Who deserves the credit for foreign policy victory on Korean Peninsula?

Houston Chronicle: UN nuclear monitor to visit N. Korea

Everyone in Washington and on the major cable news networks has embraced the idea that President Bush has a failed foreign policy, and to back up this audacious claim it provides the "lost" war in Iraq as their evidence.

The problem with politicians making the bold and extreme decision to classify a particular president's policy failed, whether in the foreign or domestic realms, is that it guides their rhetoric on when addressing each by-product of said policy and marginalizes the scope of any debate over the nuances of that policy.

The recent breakthroughs in the drawn-out standoff between North Korean and essentially every other government in the world, but primarily the US, have brought the promise that the nuclear reactor which has recently been utilized in the development of several nuclear weapons from the rogue regime of Kim Jong-Il. The multilateral diplomatic approach utilized by the State Department under Colin Powell and Condi Rice is essentially the exact approach advocated by the president's detractors on Capitol Hill, so it would not surprise me if claims come from current presidential candidates, particularly on the Democratic side, that they in fact are responsible for this resounding foreign policy victory rather than the president.

I agree with everyone who asserts that Christopher Hill is the individual within the Bush Administration that deserves the lion-share of the credit, and I believe that the Chinese were the single indispensable element of the entire diplomatic effort. I also believe that the South Korean cooperation, serious cooperation on the part of Putin in Russia, as well as Japanese diplomatic leverage helped push the envelope and keep talks moving forward. But if Bush is to be tossed to the dust-bin of history based simply on his effort in Iraq then we are unlikely to learn anything from his presidency and American politics may be forever doomed to death by sensational sound-bite.

I am curious if someone would like to explain to me why the recent developments are not a significant mark of success on Bush's record. Any answer will suffice, conspiracy theory or critically contrived op-ed.

Tags: North Korea, George Bush, State Department, Christopher Hill, China, Diplomacy, Kim Jong-Il, Nuclear Reactor, United Nations Inspectors

Chris Matthews throws watermellon-sized softballs to Democratic candidates...

Chris Matthews might as well have let the candidates choose the questions he was going to ask him today during MSNBC's "Super Tuesday" joke, and he spent more time facilitating the anti-Bush talking points and exchanging banter with the embarrassingly disrespectful crowd than he spent pressing the candidates about the issues. It was almost as pathetic as his interview with Nancy Pelosi, which left him looking like a star-struck teenager as he literally answered each question in the process of asking it while simultaneously drooling all over himself.

The most infuriating question so far was his lame attempt at pressing John Edwards about what he WOULD HAVE DONE IF HE WAS PRESIDENT DURING HURRICANE KATRINA! What an absolute joke. Nobody could stop what happened in New Orleans, NOBODY, and what good does it do the city to belabor the issue of how the initial response was managed? Is it not more important that we realistically address what we are going to do with New Orleans from today forward? It is irresponsible to dodge the matter of whether or not we are actually going to rebuild below sea level, which should be at the top of the Democrats list of things to avoid considering they have all embraced Al Gore's forecast of a several meter rise in global sea levels. Where is the justice in rebuilding people's homes in a place that might be completely indefensible against the forces of nature ten or fifteen years down the road? Clearly this is too complicated for Chris Matthews to wrap his mind around.

Well, as usual Matthews delivers on his daily unspoken promise to wet himself in the presence of the modern day "Bobby Kennedy", as he ridiculously referred to Barack Obama, who apparently captures all of the "magic" that Chris is still clinging onto from his free love and world peace college years. There are two different Chris Matthews; the bulldog that doesn't let Republicans finish a sentence that casts Bush in a positive light, and there is the fourteen year-old school girl who stares dumbstruck at his 'heroes' and lets them get away with intentional distortion of history and marginalization of the future.

That is just my take though.

Tags: Chris Matthews, MSNBC, Cable News, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina

Tucker Carlson is a pathetic sell-out...

Ever since leaving CNN for his own show on MSNBC, Tucker Carlson has misplaced his spine and abandoned everything that made him the prominent conservative commentator that he used to be. Ever since he was sandwiched between Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman, Tucker has made a mockery of his reputation and does very little other than bad mouth Republicans at every turn. This might be due to the fact that no self-respecting Republican will any longer be a guest on his show, which has left him with random Democratic operatives who make bad points to which he lamely responds, "I agree, I agree." Chris Matthews may as well be standing behind him pulling the string, because I haven't heard anything other than pandering to his now liberal audience for months.

When his book came out a few years ago, Politicians, Partisans and Parasites: My Adventures in Cable News, I read it in one night. I used to ask for bow ties at Christmas time because I was the biggest Tucker Carlson fan in the entire Chicagoland area. But for whatever reason, Tucker has changed, and I don't buy for one second that it is because of the war in Iraq. Personally I think he is drinking the kool-aid Chris Matthews brews for him every morning, because he sounds like an idiot a lot of the time. I know he is smarter than that, but it is difficult to tell anymore when the best part of his show is when he brings on Willy Geist to poke fun at Paris Hilton.

He constantly wants to assert that Bush lied, which is the most intellectually dishonest position that the fringe Bush-haters have taken, when there is so clearly a difference between being wrong and being disingenuous. Unfortunately Tucker has lost touch with common sense and has bought into the left-wing spin machine talking points. I am sure that when he realizes that he has contributed to the emergence of a Democratic decade in control over government, he will change his tune real fast. Unfortunately, by then the damage will be done and America will be much, much weaker than it has ever been at any point in our history. Apparently that is the America that Tucker wants to live in...

Tags: Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthews, Tucker, MSNBC, Pundits, Cable News

Unholy ministers tell Imus he should be fired for controversial comments...

I don't know about the rest of you people, but I am really starting to get mad about the uproar over comments made by Don Imus last week which were racial in nature. I watch the Don Imus show nearly everyday, he is one of the funniest and most respectable shock jocks on the radio; certainly more appropriate and interesting than Howard Stern and some of his other competitors. Though his comments were clearly inappropriate, I think that way in which the media has embraced this story and made it into such an important issue is a perfect example of how sensationalized our society has become.

I understand that these young basketball players at Rutgers are very upset about what was said, but lets get serious, they would never have known nor cared about what some old man said if they were National Champions today, instead of runners-up. How can anyone expect 18-22 year-old women who have just suffered the most devastating defeat of their esteemed athletic careers to have a rational or uninfluenced opinion of Imus's off-hand comment. Instead, they have been thrust in front of the camera and told to pass judgement on a man who they do not know and likely do not listen to. The Rutgers head coach gave a 20 minute speech before a live television national audience about her difficulties handling the devastating loss in Sunday's National Championship, the recent passing of her husband, and now she has been thrown to the pack of politically correct bloodhounds- how can we possibly think that she is in a position mentally or emotionally to be passing judgment on Don Imus. We don't need these college athletes to have a press conference expressing their dissappointment with Imus's comments, we know what he said was wrong, and the proper thing to have done would have been to let these young ladies go back to their lives as students and allow them to escape the spotlight while they get over their defeat in the national championship.

The mainstream media could careless however, and with a few respectable exceptions, has crucified Imus by allowing Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to lead the mass-media lynching against a man that said a something off-hand for a laugh. Don Imus is a former Marine and 30-year veteran of radio and television broadcasting. He is not an arrogant and abrasive loudmouth (at least in my opinion), and to insist that he should be fired for these comments is tantamount to declaring that, as Bill Maher stated on Imus Tuesday morning, Imus should be deprived from his livelihood and have his legacy permanently stained because his comments have deeply upset opportunists and ministers who have no concept of forgiveness and understanding. Matt Lauer asked the Reverend quite directly whether or not he thought that, as a minister, forgiveness was in order, but Sharpton was undeterred and continued his crusade to ruin the life of a man that has earned the admiration of many more respectable and informed people than the opportunistic Reverend. Sharpton should be ashamed and he should lose his program for leading the mob against a legend in the radio business who should never have to answer to a man who obviously cares very little for anything other than putting an old man out of work.

Imus has really impressed me with the gracious and apologetic manner in which he has carried himself over the course of the past few days. He had never struck me as a particularly patient or humble individual, but he has emerged from his flogging at the hands of his colleagues and every black minister in America as the only real victim in the entire ordeal. There will continue to be calls for the veteran DJ to resign, or be fired, but I would be shocked if the MSNBC will drop their biggest (and only) cable news superstar from their morning time slot. Imus has undoubtedly won more viewers from this ordeal than he has lost, since I find it highly unlikely that those of us who have grown to love the old man's style will find anything nefarious about what he said and how it was handled, except possibly an even greater disdain and disrespect for the Unholy Ministers, Sharpton and Jackson.

Tags: MSNBC, Don Imus, Imus in the Morning, Racism, Al Sharpton, Cable News, Bill Maher, Donald Trump, Media, US Media, Jesse Jackson, Injustice

Democrats on Capitol Hill need to re-read Constitution...

W.House attacks planned Syria trip by House speaker | Politics | Reuters

How stupid do Democrats think Americans are? It appears as if the Democratic Party has decided that they are unwilling to wait for for the 2008 Elections to regain their authority on matters of US Foreign Policy.

Watching former-Senator Max Cleland on Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room made me want to punch the television set for several reasons. First, as a former-Senator, it would be reasonable to assume that Cleland maintains a fundamental understanding of the legislative process. One would be forgiven if they questioned the truth in this assumption having listened to his pathetic diatribe. One would be remiss if the failed to point out the pathetic nature of the reporting on the issue even amongst the most respectable in pop-media. I have posted a transcript of the conversation using Google's new and improved Notebook tool.

I did not see the entire interview, but I turned it on in time to hear Senator Cleland trying to get clever, insisting that the power to wage war in fact rests with the Congress. True, the Congress does have the sole authority to declare war, and it is also true that they have the authority to rescind a previous declaration. However, to make the point that this is what the Congress has in effect done with their NON-BINDING amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill passed this week should be taken as an insult to the intelligence of Wolf Blitzer and his audience.

To insist that this largely symbolic action in anyway is a Congressionally mandated repeal of the authority granted, by previous Congressional votes, to President Bush to wage war in Iraq. I agree with Senator Cleland that the Congress does in fact possess the power to de-authorize any previously granted war authorization, but anyone under the delusion that this is what was done earlier this week should be forced to retake the Constitutional exam every American citizens must pass to graduate high school and junior high.

Anyone who seriously watches and writes about Congress would understand that the Republican leadership would have led a filibuster against any serious Democrat attempt to alter the status quo in an official and binding manner. In fact, the only reason they did not filibuster a vote on this non-binding action is because of the importance of passing the emergency supplemental funding of American forces without giving the Democrats a reason to accuse them of unnecessarily delaying passage, which is ironic considering the fact that by adding this amendment and guaranteeing Bush's veto that is exactly what has happened anyway.

But Chris Matthews and his eccentric sidekick David Shuster take everything so seriously. Chris Matthews actually tried to tell Tom Delay on his own show that "..you can never pin down my politics, one way or the other.." or something of that nature, going into a hard break so Rahm and Steny and everybody else dancing on the tables at Nancy Pelosi's Napa vineyard don't have to witness the exchange of words he was about to have with The Hammer, who was getting obviously irritated with the narcissistic Hardball host.

To Blitzer's credit, he does attempt to point out the obvious absurdity in Cleland's comments by pointing out that the Congress does not have the two-thirds majority they need to override a presidential veto. It may be George Bush's fault, for never vetoing a bill in six years, that it can be depicted as if he were doing anything out of the ordinary. though this is hardly the most glaring hole in Cleland's argument, and Cleland's response that it will then be Bush's pen that prevents the troops from receiving the funding they need to carry on their mission makes me think that this weak attempt at being "fair and balanced" is in fact a carefully orchestrated manipulation of the facts.

It is a shame that the debate over the merits of our presence in Iraq has been marginalized to such an absurd degree, blame for which cannot only be cast upon the laughable posturing of Senator Reid and Nancy Pelosi. The media's myopic obsession with Iraq is no doubt a catalyst, but what can really be done about that? Glenn Beck put it nicely the other night on his prime time CNN Headline News Show. I think the Republican Majority should have vetoed the vote on the non-binding resolution while attacking the cable news programs and demonstrating effectively that it was necessary to make sure the money was not delayed. However, the final showdown has not yet come, and the bill must come back once Bush kills it. This is an opportunity for a huge political home run, with momentum hopefully building from today through November 2008...

Tags: 2008 Election, Wolf Blitzer, Max Cleland, Glen Beck, Chris Matthews, Iraq, Cable News, Senate, withdrawal time table, US military, War on Terrorism, Idiots and Liars, Democrats

Responding to the pathetic response to Bush's speech in the media and on the Hill

George W. Bush has clearly evolved in his approach to winning the war in Iraq, and it seems that an escalation in the war against Middle Eastern radicalism is at hand. Listening to the media and Congress react to the speech delivered by the president from the White House last night has confirmed my long suspicions that the Administration is ready to take the Iranian issue to the next level. As I see it on MSNBC siting here now, with Joe Scarborough, Joe Klein, Pat Buchanan and Chris Matthews already turning the scare machine up to full volume. At least Buchanan is level-headed, admitting that such a radical policy change is bound to prove effective either quickly, or not at all. For Klein to call the address the biggest blunder he has ever seen in his 35-years of covering politics is absolutely ridiculous, and clearly he is not a very deep thinker on matters of military strategy. I know you are probably going to call me a chicken hawk, or you think I am unqualified to comment, but Joe Klein's ignorance has without question given every armchair general across the country a position worth 5 minutes on Scarborough Country. For the host's part, he did a great job of reminding the viewers that the US military invaded Iran by default when it raided their countries consulate in Northern Iraq, without once recognizing the Administration and military's shared opinion that the enemies of the coalition are being financed and logistically supported by the Iranian government. Bush has never pretended that he views the Iranian government as anything other than pure evil, a terrorist state, and I have never heard a credible refutation of that assertion. I think it is unlikely that, as the pundits seem to be implying, the administration is only putting pressure on the Iranians to divert attention from the failure that is Iraq, but rather I believe that Bush has always held viewed the Iranians as the greatest challenge to America's interests in the Middle East. To this point, the president has employed the very same diplomatic and multi-lateral methods so vehemently asserted as a better alternative to war with Saddam, and the Iranian response has been to simply reject the will of the "world community" and our "European allies". It only seems appropriate that the president respond to the to defiance by taking measures to protect against the threats posed by a defiant terrorist state, which has been supporting terrorist attacks that have killed scores of US troops.

I must give Klein a bit of credit, he closed well, reiterating almost verbatim one aspect of the proposal I put forth earlier this week, that the US pull out of Baghdad and into the mountains and desert regions, so as to allow the Iraqi military (now some 220,000 strong and fully trained) cut the head off of any civil war that foments in the vacuum that is created following troop redeployment. But I have heard very little reasoned analysis tonight, instead hearing little more than pompous opportunism by pundits who are more concerned with what the polls say than what the military and Bush Administration have presented as the facts on the ground. I have been thinking quite a bit about the current state of political discourse, particularly in Washington in modern times, and I have been hoping to write a post dedicated to the topic, but from the first minute the thought occurred to me I new that it would be entitled The Age of Opportunism. There is no word more suited to characterizing the reckless, self-inflated and shock driven personalities that currently inhabit what is popularly known as the "mainstream media". Though it took nearly six years to hack away at Bush, whom they so obviously view with a disdain and sense of intellectual superiority, they have finally succeeded at melting the brains of enough American's to aid in the emergence of a more progressive political order that shares their snobbish perspective on the current president and his policies. It is almost impossible to even watch prime time cable news anymore, with a few exceptional exceptions, because it increasingly feels like either a evangelical infomercial or a goom-by-a peace rally.

It appears as if the American embassy has come under attack tonight in Athens, and I can't help but wonder- is this Hezbollah striking back at the US for today's raid on their consulate? My suspicion is yes, but I doubt it will be fully understood soon enough for it to even have any bearing on the debate, but I also suspect this is far from the end. If today's raid on what is technically Iranian territory and the air strikes against terrorist elements in Somalia don't signal a very serious, and focused escalation of the war against global extremism and terrorists, I am at a loss for what exactly would. It has been difficult to sit-by and watch the president squirm in the run-up to and the aftermath of the November election, but the fact that he only accepted Rumsfeld's resignation the day after election day and waited until the new Congress was seated before announcing his new policy, is indication that he is a man driven by principles that are largely unheard of in the deeply partisan legislature.

I realize that I may sound irrational in my ranting, but I am absolutely amazed by the utter rejection of everything Bush proposed as empty, misguided rhetoric. Last time I checked, the executive branch made and implemented foreign policy, so the disregard for deference, in my opinion, is nothing more than another indication that politicians are more driven by opportunism than by finding solutions to our problems. I distinctively heard the president challenge the Democrats to propose an alternative, detailed policy for winning in Iraq. Where in all of the pontificating today did we hear such a proposal? That is absolutely right, we didn't, but were rather fed crap talking points about "seeking a new course" or a "new way forward".

In my mind, several questions are now unavoidable and should have been seriously addressed in the committee hearings that were so effectively hijacked by presidential hopefuls this afternoon. Most obviously, are we headed into another invasion of a large, hostile Middle Eastern country? Are we prepared to do whatever it takes to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program? What type of involvement have the Iranians had in supporting and cultivating the chaos in Iraq? What do we do if the Iranians strike first? Where do I sign up for a machine gun and a plane ticket to Tehran?