Showing no contrition for defying the world body in March or the declining security situation in Iraq, the US president called for the world to set aside past differences and help rebuild the country: “Now the nation of Iraq needs and deserves our aid - and all nations of goodwill should step forward and provide that support,” he said.
Translation from Bush-speak:
“Now the nation of the United States needs bailed out - and all nations that we gave the finger previously should forget that and step forward to save my political ass.”
Did Bush really believe he was going to get away with this one? Did he really think that having so publically told the UN to go hang that he could walk back in six months later with a begging bowl and not a word of apology and expect a warm welcome?
Or is he really as big a dick as he is increasingly appearing?
Eh, this is a sideline to the real dealing going on. The French and Germans want in, Bush knows it. He’s a big dick, but Chiraq and Schrotum are big vaginas: a match made in heaven. All three of them should be able to fuck this up royally.
Typical. No one gives him any credit for the bold and courageous stand he took against the international trade in child sex slaves! Now, that’s leadership! And I have no doubt that he will stand by that position, regardless of how politically unpopular it may be! Has anyone heard Wesley Clark come out against international child sex slaves? Of course not, he hasn’t got the nerve to take such a potentially divisive stand!
What amuses me – largely because I’d probably do the same thing in their position – is that just about all the GOP, drum-beating regulars have gone on the missing list. And Lord knows, there were loads of them.
I even recall Sam Stone recently complaining the board had gone all liberal when, imho, that simply isn’t the case; save for a couple of hard core and less than convincing tin foilers, they’re keeping their heads firmly below the parapet ‘til someone gets a grip of either the president or foreign policy.
My multi-metaphored message to the bleeding hearts is, make hay while the sun shines, pump out your chests, strike up the band but keep 'em peeled cos they’ll be back . .
I guess its a bit harder to sell a line of poorly thought our bullshit spin control when your not on Fox.
More on Bush’s UN stumblings:
But who is really going to suffer- Bush and the rest of the Chickenhawks, maybe. But the real victims of Bush’s stupidity and arrogance are the American taxpayers and worst, American soldiers stuck in Iraq with no signs of help, progress, allies or even a fucking plan. We are recalling the wrong damn politican.
The second portion of your “translation” is quite correct, but I’d take issue with the first phrase. The United States doesn’t nees to be “bailed out” at all. If the public really supported this stupid adventure, the rebuilding of Iraq is in entirely within the capabilities of the U.S.
Apology for what? When and where did the UN tell the Bush Administration it was wrong? Where is the UN Resolution condemning the US for the invasion and occupation of Iraq?
What about “need” as in “need the US public to see this as an international venture, and thus require the capitulation of the UN”? Or is that unrealistic?
Futile, (If I may be so bold as to call you by your first name)
The world body under reference is comprised of, for the most part, a congeries of rather disgusting tyrannies, mostly of the type that the reporters and editorial staff on the payroll of “The Guardian” worship, although they are not overly fussy in that area.
Apart from Guardian reporters, why should anyone with any trace of moral fibre care what those who are in command and control of any benighted tyranny think?
Going on to the second part of Prez B’s statement. It’s just a request for various countries to assist in the rebuilding process. (I assume you would agree that the war wasn’t “all about oil” which would make any request for aid redundant).
The “translation” made by futile is not very plausible. Assistance from other countries is supposed to somehow “save” Prez B from precisely what hypothetical thing? This is highly speculative and nebulous stuff you’re serving up here.
“Showing no contrition”. Showing no friggin’ con-fucking-trition. How lame is that?! What the fuck did you expect? Should he say he’s sorry for thinking otherwise than the glorious Guardian? Say a million Ave Marias? Ask for repentance? Walk the Camino de Santiago backwards?! WTF?!
“Defying the world body.” What friggin’ world body? A majority of countries? I’d like to see a count, as far as I remember a majority of European countries were behind the US.
“Declining security situation.” Bollocks! But of course The Guardian will have it life under the great helmsman Saddam was way fabulous!
Translation from Guardian-speak:
“We the protector of virtue most holy and immaculate the Guardian have in our unlimited wisdom judged Bush to be mistaken. How dare he, he show no contrition - he must make amends.”
Have you spent the last six months with your fingers in your ears going “la la la!”???
Such a resolution is never going to appear because the US has a VETO. Remember them? Those were the nasty things that the terrible French were using and everyone just clean forgot how frequently the US florishes its.
That’s what’s called a strawman. Futile didn’t say that the UN told Bush he was wrong. It’s stupid of you to ask for proof of something that Futile didn’t say.
Clearly you don’t read the Guardian, then, which is constantly banging on about human rights in tyrannical countries, and criticizing the West for its involvement therewith.
Try “humiliating withdrawal” (and I don’t mean from Laura).
So a Security Council Resolution is the UN’s only option? Surely they can pass a general resolution condemning the US. So where is it, where is the condemnation? It should be even simpler, since the US can’t veto that. The UN condemned the US on Cuba, surely something as serious as the invasion of another country could get such a condemnation. I mean, if all these countries where so against the US, then surely they have the stones to come out and say “you were wrong”. If the UN can’t come together as a unified body against one of its members, even one on the Security Council, and tell them they were wrong, then why should they expect an apology.
Desmostylus, what part of “word of apology” do you NOT understand? If the Bush should have given an apology, surely it was for some king of wrong.
