Bush asks Condi for permission to use bathroom

I dunno.

These sorts of positions get aides to do all kinds of stuff.

Also, your presidency in particular, I think, combines in a manner most odd to foreign eyes a kind of reverence once reserved for monarchs with the cut and thrust of politics.

I think meetings at that level have a degree of ceremony and protocol that a company CEO meeting doesn't have.

I have no idea if this is true, but I suspect he would not be the only world leader asking aides to arrange breaks that look a lot more dignified than having a piss.

Look, I think Bush is a terrifyingly bad leader and a danger to the world and to your country.

But bashing him on this, when there is so much of substance to criticise about his actions, looks loopy, IMHO, and in this weeny microcosm gives the right ammunition to attempt to deflect utterly valid concerns by comparing them with these sillinesses.

Sigh. NOt that that matters, eh, unless the same process is played out in the larger world?

I also think that photographer was overly invasive.

0 Replies

Chai Tea wrote:

So what was the man supposed to do if he needed to go to the bathroom?

what? none of you have never written a note to someone in the meeting to call a break, or to say that you need the floor for a moment?

guess what, we ALL need to go to the bathroom sometime.

god - get some perspective already.

He was probably asking how to leave temporarily within standard UN protocol.

0 Replies

Hehee, from what I have read about leader's meetings, there is a lot of puffery and jockeying for dominance going on.

Mebbe the first one to need a pee loses?

I am actually fairly serious.

Reading about the posturing and game play in the first meeting between Kennedy and Kruschev (where Kennedy lost badly) I am almost surprised that diplomatic humanity has not developed special threat/dominance plumage or some such...or the ability to inflate their throat skin to make a moreimpressive sound...

0 Replies

Too bad it wasn't his coloring book. I bet he was going to do that right after he was given permission to take a potty break.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

I dunno.

These sorts of positions get aides to do all kinds of stuff.

Also, your presidency in particular, I think, combines in a manner most odd to foreign eyes a kind of reverence once reserved for monarchs with the cut and thrust of politics.

I think meetings at that level have a degree of ceremony and protocol that a company CEO meeting doesn't have.

I have no idea if this is true, but I suspect he would not be the only world leader asking aides to arrange breaks that look a lot more dignified than having a piss.

Look, I think Bush is a terrifyingly bad leader and a danger to the world and to your country.

But bashing him on this, when there is so much of substance to criticise about his actions, looks loopy, IMHO, and in this weeny microcosm gives the right ammunition to attempt to deflect utterly valid concerns by comparing them with these sillinesses.

Sigh. NOt that that matters, eh, unless the same process is played out in the larger world?

I also think that photographer was overly invasive.

Okay...

...from someone who absolutely detests the moron...

...you are right, Bunny.

You are absolutely right.

No jokes...no wise-cracks...no other shoe to drop.

0 Replies

Quite right. I've been in negotiations myself where I've had to write a note to the principal negotiator on our team to suggest a break in proceedings but letting him pick the moment that works rather than break the continuum.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

...But bashing him on this, when there is so much of substance to criticise about his actions, looks loopy, IMHO, and in this weeny microcosm gives the right ammunition to attempt to deflect utterly valid concerns by comparing them with these sillinesses.

I no longer have the misguided perception that anything I say will make any difference to the Right as far as deflecting from valid concerns. Valid concerns of substance, such as higher levels of arsenic in our water, corporate invasion of public property, cronyism, separation of church and state, tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich, attempts to change social security to a system the president himself admits won't fix the problem and on and on, are already considered "silliness" by the Right.

So, WTF?

0 Replies

Yeah, fair enough Squinney.

I DO understand.

Howsabout it ain't good to focus such hate on someone???

I really meant it when I said on the other thread that this is getting almost as loony as the anti Clinton witch hunt, which I truly think reached the level of insanity and actual witch craze behaviour, (you know, like the stuff in Europe a few hundred years ago, and Salem, and McCarthy and the American obsession with communism and so on?)...and which STILL persists in some of them?

And you know how some of the left have talked about Clinton therefore "owning" some of the loonier right here? By which I think is meant that he is such an obsession with them, that the obsession has taken over?

Anyhoo, I really do think that the plethora of stuff attacking Bush for silly things mirrors that.

He's just a poor, bare, forked animal, like the rest of us. Hating someone, and focusing on that person/group is bad for us. There. I said it! I think you have to do what you can to oppose them, and attack them for their real bad actions, but notes in a meeting....?

I know, I sound like a damn hippy, or a therapist, or somesuch....well, I AM a therapist!

And I know I can talk, occasionally someone on the right, or the left, too, will say something I find so utterly disgusting that I get really fierce.

But I don't HATE Bush, or Howard, or XXXXX and XXXXX etc here. Though it is easy to hate people who one believes is doing such bad stuff in the world, I know. But he ain't the devil, any more than Clinton was!!!

I know the feelings of helplessness make one very angry, when one feels really bad stuff is being done, and that it will be so hard to repair.

Anyhoo, just ignore me. It's just been kinda bothering me....

I'm just a goddamn lagomorph anyway...

0 Replies

Drudge and others are now reporting that "REUTERS has acknowledged Bush 'Potty Note' photo was enhanced via Photoshop... "

Developing ...

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Drudge and others are now reporting that "REUTERS has acknowledged Bush 'Potty Note' photo was enhanced via Photoshop... "

Developing ...

Hmmm, interesting, it just looked frankly fake to me.

But if "enhanced" just means they made the writing readable, I think that has no effect on anything.

I just think it was flat wrong to photograph a private bit of correspondence, unless it was of substantial import...you know, like "The bomb we had the CIA plant to kill all these bastards is going off in 10 minutes....we both need to leave now."

Mind you, I'll need something a little above the intellectual, ethical and responsibility level of Drudge to be convinced Reuters did that!

Anyone reliable saying the same thing?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

dlowan wrote:
I dunno.

These sorts of positions get aides to do all kinds of stuff.

Also, your presidency in particular, I think, combines in a manner most odd to foreign eyes a kind of reverence once reserved for monarchs with the cut and thrust of politics.

I think meetings at that level have a degree of ceremony and protocol that a company CEO meeting doesn't have.

I have no idea if this is true, but I suspect he would not be the only world leader asking aides to arrange breaks that look a lot more dignified than having a piss.

Look, I think Bush is a terrifyingly bad leader and a danger to the world and to your country.

But bashing him on this, when there is so much of substance to criticise about his actions, looks loopy, IMHO, and in this weeny microcosm gives the right ammunition to attempt to deflect utterly valid concerns by comparing them with these sillinesses.

Sigh. NOt that that matters, eh, unless the same process is played out in the larger world?

I also think that photographer was overly invasive.

Okay...

...from someone who absolutely detests the moron...

...you are right, Bunny.

You are absolutely right.

No jokes...no wise-cracks...no other shoe to drop.

Yer scaring me, Frank!

0 Replies

Here we go:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001137788

"As for transmitting the photo, Hershorn says, "There was no malicious intent. That's not what we do."

There's a simple explanation, even a serious one, for all of this, he adds. Bush, he points out, is not used to attending meetings at the U.N. and probably did not know what the protocol was for exiting a room and returning. His question to Rice was “proper” and not all that surprising, “asking someone with more experience there about protocol,” he said.

Wilking told Gelf magazine today that he has not yet heard from the president—whom he says he knows very well—about the note. “I’m curious to know what the White House thinks,” Wilking said."

So far the only thing I have found saying it may be fake is an antileft blog news watch site:

http://newsbusters.org/node/1194

I wonder if this is where Drudge got their stuff from?

Other news stories are just discussing the photographer who took the thing (just back from stunning work in New Orleans) who says he had no idea what was on the note until he developed it.

I cannot believe so much of the world's press is consumed with this!!!

Even Murdoch is allowing his gutter self to outdo hus Bush lover self, and splashing this bit of nonsensical trivia around!

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

Chia - The perspective is that he's the president of the united states. He shouldn't have to ask anyone for a bathroom break or ask anyone if it is possible to take one. Just state to Kofi that there needs to be a ten minute recess.

How many CEO's would write a note to their executive secretary asking if a bathroom break would be possible?

I can see the flack now if Bush would have just gotten up and left. This BS thread would have been twice as bad.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

squinney wrote:
Chia - The perspective is that he's the president of the united states. He shouldn't have to ask anyone for a bathroom break or ask anyone if it is possible to take one. Just state to Kofi that there needs to be a ten minute recess.

How many CEO's would write a note to their executive secretary asking if a bathroom break would be possible?

I can see the flack now if Bush would have just gotten up and left. This BS thread would have been twice as bad.

It probably wouldn't have been reported and what is an interesting thread wouldn't have appeared.

0 Replies

Hmmm, and, having looked at the google news site on this, I apologise to Squinney. This crap (or piddle) is a BIG story.

It isn't she who is behaving loopily, the world is!

What on earth is happening when a politician's loo break consumes so much attention, while so many important things are going on.

The SPECIES is loopy.

0 Replies

It gets to a point where the narrow minded will find any fault with a person they can. Its far easier for them to belittle a person without knowing all the facts then to simply ignore stupid views of other narrow minded people.
As for a doctored picture, we have never seen anything like that on the internet.
Anybody who is putting down the president for his abilities or inabilitites want to try and run for the office? Let's see how well you do.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

...such as higher levels of arsenic in our water...

Incorrect. Bush stopped a Clinton administration proposal that would have reduced allowable levels by a factor of five, and allowed the current maximum to stay in force, while sending the issue back by for further research. He did not propose a raising any maximum that had ever been the law. Another liberal distortion.

0 Replies

The current U.S. arsenic standard of 50 ppb was adopted in 1942.
After a decade of study and public review of scientific evidence, EPA proposed the stricter standard while Bill Clinton was president. Mr. Bush reversed EPA's decision shortly after taking office.

Link to the latest at EPA about arsenic in drinking water.

0 Replies

That is what I had thought happened.

I also worry if Bush's born againness is a problem for the environment.

Don't many of those people believe in an imminent "rapture" and other apocalyptic nonsense, and hence are not concerned with damage to the earth?

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Yeah, fair enough Squinney.

I DO understand.

Howsabout it ain't good to focus such hate on someone???

He's just a poor, bare, forked animal, like the rest of us. Hating someone, and focusing on that person/group is bad for us.

...Though it is easy to hate people who one believes is doing such bad stuff in the world, I know. But he ain't the devil, any more than Clinton was!!!

I know the feelings of helplessness make one very angry, when one feels really bad stuff is being done, and that it will be so hard to repair....

Thanks, Dr. Buns. You're right.

(Constant repeat in my head of Grandpa's words as I was growing up..."Now, Squinney, hate is a very strong word. We must be careful with strong words.")

The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton didn't do things that killed people.

As far as the arsenic, a study had already been done so it was a waste of time and more money to say he would ask for another study and then decide. And, if you'll remember, he did that same thing with numerous things. Just forget all the stuff already done and start over just because it was done on Clintons watch. Well, just suppose if he had listened to the group that had already looked into Al Qaeda and had a report ready instead of scrapping it and saying Cheney would start over and lead a new study.

As I stated before, these people don't listen to reason. While some claim to be born again (I actually think that's more the followers than the people in charge) I think it's just a political move for votes. No Christian, REAL Christian, would govern with such puffery and disregard for life or stewardship of the planet.

(Can I lie on your couch here? Thanks.)

Probably, a good part of my dislike, disgust and .... hate (sorry Grandpa) of this administration IS their misuse of religion. They not only give Christians a bad name, they are turning many away, including me. Maybe I would have wandered to the dark side of disbelief and questioning anyway... I don't know.

The whole Armeggedon rapture thing as an excuse for not having to take care of the world just makes me sick. That so many swallow this crap makes me more sick. Again, I think that's just a ploy to get through the legislation / policy for big business that they want, not a real Christian belief on the part of this administration. That's evil.

Have you read "People of the Lie" by Dr. M Scott Peck? He defines evil as Live spelled backwards. Evil is opposite of live. Everything this administration does is opposite of encouraging life. I have to disagree with you that they aren't the devil in that context. The devil doesn't really wear a red suit and carry a pitchfork.

So, maybe the note isn't a big deal. I do agree that the photographer invaded his privacy, which is kinda funny given how our individual privacy has been invaded over the last five years by Bush / Republicans. Maybe if he and his followers stayed out of our bedroom, we wouldn't walk in on him in the bathroom.

Okay, I think my times up. Thanks, Doc. What'll I owe ya?

0 Replies

Bush asks Condi for permission to use bathroom

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know