nothing, and dumping it in the lap of 5 other countries?

12 years of enrichment, and bombs?; 10/11/06, 1:00 PM
Revenant said...: She's fat! Look her dress ripped! Daaarrrrrr!

Hey how many nuclear (or as your Dear Dubya would say noookular)

It is kind of funny that you think criticizing someone for being fat is bad, but criticizing someone for talking funny is good.; 10/11/06, 2:13 PM
knox said...: Anyone who thinks Clinton's Way is effective needs to watch this Frontline episode--you can watch the whole thing online. (There is also some f-reaky footage of the weirdness that is North Korea.)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kim/view/

Why anyone thinks sitting down and bargaining with someone who has a record of patent lunacy and lying--and reneging on previous deals with the US--is beyond me.

Why do you think NK is so mad Bush won't talk to them? Because they are denied all the goodies that the last talks with the U.S. bore, while continuing on with their nuclear plans, just as they did after the last talks with the U.S.

Sheesh, KJI is potentially the biggest maniac on the planet. How do you bargain with a nut case? Absurd on its face.; 10/11/06, 5:55 PM
knox said...: Iraq, a country which posed zero danger to us. Iran - another country that is a real threat - is being ignored.

Wow, just about all intelligence in existence asserted that Iraq had WMD. So why do you believe Iran is a threat? I mean, where's the evidence?; 10/11/06, 5:57 PM
Tim said...: Salvage,

Your facts are wrong, and your opinions are beyond reason.; 10/11/06, 8:26 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Salvage suggests that Clinton's strategy of talk, talk, talk worked and the North Koreans quit working on nuclear weapons because presumably, they were so impressed with Albright's diplomacy. Of course, there is nothing to back this up. Rather, the evidence seems to be that they continued developing nuclear weapons alongside their freebee untamperable reactors.

Of course, we don't know, since it is one of the most closed societies in the world, making Saddam Hussein's Iraq look almost American in its openness (and we couldn't good intel there either). But there seems to be more evidence that North Korea continued to develop both nuclear weapons and guided missle technology throughout the Clinton era, than that they didn't.; 10/11/06, 8:40 PM
Steven said...: Garage Mahal said...

"Failure" =1994-2002 -- No plutonium production. All existing plutonium under international inspection. No bomb.

Yet, at the same time, lots and lots of uranium enrichment. Which, you know, is they way Iran is currently pursuing its nuclear ambitions? And is much more able to make working nuclear bombs, rather than the fizzle they just tested?

If the 1994-2002 policy had remained unchanged, and North Korea had spent four more years enriching uranium, they'd have a nuke by now anyway. At which point, what would you have called the 1994-2006 policy? A success?

You want to have a policy that would have denied North Korea nukes? Then back in, oh, 1996, back when there was a South Korean administration run by the reasonably sensible Kim Young-sam, you take a united hard line on North Korea. You don't sit around with the CIA screaming that North Korea is enriching uranium for a bomb and pretend everything's okay because you have some nuclear material where you can see it's not being used.

Come 2001 (really 1999), it was too late to stop North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons by diplomatic means. No carrot-and-stick policy could work with "Sunshine Policy" Kim Dae Jung and the even more appeasement-oriented Roh Moo-hyun.

(Well, theoretically we could have launched a military coup to overthrow the South Korean government and put in one with a spine. Did you advocate such a policy back in 2001? If Bush had attempted such a coup, would you have supported the overthrow of South Korean democracy?)

When Bush came into office, the only policy left that could have stopped North Korea from going nuclear would have been an American nuclear strike, because it's the only sufficiently devastating attack we could mount without South Korean permission.

Clinton wasted the through-1998 window of opportunity to genuinely shut down North Korea's nuclear ambitions, instead settling for pushing the crisis off until later, so he wouldn't have to deal with it.

The last time an American President had a chance to stop North Korea from having nukes, Clinton was serving the first half of his second term. The South Koreans went insane in '98, and all that's been possible since is deciding how much we'd pay the North Koreans . . . to go ahead and build nukes anyway.; 10/11/06, 9:01 PM
Steven said...: By the way, let's point out that North Korea has come out and said it was pursuing uranium enrichment throughout the Clinton administration. To blame Bush for North Korea "restarting" a program requires that North Korea have had a crystal ball able to predict that the owner of the Texas Rangers would, eight years later, say something nasty about them.; 10/11/06, 9:08 PM
Revenant said...: And you don’t understand, NK stopped when Clinton was President as the plan they had in place called for. All the research started again when Bush walked away, well swaggered away with his “Axis of Evil” nonsense

Uh... ok.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that we do the silly thing and take North Korea's word for it that they obeyed the 1994 agreement with Clinton (there was, after all, no means of confirming it). Let's assume you're correct in believing them.

Could you please point to the part of the 1994 Agreed Framework that gave North Korea permission to resume nuclear weapons development in the event of the President calling North Korea a mean name?

Oh, what's that? It doesn't exist? So much for the idea that this is Bush's fault. Try again.; 10/11/06, 11:04 PM
Revenant said...: Part of the agreement called for the sealing of the research areas and CAMERAS set up to MONITOR the sites.

Good thing the North Koreans didn't figure out that they could just go ahead and keep doing research at different sites.

Oh wait. They did.

Uh none, see it wasn’t the name calling but rather the walking away that was the problem.

Wow, what total bullshit. The North Koreans resumed weapons development months before we called them on it. Our "walking away" consisted of nothing more than telling them that we weren't going to keep sending them free stuff unless they stopped trying to develop nukes.

Oh I know, nothing is every Bush’s fault it’s all Clinton’s, or CBS’s or Michael Moore’s because the GOP is all about personal reasonability!

I did not blame Clinton, or anyone else, in my post. So save your whiny leftist bullshit for somebody who cares.

The simple truth of the matter is that there was nothing that could have dissuaded North Korea from developing nukes. They're effectively immune to military strikes and have proven themselves capable of withstanding economic sanctions. I think Carter's plan was idiotic, but only because it involved giving something for nothing -- not because a better plan would have gotten real concessions.; 10/12/06, 4:26 PM