Our world
: I watched much of the Fox interview with Bush last night (inbetween doing the dishes) and I’m still struck by what Bush said is the first thing he does every day: He comes to his office to review the threat sheet, the summary of those who would attack us. That is Job 1 and that is our world today.
26 responses to “Our world”
-
I agree about Job 1. I’d like to know what the Democratic challengers have in mind when it comes to this.
-
You don’t have a dishwasher? And you do your own dishes?
Somehow, you’ve gone up in my estimation, Mr Jarvis. -
Sure is.
-
Jackie:
When I worked at Ponderosa Steak House (as the kitchen manager, I’ll have you know, in charge of busboys and spudboys), the manager introduced us all to dishwashing and he pointed to the big, stainless-steel machine and said, “This is not a dishwasher. This is a dish sanitizer. YOU are dishwashers.”
Humbled to this day. -
If you had been watching Monday Night Football, you would probably have seen a promo for ABC’s new show “The Threat Matrix”, which is supposedly based on that premise – the threats the president reads about first thing in the morning.
-
President can read?
-
Yes Faramin, amazingly enough he is even smarter than YOU!
-
The poor,misguided democrats are still stuck on lesser issues like the economy, health, education, and the foolish notion of rebuilding some kind of relationship with the rest of the world.
Poor saps. They should be reviewing threat sheets and brooding over who’s a threat. That’s Job 1. Darn right.
Ah, Fox Populi… -
Right on, balbulican! Getting a job, paying the doctor, sending my kids to school, liking French wine, those are things I can’t do myself. I need the help of the Federal Government spending lots of money because I have been victimized by the system. But defending myself from wacko Islamofascists who want to kill me without warning, that’s something I can do before breakfast, and I sure don’t need help from W to do it!
Cox Balbuli -
Dear Booblican:
Actually, the democrats aren’t really focused on those issues at all. They are mostly interested in talking about “quagmire” that doesn’t exist. Maybe the economy, but the President doesn’t control the economy nor should he try to (steel tariffs). If you believe the President is responsible for the economy, stupid, then you will realize that the economy started falling in the beginning of 2000 with the NASDAQ crash in April that year under Clinton’s watch. However, I don’t believe Presidents can do much. The little they do (tweaking, really) takes years to show up in the economy.
As for education. I think it works here just fine. I have a friend who was abused (face and arms broken by mom) and went to a school in a small town an hour North of Albany, put her self through school (parents wouldn’t help, laughed at her University is useless…) became a CPA and is making $150,000 a year at 28. Europe’s elite study here, my Euro/foreign middle class friends at school said an American education meant a better job (two from Sweden no less!) so I think we have that covered. It looks great on a resume…I wonder why?
The Europeans (since you are always in a pissing match) have buried 10,000 dead because of heat this summer? Their politicians and many children and grandchildren preferring to stay on holiday rather than bury mom and grandma. The politicians didn’t go home either. What does that say about them?
As far as a relationship with the rest of the world? You think I am going to leave my future in the hands of Chirac? Schroeder? You are out of your mind. Bite me. -
P.S.
Another reason so many died because of heat? The “European” health care system. 80 patients per 5 workers at French public nursing homes. Great! Doctors don’t come back from vacation in August unless demanded by government (no one demanded it, people died).
My friend Kim in Clapham, London showed me the dump hospital she was born in. It wasn’t a dump in 1960. It was in 1999. It looked like an abandoned building, not a hospital. And her baby almost died from pnemonia from a health care system that told her she should “take some tylenol” and see what happens. By the time she freaked out and took her to the hospital, the doctors who initially treated her like an imbecile came back red faced. One of her daughter’s lung was almost filled with fluid. But no doctor would see her until she sat in emergency screaming and demanding attention from the patronizing bastards who call themselves doctors. That’s nationalized healthcare.
Bug off. -
Catherine – you may have a point on centrally controlled state healthcare systems but it seems rather fanciful to imagine that the democrats are proposing any such thing, nor are they intent on the establishment of mainland European style social democracy surely?
-
Cooper,
I disagree. The Democratic leadership (as opposed to people who vote for them) ARE committed to setting up a european style socialist government. They have long since abandoned the idea of a Constitutionally limited, republican (small ‘r’ intentional) form of government.
Sen. Clinton is particularly scary in that regard. IMO, voting for her is voting to revoke the Constitution. Asking her to run for President just to add another ‘win’ in the Democratic column is unconscionable if one truly believes in the founding principles of our nation.
Socialism kills and socialists are unconcerned about the killing. -
“you may have a point on centrally controlled state healthcare systems but it seems rather fanciful to imagine that the democrats are proposing any such thing.”
Sure they are. What do you think “single payer” is? Why do you think they keep lauding Canada’s single payer system? WHy do you think they keep pushing to expand government funding, and therefore control, of your health care? -
“Bite me”, Catherine? Umm…no, thanks…we don’t know each other well enough.
I’m glad your friend got a good education. That certainly answers any questions I had about increasing rate of adult illiteracy in the US.
That’s awful about your friend Kim’s baby. I guess that proves conclusively that the US medical system is in great shape.
As for America’s relationship with the rest of the world…your President seems to be on the verge of realizing that maybe the UN isn’t as “irrelevant” as he declared it last year. -
…your President seems to be on the verge of realizing that maybe the UN isn’t as “irrelevant” as he declared it last year.
Balbulican:
Please provide link or source for this. This appears to be a genuine attempt to work with an “irrelevant” UN. Seems like there was a U.S. attempt at another UNSC resolution as well but it failed. Seems that certain UNSC countries have a veto power and they sometimes wield it unilaterally”>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/iraq_03-10-03.html”>unilaterally. -
Tongue Boy, your link didn’t work for me…can you post a URL? Thanks.
My source is the Reuters coverage of Mr. Bush’s address to the UN. Quote:
“Bush spoke as the United States sought support for a new U.N. resolution creating a multinational force for Iraq, offering a role for the United Nations (news – web sites) that appeared to be more limited than some leaders prefer. He said the United Nations should assist in developing a constitution, training civil servants and conducting free and fair elections.
…Bush appeared before the General Assembly one year after challenging the United Nations to stand up to Iraq or risk becoming irrelevant. His job approval ratings have dropped from the 70 percent range during the war to 50 percent, about what where they were before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Bush said he recognized that “some of the sovereign nations of this assembly disagreed with our actions” but said unity remained on the fundamental principles and objectives of the United Nations.”
Bush said the war was justified by what has been learned about the cruelty of Saddam, whose whereabouts remain unknown in spite of a massive manhunt. He held out the possibility that the promised weapons of mass destruction might yet be found.
“We are now interviewing Iraqi citizens and analyzing records of the old regime, to reveal the full extent of its weapons programs and long campaign of deception,” he added. -
The first link didn’t work. Try this and scroll down to “Security Council resolution 1441 (2002)”. Clink on the link. Refresh your memory.
-
Balbulican:
“…Bush appeared before the General Assembly one year after challenging the United Nations to stand up to Iraq or risk becoming irrelevant.”
Is this the section you refer to? If so, your interpretation is a bit of a stretch. He certainly didn’t *call* the U.N. irrelevant but did point out that the U.N. was *in danger* of irrelevancy. While a compelling argument can be made that except for some public health initiatives the U.N., as currently constituted, *is* irrelevant, that is not what Bush was doing here. -
Here is the list of new terms used by the White House and practiced by the president every morning; if he can read that is.
-
Wow! babublican and friends reactions to Bush just continue to get more erudite and nuanced
-
Ummm…thank. I guess.
-
Tongue Boy, I guess my broader point was this. The US has the military capacity to conquer and occupy pretty much any country on the planet. I am not sure, however, that the US has the capacity to establish a stable indigenous government in Iraq without the support and involvement of other countries. As it happens, that’s the kind of thing the UN is relatively good at.
Erudite and nuanced enough, Eric?
Your dismissal of the UN, apart from “some public health initiatives” (which have been some of the most important public health accomplishments in history, unless you’re a fan of smallpox and polio), is inaccurate. You’re forgetting their successful peacekeeping initiatives in El Salvador, Cambodia, Macedonia, Mozambique, Namibia, Cyprus and Haiti. You’re ignoring the work of UNHCR and Unicef, both organizations I’ve worked with, both doing extraordinary work.
Like it or not, the UN has a not bad track record of nation building. Yup, lots of failure as well…but a strong body of experience and expertise.
My point (sorry to be rambling on like this) is that in his more recent pronouncements, Mr. Bush has appeared more interested in working with the UN on the reconstruction of Iraq. Cynics are suggesting this is for two reasons:
– a desire to “spread the pain” a bit by broadening the occupation force and lessening the number of American troops killed; and,
– a desire to see other people pay the cost of occupation and reconstruction.
Somewhat less cynically, I was suggesting that perhaps the US administration may be realizing that there is value in partnership: that the sustainability of any new government in Iraq will depend, in part, on its legitimacy judged in the international community of nations, and that that legitimacy will be enhanced by UN participation in the process. -
balbulican-
I don’t think that any of the latest pronouncements by the administration indicate a “discovery” of the value of partnership nor of the capabilities of the UN. Note that we did attempt to persuade the UN to get involved in the first place and that we did have a modest coalition going into this thing.
I do believe that the administration has been looking for a way to tap UN resources where they are strong, proven, and it makes sense given the situation on the ground. Today, our armed forces are still conducting raids that require cooperation from various areas of the country. It makes little sense to hand over administration to the UN if it would permit someone with an axe to grind the opportunity to delay a helicopter flight carrying special forces destined for a critical raid.
By the same token and as Mr. Bush pointed out in his speech, the UN is on the ground delivering food and giving immunizations; rebuilding what has long been a broken country.
What is disappointing, IMO, is the attitude that the US has some sort of obligation to be subservient to UN votes and policies. That body has not demonstrated its committment to individual liberty and therefore is not a fitting recipient of that sort of power.
The Iraqi government was destroyed for all the right reasons. The UN had a gold embossed invitation to the dance. Yet for reasons that had little to do with a love for Saddam and much to do with dislike of the US, the UN opted not to participate.
The decision to follow a just and proper course of action should not be dependent on such irrational motivations. -
Dann:
It is ironic to hear you berate the UN: “that body has not demonstrated its committment to individual liberty and therefore is not a fitting recipient of that sort of power.”
Many Americans, and foreigners (the rest of the world, in other words) would say the same thing about your government. There are a lot of people who have been arested and afforded no hearing in front of a court of law, that’s in the US.
The UN recognizes every human being’s inalienable rights, as the Universal Declaration of Human Rigths bear witness to.
Among some of the things which most of us find to be among those rights is the right to decide wether you should keep a child conceived by rape or incest, which some members of the Bush cabinet don’t think you should be able to do.
And the US, together with one other country (one of your earlier bad guys Somalia) doesn’t recognize the Convention on the Rights of the Child. (Note that Iraq by not being metioned as one of the two countries not recognizing this convent must be assumed to have recognized it.)
I was against the Iraq war, on the principle that it was brought on the wrong grounds, and by Bush. I think that the result will, in time, be good for the Iraqi people. I now think I was wrong in opposing the war. I still oppose Bush.
Tongue Boy
Yes, unilaterarly wielding their veto powers is bad. I read the linked article and it was not just France, but Russia and probably Pakistan. How is that unilateral? The elected UNSC memebers seem to be mostly poor nations these days, easily bought off; as last year, by promises of aid, or more likely: the threat of withdrawal of such aid.
Truly unilateral: USA on the security wall built by Israel in the West Bank, on the Israeli decision to “remove” Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat, on the killing by Israeli forces of several United Nations employees and the destruction of the World Food Programme (WFP) warehouse and on and on, mostly with regards to Israeli/Palestinian relations.
Note how the USA didn’t vote for S/2002/1385 …expressing grave concern at the killing by the Israeli occupying forces of several United Nations employees…(among several other points) . I can’t see that this is something which is much less a henious crime than the Bagdad UN bombing.
In fact it seemed a much more clear cut case, don’t it, when you even know who did the killing and why?
Catherine:
Before bashing the European system:
“The significance of the problem [universal health care for children] can be measured when Vice President Gore promises that, if he wins the elections, in 2005 medical services will be offered to all U.S. children, something that, for example, Cuba achieved decades ago, despite the enduring U.S. blockade.”
Cuban Solidarity on health care in Cuba and its success internationally.
With a little searching you will find that children die of curable diseases or don’t receive any help at all, in the US.
Yes, what happened in Europe this summer was horrible, but remember this was a natural catastrophe, I don’t think anyone actually sat down and thought “to hell with my old mum, she can take care of herself”. I’m sure the French who found their elderly family members dead of the heat felt grief and, probably a lot of guilt as well.
You attribute human fallacy to just one group of people based on their geography. That’s not far from attributing it to someone because of ethnicity, sex, religion, or any other arbitrarily selected attribute of a human being which you yourself doesn’t posess.
It is much fun to look up arguments against the US, because you often find no consitency in policies (in as much as the US tend to always support Israel, but all others with atomics or occupying others are terrorists, etc., or free trade, which means free for American Industry and not everybody else).
The fun is brought to heel by the hard reality of the world’s mightiest nation behaving no better than the school yard bully. Might makes right, and the America First movement seems to be at the helm.
I sometimes find myself hoping for a big dip in the market; make the American economy bleed, bring down the system. I’m sure I’d loose out, though, and then my survival instincts set in, and I’m no better than the rest of the America First people.
I’m a Norwegian, by the way, my wording sometimes might lead you to think otherwise. -
PS:
You have to go back to February 6, 1976 to find a unilateral veto by France. Then back to August 25, 1947.
To the credit of the United States of America, they didn’t veto once until March 17, 1970. An impressive record.
According to this source, of course (clickable link in my previous post, I don’t have the greater than and less than characters on this keyboard…long story):
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm
