Monday, December 30, 2002 ::
Calling Our Bluff
Josh Marshall gets it just about right when he says: "Tough talk sounds great until your opponent calls your bluff and everybody sees there's nothing behind the trash talk. Then you look foolish. That's where we are right now with North Korea. As [Chris] Nelson says, no doubt the NKs are the bad guys. And this is an extremely complex problem with no easy solutions. But the Bush administration has pursued a keystone cops policy on the Korean Peninsula for two years now, mixing think-tank braggadocio with feckless inconstancy. Now we're all going to pay the price."
Then There Were Three
New York Times: Freshman Senator Sees the Presidency as His Next Office. Whatever else, Edwards has the free media thing down. He announces that he will announce his candidacy real soon now and gets a nice profile piece in the Times. And he'll get another round of press when he actually does announce.
VNS RIP?
New York Times: Voter News Service Is in Danger of Dissolution. The 2002 election clearly demonstated that VNS has some serious technical problems, but let's not forget that in 2000 VNS got Florida right the first time — and only bad ballots and a biased Supreme Court combined to cost Gore the presidency.
Our Man in Baghdad
Washington Post: U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup. "The story of America's involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait — which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors — is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy."
Of course, this isn't really news, but this article is important for at least three reasons:
- It's on the front page of the Washington Post.
- It highlights the US role in helping Iraq acquire weapons of mass destruction.
- It contains a nice proof that Rumsfeld is a big fat liar.
Was cooperating with Iraq in the 1980s a good idea? Maybe. Was helping Iraq acquire chemical and biological weapons a good idea? I don't see how you can possible argue it was, now or then.