'One Bullet' Less Costly Than War, Bush Spokesman Says
October 2, 2002 12:14 PM Subscribe
'One Bullet' Less Costly Than War, Bush Spokesman Says dangerous talk? especially coming from the office of a man who is less popular with much of the worlds population than the man in question.
1. Are you saying that you would rather have the US invade Iraq than an Iraqi assassin take out Saddam (That is what Ari was talking about, I watched the press conference)?
2. You really think that Saddam is more popular world wide than Bush?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:19 PM on October 2, 2002
2. You really think that Saddam is more popular world wide than Bush?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:19 PM on October 2, 2002
The White House press secretary yesterday said the Bush administration would welcome the assassination of Saddam Hussein by his countrymen, arguing that "one bullet" would be a cost-effective way of removing the threat the Iraqi leader represents.
Just stupid talk, in my opinion. There is a ban on assassinations by the US gov't for a reason.
posted by goethean at 12:21 PM on October 2, 2002
Just stupid talk, in my opinion. There is a ban on assassinations by the US gov't for a reason.
posted by goethean at 12:21 PM on October 2, 2002
by his countrymen
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:23 PM on October 2, 2002
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:23 PM on October 2, 2002
true, but the CIA has a long and distinguished (?) history of popping off those annoying indviduals who crop up from time to time...
posted by ZenNerd at 12:25 PM on October 2, 2002
posted by ZenNerd at 12:25 PM on October 2, 2002
Goethean, in one article I read it tried to make a distinction between military leaders and political leaders, saying Saddam was a military leader and thus a legitimate assassination target.
posted by cell divide at 12:26 PM on October 2, 2002
posted by cell divide at 12:26 PM on October 2, 2002
It's important to note that Fleischer backed off a bit later, and qualified his comments:
Fleischer's unusually colorful remarks created a stir in the White House news corps, and Fleischer called reporters after the briefing to tone down the impact of his words. "I was making a rhetorical point about the cost of the bullet," he said. "The point I'm making is not an administration policy. If the Iraqi people took events into their own hands, the world would not shed a tear. I'm not stating administration policy, I'm stating the obvious."
This administration seems especially clumsy in matters of international diplomacy. Unless, of course, this is some sort of tactic.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:28 PM on October 2, 2002
Fleischer's unusually colorful remarks created a stir in the White House news corps, and Fleischer called reporters after the briefing to tone down the impact of his words. "I was making a rhetorical point about the cost of the bullet," he said. "The point I'm making is not an administration policy. If the Iraqi people took events into their own hands, the world would not shed a tear. I'm not stating administration policy, I'm stating the obvious."
This administration seems especially clumsy in matters of international diplomacy. Unless, of course, this is some sort of tactic.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:28 PM on October 2, 2002
There is a ban on assassinations by the US gov't for a reason.
fleischer basically said that if someone in iraq would pick off hussein, then a war wouldn't be necessary. well, what the fuck? basically the war is an excuse to assassinate hussein. i don't get it. is it more honorable to kill him by invading his country, killing lots of people on both sides, etc. than just picking him off?
i get more sickened by the doublespeak by the day. i cannot wait until 2004.
posted by centrs at 12:29 PM on October 2, 2002
fleischer basically said that if someone in iraq would pick off hussein, then a war wouldn't be necessary. well, what the fuck? basically the war is an excuse to assassinate hussein. i don't get it. is it more honorable to kill him by invading his country, killing lots of people on both sides, etc. than just picking him off?
i get more sickened by the doublespeak by the day. i cannot wait until 2004.
posted by centrs at 12:29 PM on October 2, 2002
by his countrymen
So how would you feel if another country's government said that about the President of the United States?
posted by moonbiter at 12:29 PM on October 2, 2002
So how would you feel if another country's government said that about the President of the United States?
posted by moonbiter at 12:29 PM on October 2, 2002
what's next, a bounty?
posted by widdershins at 12:30 PM on October 2, 2002
posted by widdershins at 12:30 PM on October 2, 2002
by his countrymen
I know that. That doesn't really make it any less stupid for a head of state to encourage assassinations of heads of state.
posted by goethean at 12:30 PM on October 2, 2002
I know that. That doesn't really make it any less stupid for a head of state to encourage assassinations of heads of state.
posted by goethean at 12:30 PM on October 2, 2002
I certainly hope somebody just shoots Saddam. It would save a lot of people a lot of trouble. Cause some new trouble, too, probably, but I'm skeptical that whoever replaces Saddam could be worse, or as bad.
posted by callmejay at 12:30 PM on October 2, 2002
posted by callmejay at 12:30 PM on October 2, 2002
"Regime change is welcome in whatever form that it takes."
a) Ok, that is really going to help our "no, we don't have a personal grudge against Saddam, we just want world peace" argument.
b) So, let's use the same screw-the-rules tactics that put the current regime in place, because that will obviously not backfire and lead to another horrible regime taking over...
"The point I'm making is not an administration policy" - Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary
Ok then, where the fuck can we find out what the administration's policies are then? Do you really want us to listen to Bush?!?
{bumpersticker}
The Bush Administration - rewriting the definition of unprofessional.
{/bumpersticker}
posted by zekinskia at 12:32 PM on October 2, 2002
a) Ok, that is really going to help our "no, we don't have a personal grudge against Saddam, we just want world peace" argument.
b) So, let's use the same screw-the-rules tactics that put the current regime in place, because that will obviously not backfire and lead to another horrible regime taking over...
"The point I'm making is not an administration policy" - Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary
Ok then, where the fuck can we find out what the administration's policies are then? Do you really want us to listen to Bush?!?
{bumpersticker}
The Bush Administration - rewriting the definition of unprofessional.
{/bumpersticker}
posted by zekinskia at 12:32 PM on October 2, 2002
Once again I pose my question: Are you saying that you would rather have the US invade Iraq than an Iraqi assassin take out Saddam ?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:33 PM on October 2, 2002
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:33 PM on October 2, 2002
dangerous talk? The article and the statements by Fleischer, struck me as just that.
posted by specialk420 at 12:33 PM on October 2, 2002
posted by specialk420 at 12:33 PM on October 2, 2002
Also, he's seen as a terrorist, right?
"Drawing on two classified legal memoranda, one written for President Bill Clinton in 1998 and one written after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration concluded that executive orders banning assassination did not prevent the president from lawfully singling out a terrorist for death by covert action."
It's clear what they mean it to be: it's a threat. Yet another one. Whether or not this is a bad guy, it's politically inept to say it out loud. The rest of the world - esp. muslim, Arab, other non-democratic countries - will be up in arms about this.
I don't think we'll get a 'New American Century' at this rate. I think a 'New Muslim Century' could be the unintended consequence of the Administrations actions.
And I certainly won't be happy about that.
posted by dash_slot- at 12:34 PM on October 2, 2002
"Drawing on two classified legal memoranda, one written for President Bill Clinton in 1998 and one written after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration concluded that executive orders banning assassination did not prevent the president from lawfully singling out a terrorist for death by covert action."
It's clear what they mean it to be: it's a threat. Yet another one. Whether or not this is a bad guy, it's politically inept to say it out loud. The rest of the world - esp. muslim, Arab, other non-democratic countries - will be up in arms about this.
I don't think we'll get a 'New American Century' at this rate. I think a 'New Muslim Century' could be the unintended consequence of the Administrations actions.
And I certainly won't be happy about that.
posted by dash_slot- at 12:34 PM on October 2, 2002
"what's next, a bounty?"
More likely a posse.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:35 PM on October 2, 2002
More likely a posse.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:35 PM on October 2, 2002
Funny, Saddam supposedly threatened Bush Sr.'s life and that hurt little Georgie's feelings so that's part of the reason he wants to invade Iraq now. It's not okay for them to say "take out the PResident" but it's okay for us to say "Take out Iraq's president?"
We're so hypocritical. No wonder the world laughs at us thinks we're all as stupid as the current administration.
That said, I wish he would be assisinated, as well. But I don't think it's a good idea to stand on the world's stage and say that. Come on, Ari and Bush. Have some respect for how we come off to the world.
posted by aacheson at 12:36 PM on October 2, 2002
We're so hypocritical. No wonder the world laughs at us thinks we're all as stupid as the current administration.
That said, I wish he would be assisinated, as well. But I don't think it's a good idea to stand on the world's stage and say that. Come on, Ari and Bush. Have some respect for how we come off to the world.
posted by aacheson at 12:36 PM on October 2, 2002
Funny thing is, if one of us said this about Bush, the Secret Service would be all over our asses faster than you can say "strategerize".
posted by briank at 12:37 PM on October 2, 2002
posted by briank at 12:37 PM on October 2, 2002
So steve do you honestly think that if Sadam were to be assassinated that it will not be necessary to invade Iraq?
Do you really believe that this is the only goal of the Bush administration?
posted by yertledaturtle at 12:40 PM on October 2, 2002
Do you really believe that this is the only goal of the Bush administration?
posted by yertledaturtle at 12:40 PM on October 2, 2002
Steve, let's rephrase the question: Would you rather that governments continue to wage war, or would you rather that citizens of beleaguered countries learn that taking it upon themselves to assassinate their leaders might forestall an invasion? One bullet is something that a citizen can take into his own hands, and if individuals in all countries in the world believe that they can (and, in fact, are encouraged to) have such power on affairs of state, the world is a messier, less stable place.
posted by blueshammer at 12:41 PM on October 2, 2002
posted by blueshammer at 12:41 PM on October 2, 2002
No, I just wondering what you doves think about this....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:41 PM on October 2, 2002
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:41 PM on October 2, 2002
I dream of the day when some brain in the administration comes out with a clear, well-elucidated doctrine/set of policy principles/foreign policy goals. Not that they have to follow them (too much to ask?), but I'd like to know how they balance their opposition to the International Criminal Court/UN on the grounds of national self-determination with a rather cavalier policy of intervening in third-world countries that present even a rhetorical threat to the United States. Or is the latter just an extreme extension of national self-determination (as in, we have the right to determine what our country does, and what we're going to do is intervene in other countries).
posted by risenc at 12:42 PM on October 2, 2002
posted by risenc at 12:42 PM on October 2, 2002
All I can say about this is that I am very disappointed that the Washington Post wouldn't believe I was female, born in 1890, and living in Alaska. I had to change it to 1901.
Hey, I could be 112!
posted by yhbc at 12:42 PM on October 2, 2002
Hey, I could be 112!
posted by yhbc at 12:42 PM on October 2, 2002
Are you saying that you would rather have the US invade Iraq than an Iraqi assassin take out Saddam ?
For what it's worth, Steve_at_Linnwood, I'd prefer neither.
posted by *burp* at 12:45 PM on October 2, 2002
For what it's worth, Steve_at_Linnwood, I'd prefer neither.
posted by *burp* at 12:45 PM on October 2, 2002
an interesting side note - this was front page NYT print today - when i went looking for it online, it was gone from the FP of the NY Times and was dropping fast off the the FP of the post. strange.
posted by specialk420 at 12:45 PM on October 2, 2002
posted by specialk420 at 12:45 PM on October 2, 2002
Am I the only one who feels like this administrations post Sept. 11 stance is too much like a pissed off rattlesnake for comfort?
posted by foxyfoxinsox at 12:46 PM on October 2, 2002
posted by foxyfoxinsox at 12:46 PM on October 2, 2002
That's it, no wedding present for Ari from me.
Steve_at_Linwood: Depends. What happens after the one bullet? Iraqi infrastructure collapse that we don't worry about because we no longer care? Iraqi infrastructure collapse that we *do* worry about and so occupy the country? A new dictatorship? Occupation by Iran?
But yes, all else being equal I would prefer one dead Saddam to one dead Saddam and a bunch of dead Americans and Iraqis and anyone else. Dang. Don't you wish one of us traitorous doves had said the opposite?
posted by hackly_fracture at 12:46 PM on October 2, 2002
Steve_at_Linwood: Depends. What happens after the one bullet? Iraqi infrastructure collapse that we don't worry about because we no longer care? Iraqi infrastructure collapse that we *do* worry about and so occupy the country? A new dictatorship? Occupation by Iran?
But yes, all else being equal I would prefer one dead Saddam to one dead Saddam and a bunch of dead Americans and Iraqis and anyone else. Dang. Don't you wish one of us traitorous doves had said the opposite?
posted by hackly_fracture at 12:46 PM on October 2, 2002
It is amazing to me that those words are coming out of the official mouthpiece of the administration of the United States of America. This crystallizes why there is so much anti-American sentiment all over the world - how can Americans not be seen as a) hypocrites and b) the biggest bully on the playground after statements like these? Personal opinions and/or common sense aside, these comments are so inappropriate they hurt. I would ask how much lower can the administration go, but am afraid of the answer...
posted by widdershins at 12:48 PM on October 2, 2002
posted by widdershins at 12:48 PM on October 2, 2002
Don't you wish one of us traitorous doves had said the opposite?
No. I don't want American death, my self... I wish that an assassin's bullet could solve all the problems... but I know this to be impossible due to the reasons you pointed out about the infrastructure.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:54 PM on October 2, 2002
No. I don't want American death, my self... I wish that an assassin's bullet could solve all the problems... but I know this to be impossible due to the reasons you pointed out about the infrastructure.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:54 PM on October 2, 2002
No, I just wondering what you doves think about this....
I'm not particularly opposed to war in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter, if there are good reasons for it. I guess that doesn't make me a dove. Still I oppose a war against Iraq right now, moreso because of the hamfisted way the current administration has handled the whole affair.
I think that winning this particular battle is going to increase the likelihood of terrorist acts against the United States. It is also going to hurt our trustworthiness in the eyes of our allies.
Encouraging assassination, in my opinion, is just as bad.
posted by moonbiter at 12:56 PM on October 2, 2002
I'm not particularly opposed to war in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter, if there are good reasons for it. I guess that doesn't make me a dove. Still I oppose a war against Iraq right now, moreso because of the hamfisted way the current administration has handled the whole affair.
I think that winning this particular battle is going to increase the likelihood of terrorist acts against the United States. It is also going to hurt our trustworthiness in the eyes of our allies.
Encouraging assassination, in my opinion, is just as bad.
posted by moonbiter at 12:56 PM on October 2, 2002
Fleischer is a weasel. Do keep that in mind; he could make a change in the White House cafeteria menu an excuse for backpedaling.
We did not mean that the low-fat desserts would have fewer calories. We only said they would be lower in fat. Individuals still must watch their own calorie counts, a point on which the President has always remained firm.
/snark
goethean, the legal status of assassinations is somewhat murkier than that. They have never been legislatively banned, and certainly are sub rosa constitutionally.
Officially, the United States does not conduct or permit assassinations. However, this policy is not codified in law, but in an executive order (EO 123333) [sic; it's 12333] that the President can change at will and without public notice of the change. In addition, this policy does not define what an assassination is, and the United States has long distinguished assassinations as separate from military operations directed against enemy leaders in the course of self-defense.
Generally, assassinations are considered by international law experts as the murder of a targeted individual for political purposes, usually involving circumstances of a covert or "treacherous" nature. Whether the intended killing of an individual counts as an assassination or as a generally acceptable military operation depends on whether the relevant countries are at peace or war, the forces carrying out the killing, and the means by which the killing is carried out.
-- Decent summary from Newsaic
Here is the text of Executive Order 12333, including the prohibition on assassinations, first issued by Ronald Reagan, amending EOs issued by Ford and Carter. Under US law, executive orders have the force of law, but it takes a Supreme Court ruling or specific Congressional legislation to overturn it.
In any event, there is little question that Hussein's legitimacy as leader of Iraq was not obtained democratically, and there is no provision in Iraq for legal "regime change" in the form of elections. They probably have something that specifies if he goes, some other Tikriti boy gets to take over, of course. But the point of suggesting that Iraq actually take into its own hands the ouster of Saddam does seem like the kind of "multilateral" statement that would be welcomed by some. {eyeroll}
Sure, there's expediency here, but the crowd who's been expediently yelling for Any Solution But War ought to consider whether it's really morally superior to an Anyboy But Saddam policy. Is there no middle ground available here?
posted by dhartung at 1:02 PM on October 2, 2002
We did not mean that the low-fat desserts would have fewer calories. We only said they would be lower in fat. Individuals still must watch their own calorie counts, a point on which the President has always remained firm.
/snark
goethean, the legal status of assassinations is somewhat murkier than that. They have never been legislatively banned, and certainly are sub rosa constitutionally.
Officially, the United States does not conduct or permit assassinations. However, this policy is not codified in law, but in an executive order (EO 123333) [sic; it's 12333] that the President can change at will and without public notice of the change. In addition, this policy does not define what an assassination is, and the United States has long distinguished assassinations as separate from military operations directed against enemy leaders in the course of self-defense.
Generally, assassinations are considered by international law experts as the murder of a targeted individual for political purposes, usually involving circumstances of a covert or "treacherous" nature. Whether the intended killing of an individual counts as an assassination or as a generally acceptable military operation depends on whether the relevant countries are at peace or war, the forces carrying out the killing, and the means by which the killing is carried out.
-- Decent summary from Newsaic
Here is the text of Executive Order 12333, including the prohibition on assassinations, first issued by Ronald Reagan, amending EOs issued by Ford and Carter. Under US law, executive orders have the force of law, but it takes a Supreme Court ruling or specific Congressional legislation to overturn it.
In any event, there is little question that Hussein's legitimacy as leader of Iraq was not obtained democratically, and there is no provision in Iraq for legal "regime change" in the form of elections. They probably have something that specifies if he goes, some other Tikriti boy gets to take over, of course. But the point of suggesting that Iraq actually take into its own hands the ouster of Saddam does seem like the kind of "multilateral" statement that would be welcomed by some. {eyeroll}
Sure, there's expediency here, but the crowd who's been expediently yelling for Any Solution But War ought to consider whether it's really morally superior to an Anyboy But Saddam policy. Is there no middle ground available here?
posted by dhartung at 1:02 PM on October 2, 2002
'One Bullet' Less Costly Than War, Bush Spokesman Says
I'm not sure I necessarily agree with shooting Bush, but if it helps prevent the war, than surely it's an option that should be considered.>
posted by carter at 1:06 PM on October 2, 2002
I'm not sure I necessarily agree with shooting Bush, but if it helps prevent the war, than surely it's an option that should be considered.>
posted by carter at 1:06 PM on October 2, 2002
I'm sure Iraq feels that it would be less costly for an American citizen to take it into their own hands to assassinate the President, as well.
It's still a stupid idea, whatever side it comes from. Except phrased this way, you realize - gee that's not very democratic, is it?
The Bush administration realy needs to go on vacation, not issue any press releases, and just hang out with their Enron buddies in the Caymans until the economy rebounds by itself, finally able to climb out from all the rubble of war talk that is helping depress it.
posted by rich at 1:14 PM on October 2, 2002
It's still a stupid idea, whatever side it comes from. Except phrased this way, you realize - gee that's not very democratic, is it?
The Bush administration realy needs to go on vacation, not issue any press releases, and just hang out with their Enron buddies in the Caymans until the economy rebounds by itself, finally able to climb out from all the rubble of war talk that is helping depress it.
posted by rich at 1:14 PM on October 2, 2002
Steve,
I could care less if Sadam is done away with.
But, what Ari Fleischer is implying, is that assassinating him would prevent us from going to war with Iraq.
If this is what the administration truly believes then their stated goal of disarming iraq is a cover for their real desire to off Sadam.
The thing is- what does offing Sadam really solve?
Do they really believe this is a viable longterm solution?
Steve, do you believe this is a viable long term solution?
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:23 PM on October 2, 2002
I could care less if Sadam is done away with.
But, what Ari Fleischer is implying, is that assassinating him would prevent us from going to war with Iraq.
If this is what the administration truly believes then their stated goal of disarming iraq is a cover for their real desire to off Sadam.
The thing is- what does offing Sadam really solve?
Do they really believe this is a viable longterm solution?
Steve, do you believe this is a viable long term solution?
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:23 PM on October 2, 2002
especially coming from the office of a man who is less popular with much of the worlds population than the man in question.
See, this is where my efforts to understand those on the far left (and, I guess, "much of the worlds [sic] population") totally break down. Are people so deluded and blinded by their own reflexive response that they sympathize more with a savage despot who has killed beteween 50,000 and 100,000 of his own countrymen (to say nothing of his funneling money to support his military and weapons programs and leaving his citizens to suffer and die, all while blaming the U.S. (of course))?
I guess I should know better than to expect actual intellectual honesty in a time when U.S. congressmen go to Baghdad to proclaim to the world that the U.S. president is guilty of misinformation, but that what the Iraqi government says should be taken "at face value." (Of course, that "face value" snafu did at least lead to one of the all-time greatest editorial cartoons).
posted by pardonyou? at 1:23 PM on October 2, 2002
See, this is where my efforts to understand those on the far left (and, I guess, "much of the worlds [sic] population") totally break down. Are people so deluded and blinded by their own reflexive response that they sympathize more with a savage despot who has killed beteween 50,000 and 100,000 of his own countrymen (to say nothing of his funneling money to support his military and weapons programs and leaving his citizens to suffer and die, all while blaming the U.S. (of course))?
I guess I should know better than to expect actual intellectual honesty in a time when U.S. congressmen go to Baghdad to proclaim to the world that the U.S. president is guilty of misinformation, but that what the Iraqi government says should be taken "at face value." (Of course, that "face value" snafu did at least lead to one of the all-time greatest editorial cartoons).
posted by pardonyou? at 1:23 PM on October 2, 2002
Ok there are so many issues wrong with this statement and some statements maid by the people here.
1) Ari's position IS the position of the Administration. Thats what he gest paid for with our tax dollars. The white house briefing room is not a real life MetaFilter for Ari to speak his mind. He should have no mind. What the Administration tells him should be what he should be saying. So whatever he has said, I take that as official position of the President of USA.
2) There can be two reasons to invade Iraq. The move can be to rid Iraq of Weapons of Mass Destruction, or to assassinate Saddam Hussein. How would assassinating Saddam Hussein help ridding the country of WMD ??? What makes us sure that there wouldnt be a knee jerk reply by some suicidal group which takes over the government of Iraq ?
3) For the obvious reason, the One Bullet solution can and in my humble opinion will end up being the most costliest solution to the whole fasade. There are so many un known factors that come into play if Saddam just dies naturally, but to contemplate an assassination is nothing but a fools idea of conflict management.
4) "Would you rather that governments continue to wage war, or would you rather that citizens of beleaguered countries learn that taking it upon themselves to assassinate their leaders might forestall an invasion?"
If it is made ethical and totally acceptable for the citizens of a country to assassinate the government then a whole new can of worms will be opened. Lets just say, the hard line citizens of Pakistan (and we know there are many of them there), decide that they have had it with Musharraf and assassinate him. Will that be acceptable and held ethically correct by the USA ? Will the White House not intervene with a righteous comment about the issue ? Or For example, Lee Harvey Oswald, a citizen of the USA, and his friends thought that it was their duty to get rid of JFK. What is the White House position on that scenario ?
If this is the level thought process behind Ari's and White House's planning then for sure, the sooner the year 2004 arrives, the better.
posted by adnanbwp at 1:26 PM on October 2, 2002
1) Ari's position IS the position of the Administration. Thats what he gest paid for with our tax dollars. The white house briefing room is not a real life MetaFilter for Ari to speak his mind. He should have no mind. What the Administration tells him should be what he should be saying. So whatever he has said, I take that as official position of the President of USA.
2) There can be two reasons to invade Iraq. The move can be to rid Iraq of Weapons of Mass Destruction, or to assassinate Saddam Hussein. How would assassinating Saddam Hussein help ridding the country of WMD ??? What makes us sure that there wouldnt be a knee jerk reply by some suicidal group which takes over the government of Iraq ?
3) For the obvious reason, the One Bullet solution can and in my humble opinion will end up being the most costliest solution to the whole fasade. There are so many un known factors that come into play if Saddam just dies naturally, but to contemplate an assassination is nothing but a fools idea of conflict management.
4) "Would you rather that governments continue to wage war, or would you rather that citizens of beleaguered countries learn that taking it upon themselves to assassinate their leaders might forestall an invasion?"
If it is made ethical and totally acceptable for the citizens of a country to assassinate the government then a whole new can of worms will be opened. Lets just say, the hard line citizens of Pakistan (and we know there are many of them there), decide that they have had it with Musharraf and assassinate him. Will that be acceptable and held ethically correct by the USA ? Will the White House not intervene with a righteous comment about the issue ? Or For example, Lee Harvey Oswald, a citizen of the USA, and his friends thought that it was their duty to get rid of JFK. What is the White House position on that scenario ?
If this is the level thought process behind Ari's and White House's planning then for sure, the sooner the year 2004 arrives, the better.
posted by adnanbwp at 1:26 PM on October 2, 2002
Officially, the United States does not conduct or permit assassinations. However, this policy is not codified in law, but in an executive order (EO 123333) [sic; it's 12333] that the President can change at will and without public notice of the change. In addition, this policy does not define what an assassination is, and the United States has long distinguished assassinations as separate from military operations directed against enemy leaders in the course of self-defense.
Generally, assassinations are considered by international law experts as the murder of a targeted individual for political purposes, usually involving circumstances of a covert or "treacherous" nature. Whether the intended killing of an individual counts as an assassination or as a generally acceptable military operation depends on whether the relevant countries are at peace or war, the forces carrying out the killing, and the means by which the killing is carried out.
For those confused by the above, I think it's written in dhartongue, a dialect useful where you're trying to imply that assassination doesn't mean "killing another human being because we don't like them" and may actually be A Good Thing. You know. Depending on the circumstances.
You know. Spin.
Respectfully, I submit that speaking that particular dialect is a good qualification for Fleischer's job.
Sure, there's expediency here, but the crowd who's been expediently yelling for Any Solution But War ought to consider whether it's really morally superior to an Anyboy But Saddam policy. Is there no middle ground available here?
Oh, I see. The middle ground between sanctions/international justice and assassination is warfare. Now that makes sense.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 1:33 PM on October 2, 2002
Generally, assassinations are considered by international law experts as the murder of a targeted individual for political purposes, usually involving circumstances of a covert or "treacherous" nature. Whether the intended killing of an individual counts as an assassination or as a generally acceptable military operation depends on whether the relevant countries are at peace or war, the forces carrying out the killing, and the means by which the killing is carried out.
For those confused by the above, I think it's written in dhartongue, a dialect useful where you're trying to imply that assassination doesn't mean "killing another human being because we don't like them" and may actually be A Good Thing. You know. Depending on the circumstances.
You know. Spin.
Respectfully, I submit that speaking that particular dialect is a good qualification for Fleischer's job.
Sure, there's expediency here, but the crowd who's been expediently yelling for Any Solution But War ought to consider whether it's really morally superior to an Anyboy But Saddam policy. Is there no middle ground available here?
Oh, I see. The middle ground between sanctions/international justice and assassination is warfare. Now that makes sense.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 1:33 PM on October 2, 2002
Some of you are treating the fact that yes, we wish to at least remove Saddam Hussein as new policy. It's not. Our "stated goal" is regime change, plain and simple. I'm totally cool with anyone not supporting that, though I do for the sake of the Iraqi people and for the safety of my fellow Americans. But acting as if the UN thing is just some ruse to accomplish a secret goal is incorrect. The goal is quite clear, it's been said over and over. We want regime change, and quite honestly, we will have it.
posted by recklessvisionary at 1:35 PM on October 2, 2002
posted by recklessvisionary at 1:35 PM on October 2, 2002
We want regime change, and quite honestly, we will have it.
Anyone else scooping their jaw off the floor?
posted by widdershins at 1:39 PM on October 2, 2002
Anyone else scooping their jaw off the floor?
posted by widdershins at 1:39 PM on October 2, 2002
nope.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:40 PM on October 2, 2002
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:40 PM on October 2, 2002
It used to be, if you can't beat'em, join'em. Now it's if you can't assassinate him, castrate him. This isn't about removing Saddam from power. It's about leaving him without any way to defend himself, leaving him powerless but still standing in the crosshairs like a stupid git. As an example. So the US can claim they didn't actually deal the death blow, but someone else came along and did it for them. This is supposed to keep our hands from being bloody? Too late.
The Shrub Administration keeps insisting this is not a personal vendetta, but their actions defy those words.
posted by ZachsMind at 1:45 PM on October 2, 2002
The Shrub Administration keeps insisting this is not a personal vendetta, but their actions defy those words.
posted by ZachsMind at 1:45 PM on October 2, 2002
I thought the "Stated Goal" was cleaning up of all the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq !!!
posted by adnanbwp at 1:45 PM on October 2, 2002
posted by adnanbwp at 1:45 PM on October 2, 2002
I'm all in favour of assassinating Saddam Hussein.
It would have been great prior to or during the Gulf War and it would be okay now. Plus, (providing they were supported this time rather than hindered by the US military), it might result in an uprising by the Iraqi people.
But is the USA likely to assassinate Hussein? No. Why not? Because it doesn't fulfil the goals of war in Iraq, which are:
1) To enable US military presence in the Middle East, which will allow it to maintain better control and balance over oil (Iraq and Saudi Arabia being the world's two biggest sources of oil).
2) To divert our attention away from the poorly-performing US economy, its failure to better limit corporate fraud, its failure to find Osama bin Laden, etc etc
3) To limit any military threat posed by Iraq or indeed any of its neighbours, such as Iran, especially via those famous weapons of mass distraction, sorry destruction.
posted by skylar at 2:02 PM on October 2, 2002
It would have been great prior to or during the Gulf War and it would be okay now. Plus, (providing they were supported this time rather than hindered by the US military), it might result in an uprising by the Iraqi people.
But is the USA likely to assassinate Hussein? No. Why not? Because it doesn't fulfil the goals of war in Iraq, which are:
1) To enable US military presence in the Middle East, which will allow it to maintain better control and balance over oil (Iraq and Saudi Arabia being the world's two biggest sources of oil).
2) To divert our attention away from the poorly-performing US economy, its failure to better limit corporate fraud, its failure to find Osama bin Laden, etc etc
3) To limit any military threat posed by Iraq or indeed any of its neighbours, such as Iran, especially via those famous weapons of mass distraction, sorry destruction.
posted by skylar at 2:02 PM on October 2, 2002
pardonyou?:
I guess this is where the far right confuses the lefts (not wanting to go to war without any real/rational justification or proof) with (sympathy for S.H.).
It doesn't really matter whether you believe S.H. or not. He has not attacked the United States with WMD. He has no history of doing so. Killing his own people is not killing our people. It does matter if you believe the "proof" our President has been using to justify the invasion.
I've read online that the U.S/British troop levels around Iraq have been on the increase since March. If S.H. is the threat they claim he is what took them so long to decide to take him out. The deliberate timing of their push to go after him just before the November elections is suspicious in the extreme.
Bush is obviously got some sort of personal agenda (oil) for wanting to go after SH and none of it involves Iraq's supposed nuclear capability.
This tactic by Bush is a classic Chinese stratagem:
Fool the Emperor and Cross the Sea
Read more about it in:
The Book of Stratagems (Tactics for Triumph and Survival)
by Harro Von Senger
posted by Wong Fei-hung at 2:09 PM on October 2, 2002
I guess this is where the far right confuses the lefts (not wanting to go to war without any real/rational justification or proof) with (sympathy for S.H.).
It doesn't really matter whether you believe S.H. or not. He has not attacked the United States with WMD. He has no history of doing so. Killing his own people is not killing our people. It does matter if you believe the "proof" our President has been using to justify the invasion.
I've read online that the U.S/British troop levels around Iraq have been on the increase since March. If S.H. is the threat they claim he is what took them so long to decide to take him out. The deliberate timing of their push to go after him just before the November elections is suspicious in the extreme.
Bush is obviously got some sort of personal agenda (oil) for wanting to go after SH and none of it involves Iraq's supposed nuclear capability.
This tactic by Bush is a classic Chinese stratagem:
Fool the Emperor and Cross the Sea
Read more about it in:
The Book of Stratagems (Tactics for Triumph and Survival)
by Harro Von Senger
posted by Wong Fei-hung at 2:09 PM on October 2, 2002
Anti-war TV talkmeister Phil Donahue warned Friday that President Bush would likely provoke his own assassination if he invades Iraq and attempts to take out Saddam Hussein.
The MSNBC talker offered the incendiary prediction during an interview with WABC Radio's Curtis Sliwa, saying that after a U.S.-backed attempt to "knock off" the Iraqi dictator, it would be hard to "keep our president's head out of the crosshairs of a high-powered rifle."
posted by Babylonian at 2:27 PM on October 2, 2002
The MSNBC talker offered the incendiary prediction during an interview with WABC Radio's Curtis Sliwa, saying that after a U.S.-backed attempt to "knock off" the Iraqi dictator, it would be hard to "keep our president's head out of the crosshairs of a high-powered rifle."
posted by Babylonian at 2:27 PM on October 2, 2002
Really, though.. the worst thing would be for President Bush to be assassinated.
Can you imagine the glurge that'll come from _that_?! Not to mention the high schools.
posted by tittergrrl at 2:31 PM on October 2, 2002
Can you imagine the glurge that'll come from _that_?! Not to mention the high schools.
posted by tittergrrl at 2:31 PM on October 2, 2002
Yeah, the same Donahue, that is so out of touch people (Look at his ratings, or lack of), that his co-worker Chris Matthews said "Danahue may bring down the network"
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:32 PM on October 2, 2002
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:32 PM on October 2, 2002
Are people so deluded and blinded by their own reflexive response that they sympathize more with a savage despot who has killed beteween (sic) 50,000 and 100,000 of his own countrymen....
But Hussein's campaign against the Kurds (which the US did nothing to stop) is a local issue, whereas Bush is seen as a symbol of globalism, which is (of course) a global issue. Also, which are people more likely to fear, a powerful nation which feels it can do anything it wants environmentally, economically, and militarily, or a tiny weak nation with an aging dictator?
posted by hyperizer at 2:39 PM on October 2, 2002
But Hussein's campaign against the Kurds (which the US did nothing to stop) is a local issue, whereas Bush is seen as a symbol of globalism, which is (of course) a global issue. Also, which are people more likely to fear, a powerful nation which feels it can do anything it wants environmentally, economically, and militarily, or a tiny weak nation with an aging dictator?
posted by hyperizer at 2:39 PM on October 2, 2002
Once again I pose my question: Are you saying that you would rather have the US invade Iraq than an Iraqi assassin take out Saddam?
I have to echo hackly_fracture's sentiments. It all depends what would happen in case of the latter. Would the Iraqi military take over? Saddam's son? Another dictator? Something tells me Saddam's death wouldn't lead to free elections.
This question's a straw man anyway, since what we're really debating is whether it's appropriate for the Bush administration to make such statements.
posted by hyperizer at 2:41 PM on October 2, 2002
I have to echo hackly_fracture's sentiments. It all depends what would happen in case of the latter. Would the Iraqi military take over? Saddam's son? Another dictator? Something tells me Saddam's death wouldn't lead to free elections.
This question's a straw man anyway, since what we're really debating is whether it's appropriate for the Bush administration to make such statements.
posted by hyperizer at 2:41 PM on October 2, 2002
Actually, those comments were made by Ari Fleischer's gun crazy identical twin Uzi Fleischer.
posted by Devils Slide at 2:42 PM on October 2, 2002
posted by Devils Slide at 2:42 PM on October 2, 2002
Steve writes:
Yeah, the same Donahue, that is so out of touch people (Look at his ratings, or lack of), that his co-worker Chris Matthews said "Danahue may bring down the network"
An Ad hominem attack does not discount the validity of a persons observation.
Isn't it possible that Donahue's observation is plausible even if he is not in touch with the "american people" as measured by TV ratings?
I am also wondering when TV ratings became a scientific metric for measuring the opinions of "the american people."
posted by yertledaturtle at 2:48 PM on October 2, 2002
Yeah, the same Donahue, that is so out of touch people (Look at his ratings, or lack of), that his co-worker Chris Matthews said "Danahue may bring down the network"
An Ad hominem attack does not discount the validity of a persons observation.
Isn't it possible that Donahue's observation is plausible even if he is not in touch with the "american people" as measured by TV ratings?
I am also wondering when TV ratings became a scientific metric for measuring the opinions of "the american people."
posted by yertledaturtle at 2:48 PM on October 2, 2002
excuse me, let me clarify:
Donahue is a pompous jackass, and always has been.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:52 PM on October 2, 2002
Donahue is a pompous jackass, and always has been.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:52 PM on October 2, 2002
fold_and_mutilate, those are not my words you're quoting and calling "dhartongue". (Thanks, by the way; I miss the fourth grade, too.)
And as for a middle ground, I mean the place where those who CLAIM to not like Very Bad Dictator Types yet oppose Very Bad Wars to Remove Them actually support the fucking people of Iraq for whom they claim to be speaking. You know, them. Ah, no matter; I'm sure Saddam will be removed in the next election, won't he?
posted by dhartung at 4:08 PM on October 2, 2002
And as for a middle ground, I mean the place where those who CLAIM to not like Very Bad Dictator Types yet oppose Very Bad Wars to Remove Them actually support the fucking people of Iraq for whom they claim to be speaking. You know, them. Ah, no matter; I'm sure Saddam will be removed in the next election, won't he?
posted by dhartung at 4:08 PM on October 2, 2002
Side One: BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH WAR BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH WAR BLAH BLAH BLAH
Side Two: reason?
Side One: BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH WAR BLAH BLAH WAR!
Side Two: reason?
Side One: BLAH BLAH BLAH ASSASINATION! BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH ASSASINATE!
Side Two: reason?
Side ONe: BLAH BLAH BLAH OK THEN WAR? BLAH BLAH BLAH
posted by Espoo2 at 4:35 PM on October 2, 2002
Side Two: reason?
Side One: BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH WAR BLAH BLAH WAR!
Side Two: reason?
Side One: BLAH BLAH BLAH ASSASINATION! BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH ASSASINATE!
Side Two: reason?
Side ONe: BLAH BLAH BLAH OK THEN WAR? BLAH BLAH BLAH
posted by Espoo2 at 4:35 PM on October 2, 2002
Espoo2, I'm glad you so eloquently represented the closed-mindedness of so many.
posted by Plunge at 5:54 PM on October 2, 2002
posted by Plunge at 5:54 PM on October 2, 2002
Can you imagine the glurge that'll come from _that_?! Not to mention the high schools.
quonsar
tittergrrl!
posted by quonsar at 7:00 PM on October 2, 2002
quonsar
tittergrrl!posted by quonsar at 7:00 PM on October 2, 2002
themadjuggler, God bless you for getting that (and for providing the link).
posted by Devils Slide at 7:25 PM on October 2, 2002
posted by Devils Slide at 7:25 PM on October 2, 2002
Interesting question: Which would make the world a safer place the assassination of Saddam Hussein or the assassination of George W Bush?
posted by cohiba at 8:10 PM on October 2, 2002
posted by cohiba at 8:10 PM on October 2, 2002
You really think that Saddam is more popular world wide than Bush?
Well, yes. You folks just don't seem to get it yet.
Which would make the world a safer place the assassination of Saddam Hussein or the assassination of George W Bush?
A safer place for corporate interests or a safer place for children to grow up?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:18 PM on October 2, 2002
Well, yes. You folks just don't seem to get it yet.
Which would make the world a safer place the assassination of Saddam Hussein or the assassination of George W Bush?
A safer place for corporate interests or a safer place for children to grow up?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:18 PM on October 2, 2002
Assasinating Bush would change very little. A new president would be elected. The regime would be the same. Only with an even more pissed off America. I have don't have enough detailed knowledge of the regime in Irag to comment on whether the whole Barth government would fall but that may be a possibilty. So; I imagine that assasinating Hussien would have much more effect thaan assasinating Bush.
Thanks. I'll just step away from the mike now.
posted by davidgentle at 8:28 PM on October 2, 2002
Thanks. I'll just step away from the mike now.
posted by davidgentle at 8:28 PM on October 2, 2002
steve_at_linnwood... you don't strike me as being all that smart, and I'll tell you why.
I'm as suspicious of the pervasive groupthink of MeFi as the next guy... but your attempt to "stir the pot" hasn't been productive, or well thought out.
Once again I pose my question: Are you saying that you would rather have the US invade Iraq than an Iraqi assassin take out Saddam?
false dilemma (a bad one, at that)
Yeah, the same Donahue, that is so out of touch people (Look at his ratings, or lack of), that his co-worker Chris Matthews said "Danahue may bring down the network"
Classic "Straw Man"... (with a dose of false analogy)... You're making so many assumptions with that assertion that it hurts me to read it.
Every post you make is just, retarded. I'm not going to waste another second with this, but, you lose, by a mile.
posted by cadastral at 8:29 PM on October 2, 2002
I'm as suspicious of the pervasive groupthink of MeFi as the next guy... but your attempt to "stir the pot" hasn't been productive, or well thought out.
Once again I pose my question: Are you saying that you would rather have the US invade Iraq than an Iraqi assassin take out Saddam?
false dilemma (a bad one, at that)
Yeah, the same Donahue, that is so out of touch people (Look at his ratings, or lack of), that his co-worker Chris Matthews said "Danahue may bring down the network"
Classic "Straw Man"... (with a dose of false analogy)... You're making so many assumptions with that assertion that it hurts me to read it.
Every post you make is just, retarded. I'm not going to waste another second with this, but, you lose, by a mile.
posted by cadastral at 8:29 PM on October 2, 2002
This thread should be deleted, and several people banned from Metafilter.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:33 PM on October 2, 2002
posted by ParisParamus at 8:33 PM on October 2, 2002
Take it to Metatalk, PP, if you must.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:41 PM on October 2, 2002
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:41 PM on October 2, 2002
"Assasinating Bush would change very little. A new president would be elected"
you get this from a crackerjack box.
DICK CHENEY.
hey dave, the mike was never on.
whole Barth government jeez, step away from the aerisol cans.
"Actually, those comments were made by Ari Fleischer's gun crazy identical twin Uzi Fleischer."
hee-hee. I never understood why people would attack an army with a guy named Uzi Narkiss in it.
Uzi Narkiss...let them words roll.
To enable US military presence in the Middle East, which will allow it to maintain better control and balance over oil
hey. bright eyes, we already have troops in the middle east
This tactic by Bush is a classic Chinese stratagem:
Fool the Emperor and Cross the Sea
Read more about it in:
The Book of Stratagems (Tactics for Triumph and Survival)
by Harro Von Senger
you hawkin a book. I'll stick to sun-tzu.
posted by clavdivs at 9:07 PM on October 2, 2002
you get this from a crackerjack box.
DICK CHENEY.
hey dave, the mike was never on.
whole Barth government jeez, step away from the aerisol cans.
"Actually, those comments were made by Ari Fleischer's gun crazy identical twin Uzi Fleischer."
hee-hee. I never understood why people would attack an army with a guy named Uzi Narkiss in it.
Uzi Narkiss...let them words roll.
To enable US military presence in the Middle East, which will allow it to maintain better control and balance over oil
hey. bright eyes, we already have troops in the middle east
This tactic by Bush is a classic Chinese stratagem:
Fool the Emperor and Cross the Sea
Read more about it in:
The Book of Stratagems (Tactics for Triumph and Survival)
by Harro Von Senger
you hawkin a book. I'll stick to sun-tzu.
posted by clavdivs at 9:07 PM on October 2, 2002
cadastral, If you have issue with my statements fine. But your personal attacks discredit you and your arguments completely.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:06 PM on October 2, 2002
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:06 PM on October 2, 2002
Well the goal (I believe) is not just regime change, it's regime change+installation of a government that lets US oil companies be involved with and profit form Iraq's oil production, of course. Fleischer and others in the administration are so used to this concept I think he almost slipped and forgot that was supposed to be a big secret (we're doing it to fight terrorism...no wait, this week it's weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION, right?)
posted by sixdifferentways at 1:13 AM on October 3, 2002
posted by sixdifferentways at 1:13 AM on October 3, 2002
This is distraction in a rather new form. It's to get the Gun Nuts With Consciences (GNWC) to finally sign on to the pledge. The universal belief that the gun can bring Freedom under any circumstances resonates the world 'round.
"Look Bush ain't so bad. He warned them Iraqis to kill their undemocratically appointed prez, because well, well he did say we wouldn't be goin' in if one of them spineless Iraqi's had killed em. They had their chance."
Like a TV drama series, the executive branch has us all clamoring for the next episode. Will Bush send in the brave boys or will the kind Iraqi, with his mind on emulating the great American Democracy Experiment, blow chunks of Saddam's brain onto one of his portraits? Tune in. The tension is mounting people. Tune in.
Who shot SH?
posted by crasspastor at 2:16 AM on October 3, 2002
"Look Bush ain't so bad. He warned them Iraqis to kill their undemocratically appointed prez, because well, well he did say we wouldn't be goin' in if one of them spineless Iraqi's had killed em. They had their chance."
Like a TV drama series, the executive branch has us all clamoring for the next episode. Will Bush send in the brave boys or will the kind Iraqi, with his mind on emulating the great American Democracy Experiment, blow chunks of Saddam's brain onto one of his portraits? Tune in. The tension is mounting people. Tune in.
Who shot SH?
posted by crasspastor at 2:16 AM on October 3, 2002
(Rudolph) "Giuliani writes that he asked President Bush three days after the terrorist attack if he could personally execute Osama bin Laden if U.S. forces captured him."
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:14 AM on October 3, 2002
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:14 AM on October 3, 2002
I'm proud to not be American.
How nice for you. Would you like a cookie?
posted by pardonyou? at 7:02 AM on October 3, 2002
How nice for you. Would you like a cookie?
posted by pardonyou? at 7:02 AM on October 3, 2002
With all this 'assassinate' and 'President' and 'Bush' in the same thread, I wonder if the Secret Service has tracked this page yet.
As it is, I hope no one attempts to kill Bush.. since I think that first, it would probably fail (which is a good thing.. dead people - bad, live people - good) and second, it would probably assure him the sympathy vote to get a second term.
Can't we impeach him for being an idiot? Although, maybe he's not so dumb. He's distracted the American people, and the world, away from:
1) His close ties with the CEOs of the companies that have trashed the stock market (Enron, etc)
2) His failure in the 'War on Terrorism', that is so close to his father's failure with the 'War on Drugs' that it hurts my head (not to mention that the 'wars' are so similar in issues - hard to identify/track enemies operating in loose confederation, and even independantly, etc..)
3) the fact that all his war talk is further depressing the global markets
4) Saddaam has called his bluff
5) All these comparisons to WWII are totally innaccurate
I'm proud to be an American, but geeze, the President is fucking clueless and does not represent what Americans believe. For all you non-Americans - does your elected leader represent your beliefs spot-on? How about your media? Think about that before you assume what the average American is thinking.
posted by rich at 8:36 AM on October 3, 2002
As it is, I hope no one attempts to kill Bush.. since I think that first, it would probably fail (which is a good thing.. dead people - bad, live people - good) and second, it would probably assure him the sympathy vote to get a second term.
Can't we impeach him for being an idiot? Although, maybe he's not so dumb. He's distracted the American people, and the world, away from:
1) His close ties with the CEOs of the companies that have trashed the stock market (Enron, etc)
2) His failure in the 'War on Terrorism', that is so close to his father's failure with the 'War on Drugs' that it hurts my head (not to mention that the 'wars' are so similar in issues - hard to identify/track enemies operating in loose confederation, and even independantly, etc..)
3) the fact that all his war talk is further depressing the global markets
4) Saddaam has called his bluff
5) All these comparisons to WWII are totally innaccurate
I'm proud to be an American, but geeze, the President is fucking clueless and does not represent what Americans believe. For all you non-Americans - does your elected leader represent your beliefs spot-on? How about your media? Think about that before you assume what the average American is thinking.
posted by rich at 8:36 AM on October 3, 2002
1) His close ties with the CEOs of the companies that have trashed the stock market
Because it's his fault that consumers/stockholders finally understand that they're being cheated...He got caught with his pants down, as did the American people, but his naked ass didn't cause the stock market's decline; lack of consumer confidence in the financial sector did.
His failure in the 'War on Terrorism'
I didn't realize that he failed at a war that doesn't exist. Hmm...sounds like you're spinning his lyrics.
the fact that all his war talk is further depressing the global markets
Right. Because the global markets were soaring before his mention of Iraq. No national or regional economy is doing all that well right now; but it can hardly be blamed on Bush.
Saddaam has called his bluff
More like Bush is dancing until after the election, when he proceeds to overthrow Saddam.
the President is fucking clueless and does not represent what Americans believe
Correction...he does not represent what YOU believe. His approval rating is still quite high.
For all you non-Americans - does your elected leader represent your beliefs spot-on?
?? I would love to understand the intention behind this question.
posted by BlueTrain at 8:46 AM on October 3, 2002
Because it's his fault that consumers/stockholders finally understand that they're being cheated...He got caught with his pants down, as did the American people, but his naked ass didn't cause the stock market's decline; lack of consumer confidence in the financial sector did.
His failure in the 'War on Terrorism'
I didn't realize that he failed at a war that doesn't exist. Hmm...sounds like you're spinning his lyrics.
the fact that all his war talk is further depressing the global markets
Right. Because the global markets were soaring before his mention of Iraq. No national or regional economy is doing all that well right now; but it can hardly be blamed on Bush.
Saddaam has called his bluff
More like Bush is dancing until after the election, when he proceeds to overthrow Saddam.
the President is fucking clueless and does not represent what Americans believe
Correction...he does not represent what YOU believe. His approval rating is still quite high.
For all you non-Americans - does your elected leader represent your beliefs spot-on?
?? I would love to understand the intention behind this question.
posted by BlueTrain at 8:46 AM on October 3, 2002
Note that I couldn't be bothered to look up "baath" in my post. For this I apologise.
posted by davidgentle at 4:48 PM on October 3, 2002
posted by davidgentle at 4:48 PM on October 3, 2002
BlueTrain:
Most Wall Street analysts are all downgrading the economy because of the spectre of war. This is mainly because companies are curtailing large investments because of the uncertainty that war causes, and the consumer confidence when war is pending also wavers. Now, I don't know if you're in finance, but for the record, I am at a fairly large global securities firm.
Most analysts I know agree that the economy would be at least slightly to much better off if everyone wasn't worrying about Iraq on top of everything else.
As for approval rating - I'm not sure how this translates blindly into 'agrees with every decision Bush has made'. Clinton's approval ratings didn't reflect that people dind't really 'approve' of him having sex in the Oval Office.Polls concerning Iraq, specifically, run in the mid 50's% agreement and down, with the mid-50's% only be attained by adding 'if proof of weapons of mass destruction are found' to the question 'should the US attack.'
I have yet to see a poll that asks 'Should the US invade Iraq, regardles of any proof of anything, and without the support of at least the NATO nations, just to remove Saddam, and then withdraw all troops and let the region take care of itself, regardless of what happens?'
My intention behind asking non-Americans the question is that my impression is that non-Americans tend to believe that the President's opinion represents every American, and that the majority of us are imperilist-leaning global dominators.
If so, I was just wondering if my impression of Tony Blair as the lap-dog of Bush and America should also then be applied to every British citizen I met so I could tell them to bake me a chicken pot pie at my lesiure. (for example)
posted by rich at 11:55 AM on October 4, 2002
Most Wall Street analysts are all downgrading the economy because of the spectre of war. This is mainly because companies are curtailing large investments because of the uncertainty that war causes, and the consumer confidence when war is pending also wavers. Now, I don't know if you're in finance, but for the record, I am at a fairly large global securities firm.
Most analysts I know agree that the economy would be at least slightly to much better off if everyone wasn't worrying about Iraq on top of everything else.
As for approval rating - I'm not sure how this translates blindly into 'agrees with every decision Bush has made'. Clinton's approval ratings didn't reflect that people dind't really 'approve' of him having sex in the Oval Office.Polls concerning Iraq, specifically, run in the mid 50's% agreement and down, with the mid-50's% only be attained by adding 'if proof of weapons of mass destruction are found' to the question 'should the US attack.'
I have yet to see a poll that asks 'Should the US invade Iraq, regardles of any proof of anything, and without the support of at least the NATO nations, just to remove Saddam, and then withdraw all troops and let the region take care of itself, regardless of what happens?'
My intention behind asking non-Americans the question is that my impression is that non-Americans tend to believe that the President's opinion represents every American, and that the majority of us are imperilist-leaning global dominators.
If so, I was just wondering if my impression of Tony Blair as the lap-dog of Bush and America should also then be applied to every British citizen I met so I could tell them to bake me a chicken pot pie at my lesiure. (for example)
posted by rich at 11:55 AM on October 4, 2002
« Older Breast self-exams may be a waste of time. | Tenzin Palmo, Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by languagehat at 12:18 PM on October 2, 2002