OMFG: North Korean nukes are NOT a "Foley scandal" diversion

[alcibiades_mystery]

I've seen numerous threads and post that suggest the whole thing is a "diversion" from the Foley scandal. Of course, the Foley scandal was a "diversion" from the torture law, and the torture law a "diversion" from Iraq, etc., etc., etc.

The whole idea is absurd. Things happen in the world. We live in an extraordinarily complex world, with many actors, many developing scenarios, many competing interests, many coordinated and unconnected strategies crashing into each other, mixing,, disengaging, erupting, and emerging.

To think that everything in the entire world is some plot, some connected operation from one sole central malevolent genius is not only disturbed. It is, quite literally, insane. Or childish. One of the two. I see far too much of this among Democrats, as if everything that happens in the world emanates from the brain of Karl Rove. It's a stupid position. What you're doing when you do this is overdetermining one cause in a complex field. It makes things simpler to understand, but it only simplifies by mystifying: you never get at truth from such simplicities - you only get to "feel better" for having "figured it all out."

There is some utility in such conspiracies. They teach us political anger, which is a good thing. Usually, our culture produces self-loathing, so directing anger out to the political sphere is a positive upshot (see Evan Watkins, Everyday Exchanges). But, at the end of the day, we should note that positive upshot and move on to the real conditions of complexity.

People who think that the various machinations of Kim Jong Il are coordinated to distract the American public from a Congressional sex scandal are, quite simply, idiots. Maybe it is as simple as that.

[Deja Q]

1. Agreed - thank you for posting this.

They want us all dead; they're not going to conspire with our leaders -- who they want just as much dead as the rest of us.

[BootinUp]

2. Sure but are you a LIHOP'er or MIHOP'er

:)

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. Government shill!

Everybody knows that Karl Rove and Kim Jong Il were both abused by Mark Foley, in the same room he used to torture Jeff Gannon.

[wndycty]

4. I agree. . .

. . .while I do not doubt the Bush administration's desire and ability to manipulate the news, their power is not as great as many DUers believe. Its a disturbing paranoia that exists and drives me absolutely crazy.

[blondeatlast]

5. Word. Thank goodness the wisdom on this site

continues to edge out the bare-faced wackiness (sometimes just barely so, though) found here.

Someone needed to say it. :thumbsup:

[acmejack]

6. No shit?

I appreciate you clearing this up for those of us who are simply too dim witted to figure this out on our own. You must have a very low opinion of most people's intelligence here to feel the necessity of sharing this nugget of wisdom.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. You're welcome

...

[MadJohnShaft]

7. Same effect either way - does it really matter?

bye bye Foley story

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. Yes, I think it does matter

The effect may be the same, but the way we construe the cause would affect the way we respond. If we construe the cause to be the evil genius of Karl Rove, then the responses will likely be asinine.

[No Exit]

27. Karl Rove: Pay no attention to the failure behind the curtain.

Karl Rove is no "genius" and he sure as hell doesn't work for a genius. I think your point is that not every breaking story comes from "that Machiavellian Rove". I couldn't agree with you more!

Now, about this N. Korean test. I do not feel scared. Am I somehow not a good American?

Furthermore, I am now reading more and more links which express the belief that N. Korea's test was a failure. Boo hoo. What'd they do--ask Bush to advise them? :)

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I don't give a fuck about N. Korea. I don't think they are that big a threat. I am not sure they are any threat at all.

I want to concentrate on what's going on in my own country. (And it ain't pretty...)

[papau]

10. Perhaps only the intended consequence of an implemented policy?

Perhaps a policymaker knows that they will never be blamed by the media for any policy "failure", and that they know that they can get the media to go with "blame must be shared with prior president" and/or "no one can control the emerging terror of this world" - both of which work - no matter when in time an event specifically happens - to advance the only election theme they have - albeit a very successful election theme.

We indeed do "live in an extraordinarily complex world, with many actors, many developing scenarios, many competing interests, many coordinated and unconnected strategies crashing into each other, mixing,, disengaging, erupting, and emerging" - and you may recall how King Edward spent all that time before WW1 plotting how to influence the direction of those events - royally screwing up the world in the process (I do like that pun :-) ).

I agree that "To think that everything in the entire world is some plot, some connected operation from one sole central malevolent genius is not only disturbed - It is, quite literally, insane - Or childish", but to think policy does NOT have consequence and that "failure" may NOT have been the intended consequence is also, to use your words - insane or childish.

One of the major real "conditions of complexity" in the world during a Bush Presidency is the intent of the President, IMHO.

At least we can agree that the actions of Kim Jong Il are not coordinated to distract the American public from a Congressional sex scandal - and to think so is insane.

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. There is no doubt that the "intent of the President" is a condition

But the problem with complexity is that the intention of any one party cannot determine the total field. It can respond to the total field, to be sure, but then that response too must interact with other components, all following their own logic of "local rules," so the results of the response are unlikley to match the intention.

Since I never claimed that policies have no consequences (they have consequences by implicit definition), I can easily agree that to think otherwise is insane or childish. The problem is that their consequences generally don't match their intention. If anything, the whole of the Bush Presidency is a case study in that very principle.

[papau]

30. I agree - :-) - but competence influences "ability to match intention" &

almost anything that has happened under Bush could be explained by incompetence.

Indeed based on my decade in DC and my time helping the lobbying of Congress, I'd say that when things go wrong the odds are always 10 to 1 in favor of incompetence rather than planned evil.

But, with Bush, I do smell evil intent.

[alcibiades_mystery]

34. Incompetence, bad strategy, etc.

And yes, of course, the Bush Administration has bad intentions.

[beyurslf]

11. I;m glad there are a few other people on here who don't believe Bush is

behind everything. He can't be the dumbest president ever AND controlling everything that happens in the world.

[LEW]

13. your right - unintended consequences!

of the whole fiasco of this admin. We have definately emboldedened other countries to take advantage of our preoccupation with "Terrorists"!!!

[ElboRuum]

14. Too true, it implies a fallacy...

that I (and many others) haven't enough attention to handle more than one "OMFG! Holy Cats!" incident at a time.

But then again, there are two sorts of conspiracists:

There are those who put on their tinfoil hats because they think everything is a conspiracy, and those who put on their tinfoil hats because they think nothing possibly can be. The only difference between them is in what they choose to believe.

In this case, the "October Surprise" is not a surprise at all, so I would tend to agree with those who say that this falls into the "real shit actually happens" category. We've known for years that NK has wanted to do a little saber rattling of its own, and we're dealing with a nation with some technological savvy and a whackjob leadership. Put all of this together and it smacks of "real".

That's not to say that the Republicans won't make political hay out of it, however (they'll make political hay out of anything, really). But I don't think this would be prudent. They're not in the strongest position, foreign policywise, and I think the public is sufficiently irritated with the handling of Iraq that they'll think twice about giving him a rubber-stamp for the next two years.

[Odin2005]

15. Thank you, I am SICK of the conspiracy nuts.

DU has gotten the reputation of being "conspiracy nut central," even among many left-wingers. Since DU is the main forum for Democrats that image does noting but damage the Democratic Party. People need to quit being so paranoid.

[woo me with science]

16. Karl Rove made you write that. nt

[Bake]

17. I hate to admit this but ...

When I first heard about the N. Korea nuke test, my first thought was -- THERE'S your October surprise.

Bake

[Uncle Joe]

18. Don't be so sure, those missiles are just a phallic symbol,

Foley's must be small in comparison.;-)

[Doremus]

19. Guess some people didn't get your memo

Republicans stand to profit from nuclear test ‘fear factor’

By Edward Luce in Washington

Published: October 9 2006 17:42 | Last updated: October 9 2006 17:42

Within hours of North Korea’s proclaimed nuclear test yesterday Dennis Hastert, the Republican speaker in Congress, and John Boehner, the Republican majority leader on Capitol Hill, issued politically charged statements. With only a month to go before mid-term congressional elections many Republicans believe the tests could help restore their waning prospects.

“This reckless move by North Korea highlights the importance of a US missile defence shield capable of protecting America against madmen with weapons of mass destruction,” said Mr Boehner. “It is time for the Democrats . . . to abandon their long-standing policy of voting against missile defence programmes. It is now clear that such a position would put Americans in danger.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ae37de30-57b3-11db-be9f-0000779e2340.html

Question: Is an event less fortuitous if unplanned? Does intent trump coincidence? Or is it all the same so long as one seizes the opportunity and gets busy making hay?

Anyway, I'm in awe of your abilities of discernment. They're downright prescient.

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. There is a monumental difference between intended plot and quick response

But thank you for the remarkably profound observations that Republicans will seize on any event whatever to show how good they are.

Who needs my powers of discernment when we have your powers of stating the fucking obvious?

[Doremus]

25. Ah, but you already took that crown. Regardless, I (and you) digress.

Your chosen title of this thread (sans the profanity): North Korean nukes are NOT a "Foley scandal" diversion.

What else would you call an event that grabs the headlines away from an ongoing scandal? Whether planned or not, aren't the Repigs on bended knee thanking the God of Spin for this diversion from Foleygate?

Of course, after reading your self-indulgent diatribe, one realizes that you profess to have superior knowledge gleaned through osmosis or some supernatural power that has given you authority to state unequivocally that Kim Jong independently chose this precise moment to pitch a hissy fit.

Again, I stand in awe of your talent and would only request, should you be so inclined, that you reveal your secret so that we may all bask in the light of your knowledge.

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. Oh, it's no secret

A secret is by definition hidden. Here I only relied on that which is common. To wit, common sense.

I understand your need to conflate the Republican response (play on the event) with a supposed Republican intention (plan and execute the event). Needless to say, I was only inveighing against the latter, but you understand, I think, that the latter is so manifestly silly that you need the conflation to oppose my point. It's a bit pathetic, but whatever you're into, ace.

As for how I know that Kim Jong Il was not some programmed stooge of Karl Rove, I will again appeal only to common sense - I find it a ridiculous notion that a Presidential advisor (namely, Karl Rove) planned and executed the testing of a nuclear weapon in a hostile nation (namely, North Korea) in order to divert the attention of the American public from a Congressional sex scandal in the United States.

Read carefully the italicized portion. That is the claim I am arguing against. If you find that claim realistic, or even moderately plausible, I leave you to it. You know as well as I do, though, unless I've misjudged your intelligence, that it is an utterly absurd idea. How do I know it? I know it in the same way that I know my two year old nephew is not a starting linebacker for the Chicago Bears: it defies all experience, reason, and common sense. That doesn't require secret knowledge. It requires clear thinking, and that is all.

[progressoid]

20. Posts like this only divert attention away from this...

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,20191,00.html?fdnews

[Tom Joad]

21. Agreed. k&R Don't think it will help Bush.

I don't think this will help the Bushites. Even if they do somehow glean something off this, it does not mean that they planned this. But the nuts will use the "there is no such thing as a conspiracy" card.

As far as October surprise ideas, one who pays attention to current events can see there is one "surprise" about every month of the year. Many of them unplanned by the ruling elite of this country.

What will help bush is if he takes a really hardline (do we expect otherwise?) and Democrats come out in support of that, instead of offering real alternatives. dem leaders will hurt the dem party. Nothin' new.

[salinen]

22. You're nuts

Elvis and that two-headed thingie will be knocking on your door later today.

[AtomicKitten]

23. The Clenis blaming should begin soon.

Junior's foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster and the audacity of blaming a former president who has been out of office for SIX years is ludicrous, but that never stopped the BushCo apologists.

[Catfight]

26. No, it's a direct depiction that the Bush administration is incompetent

and has allowed a different terrorist to pop up..now we have N. Korea terrorizing us from another corner of the universe, only, they do have something to strike hard with on America. We don't need Foley to show the WORLD that Bush and the cronies in the Blood House have doomed us all.

[calimary]

28. The whole idea may be absurd to you, but then you're capable of

clear-sighted, logical thought.

But you KNOW they're gonna jump all over it, although God only knows why.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2873896

[Jeffersons Ghost]

31. it's actually the other way around...

You better believe that intelligence reports gave either an exact or approximate date of the N. Korean nuclear test well before it occurred.

Technically, the Korean War never ended and South Koreans speak the same language and look exactly like North Koreans. Did you see all the underground camara work done in N. Korea on CNN last night? Security is lax, under-paid and poorly-equiped in that totalitarian state, where many residents are very unhappy with the current regime. All the civil unrest and totalitarian practices makes it very easy for deep-cover or "sleeper" plants to opperate in the region.

It is now obvious that much of what Foley was doing with under-age pages was widely known on the Hill, which is why media rhetoric is setting the stage to somehow blame Democrats for not revealing the information sooner.

To prevent an even more devastating scandal, closer to elections, Republicans released the information on Foley at a time when the Nuclear test blast would turn attention away from the scandal and it is working.

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. Ay yay yay

:crazy:

[OzarkDem]

33. No, just another Bush failure

He's completely ignored or mishandled the N Korean situation from the day he took office. Its just catching up with him now, though I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner.