Would either of these men be in power now if their father’s weren’t former heads of state? Kim would at best be a local bureaucrat”â��?maybe in China”â��?while Bush would never have been considered seriously as a potential candidate were it not for his father’s name. In his case (and in Kim’s as well) the intelligent and capable support needed to obtain and keep the job came because of that.”
Never thought of it this way, but I agree wholeheartedly.

I have long wondered that myself. Sort of like what one might think of Hirohito at the hands of the military junta during World War II (though this is an imperfect analogy).

When the Norks returned the Japanese kidnap victims, maybe KJI was trying to make an apologetic gesture and seperate himself from the old regime.

This is exactly one of those times when I felt that he might be a figurehead surrounded by yes-men and that he was trying to find a way to do right.

I’m not so sure of that anymore, but that might be because of the tone of discussion about KJI at the Marmot’s Hole.

When the bones were found out to be fakes etc. maybe Kim really didn’t know what happened to the others because all that stuff had happened before him in the 70’s under Kim Il Sung.

Not to mention that he did let the old American guy and his Japanese family go.

Wait a minute, though. I did read somewhere that the lab may have screwed up the DNA test and the bones may have been legitimate. I didn’t read any follow-up, though.

I disagree with Kushibo that KJI would have only been a “local bureaucrat”Ã�?, I don’t think he would’ve gone into politics at all given the choice.

You snipped my all-important qualifier: I said he “would at best be a local bureaucrat.” I was granting that his not stupid but non-stellar intelligence might have brought hm somewhere in government, though not very far if he’s on his own. But it was also a suggestion that he might not have gone into politics. George Bush, without being born into the family of a successful Texas politician would be like Hank’s friend Boomhauer on “King of the Hill.” I can see him rising no higher than a successful car salesman who owns his own lot.

A moron doesn’t become a leader of a country…

This statement might be a bit too broad. Permit me to play the Devil’s Advocate, but there are numerous regimes from European, Japanese, Russian and Arabic history of so-called leaders who are prisoners of their own regime.

I can imagine KJI being in this type of situation, where the country is ruled by the 12 generals around him and he is just a figurehead. When the Norks returned the Japanese kidnap victims, maybe KJI was trying to make an apologetic gesture and seperate himself from the old regime. When the bones were found out to be fakes etc. maybe Kim really didn’t know what happened to the others because all that stuff had happened before him in the 70’s under Kim Il Sung.

I disagree with Kushibo that KJI would have only been a “local bureaucrat”, I don’t think he would’ve gone into politics at all given the choice.

I think both Bush and Kim Jong-il benefited from their respective political families such that it was easier for them to “achieve” what they did without as much intelligence, effort, whatever as those without those same means.

Would either of these men be in power now if their father’s weren’t former heads of state? Kim would at best be a local bureaucrat–maybe in China–while Bush would never have been considered seriously as a potential candidate were it not for his father’s name. In his case (and in Kim’s as well) the intelligent and capable support needed to obtain and keep the job came because of that.

Curzon at Coming Anarchy produces an item by Stratfor arguing that leaders of large countries generally cannot get there by being insane or morons.: One of the ways to avoid thinking seriously about foreign policy is to dismiss anyone

The same with famous movie and music stars. They may not be too bright when it comes to something other than what they do (and many of them do seem like morons when they talk politics cause few of them know anything about it), but I think that Madonna, say, or Britney, are smart in knowing how to market themselves. If such people are so stupid, then how come they are either rich or in a high position that many others would like to be in? Luck may play a part, but it’s rarely the only part. One also has to be persistent, hardworking, opportunistic, driven, etc. to become famous.

When Secretary of State Madeline Albright met with Kim Jong Il, she thought he was “an intelligent man who knew what he wanted.” Kim Jong Il has met several world leaders: Jiang Zemin, Kim Dae Jung, Koizumi, Putin, and Hu Jintao. After the meetings, all of them described KJI in positive terms. Plus, he has been in power longer than all of them, and will probably outlast them all.

President Bush would hate to be compared to the Axis of Evil leaders. He would love to see them end up like Saddam Hussein.

Also, being willing to do things other aren’t doesn’t make you smart (or dumb). I’m reminded of that old saying about being smart in politics and in sports: we need people smart enough to play the best game but dumb enough not to realize it doesn’t matter.

If you’re in professional politics you’re already a stupid-stupid-bad person in my view. ;-) Applealing to the least common denominator is not PhD-thesis-in-genetics hard but rather I’m-willing-to-do-whatever-it-takes-wink-wink hard.

P.S. Let’s stop comparing people to Hitler! He was so bad that, compared to him, anyone is a little fluffy lamb in comparison. We’re letting them off easy… why not compare them to Margaret Tatcher instead? Or, dare I say it, Thomas Jefferson?