Those aren’t exactly the dots I had in mind.

If it were just about anti-US sentiment, they would have railed against Roh when he went to Washington early in his tenure. In fact, unlike Lee, that action by Roh was a very clear violation of one of his campaign pledges. He said if he won the Blue House, he would not go to the US hat in hand and kowtow to the great American president like all other Korean leaders had done.

If reactions were just about anti-US sentiment and nationalism and broken promises, Koreans would have been angry at Roh - instead of relieved.

Lee, on the other hand, was expected to heal the wounds Roh’s administration, and the events of 2002, created. When he went to Washington, nobody feared he’d put his foot in his mouth and do further damage to the US-SK relationship. And Koreans were comfortable resting assured.

And then they went nuts when also did something they had expected - moved to better US-SK economic relations with the beef deal.

The dots to connect illustrate how Korean society has developed the habit of enjoying eating its cake and having it too:

under the authoritarian regimes, they became habituated to two things: 1. The government keeping the US relationship strong and 2. The government not listening to them even if they wailed in the streets.

Before, it made them angry and depressed because they really wanted democratic reform.

Today — as Roh’s tenure proved — they just want the exercise.

If they had really wanted to overhaul the relationship with the US — perhaps to “make it equal” — they would have supported Roh significantly when he was in office instead of pressuring him whenever he did things that could have harmed the relationship.

The first time I heard LMB called a rat was in a taxicab. The guy said “Does this guy look like a human being to you? He looks like a rat to me!”

It is a matter of, “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t!” for LMB.

If he was strong-handed with the protesters, he is damned as a dictator.

If he is strong-handed with his policies, he is damned as an autocrat.

If he is gentle with the protesters, he is damned as a weak an ineffectual leader.

If he is gentle with his policies, he is damned for having no insight or direction.

What is the man to do ?

Okay. Anti-Americanism is key to the beef issue and most other issues protesters blame the US for. The bias against the US is blatant and obvious (in Canada, too).

Now that’s laughable.

Sohn Hakkyu’s overplaying his hand now, as we see when Reuters calls out Korea’s batshit insane netizens (who have also targeted brian from jeollanamdo, it seems http://briandeutsch.blogspot.c.....tizen.html )

– Sohn will be the fall guy when Korea feels embarrassed over being misled into overreacting, as that overreaction gets covered (embarrassingly) in the international press, and he’s put himself into that position by muddling his agenda, lumping his legitimate gripes in with mad bullshit, so that instead of having a focus and an objective, and handling himself like a statesman, he’s rabble-rousing and sounding like one of a bickering couple, pulling every single grievance into today’s argument. “Last month you forgot to walk the dogs. . . and you forgot my birthday in 2006! Why do you hate me so much?”

Many Koreans want more decisive action and tough talk. That advice is easier to offer than having to skillfully implement. But in any case, it is important to understand that Pres. Lee’s lack of popularity is not singularly focused on his policies and actions. Rather his perceived inaction had made him much more unpopular than he might otherwise be.

Yes, the American head and the Korean head.”

Well, I guess MrMao picks up right where Dogbert stops.