. . . for your considered opinion. Otherwise, it’s gonna be a light blogging day/week for me.
First, Kerry’s an idiot for commenting that he has the support of “foreign leaders” (or more leaders, or whatever). He sounds like a Fifth columnist. And he deserves the crap he’s getting from Team Bush.
On the other hand, Kaus needs to relax a bit in proposing a “dump Kerry” meme. If you want a meme to stick, dude, you can’t be so droolingly obvious.
Second, everyone seems to agree that something is going on in Iran. (Ably blogged by our own Moe Lane here.) Nobody knows what. (There, I just saved you thirty minutes.)
Finally, it’s gonna be fun to watch Obama and Ryan compete for retiring Sen. Fitzgerald’s Illinois seat. Although Obama’s clearly got the better resume — and I’ve been an Obama supporter at the state level — the last thing the U.S. Senate needs is another anti-trade member. So consider me leaning towards Ryan. (‘Course, I no longer live in Illinois, so whattayou care?)
I agree that Kerry was an idiot to say foreign leaders prefer him. It so obviously true he shouldn’t have to say it. There’s lots of people that could make that observation on his behalf. He should take the additude of Dick Cavett when somebody ask him if he ever masterbates. “No,” he answer, “I have people that do that for me.”
As Kerry’s campaign unfolds it more and more resembles a light hearted comedy, the Matchmaker, where a senator searches for his roots in place he was never from.
I agree but it would be nice if Kim Ill Jung, Jean Bertrand Aristide, and Yassar Arafat would travel with Kerry as part of his new “band of brothers” just to emphasize the point that the sort of foreign leaders who prefer John Kerry are not the sort who are favorable to America.
I agree but it would be nice if Kim Ill Jung, Jean Bertrand Aristide, and Yassar Arafat would travel with Kerry as part of his new “band of brothers” just to emphasize the point that the sort of foreign leaders who prefer John Kerry are not the sort who are favorable to America.
Yeah, Kim Ill Jung and Yassar Arafat clearly have reason to fear Bush…he’s been so effective in making them behave.
Kaus and Krugman both driven mad by their irrelevance, a monomania of opposition.
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,
By drunken prophecies, libels, and dreams
OTTAWA (AP) Stung by a pop quiz about foreign leaders earlier in his campaign, U.S. Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush has fallen victim to a foreign affairs prank.
Canadians are chuckling over his on-air answer when a comic posing as a reporter made up a story that Canadian Prime Minister “Jean Poutine”; had endorsed him.
“I appreciate his strong statement[,] he understands I believe in free trade,” Bush replied. “He understands I want to make sure our relations with our most important neighbour to the north of us, the Canadians, is strong and we’ll work closely together.”
Canada’s prime minister is Jean Chretien, not Poutine, and he has endorsed no one in U.S. politics. Poutine is a popular food in the French-speaking province of Quebec, consisting of french fries, gravy and cheese curd.
via Wonkette
I see the “If Stuck Mention Clinton” Virus has got you again Thorley.
Lil’ Kim doesn’t need any return to a previous policy, he’s doing quite well under the current Administration.
Geesh, the virus has spread in here? Okay. So Karimov supports Bush and what are we to infer from that?
That Bush is soft on thuggish dictators who boil people alive?
Okay. I’m sure Thorley is comfortable with that. Here’s one he’ll like even better. Osama opposes homosexual marriage, Bush opposes homsexual marriage, ergo…Osama supports Bush!
Let me know when we can retire this game for the good of everyone involved.
Edward wrote:
Actually it’s more a case of Edward invoking his “when losing an argument try to change the subject” clause.
Why, are we still sending billions of dollars to North Korea while they let us pretend that we don’t know they’re trying to build nuclear bombs?
The King of changing the Subject accuses me of it for pointing out that he hasn’t defended Bush’s handling of North Korea in any way other than to offer a currently irrelevant swipe at the past President…Am I on Candid Camera?
Why, are we still sending billions of dollars to North Korea while they let us pretend that we don’t know they’re trying to build nuclear bombs?
No, now we’re talking about sending billions of dollars to North Korea even though we know they’ve already built a couple nuclear bombs. (Not to say our policy is incorrect, b-t-b.)
Harley’s got it right, though: playing six degrees of Kevin Bacon with foreign leaders (your original point) is unlikely to get us anywhere.
Edward wrote:
Actually the subject was Kerry’s purported support amongst foreign leaders. I merely pointed out that his support tends to be among those leaders who are generally not favorable to the United States. Since Kerry is apparently favored by the dictatorship of North Korea, mentioning the fact that he supported the Clinton-Carter policy of subsidizing their nuclear weapons program is in keeping with the subject.
Von wrote:
Really? Evidence please.
No, the subject was my assertion that Bush has done nothing to curb Lil’ Kim or Arafat to which you responded with your Clinton-Carter non sequitor.
It’s easy to keep track if you read upthread.
Thorley:
W/r/t sending billions to NK, see here and here.
W/r/t NK having nuclear weapons, see here and here.
You may say: “Well, the aid would be conditional on NK agreeing to scuttle its nuclear program.” Which was exactly the Clinton administration’s policy.
Von,
Agreed that that the Senate race in Illinois is a good one! Some serious resumes there between Ryan & Obama.
Question: If Cook County starts a-stuffin’ those ballot boxes, are the down-staters gonna start chantin’ “Obama-Osama”? Hmm. Could get ugly.
I’d be damn surprised if Ryan wins.
If Cook County starts a-stuffin’ those ballot boxes, are the down-staters gonna start chantin’ “Obama-Osama”? Hmm. Could get ugly.
Yup, could turn into an up-state v. down-state battle royale. And Ryan’s name, it should be noted, cuts both ways: (1) it’s Irish (generally good in Illinois), but (2) it’s the same as the corruptly-departed former Governor Ryan.
How any straight male could vote for a guy who divorced Jeri Ryan is beyond me. Except for whoever she’s seeing now.
Now that al Qaeda has endorsed Bush, perhaps we’ll hear less about “foreign leaders”.
Edward wrote:
Actually which I contrasted with the previous failed policy (the one supported by Kerry) in which we sent billions of dollars for the North Korean nuclear program and they continued to build weapons. Since we are longer paying for their nuclear weapons program and have them engaged in multilateral talks (Russia-China-Japan-South Korea) rather than the bilateral ones (which was both their and John Kerry’s preference), are launching a new interdiction effort, and have demonstrated our ability and willingness to use force (it’s no secret that North Korea returned to the table at about the same time we liberated Iraq) we’ve already done quite a bit to curb them.
Only since you decided to try to change the subject, which was Kerry,’s purported support amongst foreign leaders – who they are and why they support him.
Von wrote:
I disagree and for several reasons.
First, the Bush State Department unlike its predecessor isn’t also agreeing to build two nuclear reactors for North Koreans which is in itself a pretty significant departure in policy IMNHO.
Second, Bush has gone on the offensive with North Korea rather than merely reacting as his predecessor did with redeploying vulnerable troops in South Korea (signaling that military force is still an option albeit not the first or preferred on), endorsing the Madrid Initiative with about ten other nations to interdict vessels carrying WMD components and illegal drugs, and pushing for a ballistic missile defense system.
Third, Bush has brought four other nations China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan to the table with multilateral talks. This is significant in that none of these nations want a nuclear North Korea in their backyard and it gives us an advantage in having five-against-one at the table (also China supplies much of North Korea’s fuel). It should be noted that North Korea has asked for bilateral negotiations (which seems odd if they really believed that the United States couldn’t be trusted you’d think they’d want multilateral ones with other nations) which is what they had which lead to the disastrous Clinton-Carter deal and also incidentally want John Kerry says he wants to give them as well.
These are all pretty significant departures from the previous administration’s policy. Even if we do decide to provide them with some “humanitarian” aid (e.g. food and medicine rather than nuclear reactors), it probably isn’t going to happen until after we have evidence of disarmament. I for one prefer getting their compliance under the threat of military retaliation, interdiction, and losing their energy supply rather than trusting inspectors who really only work with nations who you know want to cooperate.