October 17, 2006
Darcy Burner Can't Seem to Get Enough of the Far Left
The fondness of the liberal blogosphere for Darcy Burner, and vice versa, is well documented. As the Seattle Times recently exposed, however, that symbiotic meld may not be paying off so well. But please, don't let reality stop a good time.
Evergreen Politics shares the news that Joe Wilson graced Seattle with his presence last weekend for a Darcy Burner fundraiser (anyone surprised Jim McDermott was there too?).
That would be the same Joe Wilson whose dishonesty earned him a tart rebuke from the Washington Post: "Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson...It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously." Ouch.
Even columnist David Broder, no friend of Republicans in recent months, publicly called for an apology to Karl Rove after the truth of "Plamegate" was revealed. [Those interested in delving into Mr. Wilson's role in this tale can read the delightful savaging provided by Christopher Hitchens, a self-admitted former Trotskyite, in 2004, and in 2006.]
Yet, here we have the same Joe Wilson, trotted out as some lion of the liberal cause - well, at least to the conspiracy theorists on the left - to boost the efforts of Darcy Burner. Note the recounting of Wilson's remarks explains how "Wilson spoke for a while at how this brand of Republicans is threatening the Constitution." Ah, would that be this threat to the Constitution about which Burner is so incorrectly "ashamed"?
The mere fact that Burner's campaign would use such a laughably unserious person as Joe Wilson to headline a fundraiser speaks much to her system of beliefs. Beyond her recent statements regarding policy toward terrorist detainees, conservatives may have also seen with disdain her comments about North Korea:
North Korea's test of a nuclear weapon is another indication that George Bush's policies have made us less secure. North Korea has been a dangerous threat throughout the Bush administration and yet Bush has not succeeded in stopping them. Bush's plan has failed.
It's time for a new approach.
We also need to conduct strong diplomacy with countries in the region, particularly China. North Korea depends on China for food and fuel shipments, as well as trade; we should ask China to step up and apply pressure on North Korea.
Well, Mrs. Burner, let's see. You'd like a "new approach." Ok. In the '90's we tried talking to North Korea directly, and here's what happened:
The Clinton administration dealt directly with the North, producing the Agreed Framework, a sham that the North Koreans began cheating on, in the words of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, "as the ink was drying."
That doesn't sound so chummy, so perhaps we should try enlisting interested countries in the region to help, such as China as Burner suggests?
Recent events seem to indicate, however, that China's influence didn't quite bear the fruit Burner hopes. It seems China has its own interests, which clearly don't include applying the same pressure on North Korea we might desire of them.
Which brings us to a culminating point about Burner's apparent view of the world, and the stereotype of her liberal supporters: they believe in negotiating for the sake of negotiating, even when one side (say, North Korea) transparently has no interest in doing so in good faith. Jonah Goldberg explains:
Americans tend to think -- and Europeans consider it gospel -- that all differences can be negotiated. The truth is that only problems that are negotiable can be negotiated.
In contrast, Jim Hoagland details how squeezing an enemy uninterested in negotiating can have the desired impact. Though as Hoagland explains, that necessitates the willingness to play hardball. Not exactly a forte of recent liberal thought in foreign affairs.
That last statement forces one to consider the root cause of such weakness. Speaking of Mr. Goldberg, his sentiments from 2002 on leftist thinking related to international issues still hits the mark with splendid accuracy. Such positions are taken,
...because those people are blind to what really motivates us. If you don't believe in freedom and democracy and free markets; if you think the only use for power is its utility for furthering your own ambitions then American foreign policy is going to look bizarre. And, if like so many Europeans, you believe that power and force are no longer necessary, that everything in the international arena can be settled by democratic debate or, better, intelligent conversation in the lobby of a four-star hotel, then American foreign policy will look pretty darned weird to you, too.
This perhaps explains much about Burner's confusion regarding getting serious on matters of national security and America's role in the world. Contrary to those that are overly fond of negotiating with undeniably twisted regimes, the United States of America has no interest in building an empire, but we're not shy about using the strength we're blessed with in an attempt to keep the world safer from madmen. No doubt Joe Wilson got that all cleared up for her.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 17, 2006
12:33 AM | Email This
1. What of W's personal insults to the North Korean leader? He's called him a dwarf among other things. Whatever you think of the 'dear leader', namecalling doesn't usually play to well in international diplomacy. Also, the administration has taken signing statements to a new level by reinterpreting international treaties signed with North Korea. After signing a treaty with them recently, Condi said that what we really meant was something other than the language of the agreement, and that the terms we were going to follow actually contradicted the terms of the agreement we had signed onto. No doubt North Korea is an 'evil' country, but is this any way to do business with anyone?
2. I'd rather have a real man who knows evil when he sees it like W in there trying to deal with N. Korea than Bill Clinton, who was so naive as to make deals with Kim Jong-Il to give the unstable leader nuke materials for a silly promise that Kim wouldn't use them for anything, you know, "bad". That's liberal naivete right there. Truly useless. Give 'em honk, W! Stay tough with the N Korean crazy guy. Clinton's folly with N. Korea is just another in a long line of reasons not to put Democrats anywhere near national security.
Clinton forgot the latter part of Reagan's admonition to "Trust, but verify". He had the trust part down, but completely dropped the ball on the verify part.
Wasn't that Bill Clinton's SOS dancing the jig while the N.Koreans were laughing at her a few years back?
They are only posturing because Bush cut them off. That is the gravy train that Clinton gave them to stop work on the nukes- which they ignored.
I don't see how the whack jobs can even blame Bush for this. But, I just need to look up the definition of 'whack job' to see.
How much campaign money was diverted to Clinton in exchange for his selling us out to North Korea and China? He was so busy giving away our secrets his administration was parading spies through the White House daily who were handing over checks in exchange for the security of the United States.
Bush-haters like Frank may be comfortable attacking Bush with an issue that we're not supporting Clinton's giveaways, but why in the world should an adminstration uphold the actions of its corrupt predessor, especially when those actions are soon to place American cities within range of nukes under control of a loon? Would Frank have us on the side of North Korea against the world because of Clinton administration stupidity?
As for alleged namecalling, anything Bush has or has not said about Kim Jong Il pales in comparison to what Democrats have said about the leader of this nation, including a couple former presidents who have displayed seditious behavior in this time of war. Let's see the left reign in Carter, the Clintons, and most of the Democrat congress and we'll take their complaining about Bush name-calling of a tyrant seriously.
Personally, I think Bush has been far too polite in his dealings with people outside and inside this country who've alleged just about anything imaginable against him, limited only by their imaginations and how far the MSM will go to back up their false claims.
And as for Clinton forgetting Reagan's "Trust, but verify," Clinton didn't "forget" anything. Clinton simply had two goals as president and was too busy pursuing them to be concerned about anything else. First, obtain access to woman for his personal pleasure - willing and unwilling. And secondly, to raise money for himself and his friends campaigns by selling off America's most valuable secrets.
"Liberalism is a mental disorder!"
6. Frank's right, of course. Name-calling is the perfect reason to become a nuclear-nutball. Have to keep up appearances on the playground, Right, Frank? Wouldn't want to upset the little dwarf that drafts women off the street for his "joy" battalions would we?
7. The term "wingnut" offends me and I'm going to burn down Fremont! Of course if you give me lots of money and a Tiger Woods signed hat I promise not too....but can I keep the can of gas and matches? Thanks.
Dengle--if you burn Fremont, the EPA will be on you like a tax on a Seattle Homeowner--but--the massive pot smoke cloud will likely not cause many to immediately call the police, at least after a few good breaths.
I wonder if Darcy the teenage babysitter would see John Kennedy in the same light--"angering" the Soviets. Another blame the victim parrot. Let's trust the U.N. to take care of America, right Darcy? Clueless kid. Never been around the real-world block. Has she ever fired a rifle or that pistol she once had? Lib apologist.
The insults that "W" occassionally lobs at Kim Jong Wacko aren't casual asides. They are studied pieces of diplomacy that are understood and appreciated by citizens and governments of other countries in the region.
I don't pretend to understand the nuance of it all, but have friends in the region that have tried to explain the situation to me over too many beers and cups of rice wine on more than one occassion.
The closest I can get to an explanation is that Kim Jong Illness is doing all of this nuclear posturing because he wants respect (mostly from his largest supporter in China.) When Kim is acting up, the worst possible thing you can do is actually give him what he wants - which is respect - you actually have to go out of your way to do the opposite.
By Frank's "rationale" George Bush would be the most evil man on earth, and would be worse than Kim Jong Il or any other leader because he has been insulted far more than probably any other leader.
Darcy Burner has resigned herself as an inexperienced candidate, that does not have anything else to stand on but Bush Deranged, Anti-Iraq, Blue-As-They=Come, Nutroots endorsemnt, etc. It's go for broke appeal to the Nutroots base in the hope that somehow, that's what makes up the 8th district, or maybe she's counting on enough fraudulent votes from Seattle Moonbat a la Christine Gregorie?
Why is it that Darcy is making no effort at all to appear moderate or to appeal to the prototypical 8th CD voter? Because Darcy has no chance in November. All that's left is the Hail Mary play.
11. If memory serves me correctly; George Sr. refused to pronounce Saddam's name correctly to show disrespect. I believe Sr. referred to Hussein as SAD-UM. That rocked.
What 'rationale' are you talking about? In Critiquing the administration's policy regarding North Korea, there is no implied endorsement of any previous policy. I think the record shows that the current administration has had some missteps in their relations with North Korea. Does that mean that the previous administration did not have any? Of course not. I made no mention of any other administrations or their policies regarding North Korea. Maybe it's fun to sit on the sidelines and laugh when the president insults the leaders of other countries, but that hardly seems like serious diplomacy.