She said it in private. What, every Canadian diplomat MUST praise our fucktard president even in private? Fuck that. The woman has integrity—and dignity, unlike that little ass-kissing weasel Tony Blair.
I completely agree with this decision. I believe every political official with the ability to significantly alter foreign relations should resign whenever a supposedly private conversation containing desparaging remarks about a country is broadcast to the world. It’s about damn time this happened too. I’ve been waiting long enough!
I mean, I was in shock when I heard it. “My fellow Americans, I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”
Oh goodness, are we not talking about the Gipper?
Maybe if she had said that Bush is a terrorist, a vile and unprincipled madman who possesses weapons of mass destruction and heads an Axis of Evil — maybe that would have been okay.
That may be but he can string together more than four words. If Bush is a moron you are a fucking idiot. Actually, I am not sure about the ‘fucking’ because I doubt you could find the right body parts to use in that complex operation. I think that insert ‘knob a’ into ‘slot b’ is above your level.
Now, here are some crayons. No, don’t eat them.
Slee
Sure, as long as she wasn’t looking to be an ally. Same goes for the above Reagan quote.
The point is you don’t get to call your allies playground names. You have to be more subtle. If diplomats get caught calling their allies playground names, they resign. It’s really quite simple. You can call your non-allies whatever you like, unless you are in some sort of delicate negotiation with them, then you probably have to resigne then, too.
The comment was made during a private conversation between the aide and the PM. It was overheard by a reporter with a beef eavesdropping on the conversation – and thrown all over North America.
Nevermind that many people share the same opinion of Bush. Nevermind that she offered to resign, and was refused until she offered again.
I despise the reporter who decided to take that comment and turn it into a story. That’s vile.
It was a silly thing for someone in her position to say. I’m surprised the PM didn’t accept her resignation.
But in the same vein - check this out. A ‘standards’ agency in the UK has decided that an advert for a satirical show that pokes fun at President Bush is ‘offensive’ and have banned the ad :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/2518151.stm
It only applies to the advertisement, not to the programme, but it’s a worrisome precedent. The justification given … :
This is complete bollocks, otherwise all Private Eye newspaper ads for the past 40 years would be banned too.
Someone pointed out that Bush has been praised by more heads of government than any other: first Schroeder specifically said he wasn’t a Nazi, then Chrétien specifically said he wasn’t a moron.
“Sophie, I’ve been filled with rage since you were a twinkle in your sperm donor’s eye.”
- Mo, in Dykes to Watch Out For
That’s exactly with whom people should be angry. She resigned because she would forevermore be known as the woman who called Bush a moron, and would have everything she does referred back to that remark.
Here, Matt. Links are second-level:
Note in passing that no one here has actually called Ducros’ assessment wrong, only her choice to say it out loud. Just thought I’d mention it.
So, what if the some hypothetical politician said “the faggots in this country are worse than finding boll weavils in a crop already damaged by hail! I recognize that the constitution doesn’t allow it, but I would support an amendment creating a government program to ship all faggots to Greenland where they can prance and wear pink and produce lesbian porn that I’ll watch at my summer house!”
Personally, I thought the whole point of a democracy was that the politicians would be very aware of the repurcussions.
I certainly agree with the woman’s assessment of the US President - although i also think she would have been better off taking Libertarian’s advice about what to say. 
That said, surely her resignation (whether forced or not) was a rather predictable outcome? I must say that Jean Chretien displayed more backbone than i thought he possessed by rejecting it the first time.
I’m not sure obfusciatrist’s example really applies here. A general piece of prejudice - ranting against homosexuals or blacks or women or whatever - is not the same as a reference to a specific individual and his or her capabilities. The woman’s assessment of Bush was not based on his race, his sex, his age, his sexuality etc., but represented her feelings about his competence based, i presume, upon her knowledge of what he had said and done while in office. You may disagree with her assessment, but it’s not the same as a blanket prejudice.
I don’t mean to say they were the same. Just that the wish for politicians to be able to say what they want without fear of repercussion for what they’ve said is not something I would hope for.