Bush at the UN

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Even after having to disabuse the American public about Iraq's involvement in International Terror™, he goes and tell the UN that he has rid Iraq of Terror with a 'Coalition of Nations', upholding the authority of the UN.

Meanwhile Iraq appears now to be the number one destination for Islamic Terroriststs

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 15:08 (twenty-two years ago)

"Because a coalition of nations acted to defend the peace - and the credibility of the United Nations - Iraq is free and today we are joined by representatives of a liberated country," President Bush told the UN General Assembly.

Wait, did he really say "defend...the credibility of the United Nations"? The same man who threatened it needed to "fall in line" with America or be in danger of becoming "irrelevant"?

The irony used to be delicious, but now it's spoiled and gone sour.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 15:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, they've been liberated of their electricity, their law and order, and most recently of the chance to watch coverage of their plight on any Arab satellite channels (even assuming they have a generator and a TV).

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 15:25 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Bush-Quotes-ngin.jpg

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 15:25 (twenty-two years ago)

i just think we should support him in this endeavour at this time. i am now off to battle the music...

― Britney Spears (blueski), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 15:44 (twenty-two years ago)

The Iraqi Interim authority trying to throw out Al'Jazeera and Al' Arabiya is weird.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 15:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Doesn't the news anchor at the new Arabic satellite channel Al-Goriyah look vaguely familiar?

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 15:49 (twenty-two years ago)

Last night Bush did an interview w/ FOX news. The highlight was when he said he doesn't follow the news and get all the information he needs from his trusted advisors. Now it all makes sense.

― fletrejet, Tuesday, 23 September 2003 15:55 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.onetermpresident.org/logo.jpg

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 15:57 (twenty-two years ago)

One termite.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 15:59 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm beginning to have my doubts about that One Term thing. I mean, it's not like the actual voting had much to do with him taking office in the first place, so why should it keep him from holding on?

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 16:02 (twenty-two years ago)

They be making the voting machines really easy to hack, that they be.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 16:05 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, i found it hilarious when he said that he knew his advisors were his most "objective" source for national and international news.

― Emilymv (Emilymv), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 16:07 (twenty-two years ago)

the way his numbers are looking now, re-election seems quite doubtful. even through some devise strateajery.

― Emilymv (Emilymv), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 16:10 (twenty-two years ago)

how comes when i do a google image search for "george bush gay porn", all i get is 1 shirtless picture of henry rollins?

― Bob Shaw (Bob Shaw), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 16:10 (twenty-two years ago)

re 'probably will somehow win a second-term' - i thought that too but i think enough people have had the necessary kick up the backside and slap round the face with dead hawk to wise up. there's going to be intensified pressure from outside the USA next time (not enough attention or coverage was given to the last election globally perhaps?) which may not have that much bearing on things but it MIGHT influence things a little - in that people should generally recognise how unpopular Bush is outside the US (if not enough in it) and maybe take this into more consideration (naive perhaps, but who knows?)

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 16:11 (twenty-two years ago)

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 16:18 (twenty-two years ago)

i doubt that any global pressure will have any bearing at all on the election. most americans, unlike myself, do not care what other nations' opinions are of us. that is as long as said nations remain financially inferior. a lot people in this country have a sickening disrespect for other countries and cultures, and refuse to submit to a global view in any way.

― Emilymv (Emilymv), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 16:18 (twenty-two years ago)

i accept that but when has a President ever been as unpopular as this on a global scale?

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 16:20 (twenty-two years ago)

i mean, the majority of people who don't give a shit what the rest of the world thinks of the USA...did they even turn out for the last one?

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 16:21 (twenty-two years ago)

lots of people believe in bush and/or their president [cf. your BS post upthread].

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 16:22 (twenty-two years ago)

yes, i think that there are high numbers of people who vote in the US who don't care about global politics. and i think a lot of those people voted in '00. it was known then that he had basically no knowledge of world politics, even to the point that he couldn't identify other world leaders, and he still got half of this country's vote. this sentiment among americans is the same reason that our media would rather focus on kobe bryant and laci peterson than global news stories relevant to our time. it is because if they covered real international news no one would watch it.

― Emilymv (Emilymv), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 16:35 (twenty-two years ago)

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 16:36 (twenty-two years ago)

good link rightchere

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 16:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Is Bush gay?

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 16:50 (twenty-two years ago)

who or WHAT is Betty Bowers??!

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 16:53 (twenty-two years ago)

OK link wrong, this is right.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 16:57 (twenty-two years ago)

ummm, is that site (I just looked at the one linked page) a parody? It's either very very funny or very very very scary and wrong.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 17:01 (twenty-two years ago)

okay, it's satire, right? right?

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 17:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Breakdown of Bush's speech by subject matter:

http://members.dslextreme.com/users/markpoyser/uggabugga/2003/bush-UN-speech-20030923.gif

― fletrejet, Tuesday, 23 September 2003 17:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Ed, hilarious and scary as hell. Somehow, picturing Bush in his fabulousness is much more frightening. The question is how much more destruction will Bush's bullheaded attitudes cause before his term is up.

Didn't vote for the fool (but for someone else), but I'm stuck with him, anyway? No fair!

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 17:11 (twenty-two years ago)

When you can spend mucho billions on blowing holes in the Iraqi landscape, while thousands are praying for a cure to AIDS (or SARS, or whatever is the plague du jour), priorities are seriously skewed.

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 17:15 (twenty-two years ago)

okay, it's satire, right? right?

No, it's not.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 17:49 (twenty-two years ago)

Didn't vote for the fool (but for someone else), but I'm stuck with him, anyway? No fair!

Er, you might want to reconsider your position here. In any vote, some people are going to be stuck with people they didn't vote for.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 18:33 (twenty-two years ago)

wait a minute...

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 18:34 (twenty-two years ago)

That's not the way I understand Democracy, Andrew. If you vote, you've held up your end of the bargain. You don't go to a restaurant and not get what you ordered just because more people ordered Filet O'Fish. I don't even like fish!

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 18:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Er, so George Bush gets to order around 24% of the populace, and Al Gore gets to order around 25%?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 18:51 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean, I'm in agreement over the whole Resident Bush thing, but it seemed the wrong angle to attack it from. And also it's a side-topic to the whole war thing: it's not like it'd be a better war if he'd been voted in cleanly.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 18:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, only about 10,000 people are going to choose Canada's next Prime Minister, and they actually already decided who they're going decide on. Paul Martin could assume office at almost any moment between mid-Nov. and Feb. And there probably won't be a Federal Election until next fall.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 18:55 (twenty-two years ago)

This voting machine stuff (linked to above; the Salon article is good; see also blackboxvoting.com and blackboxvoting.org) is so serious and sad. I've been following it for a while, and it just seems to get more incriminating.

― Sam J. (samjeff), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 19:17 (twenty-two years ago)

a) who are these 10,000 people, and b) what the hell are you talking about, no offense?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 19:18 (twenty-two years ago)

The thing about Canada and its next prime minister is like this:
1) The Liberal party is gonna form the next government, again, because the other parties are still wandering around like chickens with their heads cut off.
2) Paul Martin has secured most of the delegates for the party convention where they will officially decide which person will be the next leader of the Liberal party. Barring scandal or tragedy, this means he will be the next leader of the party.
3) Jean Chretien tendered his resignation a long time ago, and whoever succeeds him as leader of the liberal party will become Prime Minister until the next official election.

― Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 19:28 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/photos/martin_paul030922.jpg
Take that, democracy!

― Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 19:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Our current Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, is about to retire. We don't have set terms (he's on his third, and they've been between 3 and 5 years per). Paul Martin, former finance minister, received 90% of the preliminary votes from the Liberal Party delegates who will meet in November to make it official. Chretien has said he'll resign in Feb/04, but is under a lot of pressure from Martin-ites to go sooner, Jan. 1 being the most popular date thrown around lately.

So, upon Chretien's retirement, contingent on receiving the support of his party, Martin will assume leadership of Government in Parliament as Prime Minister.

Of course, Canada's official head of state is the Queen (unelected), represented by Governor General Adrienne Clarkson (former tv host, also unelected), but neither of them set policy or create law, they merely sign the bills into law. They technically COULD refuse to sign, but the colossal handjob of a Constitutional Monarchy depends on the Crown being politically neutral.

Of course, Paul Martin WAS elected to Parliament as a member of the Liberal Party in his riding, just the same as Jean Chretien was in his. The Liberal Party holds a majority of seats in Parliament so they get to form Government, and it's only natural that the leader of their party gets to be Prime Minister. So it actually IS a democratic system with fairly respectable representation. But it can very easily be twisted to appear like a soft dictatorship, esp. since the other political parties in Canada have very inconsequential and regional at best for the last decade.

But the good thing is that federal election campaigning generally only lasts about 6 to 8 weeks as opposed to the two years or so in the USA. So, in theory, our Government spends more time concerning itself with the business of the nation than with the business of getting elected and re-elected.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 19:32 (twenty-two years ago)

This happens evertime a PM resigns/dies while his party is in power. Most recently with Kim Campbell replacing BM. Prior to that John Turner took over from PET.

Im trying to remeber the last time someone in Martin's situation was able to win to win a 2nd election but can't recall. Might have to go back to Trudeau replacing Pearson in 68 or so.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 19:49 (twenty-two years ago)

you canadians are all drunk!

― teeny (teeny), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 20:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Though this assumes the PC party will get a leader who doesn't want to jump the Reform parties bones. If they could get Charest back or make Elsie Wayne 20 years younger they would be in great shape for 5 years from now.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 20:05 (twenty-two years ago)

But what happens before Canada reaches 5 years?

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 20:10 (twenty-two years ago)

since we use the metric system, 5 years is actually two mondays from now, or as it's known north of 49, Thanksgiving, to be followed on Thursday by Christmas and Easter on Saturday. Then Canadian New Year is Nov. 3.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 20:12 (twenty-two years ago)

and this hour has 22 minutes.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 20:14 (twenty-two years ago)

drunk!

― teeny (teeny), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 20:22 (twenty-two years ago)

This just in: A dog has peed on the Liberal Red Book!

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 20:24 (twenty-two years ago)

You know, maybe he isn't lying. Maybe "nation" doesn't mean France, Italy, China etc anymore. Maybe it means GM, Shell...

GET WIT DA TIMES, PEOPLE!

― Ann Sterzinger (Ann Sterzinger), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 20:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Ain't Shell run out of the EU?

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 20:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Nope, that is prolly Exxon

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 21:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Royal Dutch/Shell Group are still owners of Shell Oil Company and Shell Canada Limited aren't they?

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 21:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Yup, Royal Dutch still owns The "Shell" plc. Making Shell not American.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 21:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Hey, just because it isn't American doesn't mean it's not a nation. That's why it's a coalition! Go nations! Go!

― Ann Sterzinger (Ann Sterzinger), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 21:44 (twenty-two years ago)

So you just randomly choose two companies?

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 21:56 (twenty-two years ago)

What a sad little man Bush is. His penis is useless. He has to gargle with precious blood of newly born fawns just to be able to stand up. He is retarted.

― Mike Hanle y (mike), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 23:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Is he in league with Owl Man?

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 23:32 (twenty-two years ago)

TART!

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 24 September 2003 02:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Why are we drunk, teeny? Because we're amongst the greatest binge drinkers in the world (why drink if you're not gonna get drunk, we ask)?
Horace: I take issue with "But it can very easily be twisted to appear like a soft dictatorship, esp. since the other political parties in Canada have very inconsequential and regional at best for the last decade." Yes, we can all elect members, yes we know in the backs of our minds (especially these days) that a vote for a Liberal candidate outside of Saint-Maurice is partially a vote for Jean/Paul, but don't kid yourself - party discipline is a real thing. Individual members (if they're not fairly high ranking cabinet members and even then) have very little say over how the country is governed. I'm not saying that we live in an outright dictatorship, but calling it a "soft dictatorship" is hardly a twisting of the facts. Also, when has an opposition party with power ever really mattered that much? If there's a minority government it will in all likelihood (as it did in '79) lead to dissolution of Parliament and a new election anyway. Otherwise the PM has fairly absolute authority.
I love it here and I doubt I'll ever leave, but we have our problems just like anywhere else. They just aren't as noticeable right now thanks to Dubya, et al.

― Bryan (Bryan), Wednesday, 24 September 2003 02:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Individual members (if they're not fairly high ranking cabinet members and even then) have very little say ultimately over how the country is governed.

― Bryan (Bryan), Wednesday, 24 September 2003 02:35 (twenty-two years ago)

tort!

― Mike Hanle y (mike), Wednesday, 24 September 2003 03:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Executive Orders + PATRIOT Act = soft American dictatorship

What's your point? Republic tends to shift between the polar extremes of total incoherence and insignificance or giving a large mandate to a central authority figure.

Now what about the anarcho-syndicatolistic communes?

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 24 September 2003 03:36 (twenty-two years ago)

How many people vote for their individual MPs and not their party affiliation? If you get ellected as liberal you should vote as one.

Anarcho-syndicatolistic communes farm great filth but lack a farcical aquatic cermony.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 24 September 2003 12:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Not many, considering the Brent bi-election result was generally attributed to an anti-war protest vote, when the Labour candidate in question actually opposed the war.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 24 September 2003 12:34 (twenty-two years ago)

My point was that an opposition party with at least a marginal chance of forming the next government can keep the ruling party in line, or at least check their arrogance.

But at least our cabinet is, at some level, elected, whereas in the States it's pure patronage. Although Canadian pols--esp. outgoing ones--are the masters of patronage.
That's why I'm glad I've been writing nice letters to J.C. for the last 10 years. I'm hoping he'll appoint me Chairman of CBC and then I can turn it into a 24 hour a day mudwrestling channel. CANADIAN mudwrestling. In both languages.

Also, I'm interviewing Rick Mercer today.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 24 September 2003 14:03 (twenty-two years ago)

'No WMD in Iraq', source claims

How will this play in Peoria? Is this going to hurt Bush?

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 24 September 2003 15:11 (twenty-two years ago)

On the Radio now, 'Bush may suppress the report' (David Albright, American former UN weapons inspector)

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 24 September 2003 15:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Bush may suppress the report
Report may suppress Bush.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 24 September 2003 15:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Not if he doesn't publish it because it contains information that may aid proliferation.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 24 September 2003 15:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Like 'God', these WMDs can be much more effective as a stick with which to beat various people (foreign governments, the cowering masses) by their absence than by their presence. They will disappear in an appropriately 'dangerous' way, just as Mullah Omar, Bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein have. They will 'disappear' only to loom ever-larger in the rhetoric of neo-cons, like 'God'. And like Him, they will move in mysterious ways -- now in Syria, now Iran, now North Korea, now Sudan. To make cogent reports as to their whereabouts will be as useless as saying you spotted God with a telescope.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 24 September 2003 15:51 (twenty-two years ago)

All your goats are now targets.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 24 September 2003 15:57 (twenty-two years ago)

All your WMD are belong to us.

― daria g (daria g), Wednesday, 24 September 2003 16:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Front page of The Times: Guy reading the paper with headline "Bush warns of spread of WMD" caption: those invisible ones in particular.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 24 September 2003 18:07 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.