PDA

View Full Version : Digging the Bill Clinton diversion



Chris Coose
08-04-2009, 05:58 PM
After years of listening to the Cheney fool puppet carrying on about evil, a smart guy sends another important smart guy to talk face to face.

Imagine one of them drops down to Cuba next?

elf
08-04-2009, 06:53 PM
A spy right in Kim Jong Il's face. I wonder whether he recognizes it!

Vince Brennan
08-04-2009, 06:59 PM
They sent the Master... who better could they have found at apologizing?

Milo Christensen
08-04-2009, 08:07 PM
So, the last "prisoner" release was by a Congressman, this one by an ex-President. What did Kim get out of this? The one-on-one talks he wants and the rest of the region is vehemently opposed to, for, you know, the fact that those countries are all directly affected by the actions of North Korea? What will we have to give Kim for his next "prisoner" release? Giving this man anything is diametrically opposed to common sense.

Paul Pless
08-04-2009, 08:12 PM
What did Kim get out of this?Dunno, but he was startstruck with big ****eatinggrin on his face in every picture showed on the news today...

Pugwash
08-04-2009, 08:16 PM
I'm sure if ex-president Bush had been sent the result would have been, erm, umm, ..........better?

:rolleyes:

PeterSibley
08-04-2009, 08:19 PM
Why is the US still technically at war with N K ??? Maybe a peace treaty would help ?

Nicholas Scheuer
08-04-2009, 08:33 PM
Next time Obama should send Milo over to explain why we ain't ginin' him s---, and he can keep the American Prisoners.

Then Obama can send Milo over to explain to the parentsd and other loved ones kwhy we ain't giving N Korea s---, and their sons and daughters will remain prisoners for life.

Moby Nick

Milo Christensen
08-04-2009, 08:52 PM
Next time Obama should send Milo over to explain why we ain't ginin' him s---, and he can keep the American Prisoners.

Then Obama can send Milo over to explain to the parentsd and other loved ones kwhy we ain't giving N Korea s---, and their sons and daughters will remain prisoners for life.

Moby Nick

For two dip**** dingbat "journalists", who after all only got 12 years hard labor, you'd give Kim Il Jong the legitimacy of an ex-American President, one known to have given the North too many concessions during his terms in office. No, legitimizing them is not the way to deal with despots.

I'd have no problem whatsoever telling the parents that their dip**** kids had to serve out their 12 year terms.

Glen Longino
08-04-2009, 09:01 PM
"their dip**** kids had to serve out their 12 year terms." Milo

What if they were Your dip**** kids, Milo?
I think you need another week out there in the woods with your Christian church friends.:)

Domesticated_Mr. Know It All
08-04-2009, 09:13 PM
I'm diggin it too Chris.
I see it as a happy ending.


Hey Milo, did ya ever finish the fence?

Milo Christensen
08-04-2009, 09:25 PM
My Christian church friends and I were prevented from helping during the famines in North Korea by Kim Jong Il. Millions of kids and their parents died.

Grass porridge eating stage. Rice roots eating stage. Pine tree skin eating stage. Watch the whole 8 minutes. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwedNY3QzM8)

You don't send Bill Clinton to meet with a guy like this if you know anything at all about "face". Unless, of course, you want this guy to have some "face".

Keith Wilson
08-04-2009, 09:32 PM
No, legitimizing them is not the way to deal with despots. Nothing we have done will either "legitimize" or "delegitimize" the North Korean government. Everybody realizes they're a pathological bunch of murderous lunatics. We got the prisoners back, they got to talk to Bill, and everybody still knows they're a pathological bunch of murderous lunatics. Not a bad deal, IMHO.

Milo Christensen
08-04-2009, 09:40 PM
Nothing we have done will either "legitimize" or "delegitimize" the North Korean government. Everybody realizes they're a pathological bunch of murderous lunatics. We got the prisoners back, they got to talk to Bill, and everybody still knows they're a pathological bunch of murderous lunatics. Not a bad deal, IMHO.

You really don't understand, do you? It's not about the rest of the world, the North Koreans could care less, it's about legitimizing themselves.

Keith Wilson
08-04-2009, 09:44 PM
Once again, having them talk to Bill for a couple of hours does nothing to either "legitimize" or "delegitimize" the North Korean government. They hold power by brute force. Whether we talk to them or not, they still hold power by brute force. Nothing has changed except two prisoners are now free. You vastly overestimate the effect of useless symbolic acts by the US.

Shang
08-04-2009, 09:51 PM
Once again, having them talk to Bill for a couple of hours does nothing to either "legitimize" or "delegitimize" the North Korean government. They hold power by brute force. Whether we talk to them or not, they still hold power by brute force. Nothing has changed except two prisoners are now free. You vastly overestimate the effect of useless symbolic acts by the US.

Thanks, Keith.

pefjr
08-04-2009, 09:54 PM
I don't like Bill Clinton at all, but I like him a little better now, and I am glad Jong likes him. And I feel good, two innocents get to go home. And I don't see any harm done here, Milo. Try being happy for the journalists and their family and friends.

High C
08-04-2009, 10:22 PM
Kim owed him one.

Domesticated_Mr. Know It All
08-04-2009, 10:28 PM
http://www.hollow-hill.com/sabina/images/bill-clinton-woot.jpg

Chris Coose
08-05-2009, 06:40 AM
You vastly overestimate the effect of useless symbolic acts by the US.

Even symbolically, this is a move in foreign policy that allows me to believe America won't be invading and occupying the wrong country again for a while.

Chris Coose
08-05-2009, 06:50 AM
The old foreigh policy:

"Blackwater Founder Implicated in Murder"
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090817/scahill

I wished they'd implicate dubbya for hiring these mercenaries to represent the US on occupied soil.

The fools can complain all you want about legitimacy and I laugh like a sonofabitch.

brad9798
08-05-2009, 07:02 AM
I see Milo's big picture point ... I do. And I understand it.

I also see a great success story by B. Clinton in bringing these girls home.

Sometimes we need to lead by example.

Sometimes thumping our chests and telling the world they can't play with our toys if they don't follow our rules, while, on the surface, makes sense ... well, in the real world it is sometimes a flawed policy.

Good on Clinton ... and good on world relations.

:)

Saltiguy
08-05-2009, 07:28 AM
I'm glad the "journalists" were released, but I have a long memory and I'm still po'd about the Pueblo. I'm not angry with the North Koreans, I'm angry at our government for the denials that the Pueblo was a spy ship, resulting in the lengthy detainment of our men.
Our government has a childish and unfortunate habit of NEVER admitting it when our spies are caught. John Downey, FG Powers, The Pueblo crew, and hundreds more we don't know about - sold down the river because we won't admit it when our operatives are caught.
During the cold war, we used to seize Russian trawlers for spying. The Russians would admit it, and the crews would be released. Not us though. We leave our spies to fend for themselves and rot in captivity. Now, we have the prospect of the 3 "hikers" caught by the Iranians. Our policy of denial gives our enemies the upper hand, and makes us look foolish and impotent. Maybe Obama is more pragmatic than earlier Presidents.

John Smith
08-05-2009, 07:45 AM
Once again, having them talk to Bill for a couple of hours does nothing to either "legitimize" or "delegitimize" the North Korean government. They hold power by brute force. Whether we talk to them or not, they still hold power by brute force. Nothing has changed except two prisoners are now free. You vastly overestimate the effect of useless symbolic acts by the US.
well put. thanks.

John Smith
08-05-2009, 07:47 AM
I don't like Bill Clinton at all, but I like him a little better now, and I am glad Jong likes him. And I feel good, two innocents get to go home. And I don't see any harm done here, Milo. Try being happy for the journalists and their family and friends.
As I recall, Bill Clinton is the ONLY U.S. president to get a standing ovation from the UN general assembly. That says something good about him, no?

John Smith
08-05-2009, 07:49 AM
The old foreigh policy:

"Blackwater Founder Implicated in Murder"
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090817/scahill

I wished they'd implicate dubbya for hiring these mercenaries to represent the US on occupied soil.

The fools can complain all you want about legitimacy and I laugh like a sonofabitch.
I, too, wish that.

One thing I've learned over the years, nothing would surprise me. Things keep "bubbling up" and may reach a point where there is no choice but to investigate thoroughly and hold all responsible accountable.

Tom Galyen
08-05-2009, 08:21 AM
I really like the twisting of phrases in the leftist posts on this thread. The "innocents" were freed by Bill Clinton. The "Innocents" were professional reporters for a media source started by Al Gore. Why didn't the inventor of the internet go himself to free his employees, after all as a FORMER Vice President he should have almost the same pull as a FORMER President. Second, although I don't like what happened to these reporters, they were BREAKING North Korean law. What did they think was going to happen when they got caught? Maybe they thought that Al "the inventor of global warming" Gore was going to come to their aid. Fat chance of that happening.

I find it very funny that Bill Clinton can apologize for the actions of everyone else and never for his own actions. And like millions of others in this country I wonder what Obama gave to "Dear Leader" under the table. Maybe a trillion dollars or so, he's great at giving away our money. Or maybe the names of people who oppose his health care plan that are reported to the White House under their new "Snitch on your Neighbor" policy so Kim's secret police can take care of them for Obama.

pefjr
08-05-2009, 08:32 AM
The biggest troublemaker you'll ever have to deal with, watches you from the mirror every morning.

Paul Pless
08-05-2009, 08:36 AM
I really like the twisting of phrases in the leftist posts on this thread. The "innocents" were freed by Bill Clinton. The "Innocents" were professional reporters for a media source started by Al Gore. Why didn't the inventor of the internet go himself to free his employees, after all as a FORMER Vice President he should have almost the same pull as a FORMER President. Second, although I don't like what happened to these reporters, they were BREAKING North Korean law. What did they think was going to happen when they got caught? Maybe they thought that Al "the inventor of global warming" Gore was going to come to their aid. Fat chance of that happening.

http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

pefjr
08-05-2009, 08:46 AM
http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gifA few party poopers can't spoil the "Happy" that celebrates the release of two "Hardened world criminals"

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-05-2009, 08:49 AM
The British Government "does not negotiate with hostage takers" and we have just had five men killed by a Shia militia in Iraq.

I think the US Government has done rather well, here.

The reason I say this is that regimes like the North Korean one are extremely paranoid. This was brought home to us, over and over again, by the two sucess stories of MI6 infiltration of the Soviet Union that we know about - Oleg Penkovsky, at the time of the Cuba crisis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Penkovsky

and Oleg Gordievsky at the time of the ending of the Cold War:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Gordievsky

We got Gordievsky out; Penkovsky died horribly. But one point was that they conveyed to us how very, very different the mental state of the leadership of the Soviet Union was, compared to our own leaders. They were really, really, paranoid, seeing spies and plots everywhere and expecting a nuclear first strike imminently.

Gordievsky for instance was required to make a note of the number of windows lit at night in the UK Ministry of Defence because if the number increased it "meant" that we were preparing for a first strike.

I am quite sure that North Korea is even more paranoid. Therefore a face to face meeting with Bill Clinton, who is an engaging personality, will have calmed them down a bit at a time when they have been more paranoid than usual.

Well done the USA.

Tom Galyen
08-05-2009, 08:57 AM
Norm,
First, although I may not use the term that Milo used for the "reporters", I would tell their parents, "They broke the law of a sovereign foreign nation. When you break their laws, you are subject to their judicial system." Period.
These "Reporters" had most certainly the stupidest most ill-considered plan imaginable. This does not surprise me since they worked for an Al Gore enterprise. As a Christian I may have empathy for their lot, why should I have compassion for idiot lawbreakers?

On the other hand as a Christian I have empathy and compassion for millions of people who are starved to death by an un-compassionate, godless, leftist, communist, paranoid regime. Does this help you to understand at all? I doubt it.

Joe (SoCal)
08-05-2009, 09:07 AM
after all as a FORMER Vice President he should have almost the same pull as a FORMER President.

Know what would have really worked ?? If the LAST FORMER President had tried. I can see it now a smirk and a shrug as they light the Nukler bonfire with the two journalist heads on pikes.

I can hear him going "Snort < smirk > well umm Ah Ah tried ya know, evil empire, nukler, told him, tear down that wall, ayup heh heh I'm the decider, Mission Accomplished !! "

Clinton did good. Only Clinton could give a Korean nut a massage and end up with the happy ending ;)

Keith Wilson
08-05-2009, 09:16 AM
Oh my, such touching respect for the laws of the "sovereign state" of North Korea. :rolleyes: North Korea is a state run by murderous marginally-sane thugs. Its"laws" are merely tools to keep most of the populace in something approaching slavery.

While you may not like Bill Clinton very much, he has just managed to get two young women released by one of the most brutal governments on the planet, at no more cost than some words. Try to grasp the concept that even those who you think are bad people can sometimes do good things, that something isn't necessarily wrong because Bill did it.

If this had happened three years ago and Bush had sent in a squad of commandos who rescued the women and got them safely out of the country, you'd be crowing about it for weeks - and rightly so. This was just as effective, and less risky.

Tom Galyen
08-05-2009, 09:17 AM
Now, of course, every crackpot wannabe reporter looking for a Pulitzer Prize will figure that they can do the same thing and Obama will send Bill out with some un-named gifts to buy them out. Will Bill now be on his way to Iran to bail out the hikers that Iran has arrested? They were maybe more "Innocent" then these two. Oh, no I don't think that Bill will go their as they are male and these were women. I figure they were more in danger on the flight from Japan to the US then at any other time. :)

pefjr
08-05-2009, 09:19 AM
"This does not surprise me since they worked for an Al Gore enterprise"Galyen

Know what would have really worked ?? If the LAST FORMER President had tried. I can see it now a smirk and a shrug as they light the Nukler bonfire with the two journalist heads on pikes.

"I can hear him going "Snort < smirk > well umm Ah Ah tried ya know, evil empire, nukler, told him, tear down that wall, ayup heh heh I'm the decider, Mission Accomplished !! "Joe Sheep

Does this help you to understand at all? Gaylen

No, I do not understand at all that you two bring your hate into this affair. What does Gore and Bush have to do with this affair?

High C
08-05-2009, 09:23 AM
Kim owed him one.

Keith Wilson
08-05-2009, 09:25 AM
Might as well collect, then.

Tom Galyen
08-05-2009, 09:26 AM
Keith,
You misread my posts. I would not have done anything outside of normal contacts to get them out. Paranoid, insane, repressive, cruel, whatever other verb you want to add to the name of the North Korean government, it was their laws that they broke. What did they think would happen when they tried to cross one of the most guarded borders in the world? When you shoot craps and loose thats it. Uncle Sam has no right to demand that any country in the world observe our laws or release our citizens because they break their laws. We can ask for their release thats all. To send a high level person of any party such as this is more a political stunt than anything. Also when you say "at no more cost than some words." you have no idea what was handed under the table. Kim Jong Il does nothing without getting a lot in return. To believe that he only got "Some words" is truly the height of naivety thought possible.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-05-2009, 09:27 AM
Now, of course, every crackpot wannabe reporter looking for a Pulitzer Prize will figure that they can do the same thing and Obama will send Bill out with some un-named gifts to buy them out. Will Bill now be on his way to Iran to bail out the hikers that Iran has arrested? They were maybe more "Innocent" then these two. Oh, no I don't think that Bill will go their as they are male and these were women. I figure they were more in danger on the flight from Japan to the US then at any other time. :)

Two of them are men and the third is a woman.

Do try to keep up!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/04/MNQT193QUG.DTL

Joe (SoCal)
08-05-2009, 09:29 AM
What does Gore and Bush have to do with this affair?

Exactly except Dubya was the LAST POTUS and it was fun to think how it would have turned out if he went to talk with Men-ta-lee Ill

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/Images/WE12.jpg

Oooooooh pretty :)

TomF
08-05-2009, 09:34 AM
... Uncle Sam has no right to demand that any country in the world observe our laws or release our citizens because they break their laws. We can ask for their release thats all. ...Tell me again why you guys went into Iraq? I mean, other than the imaginary WMDs, wasn't there something about toppling a tyrant? Promoting liberty and the rule of law? What were those provisions of the Patriot Act, legitimating kidnapping people in foreign countries and bringing them to the US for trial?

I agree that the laws of sovereign states are, after all, their laws. And other states which purport to think highly of the rule of law haven't legitimate grounds to forcefully meddle. But it's pretty common to have one government try to bargain with another when their nationals are jailed (or are pending execution) for things which aren't crimes at home. There've been a bunch of such cases in Canada in the past few years - going on right now regarding Ethiopia, and pretty recently re Saudi Arabia IIRC.

Keith Wilson
08-05-2009, 09:45 AM
We can ask for their release thats all. To send a high level person of any party such as this is more a political stunt than anything. That's what Bill Clinton did; ask for their release. OK, it was a political stunt - it worked.

And inventing some kind of quid pro quo without evidence is not much of an argument. I don't know if there was one or not, and neither do you. More likely there were just hints at greater good will in the future, which we can forget about later. Kim gets to look like less of a maniac - well, a slightly more merciful maniac, anyway - the reporters come home, Bill gets on TV - everybody wins. Not a bad deal.

Ian McColgin
08-05-2009, 10:05 AM
The only people who actually imagine that Clinton doing this says anything about US policy are the North Koreans who are in a news black-out, and I guess some US right wingers who foam at the mouth about Clinton even worse than about Obama and Kennedy combined.

Of course Clinton will bring back some insights. Not messages, even back-channel since the North Korean regiem, like Burma's and some others, lives in delusional isolation.

It worked. Trescool.

paul oman
08-05-2009, 10:05 AM
I like the 'spin' that it takes an impeached president, now private citizen, to 'save' those two girls. Thus suggesting that the Obama team can't do anything right, and Bill Clinton had to swoop in and save the day.

I think it was a mistake for Obama to inject Bill Clinton back into the spotlight.

Tom Galyen
08-05-2009, 10:24 AM
Norm,
Your first point, I was talking about private citizens who intently break the laws of other countries. Don't try to change the subject.

Your second point. Their "plan" was pretty well spelled out in the media reports at the time of their capture. To cross into North Korea and get info for a story they wanted to write about conditions there. They went to China to cross from there to Korea. Korea does not trust China any more then they do South Korea, the border is as well guarded as the few Koreans who have managed to get to China have testified. The idea that they could cross into Korea without detection does not seem to me to be a sign of high intelligence on their part.

Your third point. While their association with Al Gore does not make them stupid it also does not point in my estimation to a high degree of intelligence. Especially if that association leads them to do something as stupid as this. Would a persons association with Kim Jong Il make them a paranoid butcher? Perhaps not, but as my mother would say, "You are known by the company you keep."

Your fourth point. See answers to your Second and Third points. I try to keep politics and religion separate. As the Democrats in this country cry Keep Church and State separate. What they did had nothing to do with any religion that I know of.

And lastly, to your last point, obviously you don't understand at all. I said nothing about not being happy for their release one way or another. Actually I'm very happy for them for their families, for anyone who gets out of that Hell hole. You are the one who keeps trying to tie a persons religion to their politics. I said that if a person breaks the law they should expect to be punished for it. I can pray for their safety and that God will be with them during their time of punishment. I can pray that they will be released. I can be happy for their release. This does not mean that I should pray that they get away with breaking the law, even if it is the laws of a repressive, paranoid government. But the plight of millions of true innocent victims of the North Korean Government rank higher on my prayer list then a couple of naive reporters.

Canoeyawl
08-05-2009, 10:25 AM
who after all only got 12 years hard labor
I'd have no problem whatsoever telling the parents that their dip**** kids had to serve out their 12 year terms.
This absurd statement puts you in the same limelight as Kim.

Sheese - 12 years hard labor, is not exactly working in your garden picking roses Milo.
In fact, it probably would kill a better man than me...

bobbys
08-05-2009, 10:37 AM
I will cross party lines here and give Bill kudos for getting back 2 hot Asian chicks.:D

Keith Wilson
08-05-2009, 10:39 AM
Mr. Galyen's great respect for the laws of North Korea is quite surprising.

Chris Coose
08-05-2009, 11:00 AM
Clinton did good. Only Clinton could give a Korean nut a massage and end up with the happy ending ;)

Priceless.

Brilliant move to hire up Bill as an envoy. I'm looking forward to the use of people like Clinton and George Mitchell and other brilliant old time negotiators to extend American policy.

Evil Empire bull**** causes arms races and the use of Blackwater murderers.
Kissinger and Cheney are evil on crack.

Tom Galyen
08-05-2009, 11:03 AM
Norm,
I stand by my statement that their "plan" or what ever else anyone wants to call it was stupid in that it was not intelligent. I made no political statements at all except that I will admit to having little respect for Al Gore. He walks to far from the truth to suit me. I do not "hate" him thats is you putting words in my mouth. Something you and others on this forum are good at. You didn't note of course my edit of my post #54. I don't have time to search the backwater news organizations of either the right or the left. If it is not posted by a Major news or media source I don't see it. I corrected my post based checking Fred's post but you chose to ignore that because it didn't fit your attack on me.

To Keith,

I have no respect for the laws of North Korea any more than any other repressive and to use Andrew's correct term paranoid regime. However, that does not give our citizens the right to go and break them and expect to have Uncle Sam come and bail them out when they do.

Tell me, in many countries around the world there are American Citizens sitting in Hell hole jails for long prison terms for breaking their drug laws. Some of these countries are repressive regimes some are in jails in European countries. Should we demand that they be released from jail because they A) didn't know the laws of the country, or B) The punishment they got was more severe then they would have gotten for the same offense in the U.S., or C) they are U.S. citizens and should be allowed to go where ever they want and do what ever they please? Where do you draw the line? If you knew one of your kids was planning something like these two young ladies what would you do before they left. Wish them well and congratulate them on a wise course of action?

rbgarr
08-05-2009, 11:05 AM
I doubt Clinton had much to do with the actual negotiating for the prisoners' release. It would have all been set up before he was asked to go.

Chris Coose
08-05-2009, 11:13 AM
Of course it was Dave. Imagine Bill getting turned down?
The global psychology that comes with this move begins to return America to a decent global standing.

Nobody has really tested Obama yet with some outrageous offense. I think most agressors know better. I'd bet agressors would be more afraid of Obama than the dubbya.

Dubbya could be counted on to invade a neighbor. Dubbya threw rocks and ran away. he was a pussy. I don't see that in the current CIC.

TomF
08-05-2009, 11:20 AM
I doubt Clinton had much to do with the actual negotiating for the prisoners' release. It would have all been set up before he was asked to go.

Families requested Clinton trip: official

The Obama administration refused to officially comment on Clinton's trip, saying it was a "solely private mission."
But a senior administration official said Tuesday that the families of the two reporters had asked Clinton to travel to Pyongyang to seek the women's release.
The families were joined in the request by former vice-president Al Gore, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.That's an excerpt from a news report on the CBC website; the rest is here: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/08/04/clinton-north-korea-journalist-nuclear249.html

On the CBC television news this morning, they reported that one of the two being held had made a phone call to her mother a couple of weeks back, suggesting that if "Bill Clinton, or someone like that" would travel to N Korea to ask for a pardon, it might happen. The CBC reporter commented that the suggestion was prolly pretty clear reflection of what she'd been told to say.

This isn't Obama injecting Clinton where he shouldn't, or Clinton upstaging Obama, or the US government somehow going soft on a communist dictator.

It's just the perambulations needed to get a couple of US nationals released.

LeeG
08-05-2009, 11:31 AM
Once again, having them talk to Bill for a couple of hours does nothing to either "legitimize" or "delegitimize" the North Korean government. They hold power by brute force. Whether we talk to them or not, they still hold power by brute force. Nothing has changed except two prisoners are now free. You vastly overestimate the effect of useless symbolic acts by the US.

Maybe we're so special that without our attention the bad people will just wither away in shame but by looking upon the evil people they grow from our mere gaze?

Or engaging in reality kills a self-stroking narrative.

Tom Galyen
08-05-2009, 11:34 AM
Norm,

Actually the fact that I have little respect for Al Gore has little to do with his political party. It has a lot to do with him personally. I lost respect for the Democrats when they ran him for president, just as I lost respect for the Republicans when they ran John McCain. And I do stand by my statement about the fact that by working for him they showed less intelligence. As "reporters" they didn't check out the people they were writing for? Especially when given such a poorly thought out mission? The CIA wouldn't try something that stupid and they are famed for some stupid missions.

Tom F,
You may want to read FredZ's website clip in Post #50 of this thread, the one I read before editing one of my posts. Hillary had more to do with who went and when then you know. According to that website Al Gore couldn't go, but Bill could. As usual in political posts there is much more than meets the eye and the two young ladies are rapidly become only pawns in a much larger game. If I were Obama I'd be worried about how this played out. Bill will now make the talk shows and Obama will be out of sight.

High C
08-05-2009, 12:10 PM
I will cross party lines here and give Bill kudos for getting back 2 hot Asian chicks.:D

What do ya bet he sat in the middle seat for the ride home?

John of Phoenix
08-05-2009, 12:10 PM
Reds simply cannot deal with success.

Especially diplomatic success.

And ESPECIALLY by BJ Bill.

I love it. Well done Mr. President.

switters
08-05-2009, 01:15 PM
Why Bill? As I understand it Bill was the last president to send a high level envoy, Madeline Albright, into North Korea. It involved a deal with the US supplying oil to them in return for not producing weapons grade Plutonium in their Nuke reactors. Bush got into a he said she said argument and screwed with the agreement. On the other hand North Korea waslikely partially at fault for pushing Bush's buttons (thats funny in a way).

So, even if Hillary wasn't secy. state, Bill probably would have been sent anyway, and the deal made was probably the same deal he made with them 10 years ago, and Kim trusted Clinton because he was the one who gave him the deal int he first place, I wold guess that Kim asked for Clinton. It also gives Obama a wee bit of deniability if Kim flaked out at the last moment because he did not send anyone on the US payrol.

All in all it seems to be a well done piece of diplomacy, and I'm glad the two reporters are back with their families. If it had been my wife sentenced to 12 years hard labor in N. Korea I would have been ready to give them anything they asked for, including an apology.

Tom Galyen
08-05-2009, 01:21 PM
Norm,
Of course you do, unless of course they worked in the Bush administration, then your attitude would change greatly wouldn't it.

I have to comment on John Teetsel's Post. "Well done Mr. President." While congratulations are due him I was thinking while out who were the winners and any losers in this affair.
1. The young ladies are of course winners, even after a rather foolish beginning, for they will get to write a great book and make all the talk shows both now and in six months to a year again when the book comes out. They'll be well compensated for their trials.
2. Bill Clinton will be a winner because he gets his name in the news again and this time as a hero.
3. Hillary Clinton, if FredZ's post is correct, because she orchestrated things behind the scene and showed she knows how to use the power she can wield.
4. To a small extent Al Gore, he will come off looking good for at least offering to go to North Korea to get his employees back. He may even dodge the idea of approving the mission in the first place. Which, by the way I don't think he knew of until after it happened.
5. Right now I would say the big loser in this political affair, if there is one, is President Obama. In all the news media reports around here, he is mentioned over half way down the article if at all. Bill, Hillary, and even Al Gore are mentioned above him. His name comes up in a sort of "the president says" placement. This is not good for a supposed populist president. I'm sure, however, that over the next few days his political spin-miesters, will feel the crack of the whip and correct this discrepency. The John Teetsel's of the world will demand it. :)

Keith Wilson
08-05-2009, 01:27 PM
Right now I would say the big loser in this political affair, if there is one, is President Obama."Big loser"? Not at all. He gets to look presidential, congratulate Bill and the reporters, and then go back to work. It's not a big deal for him politically one way or another, but it's a minor positive.

Tom Galyen
08-05-2009, 02:04 PM
Norm,
You and I agree on that, and if I read you correctly, I think you are as sad about it as I am. But it is the world we live in where presidential races are treated by the media like NASCAR races, and therefore most of the public has begun to view them as such. This is what I was alluding to in my post #71 about Obama being a loser in this affair. There are people in both parties who keep track of such things, and this is what I meant by the spin-miesters having to go to work. Image, image, image, its all about image. Obama needs even now to be thinking about the election of 2012, his people know it. If a Republican were in there now it would be exactly the same.

I'm glad the young ladies are free, I'm glad Bill Clinton got the job done, I doubt that anyone else could have done it as quickly as he did. I am enough of a cynic to ask, at what price? To the young ladies and their families it doesn't matter, and to most Americans the same holds true.

However, we will never know all the details of what went on in the room between Kim and Bill, therefore we will never know the true price, which could have been avoided totally by some simple thinking at the proper time.

By the way Kim Jong Il was a winner also, mostly in the eyes of the people of North Korea who will look at this as a great victory of humbling the Americans. He will also be admired by other such paranoid leaders in the world such as perhaps Amadinejad of Iran, or Hugo Chavez, etc.

Now, after making the above observation, I'll throw a total monkey wrench into the pot, and say that a little humiliation now and then and an apology here and there never hurt anyone. Especially when its really needed. Al Gore of course could apologize for allowing his employees to get into such a predicament, and vow to take steps to ensure it does not happen again. Heads should roll at the staff level of his company to show that he means it.

This is just an observation from someone walking in the center of the road.

Robmill0605
08-05-2009, 02:18 PM
I detest the Clinton's.

That said, this is not a partisan issue to me. Bill Clinton should rightfully receive the gratitude of ALL Americans for bringing these people home.
We can square off politically later.
I don't think much of Jesse Jackson either, but when he brought home those prisoners ( I think it was from Bosnia?) years ago, I gave him credit for it.

So good job Bill,:D

now get lost Bubba.....:p

Keith Wilson
08-05-2009, 02:24 PM
I detest the Clinton's. That said, this is not a partisan issue to me. Bill Clinton should rightfully receive the gratitude of ALL Americans for bringing these people home. Good. I don't agree with you about the Clintons, but it's to your credit that you can acknowledge it when someone you detest does something good.

John of Phoenix
08-05-2009, 02:35 PM
I'm sure, however, that over the next few days his political spin-miesters, will feel the crack of the whip and correct this discrepency. The John Teetsel's of the world will demand it.Right. My buddies and I are finally getting started on prosecuting dubya, cheney et. al. for their war crimes.

I'll keep you posted.

Captain Blight
08-05-2009, 03:47 PM
lets see-

the guy that caved in to everything the squirrel wanted and got nothing in return for the US, finaly asks for a couple of algores stooges?

how conveeeeenniiiiiiientttttttI see that The Boys In Blue have sent their finest mind.

Tom Galyen
08-05-2009, 03:53 PM
Norm,

As far as Obama being a loser in my post I have to agree with you. When I originally wrote it I said a minor winner or a loser, then lost the post when I googled to get the correct spelling of Amadinejad's name. When I rewrote it I changed the wording and it was incorrect. I only meant that he did not come out as high on the list as his spin-miesters would want and that is why they will correct that flaw.

As far as what Bill Clinton did or did not give away I don't know and neither does anyone else. It's only a conjecture, like you conjecturing my "hatred" for someone based on my posts when I never used the word.

When I spoke of Al Gore and his apology I meant it only in the context of his being the Employer who allowed, through his staff, a couple of his employees to get into such a predicament. If you read FredZ's website you would see that in it Gore does take responsibility for them being there, that is why he volunteered to go to North Korea. If this had been done by the head of Fox News you would demand an apology from him so I think Gore should be held to the same standards.

Lastly, if you're standing so far to the left of the road that you can't see the center, don't blame me. I know where I am.

John,

Keep me posted, but I'm not holding my breath. There are too many Democrats who don't want anything like that. And that begins in the White House. Not because Obama is any supporter of former President Bush or his policies but because it would set a precedent that would hamstring future occupiers of that building, himself included.

Tom Galyen
08-05-2009, 04:01 PM
To keith Wilson,

In you post #72 you said:
"Big loser"? Not at all. He gets to look presidential, congratulate Bill and the reporters, and then go back to work. It's not a big deal for him politically one way or another, but it's a minor positive.

I agree with you to a point, and agree this is what I would want a gentleman President to do. However, this is 2009 and we are talking presidential politics and how it is conceived by the media. Unless the presidents name is at the top of the news item in the first paragraph it is viewed as less then a winner. That is all I meant. This is true no matter what party is in the White House. I don't know when it started, some time after Kennedy, but as I pointed out in a later post, it comes down to the fact that presidential races are viewed by the media as the same as NASCAR races or Hollywood celebrity events. This was what I meant.

Chris Coose
08-05-2009, 04:17 PM
5. Right now I would say the big loser in this political affair, if there is one, is President Obama. In all the news media reports around here, he is mentioned over half way down the article if at all.


That's what makes him the biggest winner in the thing.

Keith Wilson
08-05-2009, 04:17 PM
I only meant that he did not come out as high on the list as his spin-miesters would want LOL! Being canonized a saint, winning six Nobel prizes, curing cancer, finding Atlantis, achieving Enlightenment, swimming the Pacific, and getting 18 consecutive holes-in-one at Pebble Beach would not make him look as good as his spinmeisters would like. :D But don't worry, I'm sure they're working on it. :D

Tom Galyen
08-05-2009, 04:33 PM
To Chris Coose,

In the eyes of gentlemen, yes, in the eyes of the spin-miesters no.

To Keith,
I agree whole heartedly. And I reiterate, this would be true no matter who sat in the White House.

Saltiguy
08-05-2009, 06:25 PM
A few things I would be willing to bet on
1. The "journalists" were spies, working on behalf of the US government.
2. Their release was arranged and terms agreed upon, before Bubba ever left the US
3. The "hikers" detained in Iran are spies working for the US government.

George Jung
08-05-2009, 06:46 PM
Very entertaining, gentlemen - and I am enjoying the hypocrisy, immensely!

Reverse some of the labels, and imagine the positions some of this threads most ardent contributors would take. Reds rubbing Blues noses' in 'it'; blues returning the favor.

Partisanship, the festering wound in politics. But carry on - it's the gift that just keeps on giving.

pefjr
08-05-2009, 06:57 PM
"Maybe we're so special that without our attention the bad people will just wither away in shame but by looking upon the evil people they grow from our mere gaze?" LeeG

This is an interesting thought. It works with children pitching fits or tantrums. Ignore them. Seems to be Obama's approach on some issues.

pefjr
08-05-2009, 07:00 PM
A few things I would be willing to bet on
1. The "journalists" were spies, working on behalf of the US government.
2. Their release was arranged and terms agreed upon, before Bubba ever left the US
3. The "hikers" detained in Iran are spies working for the US government.
I'll take your money on 1 and 3.

Tom Galyen
08-05-2009, 07:13 PM
Saltigy and pefjr,

Your wrong on points 1& 3, so what if 2 is correct? What difference would it make on the final outcome. In all likely hood since he was asked for specifically, that is true. It doesn't effect the outcome at all. Smarter people then him have stumbled at the goal when confronted by a raving paranoid like Kim. He managed to do what he went for.

The "journalists" were un-intelligent in their thought that they could sneak into North Korea to get a story, and the hikers just people who can't read a map. Dumb Americans abroad, read Mark Twain's book and you'll see that it is not a new phenomenon. It's just that the stakes are higher now.

Glen Longino
08-05-2009, 08:02 PM
"Obama is sort of black"

Obama is sort of white also. In fact, he's half and half, and it makes absolutely no differnce to anybody except racists. Let's not cater to racists.
JFK was sort of Catholic, and it made no difference to anybody except religious bigots. Let's not cater to religious bigots.

Big Woody
08-05-2009, 08:34 PM
I doubt Clinton had much to do with the actual negotiating for the prisoners' release. It would have all been set up before he was asked to go.

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!

Anybody who thinks Bill got called out of mothballs for something that was not a formality and a bit of political showmanship is a bit slow. No doubt Hillary's office set this up, But little Kim didn't want to be seen giving the dyke what she wants, so he agreed on condition that he could publicly deal with the other guy that wears the pants in the Clinton family. Having lived in South Korea for six years, I understand how big of a public humiliation it would appear to be if Kim had cappitulated to a woman. Especially since the North Korean governmental press had recently gone out of its way to bag on Hillary personally. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/07/23/us.north.korea/index.html

If you read between the lines this explains it. http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/280321,extra-hillary-clinton-denies-any-apology-in-bills-n-korean-mission.html

Bill gets to play the hero in a back channel deal over two asian women Kim captured and was using as bargaining chips.

The nagging question is what did Kim get for his two pawns? (Hillary publicly claims it wasn't an apology for their intrusion, while the North Koreans say it was) http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/280321,extra-hillary-clinton-denies-any-apology-in-bills-n-korean-mission.html

pefjr
08-05-2009, 08:37 PM
"find me a powerful person who doesn't manipulate it for sexual favors"

Ish, , I don't know for sure but lets start with Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, GB Sr, GB Jr, to name a few..........wait ...............wait I am beginning to see a pattern here, they are all Repubs., men of principles. Add Jimmy Carter although he "lusted in his heart".

PeterSibley
08-05-2009, 09:14 PM
Add Jimmy Carter although he "lusted in his heart".

Gotta love that ...the most honest man ever to have the job and America hates him .....what does this tell you ? :D

pefjr
08-05-2009, 09:45 PM
Gotta love that ...the most honest man ever to have the job and America hates him .....what does this tell you ? :DYou continue to be wrong. America does not hate Jimmy Carter, but there are some peanut farmers in Georgia that do.

PeterSibley
08-05-2009, 10:15 PM
I saw a rating of popularity of past Presidents once .I think he was at the bottom of the post WW2 list ....but GB the Younger may have replaced him now .

Tom Galyen
08-05-2009, 10:33 PM
I do not know if I would rate Jimmy Carter as the "most honest man ever to have the job" he was however one of most honest since I've been on this planet. In my opinion Harry Truman was extremely honest also, I love his statement when told by someone in the crowd to "Give 'em Hell Harry" he responded "I don't give 'em Hell, I just tell the truth and they think its Hell!"

If only all past presidents could live their lives like he did once he was out of office.

Surprisingly he was also hated by many while he was president and after. I really admire him though. We need more like him.

TomF
08-06-2009, 08:46 AM
...I hope, to the bottom of my soul, no one takes a successful shot at our president, but I'd be surprised if it doesn't happen. I hate saying that, but the hatred is strong on both sides.

A successful assassination would toss this country into the worst turmoil it's seen since 1860.Ish, I have long expected that some white whacko will kill Obama. And it will be a tragedy if my supposing is right. But it might be the tragedy America uses, perhaps even needs, to take "the race card" off the table.

From an outsider's perspective, American patriotism has a religious flavour. The forms of your institutions and their physical locations - Congress, the Presidency, the Judiciary - are almost sacred ground. The reverence and exegetical study expended on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution has a perilous lot in common with how we Christians approach Biblical scholarship ... and frankly, the way I've heard the thoughts/actions of Jefferson, Madison, Washinton etc. parsed and described ... has pretty strong echoes of Simon Peter, James, and John.

Thre's no parallel in Canada. You have George Washington's face carved into a mountain ... we have stories of John A. MacDonald as a very politically savvy, scurrilous old drunk. You have the Federalist Papers ... we have archived political horse-trading documents which few graduate students in Politics could name, or to admit to having read.

So it's hard to downplay the symbolism of electing a mixed-race man to the Sacred Office. Remember the scenes of black Americans weeping? Of white Americans feeling proud - some because race simply wasn't an issue in their voting decision ... others because they'd chosen not to listen to their residual racism, and voted Obama anyway. Others yet proud because their vote against Obama was not a race-vote, but one of political conscience.

Obama's candidacy visibly moved you closer to Martin Luther King's dream ... as a nation, you challenged yourselves to judge not the man not by the colour of his skin, but on the content of his character. You quite self-consciously worked to sublimate race, and whichever way you voted - tried to vote for the America you'd like to emerge.

That means that the great majority of you consciously voted for better race relations, however you cast your ballots. You knew it was a momentous event within America's secular religion; you were consciously and deliberately choosing that race would no longer bar anyone from a sacred process, and a sacred office. America was moving on from that. So if a whack-job white supremacist kills Obama - all that soul-searching, all that pride ... is soiled, ridiculed. And the Americans who were so proud of consciously voting with their convictions rather than their residual prejudices ... will say Enough! That's not the America I want!

Paradoxically, I think a racist assasination would have an almost incalculably positive impact on race-relations. It would take the "race card" away more conclusively than anything else could. Racism's visceral, and the only thing that can challenge it successfully is something equally visceral.

John of Phoenix
08-06-2009, 09:15 AM
Paradoxically, I think a racist assasination would have an almost incalculably positive impact on race-relations. It would take the "race card" away more conclusively than anything else could. Racism's visceral, and the only thing that can challenge it successfully is something equally visceral.
I'd like to agree but Kennedy's death didn't do much for Catholic prejudices.

Regarding the threats - oh hell yeah...


Barack Obama faces 30 death threats a day, stretching US Secret Service

US President Barack Obama is the target of more than 30 potential death threats a day and is being protected by an increasingly over-stretched and under-resourced Secret Service, according to a new book.

Since Mr Obama took office, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400 per cent from the 3,000 a year or so under President George W. Bush, according to Ronald Kessler, author of In the President's Secret Service.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5967942/Barack-Obama-faces-30-death-threats-a-day-stretching-US-Secret-Service.html
That's 12,000 whackos to track down.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-06-2009, 09:51 AM
Tom, for once I am going to disagree with you.

A racist assasination of the President would signal the end for the United States.

Gonzalo
08-06-2009, 09:53 AM
...Obama is sort of black.Where the heck did this come from? I'm with Glen, Jack. Nobody but a racist would bring this up out of the blue. I've defended you against the charge of racism on this forum before, but this and similar other comments are causing me to regret it.

TomF
08-06-2009, 10:43 AM
Tom, for once I am going to disagree with you.

A racist assasination of the President would signal the end for the United States.It would certainly provoke the crisis. I think the US mainstream would be angered enough to rise to the occasion, almost inadvertently transforming themselves. But I may be dreaming.

Gonzalo
08-06-2009, 11:49 AM
I don't care what his racial mix is.Then why do you so frequently bring it up out of the blue? Hardly anyone mentions Obama's race more than you do, Jack. From that I conclude that you care very much about it, one way or the other.


I'm not going to let his racial mix get in the way of thinking about his policy.Then why mention it at all? Especially irrelevantly in the middle of a thread about something else altogether?

John Honeycutt

Ian McColgin
08-06-2009, 11:55 AM
Two points tangentially germane to the main thread:

The notion that we libs think people who worked for Bush 43 are stupid by that association (“ . . . unless of course they worked in the Bush administration, then your attitude would change greatly wouldn't it. # 71) are wrong. Folk like FEMA’s Brown displayed their stupidity with no need of their president’s assistance.

And I got a kick out of pefjr’s list [# 94] since all but Nixon and Bush 43 are known to have had affairs though, unlike Harding and Clinton, not in the White House.

But let’s not let reality affect partisanship.

Chris Coose
08-06-2009, 01:19 PM
Gonzo,

Half black is apropos, isn't it?

Nope.

Underneath "1/2 black" it is immediately and consciously/unconsciously considered that the person is not whole and then Obama's image may come to mind that he is clearly of African heritage.... no mistaking his characteristics.

He is 1/2 nothing in this world (cept yours). He is of mixed race.

You can get with the program Jack or you can support and defend your right to write stupid. I don't really care what you do at this point but it seems to frustrate some here who would care to run around the block again and again and again with you.

pefjr
08-06-2009, 01:37 PM
Tom, for once I am going to disagree with you.

A racist assasination of the President would signal the end for the United States.Interesting that you look at a racist assassination from only one side. What if the hypothetical assassin was black? Is that a "racist assassination? Better question your prejudices.

TomF
08-06-2009, 01:46 PM
Interesting that you look at a racist assassination from only one side. What if the hypothetical assassin was black? Is that a "racist assassination? Better question your prejudices.Pefjr,

within the context of this sub-discussion (from Ish #90 to me to ACB), I think we were all wondering about a racially inspired assasination, rather than a politically inspired one.

I certainly think a white supremacist wacko is more likely to pop Obama than a black power wacko, the observations less prejudicial than pragmatic. But the firestorm could certainly erupt whichever extreme racist faction pulled the trigger.

pefjr
08-06-2009, 02:25 PM
Tom
A white man assassinates a black for racial reasons. (your wonderings)
A black man assassinates a white for racial reasons
Obama is both white and also black.
So if a black assassin were to assassinate Obama for racial reasons(because he is white), it is a racist assassination. Were you including this scenario in your wonderings?

TomF
08-06-2009, 03:27 PM
Tom
A white man assassinates a black for racial reasons. (your wonderings)
A black man assassinates a white for racial reasons
Obama is both white and also black.
So if a black assassin were to assassinate Obama for racial reasons(because he is white), it is a racist assassination. Were you including this scenario in your wonderings?I think that if a black man assassinates Obama for racial reasons, it will surely spark a fire. But nothing like the fire sparked if a white man shot him. In my imagining, the effect of Obama being shot by a white guy might just be sufficient to be transformational; being shot by a black guy might (if anything) make matters worse.

While it's certainly true that Obama's heritage is mixed race, as Lenny Kravitz (another mixed race guy) observed, within the US context mixed race people are usually defined as black, whatever their other parentage.

pefjr
08-06-2009, 04:05 PM
Tom

When MLK was shot and died, I thought it was the end of the world, but the country knew it was an extremist and not at all a white attack.

"within the US context mixed race people are usually defined as black, whatever their other parentage." Kravitz. That is true and that is why I asked the question. It seemed your conversation was geared to that tune. It was, at a time the same with many other minorities, but seems to have mostly faded. Now is that only in the US? No, it occurs in many other countries, in many different combinations of ignorance.