U.S.: NKorea to Declare Nuclear ProgramsIt's been a tenent of the Dems that Bush has taken the wrong policy with regards to pretty much anything. Our diplomatic effort with North Korea was completely messed up, because we went with 6-way talks instead of unilateral negotiations. We did the wrong thing in Iraq because we went in 'unilaterally' (with only what, 33, 35 nations supporting us?) instead of multilaterally. With the UN? That wonderful little group that can't find chem weapons when they're in their own closet?GENEVA (AP) - North Korea agreed Sunday to account for and disable its atomic programs by the end of the year, offering its first timeline for a process long sought by nuclear negotiators, the chief U.S. envoy said.
Kim Gye Gwan, head of the North Korean delegation, said separately his country's willingness to cooperate was clear—in return for "political and economic compensation"—but he mentioned no dates.
Well, I've lost stuff in my closet too. Guess I shouldn't be too critical, eh?
I wonder how this'll play in thirty-forty years? Bush screwed things up completely? Or he called the play right, and the play in Iraq, also?
I'm starting to think Bush's critics ought to be seen as contrarian indicators. So far, he's called it right on the economy, and in my opinion the war on Iraq. (Yeah, there's been mistakes. It's a war. Mistakes happen. Expensive ones. It sucks. That's war.) When they're bitching, he's doing the right thing. When they STOP bitching - we'll be in trouble.
Like it or not, he's had ideas and plans. Whether they're right or not - that's as may be and the historians can fight it out for the next century. He's had the courage to act on his beliefs - which got plenty of derision. After all, what's more important - a vision for the future and the courage to act on it, or following the poll numbers and changing direction based on those?
There's two different, general groupings I can see politically at this time. The first are the theorists. They know what they want for the future, and they've got all sorts of great theories about how they'll get the things accomplished ... once they're in power and have control of the situation. They love their theories. Shining, pefect, glossy theories that are unsoiled by human variables, just waiting to be implemented. Who just can't understand why people could possibly be against their proposals - after all, they're for the good of all - and if they need to be forcibly implemented - well, it for everyone's good so why gripe about it?
The second are the realists (which aren't to be confused with 'reality based' by any stretch of the imagination) who understand it's real damn hard to get anything done in a country of 300 million individuals, all with their OWN ideas about how the country should be run. Who will accept incremental progress, who know that you cannot herd cats, but you can lead them. Who will, unfortunately, let themselves be derailed by the theorists on some issues (like Social Security Reform) and have communication skills that are decidedly below par when it comes to actually communicating what they're trying to accomplish and their reasoning for it.
I'll take the side that can actually deal with reality, flawed and imperfect as it may be, that will attempt to overcome problems that crop up by coming up with realistic solutions than a side which will attempt to implement flawed or unworkable theories and descend into political paralysis when they don't work as expected.
J.
Comments (6)
Looks like Foggy Bottom is proceeding in the grand old tradition of Neville Chamberland. Your opponent's record of adherence to previously negotiated agreements is immaterial to the current situation. After all, the purpose of negotiations is to set up more negotiations not to actually settle anything.
Otpu
Posted by otpu | September 3, 2007 1:34 PM
Posted on September 3, 2007 13:34
"tenent" should be "tenet"
Sorry...spelling nazi mode just kicked in...!
Posted by suek | September 3, 2007 6:33 PM
Posted on September 3, 2007 18:33
Sigh. And when it kicks in, I just can't help myself...
"Chamberland" should be Chamberlain...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/chamberlain_arthur_neville.shtml
Posted by suek | September 3, 2007 6:36 PM
Posted on September 3, 2007 18:36
According to my spell checker those words weren't misspelled.
Of course, that's what I get for depending on a spell checker.
Mal-appropriately yours;
otpu
Posted by otpu | September 3, 2007 8:26 PM
Posted on September 3, 2007 20:26
Picky, picky.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source
Tenent
\Ten"ent\, n. [L. tenent they hold, 3d pers. pl. pres. of tenere.] A tenet. [Obs.] --Bp. Sanderson.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
So there, Suek! :P
But - if there's only one misspelling in that post, I'm pretty happy with it!
(By the way, John, it WAS Neville Chamberlain. Don't know who Neville Chamerland was, perhaps a plumber in Poughkipsie, but Chamberlain was England's PM and gave away the store.)
J.
Posted by JLawson | September 3, 2007 9:27 PM
Posted on September 3, 2007 21:27
Ok...I yield. 'Tenet' is apparently obsolete - although it's certainly interesting that the definitions for it are more extensive than for 'tenent'.
As for spell check - it only works if the word you use is the word you intend - that is - if you used 'tenent' when you meant 'tenant', you still wouldn't have triggered the spell check, as both would be correct - but different! In latin, 'tenet' and 'tenent' would be singular and plural respectively, I think....
I guarantee that in my school days, tenet would be been correct.
Sheesh. Obsoleted. What does that say!!!
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
ten·et (těn'ĭt) Pronunciation Key n. An opinion, doctrine, or principle held as being true by a person or especially by an organization. See Synonyms at doctrine. [Probably from Medieval Latin, from Latin, third person sing. present indicative of tenēre, to hold; see ten- in Indo-European roots.]
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source
Tenent
\Ten"ent\, n. [L. tenent they hold, 3d pers. pl. pres. of tenere.] A tenet. [Obs.] --Bp. Sanderson.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Posted by suek | September 5, 2007 1:18 PM
Posted on September 5, 2007 13:18