By Hanlon, on October 9th, 2006 at 11:50 PM
Caught this one on Olbermann, nipped the graphic from DailyKos. After they reported Foley was a Democrat a few times, I guess they felt like upping the ante with this:
Yep, that’s FOX. Apparently, even when the Democrats are winning, the Republicans are winning! It’s a cunning tactic, you see: simply flip the parties in any races where a republican is losing, and that will make people think the reds are doing well, which will encourage voters! Sure, when they go to the polls the names are going to all wrong, but hey. I don’t think FOX expects anything but straight-ticket voting anyway.
By Hanlon, on October 9th, 2006 at 11:17 PM
 Unlike many bloggers, and incredibly unlike nearly all Bush supporters, I don’t pretend that any of my favorite politicians are infallible. They make mistakes. Take this, Clinton’s brilliant idea to give North Korea a few hundred million in aid.
But an aid policy initiated by the Clinton administration in the mid-1990s to finance two light water nuclear reactors in North Korea puts the isolated communist country on the fast track in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, William R. Graham and Victor Gilinsky told members of the House Policy Committee.
Hold on, their intentions were good!
In 1994 the Clinton administration signed an agreement with North Korea that was designed to halt North Korea’s nuclear weapons development program. North Korea sought light water reactors to provide for their energy needs and the U.S. agreed to provide them in exchange for North Korea giving up its nuclear program.
Okay, at this point I should say that purely liberal “trust in the good of everyone and give them a hand out because gosh darnit that’ll fix things” thought does not apply to every situation. However, that’s not the entirety of the story, so don’t go jumping to conclusions just yet.
North Korea, 1994. A famine is starting up due to some serious economic disruptions. As a result, a few million people die in NK between 1994 and 1997. During this time, the United States is giving massive amounts of support in order to stop this. However, it’s not quite enough and NK starts asking for more, cutting a potential deal.
In an apparent bid for more U.S. aid, North Korean officials told the delegation they would stop exporting missiles if compensated for lost earnings. House International Relations Committee staff member Peter Brookes said they mentioned a figure of $500 million a year.
More historical context. There’s this thing called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. North Korea had signed this, in fact ratified it in 1985, and at the time the deal was going down were still signatories in it. See that’s the point of a treaty. Someone signs it and then you can deal with them under the assumption that they’re abiding by it.
After the aid deal was sealed, until 1998 there was no evidence of any weapons, when North Korea tested a Taepo-Dong One missile that August. After that, they agreed to freeze their tests as long as they kept getting aid.
Which brings us out of the Clinton Administration and into the Bush administration. One of the big points of this was the aid given from the US to North Korea. You can take a look at the annual aid here, with the following graph being particularly important:
Notice the Bell Curve. The aid pretty much drops of after 2002. Well what happened right after that? Oh that’s right, North Korea dropped out of the NPT. The reason for that can be traced further back to the United States claiming that NK admitted it was breaking the treaty already, with NK itself denying such a claim. The link above is their own press release, I provide it more for temporal reference than saying what’s in it is the unvarnished truth. It’s worth noting, though, that those reactors mentioned in the main article were never built.
The first test after that brief one in 1998 was then in 2003 when the Taepo-Dong 2 was tested. That then brings us to the nuclear test of today. Weapons proliferation? One test in 1998, but otherwise only accelerated after the aid dropped and the oil shipments cut out.
Then let’s think rhetoric. Clinton tried to make a deal, didn’t call North Korea “evil”, and was acting while they were a part of the NPT. Bush, meanwhile, labeled North Korea a part of the Axis of Evil back in January of 2002, a full year before they pulled out of the NPT. Then, while all of this was public knowledge (notice that the original article was written in 2000 up there), Bush sat by and focused on Iraq which was merely THOUGHT to POSSIBLY have the ABILITY to make weapons.
Worst case scenario, Clinton did not know what NK was up to. Bush -did- know what NK was up to, but still did nothing.
So at the end of the day, what’s our conclusion? Clinton gave oodles of aid to an unstable nation that was part of a treaty agreeing not to make nuclear weapons to help its population not die under the condition that they continue to not make nuclear weapons, with one hiccup in the form of a tested non-nuclear missile which was quickly stopped. Bush stopped the aid, called them evil, and then didn’t do a damn thing when they got pissed off and started making nukes. Now one has been tested.
Gee, what to think of this…
Unlike many bloggers, and incredibly unlike nearly all Bush supporters, I don’t pretend that any of my favorite politicians are infallible. They make mistakes. Take this, Clinton’s brilliant idea to give North Korea a few hundred million in aid.
But an aid policy initiated by the Clinton administration in the mid-1990s to finance two light water nuclear reactors in North Korea puts the isolated communist country on the fast track in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, William R. Graham and Victor Gilinsky told members of the House Policy Committee.
Hold on, their intentions were good!
In 1994 the Clinton administration signed an agreement with North Korea that was designed to halt North Korea’s nuclear weapons development program. North Korea sought light water reactors to provide for their energy needs and the U.S. agreed to provide them in exchange for North Korea giving up its nuclear program.
Okay, at this point I should say that purely liberal “trust in the good of everyone and give them a hand out because gosh darnit that’ll fix things” thought does not apply to every situation. However, that’s not the entirety of the story, so don’t go jumping to conclusions just yet.
North Korea, 1994. A famine is starting up due to some serious economic disruptions. As a result, a few million people die in NK between 1994 and 1997. During this time, the United States is giving massive amounts of support in order to stop this. However, it’s not quite enough and NK starts asking for more, cutting a potential deal.
In an apparent bid for more U.S. aid, North Korean officials told the delegation they would stop exporting missiles if compensated for lost earnings. House International Relations Committee staff member Peter Brookes said they mentioned a figure of $500 million a year.
More historical context. There’s this thing called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. North Korea had signed this, in fact ratified it in 1985, and at the time the deal was going down were still signatories in it. See that’s the point of a treaty. Someone signs it and then you can deal with them under the assumption that they’re abiding by it.
After the aid deal was sealed, until 1998 there was no evidence of any weapons, when North Korea tested a Taepo-Dong One missile that August. After that, they agreed to freeze their tests as long as they kept getting aid.
Which brings us out of the Clinton Administration and into the Bush administration. One of the big points of this was the aid given from the US to North Korea. You can take a look at the annual aid here, with the following graph being particularly important:
Notice the Bell Curve. The aid pretty much drops of after 2002. Well what happened right after that? Oh that’s right, North Korea dropped out of the NPT. The reason for that can be traced further back to the United States claiming that NK admitted it was breaking the treaty already, with NK itself denying such a claim. The link above is their own press release, I provide it more for temporal reference than saying what’s in it is the unvarnished truth. It’s worth noting, though, that those reactors mentioned in the main article were never built.
The first test after that brief one in 1998 was then in 2003 when the Taepo-Dong 2 was tested. That then brings us to the nuclear test of today. Weapons proliferation? One test in 1998, but otherwise only accelerated after the aid dropped and the oil shipments cut out.
Then let’s think rhetoric. Clinton tried to make a deal, didn’t call North Korea “evil”, and was acting while they were a part of the NPT. Bush, meanwhile, labeled North Korea a part of the Axis of Evil back in January of 2002, a full year before they pulled out of the NPT. Then, while all of this was public knowledge (notice that the original article was written in 2000 up there), Bush sat by and focused on Iraq which was merely THOUGHT to POSSIBLY have the ABILITY to make weapons.
Worst case scenario, Clinton did not know what NK was up to. Bush -did- know what NK was up to, but still did nothing.
So at the end of the day, what’s our conclusion? Clinton gave oodles of aid to an unstable nation that was part of a treaty agreeing not to make nuclear weapons to help its population not die under the condition that they continue to not make nuclear weapons, with one hiccup in the form of a tested non-nuclear missile which was quickly stopped. Bush stopped the aid, called them evil, and then didn’t do a damn thing when they got pissed off and started making nukes. Now one has been tested.
Gee, what to think of this…
By Hanlon, on October 9th, 2006 at 09:39 PM
 I know, I know, I’m obsessed with Bill. Give me a break, it’s fun and generally harmless. Whenever I need a break from North Korea, Foley, Iraq, etc, I pop over and see what BOR’s up to. Anyway, take a look at this video from MediaMatters wherein ol’ Billy gets annoyed at a review of his book. For contrastual (?) purposes, I’ll give a bit of his grievance and then a bit of the review. First is Bill angry at the paper for not specifying who Media Matters is.
I’m so mad about the Cleveland Plain Dealer, I mean, but, you know, the fact the book’s number one and all that — people say, “Oh, why don’t you overlook that stuff?” You know, I don’t overlook it because the Cleveland Plain Dealer is a major newspaper in a major American city. And this is so blatantly dishonest, what they did. You don’t like the book? Give it to somebody who doesn’t have a political agenda, OK. And don’t try to hide the political agenda, Cleveland Plain Dealer. So, I’m gonna — I’m gonna — we’re calling the editor and see what he says, and we’ll have a little bit of it on TV tonight.
Then there’s this part of the review itself, concerning Bill-O’s allegation that 75% of the media is liberal.
How did he arrive at those figures? Nobody knows — O’Reilly fails to cite any sources or supply a single footnote. Some of the newspapers he singles out as having a leftist editorial slant — the Denver Post, the Houston Chronicle, the New Orleans Times-Picayune — have endorsed George W. Bush in past elections.
Let’s see. Paper reviews “Culture Warrior” and says Bill makes up figures without sourcing them. Bill responds by saying the review is dishonest and written with an agenda, but doesn’t back up this claim with any evidence beyond who wrote it. The irony of this situation is so glaring I can hardly see what I’m typing.
Back to real news shortly.
By Hanlon, on October 9th, 2006 at 07:42 PM
 Provided this goes as planned, I think we’re going to be in for some surprises. The House Ethics Committee is looking into the page scandal, and the net cast is wide indeed.
The letter distributed to the 432 House members now in office was signed by House Ethics panel chairman Doc Hastings, a Washington Republican, and Howard Berman of California, the panel’s senior Democrat.
AC_FL_RunContent(‘codebase’,'http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=7,0,19,0′,’width’,’175′,’height’,’130′,’align’,'middle’,'src’,'http://today.reuters.com/media/editorial/election2006/electionsNews_3headlines_v1′,’quality’,'high’,'bgcolor’,'#ffffff’,'name’,'foo’,'allowscriptaccess’,'always’,'pluginspage’,'http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer’,'movie’,'http://today.reuters.com/media/editorial/election2006/electionsNews_3headlines_v1′ );
It asked that “you contact current and former House Pages sponsored by your office for the purpose of learning whether any of those individuals had any inappropriate communications or interactions with former Representative Foley or any other member of the House.”
Provided the pages themselves aren’t going to be submitting this publicly (meaning there is some kind of privacy protection), I have a feeling we’re going to find out that Foley wasn’t alone in this, and I don’t believe it’ll stay on one side of the aisle. I’m also curious to see just what is said by the Congressmen and their staffs.
I will say this: if a Democratic Foley-esque scenario emerges, that will signal the end of any chance they had of taking Congress. I’ll wait for the results to make those kinds of conjectures, though.
By Hanlon, on October 9th, 2006 at 02:43 PM
 Okay, it’s the wrong Murdoch-owned news logo there, but it’s all the same umbrella. And this earns the “faux” way more. The Post is now reporting that Keith Olbermann is bad in bed.
She says he came to her hotel room and opened a bottle of Merlot which he “spilled all over.” Then, when “sexual activity began [in] less than an hour,” Olbermann had difficulty. “I pretended he knew what he was doing,” the embittered blogger writes. “I adored the guy. I didn’t want him to think he was a dud in bed,” so she faked experiencing ecstasy.
…
Six days later, she claims, Olbermann e-mailed her to tell her never to contact him again. “I practically begged him to explain what I did wrong. I told him I deserved some kind of explanation for such a dismissal, but I never heard from him again.” She said she’s since heard from six other women who say they had brief sexual relationships with Olbermann.
Don’t bother trying to read that blog, it’s “invite only”, and I don’t think they deserve that much attention. Now, this is just plain hilarious to me. Apparently Murdoch wants to make Keith look bad so much that he’s resorted to stupidity like this. They totally failed at saying he was a pussy, so now it’s pointless tabloidal tripe.
The woman won’t give her name, so obviously none of this can be substantiated. Which makes sense, since it’s not real in the first place. That’s where we’re at, folks. Nothing concrete to use against the left, so the tabloids are makin’ it up.
By Hanlon, on October 9th, 2006 at 12:36 PM
 Perusing blogs as I often do, I discovered that there is some dispute whether or not North Korea’s recent nuclear test was a success or not. Some are saying it is, some are saying it’s not, and there appears to be solid cases that involve math I don’t understand. We’ve even got Bush in the debate:
Mr. Bush was careful to say that intelligence officials were still working to confirm North Korea’s statement. But he said that “such a claim itself constitutes a threat to international peace and security.”
Now one thing I hope I’ve conveyed well here is that while I do not agree with people at all times, what I respect is consistency. Which is sorely lacking in this president. We have a man who stressed an invasion of Iraq based on intelligence that said Iraq was trying to get some uranium and a few tubes.
Now he’s tiptoeing around, saying he wants to confirm whether or not NorK’s tests were successful. As though if it were unsuccessful that means we can all sit back and go “whew, nevermind, thought we had a dilemma there!” If the potential for a re-constitution of a program that could eventually lead to a nuke is enough to invade country A, then an actual test of a weapon is sure as hell enough to do the same, success or not.
If we’re to believe that Bush is so tough on national security, then this test shouldn’t have been allowed to happen at all. What’s the message being passed to Iran? Go ahead and get that nuke, we aren’t going to stop you? The war on Iraq started off by saying that we won’t stand for dangerous nations trying to get weapons, but now the message is that if you actually have the ability to get them, you’re home free.
While his words have espoused strength, his actions have proven weakness. And what it tells the world at large is that if you want nukes, make ‘em quick because once you have the capability we’re going to step away. Or it tells them we don’t really care about anything except waging war in Iraq and everyone else is going to get harsh words thrown at them and little else.
You want to know why people think America is less safe now than it was even in 2002, here’s your answer.
Perusing blogs as I often do, I discovered that there is some dispute whether or not North Korea’s recent nuclear test was a success or not. Some are saying it is, some are saying it’s not, and there appears to be solid cases that involve math I don’t understand. We’ve even got Bush in the debate:
Mr. Bush was careful to say that intelligence officials were still working to confirm North Korea’s statement. But he said that “such a claim itself constitutes a threat to international peace and security.”
Now one thing I hope I’ve conveyed well here is that while I do not agree with people at all times, what I respect is consistency. Which is sorely lacking in this president. We have a man who stressed an invasion of Iraq based on intelligence that said Iraq was trying to get some uranium and a few tubes.
Now he’s tiptoeing around, saying he wants to confirm whether or not NorK’s tests were successful. As though if it were unsuccessful that means we can all sit back and go “whew, nevermind, thought we had a dilemma there!” If the potential for a re-constitution of a program that could eventually lead to a nuke is enough to invade country A, then an actual test of a weapon is sure as hell enough to do the same, success or not.
If we’re to believe that Bush is so tough on national security, then this test shouldn’t have been allowed to happen at all. What’s the message being passed to Iran? Go ahead and get that nuke, we aren’t going to stop you? The war on Iraq started off by saying that we won’t stand for dangerous nations trying to get weapons, but now the message is that if you actually have the ability to get them, you’re home free.
While his words have espoused strength, his actions have proven weakness. And what it tells the world at large is that if you want nukes, make ‘em quick because once you have the capability we’re going to step away. Or it tells them we don’t really care about anything except waging war in Iraq and everyone else is going to get harsh words thrown at them and little else.
You want to know why people think America is less safe now than it was even in 2002, here’s your answer.
|
|
|
