Well, Kara, I believe that it is possible to criticize anyone (except God). But why to depict the President as a mentally retarded person that did not master his own mother tongue? I guess, that if Iraqis were visiting our forum, they would be too much pleased with such assessments of Mr. Bush given by his compatriots. And when the enemy is pleased, there is something wrong...
steissd wrote:I guess, that if Iraqis were visiting our forum, they would be too much pleased with such assessments of Mr. Bush given by his compatriots. And when the enemy is pleased, there is something wrong...
steissd
I'm sure, some of us - me included - laughed about that joke.
Are they, are we "pleased"? And if, do you consider us now as "enemy"?
One of the best reference websides, steissd, has an own category about "Bush jokes", which a couple of links:
George W. Bush Jokes and Humor
if anyone thinks the american press and american people are too hard on their own president, they are invited to visit the websites of canadian newspapers and watch how the canadian media speaks about our canadian prime minister and his government ! our prime minister (who unfortunately has the name of "chretien")is raked over the coals on a daily basis. he seems to thrive on it and doesn't seem to take offence. to paraphrase c.i.: " it is the DUTY of every citizen to criticize the government of the day and its leaders". i think it's one of the few ways of getting the attention of our leaders; if you praise them it goes to their heads very quickly. criticism is the leavening of the political process; it keeps things from going stale. hbg
Thanks for the credit, hbg, but somebody else spoke those words.
c.i.
c.i. i was just using telepathy and reading your mind. i hope this will not be held against you - i think that your mind is a fertile(?) ground. no slight intended - i'm still trying to learn (and hopefully at some future time understand0 the rules of the game. hbg
Who care who said what? Points well taken, regardless of the source.
Steissd
I do not know from where you get this notion of a special sacredness for political leaders such that they ought not to be criticized or satirized, but I'd be curious to learn that information. Actually, I don't give god any special treatment either...what's the problem? He's going to get His feelings hurt?
Blatham, God forbid. Oops! Did I say that?
hbg, If you have that kind of power, who's to argue? LOL c.i.
Well, we seem to have had a momentary running out of steam - which is quite OK.
"I guess, that if Iraqis were visiting our forum, they would be too much pleased with such assessments of Mr. Bush given by his compatriots. And when the enemy is pleased, there is something wrong..."
Steissd -- Let me go on the record here: in spite of how it may appear to Bush appeasers, I'd welcome the opportunity to do something nice for an Iraqi. They are not my enemies, not that I know of. Seems to me they could use a break.
I agree, Tartarin, as long as I can kill Saddam and his henchmen.
New York Times International;
Will the U.N. Security Council pass a new Iraq resolution?
Probably not. The deep and increasingly bitter divisions among council members over how to disarm Iraq are unlikely to be bridged quickly. The Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, on Friday hinted that Moscow would veto a draft resolution clearing the way for military action to force disarmament. What is the vote breakdown for the draft resolution?
We don't know what kind of lobbying or deal-making is going on behind the scenes. Nine votes--and no veto--are required for passage. This is the current breakdown:
Four countries on the 15-member council publicly back the resolution: the United States, Great Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria. It has been reported that Mexico and Pakistan may be leaning toward the U.S. side.
Five oppose the resolution: France, Russia, China, Syria, and Germany.
The remaining members are undecided: Angola, Cameroon, Chile, and Guinea.
Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States, as permanent council members, have veto power. The 10 non-permanent states, which serve rotating two-year terms, cannot veto resolutions.
Maureen Dowd in Sunday's NYTimes:
The hawks saw their big chance after 9/11, but they feared that it would be hard to sell a eschatological scheme to stomp out Islamic terrorism by recreating the Arab world. So they found Saddam guilty of a crime he could commit later: helping Osama unleash hell on us.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/opinion/02DOWD.html
Meanwhile, on home soil, Ashcroft also goes in for finding people guilty "of a crime [they] could commit later." Is this how Republicans show respect for those people they love to quote so often: "our founding fathers..."?
Well, maybe not all Republicans. There could well be a split within the party. MoveOn, in one of the fliers to be handed out in the next week or so, cannily quotes from that full page Republican ad in the Wall Street Journal 6 weeks ago -- "Republican Dissent on Iraq" -- in which former Bush supporters complained: "The candidate we supported in 2000 promised a more humble nation in our dealing with the world..." I think many Democrats and others who are far from being fans of this administration would agree with those Republicans when they go on to say,
"We want our country back..." and "A billion bitter enemies will rise out of this war."
Tartarin
That's a wonderful piece on Republicans against present Bush team actions/ideas. I'm not anti-American, not even anti-Republican - those categories are too large and varied to be 'against'. But I sure share the notions of these folks.
Secret document details American plan to bug phones and emails of key Security Council members. From The Observer:
US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war
Once more about criticism. It is not only possible, but even desirable in the democratic society. But why must it be ad hominem? It is possible to disagree with certain aspects of the policy of the current U.S. administration, but I do not think that this might justify insulting remarks about its head. The same refers to any sane, reasonable and democratically elected leader (including even Mr. Chirac whom I strongly dislike for his anti-Americanism). Saddam or Kim Jong Il being illegitimate dictators, IMO, can be treated any way possible.
Which one of these is a genuine statement from Tony Blair?
A "We are moving towards a world governed by international law, with the UN as its central pillar"
B "...therefore Britain and the United States will not hesitate to bribe or threaten any member on UN security council to ensure our pre-determined policy is endorsed. Any use of the veto from France or Russia will be deemed capricious and therefore will be ignored."
(no prizes for guessing)
Kara
Criticism of God...angry prayer! - great answer. I suppose you could always threaten to dump Him and go with another One. But then I think that's been tried and didn't Moses have something to say on the matter?
