Get Clear

Via Greg Djerejian, a classic up-is-down moment from Team Bush: "Yet a number of senior U.S. officials have said privately that they would welcome a North Korean test, regarding it as a clarifying event that would forever end the debate within the Bush administration about whether to solve the problem through diplomacy or through tough actions designed to destabilize North Korean leader Kim Jong Il's grip on power."

Or, more briefly, the failure of our policies demonstrates the need to adhere to our policies more rigidly. It's like we're being ruled by the cast of a Twighlight Zone episode.

Comments

"Or, more briefly, the failure of our policies demonstrates the need to adhere to our policies more rigidly"

That's not an accurate characterization of what happened. There is no policy, there was a muddle and a fierce internal debate among those who wanted more forceful action and those who wanted deeper dialogue. The hardliners can certainly claim that the half-hearted dialogue didn't work, even though their preferred solutions would be an even bigger disaster. But the point is - the hardliner policies weren't enacted (recall David Frum's call for a blockade, etc.), at least not fully.

Posted by Gregory Scoblete | October 9, 2006 2:49 PM

yeah, and also there were some pretty good actors in the casts of the old Twilight Zone, too. So the comparisons just not legitimate.

Posted by kid bitzer | October 9, 2006 3:26 PM

Matt, I'm a big fan of your writing, but I find it odd that you claim to defend the English language (regarding "pedophile") and yet you can't even be bothered to spellcheck your posts. "Twighlight?" I know spelling and definitions are two different aspects of language, but spelling gives clues to a word's origins and older meanings. I've also noticed you get sloppy with "it's" and "its." I hate to be a nitpicker, but if you insist on nitpicking how others use words...

Posted by Phillyreader | October 9, 2006 3:34 PM

Or, more briefly, the failure of our policies demonstrates the need to adhere to our policies more rigidly.

Is it a surprise that the Bushistas think like that? Because that's been their guiding principle all along.

Posted by Tom Hilton | October 9, 2006 3:40 PM

The hardliners can certainly claim that the half-hearted dialogue didn't work, even though their preferred solutions would be an even bigger disaster.

Just like Communism and conservatism alike never fail, in the eyes of the adherents, but have simply "never been tried properly," the hardliners attribute every bad thing in the world to the fact that we haven't been quite hardline enough.

If we'd just blow a few people up, everyone would take us seriously and we could demand complete obedience. Really!

Posted by Steve | October 9, 2006 3:50 PM

phillyreader--

you ain't been reading MY for long, apparently. Give it up.

And it's not as though he's guilty of some inconsistency: semantics is an interesting, important field of philosophy and linguistics. Orthography is not. Orthographic confusions are quickly resolved and unlikely to lead to unclear thinking; semantic confusions not so.

Posted by kid bitzer | October 9, 2006 4:04 PM

Clinton was blessed by his enemies. Bush is blessed by the country's.

A phony nuclear test in October? If I were that lucky I'd look like Paul Newman. I thought for sure that we'd get another tape from Bin Laden, this time talking about how he'd wet his pants for a Democratic majority.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 9, 2006 6:38 PM

Given the headline, I thought you were advocating Scientology.

Posted by Aaron Adams | October 10, 2006 1:49 AM

It's only those who allowed the horse to escape that we can trust to close the barn door.

Posted by Hogan | October 10, 2006 10:19 AM