The man can't even exit a room.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at November 21, 2005 07:04 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingI heard about this. Is it on film? Where can I find it?
You'd probably have problems exiting a locked from- the-other-side- door, too.
Unless you're Kitty Pryde.
I was hoping you were going to comment on that. That is totally in character for our Commander in Chief. I sure do miss that Comedy Central series, That's My Bush.
Richard
Unfortunately for anyone looking for some hardcore bush hating, he actually comes off pretty well, cracking "I was trying to escape. Obviously, it didn't work."
Aww damn. Link Wray died.
So what do you do when you're trying to beat a hasty retreat from a hostile press and run straight into a locked door? Make a face like a brainless doofus, thus ensuring that photo will be seen for decades to come, if not longer!
Here on the East Coast, the Daily Show comes on in about two hours. If I was a betting man...
Was anybody else reminded of this cartoon when they first heard about this?
http://images.google.com/images?q=far+side+gifted+school&hl=en
I must say, I am glad there is not a camera following me around all the time. You would get a lot better shots then this!
Iowa Jim
Did you see this video. It's hilarious. To say he looked like a deer caught in the headlights would be giving the deer too much credit.
To be a little fair, I am not sure my reaction would have been much better--but this does point out how totally scripted and rehearsed his usual public appearances have been. When he has to go off script, he has no clue.
Wow! You mean.. he's human, just like the rest of us? Amazing!
For another "deer in the headlights" effect, ask a Democrat what their party's exit strategy is.
RLR
Didn't the same thing happen to Camilla Parker Bowles in San Francisco?
You'd probably have problems exiting a locked from- the-other-side- door, too.
Unless you're Kitty Pryde.
Or George Reeves as Clark Kent in search of "The Missing Costume"
The man can't even exit a room.
PAD
Holy Jean-Paul Sartre, Batman!
Q: The difference between Viet Nam and Iraq?
A: George W. Bush has no exit strategy for Iraq.
"Here on the East Coast, the Daily Show comes on in about two hours. If I was a betting man..."
I was thinking the same thing, but it was a rerun tonight.
If they come back soon, it'll probably be one of those episodes that starts with Jon complaining about all the good stuff happening when they're on vacation!
I sure am glad that I'm such a perfect human being that I've never tried a door and found it to be locked.
Meanwhile...someone forgot to throw the right switch for the visual subliminals over at CNN:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3cnc.htm
Nah, it wasn't intentional.
You can't really blame Bush for being flustered. After all, he's used to only answering "spontaneous" questions from pre-screened "ordinary citizens" as carefully scripted "townhall" events.
"For another "deer in the headlights" effect, ask a Democrat what their party's exit strategy is."
Sure, let's ask the party that's NOT IN CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT what their plans are. You could ask me what plans I have for making the sun rise tomorrow morning and make fun of me, too.
Sticking with the current administration, because the next alternative hasn't put forth an answer, is like letting the Captain of the Titanic take another boat out. The Democrats aren't in a position to do anything, other than make the party that IS in a position to do anything, do something. Now, Iraq is even demanding a US withdrawal timetable, going so far as to say that the insurgents have a right to fight against occupation, so long as they don't target civilians. When are the rest of you going to wake up and realize that "when you came in here, didn't you have a plan for getting out" is basically the first thing you should have done, not an after the fact detail to be worried about later.
"I sure am glad that I'm such a perfect human being that I've never tried a door and found it to be locked."
I don't think anyone expects Bush to be perfect - it's more of an issue that he's such a complete dunderhead he's not even aware of his surroundings, not to mention how adrift he is without his handlers (I'm pretty sure he mumbled "Good Lord, where's Rove?" when the flashbulbs started popping.) Still, he accorded himself better than he did when riding that Segway.
Meanwhile...someone forgot to throw the right switch for the visual subliminals over at CNN:
Nah, I don't think it was actually intentional--if you look carefully you can see that there aresome additional words superimposed on the screen at the bottom as well as the big black X--it looks like some of the error messages I have gotten while working with adobe after effects if I try to do something not allowed.
There's lots of media bias but this is just a screw up.
"I sure am glad that I'm such a perfect human being that I've never tried a door and found it to be locked."
I don't think anyone expects Bush to be perfect - it's more of an issue that he's such a complete dunderhead he's not even aware of his surroundings"
See, that's not the issue to me. To me, it wouldn't be funny, or even worthy of comment, if Bush were simply trying to walk out of the room and he pulled on the wrong door. What I love is that he was trying to flee the room rather than deal with even the simplest of questions from reporters...and was thwarted in his endeavor to do so. It was a perfect "You can run, but you can't hide" moment.
PAD
I think you're right, Bill.
Still, it's pretty funny. And of course, all the rightwing media outlets are having a field day over it.
The whole CNN thing was just a glitch. The X and type below it probably came from a still store where the graphic had been erased (thus giving the big X). That's just one of the dangers of having so many sources being used at one time on the screen (live shot of the VP, lower third graphic that's constantly changing, the live super at the top of the screen, the time/stock info on the lower right, and the news ticker at the bottom). It is unfortunate at the timing of the error. I don't think that CNN would do something like this on purpose, or that FOX would do something over a democrat.
It was just a mistake, much like the President trying to leave a room he's never been in before and finding a locked door. Good think we all don't have cameras following us every time we go out into public.
Thanks Peter, for reminding people what I was trying to say in my earlier post. Bush wasn't leaving the room after a lovely dinner and a nightcap; he was actually trying to nonchalantly slink out of the room (is that an oxymoron? Why does the word moron always pop into my head when I think about Bush?) after the press began hitting him with questions about the war. As he discovered, it's much more difficult to pretend not to hear the press without the roar of Air Force One behind him.
Both Bush and the CNN thing are minor things, OK for minor witticisms and bon mots. Trying to make more of them than that is just idiocy.
*sigh*
There are no shortage of idiots in this country...
Sure they're both minor things. But they're still funny to talk about.
And Bush wouldn't have had to slink away if he had stuck to usual pre-scripted appearances. His aides should know by now that unless his every word and move is preplanned, he will make a total dork out of himself.
What makes you think Pres. Bush doesn't have an exit strategy?
"What makes you think Pres. Bush doesn't have an exit strategy?"
The fact that the country has been asking about it for, oh, I don't know, since the day after he invaded Iraq, and he still hasn't provided us with one? Or maybe it's the fact that word has leaked from sources that ask to remain confidential in the administration that they don't have one?
Sometimes, I'm reminded of the Harold Ramis lines from Stripes about invading Checkoslovakia: I can see Bush saying something like "What? It's Iraq? We'll get in, grab Saddam, and get out. It'll be like invading Wisconsin."
Exactly, Bobb. What you have to remember is that the people Bush listened to, like Rummy, Cheney, Chalabi, and Wolfovitz, told him that democracy would just magically bloom by itself once Saddam was toppled. The entire operation would last "six months, tops," our troops would be "greeted as liberators" and the grateful Iraqi people would rush forward to give our troops "flowers and sweets." They found it "inconceivable" that they would need more troops to secure the country than they did to invade.
And every one of their predictions has been wrong.
The idea that Iraq has absolutely no experience with democracy didn't occur to them. The idea that a very proud people would resist foreign occupiers, even if they were grateful that Saddam was out of power, didn't occur to them. That Chalabi was a career con man with no support inside of Iraq didn't occur to them.
Their plan was simple: Get in, dismantle Saddam's government, and secure the Oil Ministry until (convicted embezler and Iranian spy) Chalabi was airlifted in to take power. That's about as much thought as they put into planning the occupation. Since none of that worked according to the script, they've just been winging it ever since.
"Their plan was simple: Get in, dismantle Saddam's government, and secure the Oil Ministry until (convicted embezler and Iranian spy) Chalabi was airlifted in to take power. That's about as much thought as they put into planning the occupation. Since none of that worked according to the script, they've just been winging it ever since."
Like I said, like invading Wisconsin.
Although, I think the next line (haven't seen Stripes in a very, very long time) is
I got my ass kicked in Wisconsin, once."
Bush apparantly needs to watch Stripes more. And pay attention to more than the Dan Laroquette scenes.
Posted by mike weber at November 22, 2005 03:04 AM
Q: The difference between Viet Nam and Iraq?
A: George W. Bush has no exit strategy for Iraq.
first of all, it is Vietnam (one word, not two) second, that was funny the first time, but as for teh 1,267,381st, not so much.
and as for the statement made that we should have had an exit strategy before we went in, i have to agree, lets go back and ask some of the other presidents of the past, o wait, we are still in Germany, o and lets not forget South Korea, o, we are still in Japan, and in several of the Asia-Pacific Islands. lets face it, the reason there wasn't an exit strategy is because like in every other war, there is no exit unless there was a defeat.
Bullsh!t. We had an exit strategy for Germany. It was called the Marshall plan. Before Germany had even surrendered, FDR, Churchill, and Stalin met at Yalta to plan for post-war Europe. No such planning was even contemplated for Iraq.
The fact that we still have bases in Japan, Germany, South Korea, etc, is immaterial. We are no longer occupying powers in those countries. We had plans to help them rebuild their governments into democracies and they worked.
I have to laugh at your "there is no exit unless there was a defeat" statement. Didn't Bush declare victory in this war about five times now? Starting with "Mission Accomplished"?
Please, spare me the strained comparisons with WW II. If Cheney, Rummy, and Wolfie had been in charge of the reconstruction of Germany and Japan, we probably would still be occupying those countries.
"Nah, it wasn't intentional."
And it wasn't. The "X"? Part of the lead in (like at the beginning of a movie real).
I was inclined to think it was a jokester, but knowing WHAT the "X" is, it makes the most likely scenario an accident.
If Cheney, Rummy, and Wolfie had been in charge of the reconstruction of Germany and Japan, we probably would still be occupying those countries.
And those countries would still have "terrorists" (you know, those every day civilians who don't like occupying forces) running around trying to throw out the foreign invaders.
Initially, I was just poing to compliment the initial funny post. But, reading PAD's explanation of why he found this funny - I'd missed that Bush was fleeing reporters - has made the signifance of this little incident more clear to me. It's the perfect metatphor for the current state of the Bush Administration.
Posted by jedicurt at November 22, 2005 03:07 PM
Posted by mike weber at November 22, 2005 03:04 AM
Q: The difference between Viet Nam and Iraq?
A: George W. Bush has no exit strategy for Iraq.
first of all, it is Vietnam (one word, not two) second, that was funny the first time, but as for teh 1,267,381st, not so much.
Actually it's not funny at all. Bush didn't have an exit stratedy for Vietnam (which is both 1 and 2 words..the Viet Nam News Agency uses it interchanably)....he didn't go there at all.
The joke should be written as:
What's the difference between Vietnam and Iraq?
George W. Bush had a plan for getting out of Vietnam.
See? that way it's a joke.
Worst. President. Ever.
A bigger crook than Nixon.
Biggest liar since the snake in the Garden of Eden.
More inept than Michael Jackson on his wedding night.
A national disgrace which we may never recover from.
Somebody please send him some more pretzles.
Hey Pad, you seen this yet?
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm
By Murray Waas, special to National Journal© National Journal Group Inc.Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2005
Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.
Posted by jedicurt at November 22, 2005 03:07 PM
Posted by mike weber at November 22, 2005 03:04 AM
Q: The difference between Viet Nam and Iraq?
A: George W. Bush has no exit strategy for Iraq.
first of all, it is Vietnam (one word, not two)
Actually, having served there while W was too busy not showing up for drill but still getting his dental work at USAF expense, i can tell you that it can be written either way, but that "Viet Nam" (which is not, incidentally, properly pronounced "Vee-et Nahm", nor "Veet Nam", the first half is almost two syllables); acording to what i read at the time, the Vietnamese language is composed of single-syllables particles that are strung together to make longer terms, but not compunded, as in English or German.
second, that was funny the first time, but as for teh 1,267,381st, not so much.
Actually, it wasn't funny the first time -- it was f**kin' infuriating.
You want to see how infuriating? Chack out the first (9 November) post on my >new and probably doomed to obscurity and early stagnantion blog.
and as for the statement made that we should have had an exit strategy before we went in, i have to agree, lets go back and ask some of the other presidents of the past, o wait, we are still in Germany, o and lets not forget South Korea, o, we are still in Japan, and in several of the Asia-Pacific Islands. lets face it, the reason there wasn't an exit strategy is because like in every other war, there is no exit unless there was a defeat.
World War II was the last war in our history for which this country had at least some sort of exit strategy before the war was over.
All of our wars since then have been excellent devices for reducing overpopulation in te 18 to 30 year-old male demographic, but doomed to failure as wars because we had no concrete plan for "what happens afterward" and "how do we know when we've gotten there".
You can stnad there holding the strings of a puppet for hours, days, months or years -- but sonner or later you have to let go and then -- guess what? The puppet falls down.
An exit strategy is what you use to realise that it's not a real boy, it never was a real boy, and the Blue Fairy ain't gonna be by anytime soon and you cut the strings and go home.
Bush says we are fighting a war against terror.
You can't fight a war against terror; that wuold be like fighting a war attempting to gain tactical and strategic advantage and use them against your opponent -- terror is a tactic; you cannot fight against a tactic -- you have to fight against those who employ it against you.
And you have to fight against them when and where you want to, not on a battlefield that they define, as my son-in-law and the others fighting the Baghdad "freedom fighters" Bush created are doing, because that is how you lose for sure.
But you cannot fight "terror" -- you must find and effectively fight TERRORISTS -- you can neither fight nor defeat something that has not got a throat you can get your hands around.
I typed:
You can't fight a war against terror; that wuold be like fighting a war attempting to gain tactical and strategic advantage and use them against your opponent -- terror is a tactic; you cannot fight against a tactic -- you have to fight against those who employ it against you.
It should have read "...be like fighting a war against somone's attempt to gain tactical and strategic advantage..." (as opposed to fighting the war against his troops and guns.
"Worst. President. Ever."
Proud of his country. Speaks directly and doesn't pull punches. A solid American. Yep. I agree. Bush is terrible.
"Biggest liar since the snake in the Garden of Eden."
So now Bush equals Satan? Yeah. Ok. Sure. (Did someone forget their meds again?)
"More inept than Michael Jackson on his wedding night."
Yep. And at every turn, this idiot.. this moronic President manages to outwit liberals at every turn.
"A national disgrace which we may never recover from."
You bet. What we really need is another Clinton, getting his fun in the oral… er… Oval Office, while the World Trade Center, USS Cole, and American embassies in Africa are bombed. No disgrace there.
Or perhaps we could have had John Kerry. Hard to say which of the two - Kerry or Clinton - would be the larger disgrace. Hey! It'd be a race!
Let's face it: if the Democrats and the whacko Left - which is becoming more and more difficult to tell apart - have their way, we'd be running like cowards out of Iraq.
Why is that? Why is it that, all I hear from the Left is how bad America is? Have the liberal Left joined Al-Qaeda? Al Jazeera loves liberal Democrats. You should visit their site, and see how much they enjoy quoting Democrats.
We're in a war. We should be supporting the troops, not insulting their efforts. Good things are happening in Iraq. That's a fact. We're helping rebuild. We're training the Iraqi army to take over for themselves.
When should we leave Iraq? When the job is done. When Iraq is ready.
Anything less, like Democrats want, gets you disgrace in the eyes of world. It diminishes America. It's cowardice. It means all the work in Iraq becomes for nothing. When Al Qaeda fights for dominance of the country and - because we left before Iraq was ready - gets it. Then Iraq becomes a terrorist state. Every person that enjoyed a vote in Iraq would be hunted down and killed.
But, that's ok. We'd be out of Iraq. We could setup talks with Al Qaeda. Apologize for - well - everything because, y'know, 9/11 was our fault: all those years of being in other countries, trying to spread democracy and freedom… that's America for you… getting in the way. Let's just bury our head in the sand, make nicey-nice, sing Kum Ba Ya, and hope that everything returns to a post-9/11 world.
Only we tried that (thankyewverymuch, President Clinton.) We ignored the first bombing of the WTC. We were shocked, appalled, and cheesed off in general about the attack on the USS Cole. We looked the other way, when terrorists attacked American embassies in Africa.
We. Did. Nothing.
We got 9/11.
Finally, we're doing something. The Democrats - the same guys that are now saying "Bush Lied" - agreed and voted for us to go get the bad guys, wherever and whoever they were.
Part of me wants us to bail out of Iraq, and apologize to all the bad guys for getting in their way, and mucking up their plans. Then we could watch the carnage that results from having given up on the Iraqi people.
But this situation is too serious to allow such an action to take place.
Liberal Democrats that think we shouldn't be in Iraq should take note of France… y'know… the country that takes the position of "hey, don't look at me." Yet, they get extremists rioting their anyway.
C'mon, Liberal Leftists, get behind your country. Support our troops. Be Patriotic!
Anything less is just Un-American.
RLR
Yep. And at every turn, this idiot.. this moronic President manages to outwit liberals at every turn.
Bush can't outwit a locked door.
Take away Rummie and Rove, and what've you got? Yep, a class act dipshit.
The Democrats
BZZT. Wrong answer, numbnuts.
Plenty of Republicans are pissed off about Bush getting us into this quagmire as well.
It's funny how Republicans conveniently ignore those within their own ranks that don't like the way this war has gone.
Liberal Democrats that think we shouldn't be in Iraq should take note of France… y'know… the country that takes the position of "hey, don't look at me."
Jeez, what is it with the hard-on Republicans have for bashing France?
Please, let me know when you guys are going to ship the Statue of Liberty back to where it came from.
Yep, that's right, it came from France, you moron. Talk about an ungrateful bunch of bastards you guys are.
I'd hate to think about what would be said of the British if they decide to leave Iraq before we do. I'm sure the propoganda machien will be going full speed in minutes.
C'mon, Liberal Leftists, get behind your country. Support our troops. Be Patriotic! Anything less is just Un-American.
Yeah, trust jackasses like you to use the "patriot" card every chance they get.
Or, if you hadn't noticed (which you hadn't), there is a difference between supporting our troops and supporting Bush's ego.
Just like Bush and his cabal of dodge-drafting assholes. Man, weren't they great patriots?
What makes you so fucking high and mighty to say that if we don't support the murder of Iraqi civilians, we're not American enough for you? Get off your god damn high horse already.
The only thing I see in this is that we have to jump and cheer for American deaths on foreign soil (you know, the whole 'patriotism' thing), because that's all we're getting out of this war.
*sigh* Maybe someday we'll get an edit function, since the preview function is as useless as Bush without his puppetmasters.
"Only we tried that (thankyewverymuch, President Clinton.) We ignored the first bombing of the WTC. We were shocked, appalled, and cheesed off in general about the attack on the USS Cole. We looked the other way, when terrorists attacked American embassies in Africa.
We. Did. Nothing."
This is SO much crap. What we didn't do is invade a sovereign nation on false pretenses in order to appease our desire for vengeance. What we DID do id pursue those responsible using reasonable force, respecting the rule of others, and relying on solid information. If I recall, weren't there several convictions of the criminals behind the first WTC bombing? So, following the limits of justice and getting lawful, legal convictions of criminals is nothing?
With all the talk of Cheney and Bush about how irresponsible it is to engage in revisionist history, Mr. Rhodes, maybe, as someone that supports the current administration, you'd care to engage in some historical review before you castigate the former administration's efforts as "nothing." Clinton took proper action...and it did have results, and those results did not involve the deaths of over 2100 American troops, and thousands more Iraqi deaths.
"Jeez, what is it with the hard-on Republicans have for bashing France?
Please, let me know when you guys are going to ship the Statue of Liberty back to where it came from.
Yep, that's right, it came from France, you moron. Talk about an ungrateful bunch of bastards you guys are.
I'd hate to think about what would be said of the British if they decide to leave Iraq before we do. I'm sure the propoganda machien will be going full speed in minutes."
C'mon, Craig...French bashing is a long standing American tradition...dating back long before Iraq. I mean, I can't remember a time since I've been alive in which ripping on the French was unacceptable (and it seems, from the British I have known to be a popular pastime in segments of Europe as well). This is not unique to Republicans and conservatives either. Some of the harshest slams on France I have heard were from my liberal friends. Cold hard truth. There are lots of people of all political beliefs that hate the French.
Jeez, what is it with the hard-on Republicans have for bashing France?
Please, let me know when you guys are going to ship the Statue of Liberty back to where it came from.
Yep, that's right, it came from France, you moron. Talk about an ungrateful bunch of bastards you guys are.
It's hardly just Republicans, mon ami, the French have been scorned by lots of people. Jews are still upset about that whole cooperation with the Nazi's thing (seriously, a higher percentage of Jews in Italy survived the war than in France).
Apparently Muslims aren't too fond of them either. perhaps Franco-bashing will be the one thing that will finally bring Jews and Muslims together. That would be nice.
As for the statue of liberty...gee, very nice and all but if that's all it takes to earn an eternity of unquestioning goodwill lets start shipping off statues pronto. It would be far cheaper than the cost of the blood shed in WWI and WWII.
C'mon, Craig...French bashing is a long standing American tradition...dating back long before Iraq. I mean, I can't remember a time since I've been alive in which ripping on the French was unacceptable (and it seems, from the British I have known to be a popular pastime in segments of Europe as well).
Jokes are one thing.
The political bashing coming from the Right since the French decided to no be another laptop for Bush is quite another.
As for the statue of liberty...gee, very nice and all but if that's all it takes to earn an eternity of unquestioning goodwill lets start shipping off statues pronto.
Well, you'll be happy to know that Americans are great at one thing: wasting goodwill.
So, yeah, we need to ship out a bunch of 20' statues of Bush around the world. Then we can watch them be toppled like that one of Saddam in Bahgdad. You know, the one that was staged to show how great the US is.
Because we sure as hell don't give a shit about the goodwill of others, even if it comes in the form of something sent to us 150 years ago by a country that is supposed to be our ally.
Republican fries, anyone?
What do you mean "we" kemosabe?
But there is a nugget of a good point in all this; we should be careful not to make all encompassing generalizations about a nationality based on the actions of a few. The undeniable fact that some French politicians were on the take from Hussein's regime does not instantly invalidate those who opposed the war for less mercenary reasons. How much of a factor the Oil for Food/Bribes for Peace scandal was in French foreign policy will no doubt be made clear one day. In the meantime, smart people should probably avoid making unsupportable claims like "all French are cowards" or "Americans are great at one thing: wasting goodwill".
The undeniable fact that some French politicians were on the take from Hussein's regime does not instantly invalidate those who opposed the war for less mercenary reasons.
And some of our politicians aren't on the take?
Nobody should forget that great PR shot of Rummie shaking hands with Saddam, even though it was 20 years ago.
I used to think we went to Iraq for good reasons - now the only good reason I can come up with is that it is indeed for the oil.
In the meantime, smart people should probably avoid making unsupportable claims like "all French are cowards" or "Americans are great at one thing: wasting goodwill".
Oh please, Bill.
Bush pissed away everything the world handed us after 9/11. And since the dumbass was reelected, it shows that Americans don't give a damn.
"Jokes are one thing.
The political bashing coming from the Right since the French decided to no be another laptop for Bush is quite another." Posted by Craig J.
okay, so you aparently don't live in the central US, because everyone i have knows has not been making fun of, but bashing the entire political system of France since the mid 70's (when i was born). I have bashed the French political maneuvering and promotion for human rights here but not here ideals since i was about nine years old. my hatred for the stupidity of the political blunders of the French government has nothing to do with the fact that they didn't support us in the war for Iraq and has everything to do with the fact that they act (for a lack of a better term) very French on every issue. How can you claim to be a great state for human rights and yet deny the basic religious ideals such as the wearing of muslim veils in schools. I can not stand the french because they swing one direction this time, and a completely seperate direction the next time. The only person i bash for not supporting us in the war for Iraq is Bush, quit changing the reason of why we went in there. quit making a statement that says this one time, and that another. so tell you what, let me keep bashing the French for aslong as i want, or until they finally start passing policies that coordinate and congeal with the overall perception that they try to posses, and start complaing about the real problems out there, like the fact that i am a far-right wingest and i can't stand Bush. so don't lump me into an all emcompassing group becasue i am a conservative. there are those of us who are just as frustrated as you guys
okay, so you aparently don't live in the central US
Born and raised in Illinois and later Iowa. So, I guess you were apparently wrong about that assumption.
How can you claim to be a great state for human rights and yet deny the basic religious ideals such as the wearing of muslim veils in schools.
And we're any better here how?
Schools here have dress codes. Granted, they're not based on religion, but they're often based on stupid crap like the notion that every kid will somehow be treated equally if they're dressed like twins.
That French dress code is a bad idea, but I don't consider it something due to a lack of respect of human rights or other such nonsense.
And in case you haven't noticed, we've struggled with similiar things here: should women in the US be allowed to wear the traditional burqua (sp?) when it comes to things like a driver's license or passport?
Are we in some freaky violation of human rights if we say, no, you can't wear those in your pictures for security reasons? I'd rather doubt it.
And this doesn't even get into the problems we have with holding people for years on end without charging them with a crime, rendition, and so forth.
Yes, the US is such a great bastion of human rights.
And some of our politicians aren't on the take?
Strawman argument, as you know. That would be like responding to someone arguing that "The only reason we went to Iraq was for the oil" with "Oh, and you never used oil?"
Bush pissed away everything the world handed us after 9/11
What exactly was it that they handed us? Sympathy? Ok, thanks but that's not worth a whole lot. I'm sure the sympathies of many toward the Tsunami victims is appreciated a bit less than the 1.6 billion or so given by the USA government, corporations and individuals.
Support for the war on terror? Seems to me that this has gone and continues to go quite well. The large number of terrorists who have been captured or killed in many countries around the world attests to that, as well as the long overdue cutting off of funds to their front organizations.
Of course, the other countries of the world would be daft NOT to do something about terrorism, regardless of their feelings toward the President. Does anyone think the French are so stupid that they would encourage or even tolerate international terrorism just because the US wants them to do the opposite? The Islamic Terrorists have shown no desire to limit their war to just the United States (Hell, many, maybe even most of their victims have been Muslims).
So, out of curiosity, what exactly would France, to just pick one country, be doing for us now under President Kerry that they aren't doing for us now under President Bush? There may be perfectly good answers to this question, I just don't know them.
Schools here have dress codes. Granted, they're not based on religion, but they're often based on stupid crap like the notion that every kid will somehow be treated equally if they're dressed like twins.
Uh huh. Yeah. The look like twins. Right.
Have you looked at a public school lately? To be able to say that with a straight face?
here's our school dress code, briefly: No spaghetti straps or halter tops or excessive cleavage. This mostly applies to the girls. No skirts so small that when you sit down your hey-nanni-nanni is exposed to the world. No sagging trousers that expose underpants. No gang insignia. Hats off in classroom. No messages of profanity, racism or drugs. No see through clothes or clothes that can cause physical harm (hooks, spikes).
That's pretty much it. There are a small number of schools that have actual uniforms but they are in the tiny minority.
We get that you think that the USA is no better than pretty much anyone else and worse than most but you gotta chose your arguments a little more carefully.
One thing I do have to give the French credit for--none of this holding people for years without being charged nonsense. Some of those accused of rioting were arrested, convicted and jailed within days. None of that defendent's rights silliness. I'm sure they ahd the best representation possible and taht all the evidence was properly examined in the 15 minutes that the magistrate took to send some kid to jail.
Oops...spoke too soon.
From the Associated press:
Over the past several years, especially following the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, French authorities have adopted some of the toughest anti-terrorism laws and policies in Europe — including pre-emptive arrests, ethnic profiling and interrogation without the presence of defense attorneys.
The authorities have more than 40 mosques under watch. Police agents in civilian clothes reportedly mill in and outside mosques, recording speeches of the prayer leaders, or imams.
...According to Mr. Leclair, if officials have information that "Mr. Mohammed X" is a suspect but have no solid evidence, they have no qualms about finding something in his personal life, like a past complaint from his abused wife, to detain him for questioning.
"Sometimes, of course, we can bring some trouble in the personal life, but I think it's better to [make] trouble for some people for one day and avoid 200 to 300 people from dying in a blast," Mr. Leclair said.
... Under French law, suspects can be detained for 92 hours before charges are filed, and jailed for up to 3½ years as investigations continue and a trial is prepared. A new catch-all charge of "conspiracy in relation to terrorism" enables prosecutors to cast their nets wide.
...Today, more than 100 suspects "with good terrorist profile" are in detention — about 50 of them either convicted or prosecuted, Mr. Leclair said. The other 50 are in police custody.
Well! For folks who don't like the thuggish jackbooted tactics of Bush's Amerikkka they seem to be doing a fairly good job of using the same tactics. Rencontrez le nouveau patron, même que le vieux patron.
Anyway...I'm off to Kentucky for food and family. Take care, everyone, happy holidays.
It's interesting that being critical of President Clinton is perfectly acceptable; but criticism of the Bush Administration apparently makes on unpatriotic .... The country is larger than one man. Criticizing one president and his administration because it does not live up to the ideals which you believe truly do represent America does not in any way equate with hating America itself.
And as far as what we're losing internationally ... I suppose it's possible you could have missed posts on here from international posters, talking about how the United States is now more feared, by the general populace, in their countries. The US' current "might makes right" foreign policy is not very conducive to keeping good will. Will it lead to physical conflicts with more nations? Maybe not; but it's not exactly something to which we should be aspiring, either.
And, as you say, Bill - happy holiday, all
Luke, I've seen the posts but I was also alive when people in Europe were marching against Reagan's idea to deploy MX missiles...this while the dust of Chernobyl wafted over their lands. There haven't been too many times when the United States hasn't been feared by countries that are weaker than it is...and really, that isn't an entirely irrational feeling. I am far more nervous about the Chinese than I am about the Germans. I don't, however, expect the Chinese to be especially unhappy about that situation.
Will the Europeans use their fear to wage war on us? It's not a matter of "maybe not". there is no rational scenario where it happens. With what army? And besides, even if they won wouldn't it destroy their economies?
I'm not saying that things should not be better than they are--I just asked for some concrete examples of what it is that the world handed us after 9/11.
There are a small number of schools that have actual uniforms but they are in the tiny minority.
And yet, that was exactly my point: they ARE out there. And I'm sure alot more districts than you think have discussed the idea, and not just in areas on the coasts where gangs are a problem.
So, yes, I can say it with a straight face.
I know, it may get my "Raving Liberal" card revoked, but I fail to see how dress codes, or even school uniforms are a bad thing.
Uniforms allow children to focus more on their studies instead of what the kid next to them is wearing and "ooh, I want a pair of shoes like that!" They're there for an education, not a fashion show.
Also, it would be a step in the right direction in preparing them for the real world. From the cook line at McDonald's, all the way up the corporate ladder, if you don't dress in accordance with the dress code, you get sent home and don't get paid that day.
That's just life.
-Rex Hondo-
This just in...
Riots continue in France. The French government is in special meetings to discuss terms of their surrender.
Speaking of jokes that were only mildly amusing the first time, but significantly less so the millionth or so time...
-Rex Hondo-
Posted by Bill Mulligan at November 23, 2005 03:45 PM
Luke, I've seen the posts but I was also alive when people in Europe were marching against Reagan's idea to deploy MX missiles...this while the dust of Chernobyl wafted over their lands. There haven't been too many times when the United States hasn't been feared by countries that are weaker than it is...and really, that isn't an entirely irrational feeling.
It wasn't (primarily) fear of the US that led to demonstrations against the MX and the Minuteman in Europe -- it was the fear that deployment of such systems meant that that the basing of US strastegic assets in Europe meant that they were suddenly living next door to primary targets if WWIII ever happened.
I am far more nervous about the Chinese than I am about the Germans. I don't, however, expect the Chinese to be especially unhappy about that situation.
Old joke from That Period:
Young Soviet officer in Armor Training School is posed a tactical problem.
"You are sitting on Hill Thus-and-so, tasked primarily with defence of military assets Such-and-so and This-and-that, and secondarily with the interdiction of enemy attacks along the axis of Highway And-the-other.
"Forward observers report three NATO units, in total stronger than your unit, approaching.
"Apparently, the Americans intend to open up the highway allowing an attack to your rear.
"The Germans will be attacking your most essential asset, Such-and-so, the loss of which could lead to disaster.
"The British will be attacking This-and-that, which must be held to allow our planned drive to succeed.
"In which order do you engage the enemy?"
"Simple, Tovarisch General -- first the Americans, then the British, then the Germans."
But the Germans are attacking the most essential of all -- why them last?"
"Business before pleasure."
RE recent political hassles over the "X" on CNN and Bush's wanting to bomb al-Jazeera: http://www.ucomics.com/jackhiggins/2005/11/24/
All right, here's a lesson of history for you.
The year in 1956. France is in the middle of a war against terrorism. I'm not talking only about bombs here, but also women and children being litterally butchered (google "Phillippeville slaughters"). So, the french authorities decide to use every means at their disposal to fight the FLNs murderous thughs, and those who support them. Of course, France can't go toe to toe with the main sponsor, given that said country had nukes, and we had none. But there was a country, led by a mustache-wearing dictator, who was supporting terrorism, not only aimed at France, but also at Israel. A dictator who made no secret of his wish to destroy Israel, and who also harbored nazi war criminals (sent there by the CIA, BTW). A dictator who had taken control of some very important strategic resources. So, a plan was put in place to remove said dictator, and replace him with a puppet government. And the plan worked. The french, british and israeli forces kicked egyptian ass all over the Sinai. But something happened that was not planned.
Of course, the opposition of the Soviet Union was expected. What was not, however, was the opposition of the United States, nor the lengths to which Eisenhower would go. If the Russians threatened to nuke France and Great Britain, the United States used their economic power to force the British to pull another Dunkirk, Leaving France alone again, and even went so far as to put american ships in egyptian harbours in order to thwart planned air strike agains the egyptian naby (which, BTW, might explain the USS Liberty a few years later). So, inspite of the fact that the operation was a military success, it was a political failure.
I don't know what reasons Eisenhower had to oppose our actions in Suez. But if the United States said that invading a sovereign country is wrong, well, it's wrong. And if France didn't have the right to invade Egypt in 1956, The USA didn't have the right to invade Iraq, which was certainly not as big a threat as Egypt, in 2003. And you can certainly agree that Chirac (who at the time was fighting in Algeria and even got wounded for his troubles) did a lot less than Eisenhower did in similar circumstances. And judging from what has happened in Iraq since then, one can certainly agree that Eisenhower, regardless of his reasons) saved us a lot of trouble.
Gerard,
Thanks for the history lesson. France believed that Egypt was the problem and the US prevented France from trying to do something about the problem, thus allowing the problem to continue. No wonder the French are still carrying a grudge.
People who don't live in an area usually can't see why these things last so long. It makes no logical sense to me why the Irish and the British carry so much animosity toward each other, but, to many of them, it is a way of life, and has been for decades.