Open Thread


What are your thoughts on Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia and the National Press Club yesterday?

Read comments

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Ahmadinejad: A great example to the world...

A great example to the world of our "right" to free speech!

v

Except that "bubbles" Brzezinski doesn't get the concept

of "free speech."   She was highly insulted that the President of Columbia took the little man to task.   She called it "rude" and "unnecessary", etc, etc. 

Typical of many liberals, Mika thinks free speech only flows one way.

Mika is upset that a liberal

Mika is upset that a liberal like Bollinger got it right and treated Ahmadinnerjacket in the way he should be and her old man never "got it."

kudos..

...to Lee Bollinger, he took a page right out of Ann's playbook.  Amadinejad took the whole deal "hook, line, and sinker".  Nice job Lee!

v

I disagre with Ann on this one...

The Democrats have brains, most of them seem to have no integrity.

Integrity: adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.

v

I love this line, even with the typo...

"(I don't know how easy marmots are to bribe, but they've got to be hardier than the Stevens clan.)" -- I think Weigel meant "harder."
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

Lemmings come to mind. It

Lemmings come to mind. It was a coyote speaking to lemmings. All of them running for the cliff.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Is It Me?!

I am all for rights in every manner, shape, and form ["man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man" Herbert Spencer].  That applies to Columbia University as well.  But, I happen to believe that we are fighting a war right now.  That war is against those who would do us harm (label them any way you would like).  And we have DOCUMENTED PROOF that some of those we are fighting are either supplied and trained by this jackass's country or are actually Iranian themselves.  In my eyes, this makes him the enemy.  Enemy = Weapons Free.  He should have been invited and immediately captured as an enemy combatant.  It would have been the easiest capture of an enemy leader, EVER.  I feel like I am taking crazy pills. 

Is it me? 

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry

What's new!?!?!?

It's a wonderfull thing, living in a country where selective freedom of speech is defended depending on your view.  Let's see what happens next time the ROTC (or any conservative/republican) wants to speak at columbia or the npc

Should have been a debate

Should have been a debate format, with Ann Coulter up for the US. Or maybe Condee Rice. Naww...Condee is to diplomatic.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Ann versus Ahmadinejad...

...what a thought.  But unless he insisted she wear a burqa, he wouldn't be able to focus on the conversation.

v

U.S. showing tolarance...

I don't think we should

I don't think we should provide a soap box for lunatics like this.  He presided over a military parade just before his trip to the US and some of the military vehicles in that parade had signs saying Down with America!  He is the enemy.  Don't accomodate the enemy.  If the uppity-ups at CU have a problem with that, then they have a problem with that! 

Reason

If my information is correct, it would seem that a person with strong ties to both Columbia U. & moveon.org was being held in Iran and when the "invitation" to speak was given, this guy was then released. This COULD explain some of to stupidity of this "invitation"

“I would remind you
that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind
you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

Wow, good point

Haleh Esfandiari was with the "Woodrow Wilson Center," but chances are that group has close connections to Columbia, and the timing sure was convenient as you say. That fact-pattern has the basis for a good question if someone had thought of it yesterday, not that he'd answer it any more honestly than the gays-in-Iran question...
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

Well he didn't exactly

Well he didn't exactly lie.  There aren't really any open gays in Iran.  They're all dead masses in the stone pit.

Was the "intro" a fore runner of Republicans being intro'd ?

I can't help but think that the Intro that Ahmadinejad received by the Columbia pres. will be an example of how all Republican Candidates will be intro'd on the MSM presidential debates.

It's a bad precendence.

Free Speech is one thing, supplying a Soap Box in a very visible position to express Free Speech, is another thing.   Plus, the speech brought new meaning to "Bush Lied"....Bush can't hold a candle to this guy's Lies.....and more Lies....

It was a political Propaganda Speech, not Free Speech by a Free man.             

What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ?   David Foote  GoE

Before his little speech I

Before his little speech I was furious that he was given the stage at CU, but after watching the whole affair I've changed my mind. All the world got to see what a liar and complete pathetic little fool he is. This has got to be good for us. 

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

he dispensed his propaganda

My fear is that Average Joe American only heard his "I'm not a mean guy" rhetoric and listened to the MSM talking heads that only mentioned how mean the questions asked of him were. I fear Average Joe didn't notice that he didn't answer a single question, except the "we have no gays in Iran" and missed the reason he could say they have no gays is because if you are gay in Iran, you are killed.

No RINOs in '08

Did anyone see Bill

Did anyone see Bill O'Reilly's comments about eating in a restaurant in Harlem?

No...

But I sense a falafel-joke in the works unless you tell me it's BBQ & not mid-eastern food! :) Seriously, what'd he say?
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

Maybe all the locals asked

Maybe all the locals asked him to lay-off their buddy, the other Bill!

v

http://gawker.com/ne... Ba

http://gawker.com/ne...

Basically says he was surprised how civilized everyone was.

Your link starts out like

Your link starts out like this:

"Over the weekend, loud-mouth asshat and Fox News anchor Bill O'Reilly" ....

I would like to point out that O'Rielly is NOT an anchor but rather a commentator.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

I'll be sure to mention

I'll be sure to mention that at the next Gawker editorial board meeting I attend. ;-)

In New York City, I am

In New York City, I am surprised when ANYONE is civil.

balboa

Do you mean where Joe Schmo and his sycophants tried to make something negative out of a sincere complement?

Summary: Discussing his

Summary: Discussing his recent dinner with Rev. Al Sharpton at the Harlem restaurant
Sylvia's, Bill O'Reilly reported that he "couldn't get over the fact that there
was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in
New York City. I
mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black
patronship." O'Reilly added: "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was
screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.' "

I'm trying to find out more.

 

I'm not an O'Reilly fan, but

it seems to me that it was nothing more than a clumsy compliment that, if he were a liberal, would have certainly been overlooked.

It's more than clumsy. It's

It's more than clumsy. It's stupid. No, I wouldn't protest about it, or march about it, or call for his firing, but...seriously? He's "surprised"? Bill's gotta get out more. Was he expecting a scene right out of New Jack City?

bal -

Perhaps Mr. O is guilty of believing the MSM image of the way things are in certain neighborhoods?  As we all might be, to some degree or another ...

If you're going to believe

If you're going to believe New Jack City as reality, then you've got problems.

I think he was just disappointed because he brought Barbara Billingsley, thinking she'd serve as his interpreter, and he didn't need her.

That was good, bal

Poking fun at clumsy windbags (not tsk-tsking) is the best approach.

I'm sure you would be equally upset, bal

and would've felt just as compelled to post about it if a liberal had said the same thing....right?   ;^>

I do have a weakness for

I do have a weakness for Bill's stupidity, but I love any moronic statements but windbags of all political stripes.

And I'm not upset; I'm

And I'm not upset; I'm entertained.

lol, bal!

...you ARE aware of how this all makes you look, aren't you?  ;^>

RJ, On lilly-white liberals.

Actually, the lilly-white lib crowd just takes over a city government, jacks up the taxes high enough to make damn sure minorities (and others they consider riff-raff) cannot live in their neighborhoods, then spend their time lecturing the rest of us on race relations.


When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.
-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.

 It's not stupid..it's an

 It's not stupid..it's an astute observation..in real life..not the pretend life liberals live in,  MFer is used by blacks about as common as "the" is used in sentences.

May be you need to get out more.  Believe me, I am out plenty and around blacks my whole life.  It's no big deal to them or me if m'fer is used.  It's used in public, private, business where ever.  Hell they even put it in songs.

So it's really no stretch to think someone might ask for some m'fen tea in a black resturant, are you poking fun at their culture?  I believe we have got about enough mountains made out of molehills...don't you?

Did he see Leon there? "We

Did he see Leon there?

"We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices.... Government has to make those choices for people" -HRC

Well, I followed the links

Well, I followed the links until I found the entire segment.  I have to say that O'Reilly put his foot firmly in his mouth (or as we say around here, 'showed his ass') on this one.  He should (probably won't, but should) do a mea culpa and admit that he has deeply held prejudices and was just trying to express how they were proven wrong by his dinner experience.

"We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices.... Government has to make those choices for people" -HRC

Mahmood "I need a Jihad" is a fool.

As far as allowing that piece of human debris on our soil goes, I would have to balk at that. However, what the president of Columbia University said was WELL WORTH IT! Silly 'Ineedajihad'. Most of the country laughs at him while our true America haters (MSM, Moveon, KOS, DU etc etc etc.)come out of the woodwork. Because Mahmood heard our ever so brave and courageous MSM do nothing but TRASH this great country, he thought he would be welcomed with hugs and roses. WRONG. We know who and what evil is, and when our own fellow citizens (by right not by choice) stand up and make an inane comparison of our sitting President and Commander in Chief to Mahmood Ineedajihad, we understand clearly their intentions and will not be fooled by their half-assed pseudo journalist occupations as cover. GET THEM OUT NOW!

The American Revolution Continued

yes... and no...

I am disappointed but not surprised that an American college or university invited an insane megalomaniac to speak to the students. It should never have happened. It wouldn't have if adults were in charge.

However...

I am glad that many more people have been exposed to this raver's brand of insanity. His speech should have been broadcast live on all channels and repeated at 8pm to ensure widest viewing in America. Nothing serves America better than letting loons like this talk.

Ahmadinejad ...He removed all doubt...

'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865), (attributed)

v

Free Speech for Ahmadinejad was a spurious argument.

Columbia University’s Administration decision to provide President Ahmadinejad a platform to propound his Iranian propaganda will continue to disappoint.  Columbia's President Bollix recognizing the prideful folly of his pluck proceeded to berate his guest for twenty minutes prior to his introduction.  This apparently an attempt to absolve himself of responsibility for the continuing bad publicity the University will inevitably receive.  It was bad form and a poor example for students professor.

The more striking and disturbing aspect of Ahmadinejad‘s presentation was the applause he received from the seated audience. Who are these people and what were they applauding?  The only thing that got any kind of a negative reaction was his denial of the existence of Iranian homosexuals.   

I agree! People should be

I agree! People should be careful with giving anyone at the Columbia administration any kudos or credit for what they did, including their beloved president. No one in that position invites someone over just to beat them up. He was invited to "provoke debate", and when the jihad hit the fan it was damage control time.

Crowd Pleaser

Last night on Conan O'Brien late night show, Conan did his recurring schtick in which he shows a male and female celebrity or public figure side by side and then shows a Photoshop mashup of the two as if it were their offspring.

The last couple were Katie Couric and Iran's Ahmadinejad as the parents and their baby was an adult Geraldo Rivera!

To make it even more sweet, Conan disparaged Couric in his description of her, something about her being a crappy journalist/newsreader.

Drop dead funny.

Killing them with kindness isn't working.  Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.

A good article over at Amer. Spec.:

Newt, Columbia, and the Idea of Dissent

By Jeffrey Lord

Published 9/25/2007 12:08:19 AM

 

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12068

Ahmadinejad

Folks,

What I found most telling about this incident was how warmly Ahmadinejad was greeted by the audience. Compare and contrast that with how these same folks would have welcomed a fellow American, but one on the opposite side of the political aisle, like let's say Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, or Karl Rove.

Think they would have been so warmly welcomed? No, I don't either.

As such, what does that say about this event and our culture that a genocidal, anti-Semitic maniac is more endeared by college students than Republican administration officials? ns

 

Noel... I say that

Noel...

I say that history is sadly being ignored! 

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

Ct,

Not only is history being ignored, it is also being repeated.

As far as I am concerned, the unwillingness of our current "leadership" to prevent this criminal from entering this country is yet just another sprint by Western Society in its mad rush to realize the ultimate fate of the Roman Empire.


When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.
-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.

Dave... I sadly

Dave...

I sadly agree! 

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

I'm not sure we can prevent

I'm not sure we can prevent a head of state from entering our country to visit the UN. What we could do is shuttle him from the airport to the UN, and when he leaves the UN, shuttle him right back to the airport.

That being said, I'm not sure his speaking here was a bad thing for our team. Doubt he inspired many converts to his way of thinking.

*****

"I heart famous people."

HS,

Harry S. Truman would have splattered his worthless ass all over the Atlantic. And he would have offered no aplologies for having done it, either.

But, that was before Western Society had decided it no-longer wished to survive.

I guess next time a Pol Pot wanna-be comes along, we'll probably fly him here at our own expense.

As for the Useless Nations, their not promptly arresting this criminal is proof positive they aren't worth another dime of our tax dollars. Let them move to Geneva. New York City could use the additional parking.


When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.
-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.

"As for the Useless

"As for the Useless Nations, their not promptly arresting this criminal is proof positive they aren't worth another dime of our tax dollars. Let them move to Geneva. New York City could use the additional parking."

 

DaveR, the UN is great and does lots of great things, and prevents lots of people from dying in the world, and protects citizens from dictators.  You should be extremly proud of them.

Sincerely

The League of Nations

"I've always been crazy, but it's kept me from going insane"  Waylon Jennings

Carl,

LOL-You had me going there for a second.


When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.
-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.

The UN.

The UN seems to be becoming more and more anti America. The UN "diplomats" abuse their diplomatic immunity with disturbing regularity. Let's tell them to move to another country.

 

Dubai might be nice. They can build them their own island in the shape of the UN symbol.

Let them deal with the rude and inconsiderate riff-raff that goes with it

when they do visit the UN,

when they do visit the UN,  they are allowed to go within 35 miles of the UN only.  Another reason to move the UN to Switzerland.

It says Some parents spared

It says Some parents spared the rod and spoiled the child ...

Elitist little know nothing, do nothing punks.

Columbia U known for its "warm" reception of conservatives

I had a chance to catch a recording of the reception a conservative viewpoint gets at Columbia. The fellow who runs the border watch group had been asked to give a talk at Columbia U. The resulting chaos at that talk was recorded and played (on Bill O'Reilly I believe). The utterly boorish behavior exhibited by the students and the usual liberal suspects was displayed for all to see. It was dispicable and another example of liberal censorship of any opposing idea or thought.

Noel...What I

Noel...What I found equally telling was the surprisingly blistering indictment of Ahmadinejad delivered by Bollinger in his introductory remarks.

While I'm sure it was at least in part motivated by the heat Columbia had been taking, it nevertheless represented perhaps unprecedented treatment of a guest speaker [and head of state no less] before a university audience.  

[But please don't construe this observation as a defense of, or sympathy for, Ahmadinejad] 

Jer 

 

 

Talking for the sake of talking

This affair couldn’t possibly have been handled any worse than it was. And if the liberals take over the White House, this is the kind of diplomacy you can expect. It will feature conversation with our enemies where they get what they want, and we get nothing. The only result is that liberals will applaud themselves for their peace efforts, while getting us no closer to real peace.

  • As I understand it, the Iranians informed various people the Ahmadinejad was going to be available to speak. That should have been a clue right there. There was no downside for the Iranians. 
    • If Ahmadinejad was given a neutral or polite welcome, the Iranians would spin it as proof that ordinary Americans had rejected Bush’s lies about Iran.
    • If they gave him a harsh reception, Ahmadinejad would have spun it as proof that he was reaching out for peace, and he’d faced down the hostile Americans.
    • As it turned out, Iran can now spin it both ways. Ahmadinejad suffered the American mistreatment, and also got applause from the crowd.
    • America, on the other hand, got nothing out of this.

That brings up another point. Last night, on O’Reilly, he had the woman from Code Pink. O’Reilly asked her about what we should do with Iran, and the woman kept repeating that we shouldn’t go to war. Instead, we should negotiate. We should talk to our enemies.

  • But that raises the obvious question that liberals never answer: what should we talk to our enemies about? Diplomatic conversation isn’t about becoming chatty and friendly. Diplomacy is negotiation. We talk with enemies to try to negotiate a reasonable settlement to our disagreements. There has to be a purpose. Sometimes the worst thing you can do in a negotiation is to keep talking when the other side refuses to budge. We don’t talk for the sake of talking.

KC... I'm guessing the

KC...

I'm guessing the liberals would ask if our enemies prefer Hemp products. 

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

Hemp

The capitalism "conservatives" love to hate! But our Iranian gay-denial specialist is more into petrochemical products, because that's what lines his pockets.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

That made alot of

That made alot of sense....not! 

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

The funniest part

Is that you still don't get it, despite big government's continued irresponsible record of failure. (Stupid hippies, going off and making money selling something people want, instead of collecting welfare!)
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

LOL

Or if they need tickets to the latest Broadway show? That would be a riot ...
One... singular sensation ...

KC...You're core assertions

KC...You're core assertions are unsupported by both the current positions of many foreign policy professionals and a comparative review of actions by the Bush and Clinton administrations.

It appears that many here labor under a shared set of faulty preconceptions, contaminating the arguments which they inspire, and the conclusions which they produce.  For example:

  a.  Foreign policy views of the Democratic Party aren't reflective of, or dictated by, Code Pink or Sean Penn or any group or individual who might naively suggest all international conflicts could be resolved by just giving our enemies a hug--just as the nuke Mecca and Medina crowd doesn't control Republican policy.

   b.  Democrats are not oblivious to the dangers posed by Iran and the Ahmadinegad government--to Israel, the Mideast, and to our own security.  Indeed, this was an issue raised by Democrats during the pre-invasion debate on Iraq.

    c.  The seminal question is how best to diffuse the threat.  The potentiality of military force must always be an option, but Democrats believe it should be preceded by serious diplomacy, preferably of a regional nature--but bilateral if necessary--lest excessive sabre-rattling pre-emts the process or forces the other side into an intractable, and even more dangerous posture. 

     d.  The problem is particulary acute because of the limitations on military resources which the continued Iraqi conflict has created.  It, plus our smaller but necessary presence in Afganistan, has seriously restricted available assets and thus limited our military leverage, and represents another regrettable consequence of what has become the longest cakewalk in American history.

      e.  The Clinton administration was certainly not adverse to the use of military force.  However, it's worth noting that he was vigorously criticized by many Republicans on every single occasion.  The Balkans:  The GOP predicted "a bloodbath" [I believe there was one combat death];  Haiti:  See "The Balkans"; Osama bin Laden: Clinton ordered the launch of over 40 cruise missiles in an attempt to blow him to bits [the only direct military action--prior to 9/11--ever directed at the still-at-large master terrorist] Republicans scoffed. 

        f.  The pre-9/11 Bush administration:  Despite ever- increasing warnings, confronting terrorism was on the back burner.  There were no military efforts to take out Al Quaeda.  Indeed in response to veiled threats from bin Laden, Bush had naval assets pulled back from the Persian Gulf..  And of course in response to the infamous Aug. 6  "bin Laden to attack U.S." memo, he chose to remain at his ranch and host bar-be-ques.  A few months before, when a U.S. plane flying in international air space was knocked out of the sky by a Chinese jet fighter and forced to crash land on a Chinese island, the administration issued one of the most groveling apologies in the nation's history for invading China's territory. 

So when I hear, expressed or implied, how much tougher Republicans are than Democrats, the claims have a somewhat hollow ring.  And it begs the question:  Just how does one define being "tougher".

Jer

It's time to join together in conservation

For some time, now, I've been concerned that constant unnecessary use of the apostrophe will lead to a shortage, and maybe even the extinction, of this valuable superscript sign.  

Sure, there seems to be an inexhaustable supply of apostrophes now, but that's what they thought of the Carrier Pigeon.   Do you want to be remembered as the generation that did nothing to stop this when we could?

The art of negotation - reply to Jer

“So when I hear, expressed or implied, how much tougher Republicans are than Democrats, the claims have a somewhat hollow ring.”  If you thought that my argument about diplomacy was based on a premise of toughness (which I never expressed nor implied), then those assumptions are yours, not mine. I never portrayed negotiation as toughness. My understanding of negotiation comes out of game theory, which means that I consider negotiation to be an art of strategic thinking, not macho bluster. Since it wasn’t part of my core assertions, the only way it could appear is if you brought it with you. I didn’t bring it. My point was very clear: diplomacy is negotiation, not polite conversation.

We don’t need to debate item by item, since you surrender the point in your paragraph (c). You make my point quite nicely when you say that “The potentiality of military force must always be an option, but Democrats believe it should be preceded by serious diplomacy…” See what you did? You separated diplomacy from military threat. Democrats do that. When they have a chance to think it over, they catch themselves ... but until they catch it, that's their assumption. I wouldn’t have separated them, since threat is a crucial component of negotiation. 

  • Talking doesn’t become diplomacy until it’s backed up by action. (If at this point, you assume ‘action’ must mean saber-rattling, that’s your prejudice. Action can mean anything, from foreign aid to war and everything in between.) Negotiation isn’t philosophic discussions of abstract justice, or mere airing of grievances. Negotiation is the strategic pursuit of interests. We reward cooperation and punish non-cooperation. We assume they do the same, as opponents offer their own set of threats and rewards. We don't hope that other nations will be forced to agree with us if we only explain it properly to them.

But liberals do believe in the virtue of talk, independent of action. Look what happened when the Clintons negotiated a deal with North Korea in 1994. We saw plenty of talking, but no action, except we threw money away.

  • Look at North Korea now, however. Bush rejected one-on-one talks, and brought in neighbors because they could help. (Why doesn’t he include Iraq’s neighbors in the same kind of regional conference? Because he believes –correctly, I think– that those neighbors aren’t going to help.) If you want to see ‘serious diplomacy’ in real life, that’s where you want to look. The six-party negotiations include the heaviest hitters in the world: China, Russia, Japan, etc. Each one has different interests, and it was ‘serious diplomacy’ just to force North Korea to abide by the six-party talks. You better believe that military threat, economic carrots, regional pressure, and other chips are all on the table. That's diplomacy. It isn't mere talking.

That was my core assertion. Tell me where that assertion is wrong, if you can.

KC....Perhaps you should

KC....Perhaps you should carefully reread the closing paragraph of my post and the opening paragraph of your original post.  It should resolve your confusion.  But here's some help:  Aside from the fact that my words were "core assertions",  surely you'll agree the following statement,

"And if the liberals take over the White House, this is the kind of diplomacy you can expect.  It will feature conversation with our enemies where they get what they want, and we get nothing...."

implicitly, if not explicitly, suggests a lack of toughness on the part of Democrats--whether it relates to their diplomacy skills or a general unwillingness to confront threats to national security.

With respect to paragraph (c), I surrendered nothing-- except that my comment about the potentiality of military force being an option may have lacked sufficient clarity.  For the record, I by no means intended to separate diplomacy from military threat.  The option of force is of course a component of diplomacy.  The use of it, or the engagement in "excessive" sabre-rattling prior to the exhaustion of serious diplmatic efforts is the behavior about which I urge caution or outright avoidance.

Finally, I've looked at North Korea, and obviously we have different perspectives.  First of all, Clintion would have attacked in 1994 if South Korea would have acquiesced.  Without that, his options were limited.  The agreement he struck at the time was generally praised.  Even with North Korea's subsequent violations, there were positive consequences which flowed from the treaty.  North Korea did shut down its reactors.  Its nuclear program was frozen for a period of time.  The violations involved uranium enrichment, not the more critical plutonium production.  The Bush administration dithered for five years, allowing  Kim and his pariah regime time to forge ahead with their nuclear program.  He could have stopped it in its tracks years ago.

Jer

BTW, KC, I really admire your writing style and reasoning ability.  I'm sorry I never responded to your last post about the Republican debate issues a week or so ago.  I meant to.  I did have a couple of more points to make, but I got sidetracked.  Jer

 

Thanks

Jer, I love a discussion that challenges my assumptions. Philosophy is a passion of mine, and it gives me a chance to confront my own assumptions. Sometimes I don't like what it reveals. You know what I do then? I wait until people forget, then adopt the other guy's point of view, and pretend it was mine all along. I'm a shameless idea thief. I'll steal anything and pretend it was my idea. But we all do that, don't we? Anyway ...

I disagree with your contention that the issue is toughness. The issue is strategy. The quote you cited from me is all about strategy, and has nothing to do with toughness. To explain: I studied game theory. Game theory teaches that what works for individuals does not work with groups and especially not with states and nations. The logic simply changes. In fancy terms, dynamic logic works differently than static logic. Interactive logic works differently that parametric logic. You raise revenue by cutting taxes, which is completely counter-intuitive. Walking away from the table is often the best move in negotiating.

  • Why do I say that about liberals and Democrats? Look at Joe Biden and education. Liberals believe that the way to improve education is to pump more money into it.

  • But strategically, that's the worst thing you can do. Throwing money at a mistake just makes the mistake more expensive. 

    • Mulville Rule #27: the same people who think that more money will fix the education system believe that if you pay your mediocre quarterback more money, it'll make him a better quarterback. No, it won't.

  • Yet, here's Joe Biden: "Show me your budget and I'll show you what you value." That’s a catchy line, but it betrays a poor strategy. Biden is no dope, so why does he promote this? Because spending more money looks better to voters. It looks like you’re doing something. It gets votes at the expense of actual success.

When it comes to diplomacy, the Democrat candidates all proclaim that we need to talk to Iran and Syria and others. They argue that Bush is just being pig-headed. That argument makes them sound more mature and adult, and plays to their liberal audience’s self-image as superior, but it’s bad strategy.

This thread began as a discussion about inviting Ahmadinejad to Columbia. I said, in so many words, that it was a demonstration of what happens when your idea of diplomacy is just conversation, instead of a strategic negotiation. That is what we can expect from liberals, and Columbia’s bungling of the invitation is an example.

News according to TV GUIDE

This may be small and petty, but anyone notice that TV GUIDE has color codes for different type shows, i.e., yellow for movies, aqua for sports, purple for news.  For nighttime programs, well it seems MSNBC has "COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN"  purple for news, CNN has 2 colored purple-"OUT IN THE OPEN" & "ANDERSON COOPER", but FOX NEWS has none colored purple.  What makes the other 3 "NEWS" and the ones on FOX not news?  Maybe I'm overlooking something, so someone please enlighten this dumb old man!!   

The Color Purple

I just took a quick glimpse at TVguide.com for 8-11 pm tonight and FOX is colored purple for O'Reilly, H&C & Greta, as are the shows you mentioned and Glenn Beck on CNN Headline. But then again, Nancy Grace is shown in purple too, so what does any of it mean ;o)

Chai

"Our people have shed more blood for the liberty and freedom of other peoples...than all the other countries put together. And I don't feel any need to apologize for the United States of America" - Fred Thompson

Actual Magazine

I have the actual magazine and it shows as I stated.  Maybe they realized the err of their ways.  I went to web site and it is shown in purple for most night time cable info-news shows.  Told ya that maybe I'm ditty.

It never should have been allowed to happen...

One of the things that many are overlooking is the fact that this gives Mahmoud and friends an opportunity to go back to Iran and tell the people in his world how weak we Americans are. Ahmaminijihad and his cronies control the press over there and it is already being reported that he received a standing ovation when he was introduced and was "welcomed with warmth and respect". Do you honestly think they will report this fairly ANYwhere in the Middle East? It will be distorted, twisted and come back to haunt Americans for many years to come. If you didn't notice (I know it's been mentioned elsewhere), the Columbia Univ. logo had been blacked out on the lectern...maybe somebody had enough forethought to think that they didn't want these pictures of him circulating around with their logo all over them. And before you bash me about the freedom of speech thing, this little Hitler is not an American and doesn't deserve the rights and privileges afforded to American citizens. Period. Addressing the UN is one thing (oooh, I can't wait to hear what he has to say, ooooh), being invited to Columbia and the NPC is completely another. And you know, I don't recall hearing a single straight answer to any of the questions posed to him. He and Hillary appear to have the same speech coaches...

Oh yeah, you know the little parade in Tehran with the missiles and tanks with the little signs that said "Down With America" and "Down With Israel"? Apparently, the Arabic writing above it when translated actually said "Death To America". Isn't that nice? Maybe somebody should have had the b@lls to ask him about that, do you suppose??

 

"I used to be disgusted, but now, I try to be amused..."- E. Costello

Evolution at work?

Funny thing about the media, their story always reflects an agenda. In this story title "Farms Fuel Frog Deformities", the agenda is obviously denouncing farm chemicals. The article could just as easily been used to demonstrate how a frog is mutating (evolving).

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.
Thompson/Rice

OMG!

Please say it isn't soooooooooo!!!!!!!

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

$25,000.00 Bail?

$25,000.00 bail for a misdemeanor charge?

CT,

I doubt that will even change the numbers in his bank account(s).


When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.
-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.

Congress signaled its

Congress signaled its disapproval of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with a vote Tuesday to tighten sanctions against his government and a call to designate his army a terrorist group. the vote tally was 397-16.

Who were the 16 who voted AGAINST it?

Abercrombie
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Blumenauer
Conyers
Ellison

Flake
Gilchrest
Hinchey
Lee
Mc