If you sense that the international threats are multiplying — from Syria, from Iran, from North Korea — you are right. That suggests that the Obama team’s assertion — that our problems in the world are traceable to insufficiently smart diplomacy by the Bush team — is wrong. The Fox News Sunday roundtable had an enlightening discussion on the North Korean problem:
LIZ CHENEY: … I think that we’ve seen time and time again, North Korea, if they test a nuclear weapon, there are no consequences. If they build a reactor for the Syrians, there are no consequences. And what they’ve learned is that their belligerence, in fact, oftentimes yields from us capitulation and concessions.
I think that it’s time for us to put them back on the terrorist list, and I think it’s time for to us be very direct with China and say, you know, if you really do want to be the world power that you aspire to be, you’ve got to step up to the plate here. You can’t just benefit from the open economic system in the United States, from the open economies around the world. If you really do view yourself as a world power, and you want the rest of the world to you view you that way –
CHRIS WALLACE: But don’t you think we’re saying that?
CHENEY: I don’t know. I don’t think that we are, actually. I think that we’ve been tiptoeing around the Chinese. I think if you look at what happened last July, when we said we were going to have joint military exercises with the South Koreans, the Chinese objected and said don’t do it in the Yellow Sea. We said OK and we moved it. … I think we should be clear to the Chinese that if they don’t step up to the plate and get the North Koreans — they are the North Korean’s largest trading partner, their closer ally. If they do not engage more effectively and directly in getting the North Koreans to stop what they’re doing, the result will be a nuclear proliferation in that neighborhood. …
As the conversation unfolds, Juan Williams accuses Cheney and Bill Kristol of “warmongering” — although neither suggested the use of military force. Cheney and Kristol did suggest a change in approach, which plainly doesn’t amount to going to war against North Korea:
CHENEY: Do you think that what we’ve been doing for the last five years has worked? I mean, what we’ve been doing, basically, is saying we’re going to offer carrots to the North Koreans, because we’re going to talk them out of their program, and we’re going to plead with them to stop? And, by the way, we’re going to ignore evidence that they have got an enrichment program going on, which we learned this week they actually do have going on. …
WILLIAMS: But I must say, the Chinese have now said let’s have more six-party talks. The U.S. government, the Obama administration, has refused those talks. They don’t want more talks. They’re being very clear and hard-lined. So, it does not seem to me that your argument that there is somehow softness going on here is in the play at all. What’s going on is we need to find a way to resolve the issue, and the administration, contrary to what Bill had to say, has been demonstrating admirable restraint and not warmongering and saying, oh, yes, go in there and start a fight that you can’t finish.
KRISTOL: I’m not for warmongering. I am for doing whatever you can do through covert action and other — bribes (ph) and everything. … If they’re doing it, more power to them. Just as in Iran, the stocks (ph) and that virus (ph) seems to have slowed down their nuclear program.
As with Iran, what’s going to do more good, all the talks we’ve had, or actually subverting their nuclear program? In North Korea, what would do the most good is trying to find fissures in the military, people who are upset about his 27-year-old son taking over, and bringing down the regime.
So do we continue the failed engagement tactics of the last years of the Bush administration and the first two years of this one, or do we try something new — more direct discussion with China, increased military presence in the region, commitment to regime change in North Korea, and refraining from rewarding North Korea’s bad behavior? Attempts at engagement have failed — spectacularly so. It seems we have little choice but to try something different. And no, it’s not “warmongering” to oppose aggression by our foes.
You’re being very unfair, Jennifer, in bringing up Obama’s aunt. His failure to do anything to help her is entirely consistent with his beliefs that the government is responsible for us all.
After all, he has opposed the “constraints” of the constitution because they don’t relate to what the government must do for us.
I’m just a simple country lawyer from a simple country law school, but I had thought that except for the parts setting up the machinery of government, the constitution basically was about “constraints.” Of course, it’s been a while since I was in law school and I have a feeling that the Obama camp’s viewpoint is, in pretty much these words, “oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc.”
He should only be contrite due to his having confused one kooky, horses**t, hoodoo-voodoo practice (astrology) with another (seances). This was very much not a big deal.
Nothing he said was cruel, or cold-hearted. Obama was not making fun of the former First Lady for being old, frail, or sick. He owed her an apology solely for having portrayed her incorrectly and having made fun of her for something she never did (of course it was Hillary who held seances). But stop behaving as though it was especially mean; if you’re into silly things such as astrology and seances you’re fair game for a ribbing.
I think the fact that he wouldn’t just let the needless qualifier of “living” go without a quip is a good sign. A sign of intelligence and wit. A sign of the actual man about whom–and I do agree with you on this–we know so little.
#2: Since when is Upchuck Schumer allowed in Contentions? And does it use astrology or seances to discern signs of intelligence and wit, let alone horses**t?
Alexander Almasov, what did I say that personally offended you so much? Was it my sticking up for Obama? Was it my identifying astrology and seances for being the nonsense they are? Do tell?
Surely it takes more than a few days for it to sink in that you are really going to be president of like the whole United States and not just the Daily Kos crowd.
Jennifer, you mistyped “lack of careful scrutiny” of Obama’s personality when you obviously meant to write “careful lack of scrutiny” – pls correct.
I would chalk up Obama’s remarks to that notorious discomfort with retail politics — so bizarre in a big-city politician — that seems to preclude easy small talk or warm gestures. Nixon betrayed some of that dorkiness too, though I would not (yet) attribute Tricky’s darker neuroses to Barry, who I suspect is simply an intellectual prude. Reagan himself was famously detached, but a naturally gregarious type in addition to being a pretty good professional actor. What I find truly alarming is Obama’s readiness to conduct (or acquiesce in) a stylistically totalitarian campaign (with some very substantively totalitarian touches) — which, as I’ve commented elsewhere, is a genre bound to stir up passions in others that he is personally ill-qualified to contain, let alone requite politically.
Obama’s lack of warmth doesn’t bother me in the slightest. We elect a president to lead the country, hopefully with wisdom and clarity, and not to make us feel good about ourselves. The president is not a camp counselor. Obama’s seriousness and gravity are welcome traits. Oddly enough, they recall a similarly grave and humorless (but hugely beloved and effective) president, George washington. Obama’s demeanor will pay dividends for this country, including conservatives. To the extent the new president pursues good and wise policies, it will renew the American people’s belief in the nobility and dignity of our commonweal, which is bigger than any one person’s personality. To the extent he pursues foolish policies, it will keep the focus on the policies and deny him the pass has allowed recent leaders to run amok. Maybe the country is in a wreckage now precisely because of 16 years of Presidents whose affability and likeability could deflect thorough vetting of their policies. (Think jolly Bill Clinton and his Democratic elves turning Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae into economic Frankenstein monsters.) A sober and serious commander in chief, to whom no one looks for the warm and fuzzies, may be just what the doctor ordered for our body politic.
Afraid to answer? Blow me, neocon loser.
President Elect Obama has been robotic the past two years in delivering his teleprompted scripted lines with precision. The press conference gave him an opportunity to become more human and, unfortunately, he came across ham handed.
Since we all need to live with him the next four years, I hope he doesn’t revert back to the robotic side. That would not be good for anyone, especially for a leader advocating change and hope.
#9 is not actually me.
However, sticking up for my pseudonym seems pointless.
You win, fake Charles Cheese (comment #9). I’ll go away.
Why would anyone be surprised at Obama’s cheap shot about Nancy Reagan? And yes, that is what it was and that is why people find it objectionable. There are enough “cheap shot artists” already, we don’t expect or want another one in the WH.
But, his statement right out of the box was consistent with his artful use of his middle finger on camera while speaking about or to his opponents.
It is an article of faith that men grow into the Presidency. Let us hope for a growth spurt.
It’s going to be a long four years.
Maybe the Prez would show Mrs. Reagan more respect if she rigged up a faux seal for the “Office of the Former First Lady”.
Sorry, that should have been “Prez-Elect”, of course.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWk_w-Pyrao
Why are you surprised Jennifer? BO is sexist as hell. His whole campaign has demeaned women HRC supporters every way he could; his staff underpaid women substantially (McCain paid women MORE)…
And so it continues.
Look at his disdain for saving the lives of abortion survivors. This is one cold dude, not cool.
At least he apologised to Mrs Reagan.
Now he can also apologise to Hillary Clinton and to Sarah Palin. What is it about Obama that he thinks white women with power (even an elderly widow) deserve such disrespect?
If only sexism mattered even half as much as the low threshold of racism.