The aide to the Canadian prime minister, who made a comment in private that was revealed publicly that he thought President Bush was a moron, has resigned because of the controversy.
What the fuck? He said Bush was a moron. It’s not a fucking crime. Hell, Bush is a fucking moron. Is there a goddamn INQUISITION against anyone who harbors any negative attitudes about President Bush? Is this the fucking Dark Ages where all voices of dissent against our Fearless Leader must be crushed?
Like it our not, aides to high government officials are in the public relations business. If you can’t be diplomatic in your job as an aide to the PM, it’s time to find a new line of work. He will be allowed to express his opinions all that he wants now that he is in the private sector or on the dole as the case may be. When he took the job he knew that that’s the way it would be.
Inquisition? Voices of desent must be crushed? That’s just a wee bit over the top, my friend.
Haj
What a sad day and age, where a person can be forced out of office because they have a negative opinion of a United States official.
This is a fucking travesty. And I’m disappointed in Francoise Ducros for not standing up for herself. “Oh pretty please, PLEASE forgive me for speaking unkindly of the United States President. I didn’t mean it!” Her obsequiousness after the fact was downright discusting. She should have stuck with her opinion, and said publicly that if they want to fire her for not liking George Bush, then go ahead and fucking do it. None of this self abasing bullshit that she pulled off which ended in the same result, losing her job.
As a public official, she fucked up big time. She is certainly entitled to her opinion but she should have kept it to herself. An American aide would have also “resigned” for a similar transgression. Don’t try to make this into an “Americans push everyone else around” thing because that’s not what it is.
Haj
Boneheaded? Yes
A non-event? Yes
Like Hajsaid, it’s all PR.
I agree with you, Blalron. It reminds me of the Washington, D.C. offical who caused an uproar by using the word “niggardly.” I was so pissed off that s/he (who knows?) resigned instead of retorting that everyone who had thrown a fit was illiterate.
George Bush IS a moron. I said it. I will not resign, either.
Such a tedious non-event. I’m a little disgusted that she resigned and the media are making such a big deal out of this. American and Canadian public officials have a long and proud tradition of sniping at each other. It’s utterly meaningless in the bigger picture.
I wish we could have politicians in office that could say what they think, without fears of repercussion. If some politician came out and said, “OK, I’ve cheated on my spouse, I smoked pot in college, and I’m going to go have a beer in about five minutes, right after I get a BJ” hell, I’d vote for him/her. I’d sooner trust a real person, than someone restricted by the guidance of their PR people.
I disagree with CNN’s handling of this big time. My view can be seen next door, in fact.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=146473
Oooh. That was very brave and all but you do realize that there is a difference between an anonymous message board posting and a statement by someone who by the definition of their job is a representative of their Government. Have you even been paying attention?
This woman took a job where she knew going in that such statements would cost her her job. Fair or unfair, that’s the way it is with any government employee in her position in virtually every govenment in the world.
Haj
And if acting that way garnered them more votes, they would. Apparently focus groups have told them otherwise.
I agree that the simple fact that she called Bush a moron is meaningless in the big picture. But the fact that the media caused such an uproar over her comments that she was forced to resign, that does fit in the Big Picture somewhat.
She wasn’t fired, she quit. She didn’t quit because of what she said (she didn’t apologize to Bush). She resigned because she felt the controversy would not let her do her job properly. PM Chretien rejected her first resignation. Better that she resign than have nothing she says heard in the future because everyone wants to ask about the moron remark.
But hey, don’t let facts get in the way of a rant…
One thing to remember is that in diplomatic relations (even more than in normal politics), lots of communication is done behind the scenes and in elaborate expressions that are, basically, codes. Note how often fairly serious ideas are floated to the media as “off the record” or “an unnamed member suggested” and similar expressions. These are usually examples of one country sounding out other countries before making official proposals. If the wrong country begins screaming “That’s bad!” the original country simply claims that a phrase was taken out of context or misquoted or that it was a suggestion from a “lower level” analyst who is not really making policy and everyone realizes that the idea will be quashed while no one has to apologize for the “dumb” idea.
Now, what is the difference (to the audience in another country when displayed in the media) between a low-level bureaucrat “suggesting” that Country A’s executive does not “understand” a situation or that Country B’s executive has been too hard (or too soft) on dissidence, and suggesting that Country U’s executive is defective in intelligence? All these messages are coming from the same sources through the same outlets. What distinguishes a personal comment from an “off the record” offical comment?
Since any official in an administration can pass on coded messages by having a “conversation” with a reporter, how does one distinguish a message from a personal belief? The answer becomes “There are no personal beliefs while you occupy an office in an administration.” (Remember, this was the person whose job it was to make these sort of communications.)
It is probably not fair and it can certainly look silly, but that is why etiquette and protocol evolve: to avoid sending confusing messages that will actually harm one’s own position. (My memory is that some members of the Bush administration made the appropriate huffing sounds over the incident, but that no one reporting to Bush demanded either her resignation. I don’t even recall a demand for an apology, although I would suppose one was issued.)
I watch the same thing in corporate politics (and even office politics) all the time; there are certain things that subordinates simply do not say lest the boss’s plans are trashed.
Since when the fuck is ‘resign’ equal to “forced out of office”? She was a diplomat. She’s responsible for what she says. She should’ve known that wasn’t a smooth thing to say. If she didn’t forsee the flak, then she’s the moron here. It was one of the most tactless and unprofessional comments. The flak she received was warranted, regardless of any alleged truth behind the statement.
Oh, for the love of Cecil!!!….
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/11/22/bush_ducros021122
Yep, George had to swallow his pride. That was easier than swallowing a pretzel 
Heh, talk about George smashing the dissidents.
Nah, Mr. major league will never do that. 
Bush is a moron. Bush is a moron. Bush is a moron. Bush is a moron. Bush is a moron. Bush is a moron. Bush is a moron. Bush is a moron. Bush is a moron. Bush is a moron. Bush is a moron. Bush is a moron. Bush is a moron. Bush is a moron. Bush is a moron.
Oh, for the love of fuck. The woman’s a diplomat. If she can’t stop herself from disparaging the leader of her country’s closest neighbor/ally/trading partner, she isn’t much of a diplomat, is she? At least she had the sense to recognize it herself, and resigned early, before this became any more of a problem.