Hopstretch Posted August 6, 2009 Report Share Posted August 6, 2009 That "batshit" "newspaper columnist" was the US Ambassador to the UN... Bolton was also up to his eyeballs in Iran-Contra, so he knows a bit about dealing directly with despots and terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grawk Posted August 6, 2009 Report Share Posted August 6, 2009 Attack him all you want, what he's saying is still valid. I'm not going to debate the character of the author in lieu of the argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Chalk Posted August 6, 2009 Report Share Posted August 6, 2009 We'll see...This is pretty much where I am. I have to admit to thinking only about the hostages being released when I wrote my initial response, but I don't think very highly of ambassadors -- they're mostly power-drunks on boondoggles -- and I also didn't see a whole lot of validation to what he wrote -- it's mostly speculation (batshit or otherwise). I mean, I see how he could have a point, but it's not like we made a press release saying "hey, they're legitimate now". It's like a hostage negotiator going in to a hostage negotiation and coming out with the hostages. I stand by, "win". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grawk Posted August 6, 2009 Report Share Posted August 6, 2009 The problem comes if it sets a precedent, that other countries start expecting similar treatment. We have a similar situation in iran with the "hikers", where we are in a similar political impasse. If this raises the level it takes to get hostages freed, it's a problem. It's more painting us into a corner diplomatically by weakening our hand. We can't hold the needs of the country over the needs of reporters who knew what they were getting into when they went to north korea. It's either Clinton doing an ill advised but generous favor for his friend, or it's our country setting precedents diplomatically that can cause real long term weakening. Only time will tell which it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n_maher Posted August 6, 2009 Report Share Posted August 6, 2009 I don't like the idea that talking with anyone weakens our "position". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grawk Posted August 6, 2009 Report Share Posted August 6, 2009 You may not like it, but when what he wants is global legitimacy, then recognition is one of the few things we can do to influence him. He's already demonstrated he doesn't care for the welfare of his country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morphsci Posted August 6, 2009 Report Share Posted August 6, 2009 It's an op-ed piece, and all diplomacy is impacted by speculation, supposition and sanctimonious platitudes, especially when dealing with batshit dictators (north korea not being the only one we have to deal with). I think Clinton put his friendship with Al Gore over the best interest of the country, and Obama was just going along because it was in line with what he campaigned on. We'll see long term if it has any impact. A good op-ed piece still needs to be based upon facts. Taking a picture and writing a nice story about it is fine for five-year olds but not for adults in a newspaper. Especially when the story is used to make a political statement, which is what it was about, not about the correctness of the diplomacy. I expected the story to be written as it was from Bolton, my real problem is that the Washington Post decided to publish it. True or not, that lends it an air of credibility it does not deserve. Now granted the direction of the story is contrary to my political longitude but if it had been written from the opposite perspective saying it was the best thing since Madeleine Albright, and used only the facts in this story, I would have the same problem with it. Plus there are always (and should be IMO) backdoor talks going on, even with batshit dictators, all the time. Just usually not this public. Lastly, the only way to play a megolomaniac is to make them think they are in charge of what is going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarlSeibert Posted August 6, 2009 Report Share Posted August 6, 2009 I don't like the idea that talking with anyone weakens our "position". Indeed, acting like the schoolyard bully didn't do us much good. Maybe behaving civilly will. Time, as Dan says, will tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopstretch Posted August 6, 2009 Report Share Posted August 6, 2009 (edited) I LOLed. And I love the Big Dog. Edited August 6, 2009 by Hopstretch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swt61 Posted August 6, 2009 Report Share Posted August 6, 2009 I don't like the idea that talking with anyone weakens our "position". I say put the crazy SOB up on a pedestal. I completely agree that he's batshit crazy, and I've been around long enough to see that the brighter these wingnuts shine, the faster the crazy bastards burn out. It's when they're ignored and treated as unimportant that they fester for decades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aardvark baguette Posted August 6, 2009 Report Share Posted August 6, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8H5263jCGg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swt61 Posted August 6, 2009 Report Share Posted August 6, 2009 I remember that commercial quite well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morphsci Posted August 6, 2009 Report Share Posted August 6, 2009 I LOLed. And I love the Big Dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.