Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck. - Page 59

bilmore · 10-01-2004, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Dick Morris just made the same point. Wait are you Dick Morris? Ages match up right? Hmmmmm.

I'm way younger.

Adder · 10-01-2004, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
My favorite line was when they asked Kerry if he wanted bi-lateral or multilateral talks with NK. Has said he wanted "both." That sums up my view on JK.

Why are the two mutually exclusive?

And why does Bush insist that bilateral talks mean the end of multilateral talks?

Adder · 10-01-2004, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
My take (completely partisan, of course), was that Bush is saying "you keep telling the world that my problem in Iraq is that I skipped the international route, but here I am in NK trying just such a route, because I happen to think it will work better in this situation, and you're complaining about that, too."

Yeah. That's why they both seem oddly inconsistent.

bilmore · 10-01-2004, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
Why are the two mutually exclusive?

And why does Bush insist that bilateral talks mean the end of multilateral talks?

Bilateral necessarily means that conversation will take place only between two parties.

Japan and China (and a few others) have a hugely more important stake in this issue than do we. NK wants us in alone because it doesn't want to be faced with the various pressures and risks inherent in dealing with some of its biggest "allies" in an adversarial process.

bilmore · 10-01-2004, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
Yeah. That's why they both seem oddly inconsistent.

Consistency is the hobsomething of something somethings . . . .

(Different tacks for different situations isn't "inconsistent". It's flexible Merely because you can draw some gross parallels between different situations doesn't mean they equate perfectly.)

Adder · 10-01-2004, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Bilateral necessarily means that conversation will take place only between two parties.

Only if you assume there can only be one course of talks.

etft -- t.s.

Adder · 10-01-2004, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Consistency is the hobsomething of something somethings . . . .

(Different tacks for different situations isn't "inconsistent". It's flexible Merely because you can draw some gross parallels between different situations doesn't mean they equate perfectly.)

Note the word "seem."

SlaveNoMore · 10-01-2004, 01:10 AM

Quote:

sgtclub
My favorite line was when they asked Kerry if he wanted bi-lateral or multilateral talks with NK. Has said he wanted "both." That sums up my view on JK.

Mine was "Triblenka Square"

SlaveNoMore · 10-01-2004, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Adder
For what it is worth, six of six "undecideds" on CBS picked Kerry as the winner.

The same CBS that portrayed as an "undecided" the other night someone who gave a hundred bucks to the Kerry campaign?

bilmore · 10-01-2004, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
Only if you assume there can only be one course of talks.

If China were not included in any one course of talks, then, (1), NK could proceed in that course of talks free of having to appease China on whatever issues were to be discussed, leaving any failure to satisfy China the "fault" of the US, and (2), China would be sorely pissed off.

Neither of those would be good things.

The situation is so intertwined between ALL affected countries that any attempt to short-cut discussions among all concerned is doomed to failure. I can't see Kerry's rationale for "bilateral", unless it's simply to have a difference with Bush.

bilmore · 10-01-2004, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
Note the word "seem."

True. And, like I said, the wonks have already decided.

Adder · 10-01-2004, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore

The situation is so intertwined between ALL affected countries that any attempt to short-cut discussions among all concerned is doomed to failure. I can't see Kerry's rationale for "bilateral", unless it's simply to have a difference with Bush.

And a difference from the whole NK with nukes thing...

But I agree that I don't see a strong reason to favor bilateral over multilateral.

bilmore · 10-01-2004, 01:18 AM

Interesting splot:

"LOCKHART: DEBATE CONSENSUS A 'DRAW'

Unbeknownst to Kerry adviser Mike McCurry, a C-SPAN camera quietly followed McCurry as he found Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart on Spin Alley floor and asked him his impression of the debate. Lockhart candidly said to McCurry , “The consensus is it was a draw.”

(It's from Drudge, so it's a FWIW sort of thing.)

bilmore · 10-01-2004, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The same CBS that portrayed as an "undecided" the other night someone who gave a hundred bucks to the Kerry campaign?

They've got yet another faking problem that should be hitting the news tomorrow.

They're not having a good month.

(ETA)

My memory's going. It was the Globe, not CBS. The guy claiming he could duplicate the Killian memos on a typewriter that the Globe was getting all excited about. But a blogger hacked into his public server, and found his drafts in the process of forging his "proof" on Photoshop.

http://wizbangblog.com/archives/003851.php

Funny as hell.

Hank Chinaski · 10-01-2004, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The only problem for me is that Bush didn't kill him - and he should have. Kerry left him so many openings, I was begging to call in on a life-line.

see, I'm pretty sure I'm ignored. either from the ignore list or people just have stopped reading and scroll by. i mean i said this, I said many other things people second w/o realizing they are seconding. I may move to Tucker Max with P. after all.