By GottaLaff
Why would they want to get anywhere near the guy who let Iran acquire enough enriched uranium for a single crude nuclear bomb on his administration's watch (more of a political milestone than a technical one — there is no evidence to suggest that Iran has an actual bomb or the highly-enriched uranium needed to make one just yet)?
That's quite a legacy. Apparently, nobody wants to shake hands with the moron who allowed one of the "Axis of Evil" to achieve such a milestone, among other things. So, so many other things.
Here's the video of the Intellectual Deficit-in-Chief being internationally shunned:
Rick Sanchez: This may be a case of "what goes around comes around."
.jpg)
Posts
36 comments:
Pitiful.
OMG. I kind of can't believe world leaders would behave like that, but freaking serves him right.
Just desserts.
Amy, Serves him right -- and us as well for not already having kicked his pathetic ass to the curb.
Looking forward to the compare and contrast when Obama begins to meet with foreign leaders.
Once Bush is finally out of office, we can be done with his "pull my finger" diplomacy.
Don't get me wrong, peeps, I totally agree he's getting as good as he gave, but these are WORLD LEADERS. I would have the expectation that part of their diplomatic skills involves shaking hands with someone you don't particularly like. It's a basic courtesy.
Having watched Bush all these years, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that he spit in his hand before he went on stage...
And also a case of screaming hypocrisy on the part of Rick Sanchez. He spent most of the past 8 years enabling this monkey in a man's suit and now he turns sanctimonious about it. The traditional media are as guilty as Bush himself. Without them, the Bush-Cheney Junta would not have stayed out of prison all this long.
JS
JS, Absolutely!
I can't stand Sanchez myself, and the media have been complicit in every bit of his bullshit.
Amy, if you watch the video, you'll notice that Bushy wasn't making any attempt to play nice with the other world leaders. He was in his Petulant President mode. All pouty and head down and "I'm taking my country and going home" attitude.
I'm sure that if he had actually stopped and tried to engage anyone, they would have responded. One wonders what had been happening before they arrived onstage in front of the cameras?
Some of these world leaders are elected. They don't want pictures of themselves shaking his hand when they run for re-election.
I also think that if they are not shaking his hand out of contempt -- then GOOD FOR THEM! As world leaders they should refuse the hand of a war criminal.
It was Bush who was doing the snubbing from what I could see. I agree with Buckey. Had he wished to be friendly and shake hands with the other leaders, they would have responded in kind.
I got no love for Bushie, but that was rude & unprofessional. They are no world leaders if they are acting like the high school club that knows they need not be nice to him cuz a popular Prez is coming right behind him.
Bucky, I DID watch the video. And if you'll notice, the other leaders are extending THEIR hands. I totally agree with Cyndi... though I'll also say it was undiplomatic, not necessarily rude.
It's an unfortunate picture of what Bush has done to our standing in the eyes of the world.
I look forward to BO at the next G20 summit "palling" around with them all.
You are a bunch of sad little people. The truth is that President Bush had already had a meet and greet earlier that day and was quite warmly greeted by all those leaders. The other folks involved in that little procession had just gotten there.
CNN offered the previous footage the other day. Bush snubbed no one, and no one snubbed him.
You folks are so petty, AND uninformed.
Here's the link to the truth!
Watch it and weep.
They like him! They really like him!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
Anon, before you get on that big, fat high horse of yours, at the time of this posting, CNN reported this, as you can plainly see by the video, not us.
It was only later, much later, that the report was corrected. And it was corrected by Keith Olbermann, if I'm not mistaken (could have been David Shuster subbing).
But even assuming we made this all up and concocted the video, it wouldn't have surprised anyone that an embarrassing failure like Bush would be snubbed, or that he, the master of talking with his mouth full and embarrassing other world leaders, would snub them.
If you are still trying to defend Bush after two terms of utterly disastrous social and criminal misbehavior, then you sadly deserve the pathetic, lawbreaking, rude, ill-bred cretin that you apparently supported for 8 years.
I'm just noticing that there was no follow up on this blog, or these comments to say that you were wrong.
And since you were wrong and uninformed about this, I wonder how many other things you are wrong and uninformed about regarding Bush. And your precious Obama for that matter.
Here's the url, since my link apparently didn't work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6MEr8-S8Oc&feature=related
I'll tell you what (oh, and thanks for the proper link):
If you think we're wrong about so much, don't read us.
I will tell you this: We source everything, and if something is correctable, we generally try to put it up.
I did miss this one.
I read your blog (and other liberal blogs) because I like to keep informed on both sides. I appreciate what you said about correcting things when needed.
I think my concern is in the fact that... if Bush was so terrible, then why have there been no further attacks like 9/11 on US soil? If he's such a bully, and shouldn't be stepping into world affairs, then why is it his fault that Iran acquired uranium?
And I appreciate that you look at both sides and are willing to have a reasonable discussion.
Yeah, I understand your point, but disagree. We did have attacks, but not like 9/11.
I give him, and others, credit for tightening security, which is pretty much a given after an attack like that. However, he ignored the brief that warned him of such an attack, so there's your "terrible".
As far as Iran, I'm no expert on that, but because he refused to go for more diplomacy, and demanded that Iran do things his way before he'd even meet with them didn't help.
He frittered away precious time, allowing Iran to move their program forward when he could have done a lot more to prevent that.
His stubbornness got in the way.
His swagger, an his "bullying" attitude, including his Bush Doctrine of preemptive attacks pushed Iran into a corner, in which they (unfortunately, understandably) felt a need to defend their country against a possible similar attack by Bush against their country.
That doesn't make Iran right, but it does explain why they might have done what they did.
Plus, I posted another report about their nuclear program being another instance of forged, phony reports:
http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2008/11/documents-linking-iran-to-nuclear.html
Ok, I'll read your post and look into these things further.
Could I ask another question: Why does it not bother Obama supporters about Obama's association with Ayers, his association with a pastor for 20 years who blames white people for society's ills, and his Marxist/Socialist training?
Aren't these things at least worth consideration before whole heartedly throwing support behind a man that even mainstream media is beginning to question? Even the major newsfolks are beginning to say that we don't really know who this man is.
Even his experience as a 'constitutional' lawyer has been debunked as well and shown to be quite scant.
Some of the comments on this blog regarding Obama seem big on emotion, but a bit short on reason, IMHO.
Jen (and thank you for giving me a name to address you by),
Those are Republican talking points. I won't even dignify those with an answer. If you read up on a lot of those points, you'll find different viewpoints.
And yes, we are emotional about Obama, but not to the exclusion of reality. We are well aware that he is not the Messiah nor can he solve all of our problems. But he sure has some non-Bush policies that we welcome.
He's a very bright, well-meaning man with ideas that we like, and some we don't. He's a huge relief to a majority of Americans, which is why you're seeing an outpouring of emotion.
But to revisit the previously and well-documented debunked and/or irrelevant Ayers/Wright/Marxist stuff is just laughable.
See, that's the thing, GottaLaff. I have looked into it, and what I mostly see is the reaction you just gave -- an unwillingness to even talk about it. I haven't seen these things debunked, but I have seen them ignored and brushed over at liberal blogs.
I don't think everything breaks down to Republican versus Democrat. I felt that McCain was no better a choice for America than Obama, but at least there was a lot of info out there about him, and he was far more scrutinized than Obama.
How do you know for sure that he is a well meaning man, and that he didn't just say whatever necessary to obtain the presidency? Most politicians do just that -- Republican or Democrat. Obama has already shown signs of breaking campaign promises even before his inauguration. He's basically hiring in all the Clinton White House people. How exactly is that change?
Oh dear, Jen. My discussions have been my posts, for over a year now. I just don't have time to go on and on here in comments. I'm not ignoring you, but if you read comments and posts, it explains everything, and has for months, in detail!
And if you think Obama wasn't scrutinized, you've been asleep!
I haven't seen promises broken. He's relying on experienced heavyweights for enormous problems facing us all. I've posted many times on that too.
It's like you haven't processed all the info we've put out there.
Also, the change comes from HIM, not from his team. He calls the shots. Okay, no more time to do this right now.
Just go back and read and read. It seems you haven't been paying attention, because from what you've just said, you've managed to gloss over every bit of info out there.
Thanks for the comments, Jen!
Well, in all fairness to me, I've only been following your blog for a week or two. So I haven't read every thing you've posted all along. But I have listened to many media sources, and it seemed that people were far more concerned about how much Palin spent on clothes than many other more important issues. (Not that that was unimportant - I thought it was ridiculous)
So anyway, I guess I'll go back to obscurity, and I guess we'll all see how things play out in the end.
Sorry, I didn't realize you were new here. I thought you were someone entirely different! : )
The reason Palin got so much attention is because she created it. And it was ridiculous, you're right. But her team was the one who perpetuated the story. The McCain campaign called her out, the media reported.
Again, though, your info is limited. You have clearly been reading R talking points and paid less attention to more substantive progressive responses.
I hope you find what you're looking for.
Hi GottaLaff. I guess I've come back out of obscurity again.
I found this story today on another one of the blogs I follow, and wondered if you'd heard anything about it:
I thought it was really important news. I never once thought that Bush lied, but that he's been protecting us -- all of us.
And I have to thank him for that.
Jen, you keep referring to stories from rightie sites.
I don't have the time to refute every lie and/or "viral" story issued by righties.
For once, you might want to give some of that credibility you seem to give so freely to the R's, to the lefties, too.
If you choose to believe all the stories by Republicans, then I'd think you might give the same courtesy to some on the left.
I wish I had time to personally issue refutations and the proof you seem to need, but I don't. Why not seek out a reliable Dem and have them do that for you?
I have wayyyyy too much to do to respond to these stories, which are mostly a bunch of crap.
I wish you luck with that.
Jen: I hate to get mean and ugly in comments but damn, I've just gotta.
Are you a complete idiot, just uninformed or some sort of modern day Rumpelstiltskin?
You never once thought that Bush lied?
REALLY? Never even once? Even after he admitted he lied? You still didn't think that?
Wow.
That's sad.
GottaLaff, just because I have referred to a couple of stories on 'rightie' sites doesn't mean that's all I read, or all I consider valid and trustworthy. Or that I even consider all 'rightie' sites trustworthy. Unfortunately, in this country there really is no unbiased news source. So it's left to us to sort it all out. When I find a reliable Dem, I'll let you know.
I only wanted your opinion. I'm really sorry now that I asked for it.
Bucky, when I said that I never thought he'd lied, I was referring to the specifics in the story I linked to. If Bush said that he lied about Iraq's nuclear capabilities, I guess I did miss that. I deeply apologize for that (apparently) most grievous sin which I guess you think gives you the right to mock me. I'm a VP of a small business and I have a family that keeps me incredibly busy at times, and I may miss things occasionally, but I do try to keep informed as well as I can.
Goodbye all. I can see that open and honest discussion isn't welcome here. At least on the 'rightie' sites they don't mock me when I ask sincere questions.
Jen, I don't recall mocking you.
You've come around often, and quote rightie sites more often than not.
You seem unwilling to believe anything we say, much less read what we, or other liberals, write.
Your questions are slanted, and you seem resistant to much that we say.
If you can't see beyond your own nose, then so be it.
You obviously have issues. Go deal with them.
Well, I was gonna leave, but I have to answer this.
I don't recall saying specifically that you mocked me. Though maybe you did, I can't see your face when you type, so I don't know.
Bucky however, has mocked me here, and on another combox. But ya know, whatever.
I've only linked to two 'rightie' sites, and one youtube. Why should I link to the liberal blogs for discussion and questions here when you probably already read them or at least likely agree?
You say my questions are slanted, but aren't all of your posts? Can't we all be honest that we apparently lean certain ways? You consider this a liberal site, don't you? Doesn't that mean that you are slanted yourself?
Why is slanted a bad thing? Is my being slanted only bad because I'm not slanted your way?
I wouldn't have been here if I wasn't willing to read what you have to say, or dialogue with you in an honest way. Yet you harshly tell me I have issues and can't see beyond my own nose? What's that about?
I look into things because I want answers from both sides. If Obama is all about bringing people together, then obviously open dialogue is necessary if that's ever going to happen.
Do you even hear yourself? To imply that I have my "mocking face" on as I type is ludicrous.
But to reassure you, Jen, no, I don't mock you. Okay? Good.
The reason I said you read rightie sites is because you spout rightie talking points.
Next: Of course my posts are slanted. This is a progressive blog, and opinion site. Oy. You said so yourself. That's what I/we do. So, when you persist with questions that sound identical to the GOP talking points, you might expect to get the responses you've gotten. You have consistently been factually incorrect, but you seem to present the same R talking points as if they were true.
Okay, next:
YOu asked why I thought Obama was a good man up thread. One reason is that he resisted smearing McCain and inciting racial hatred and violence. As McCain/Palin did to him. He also presents himself as an honest, open, bright family man and smart pres. elect. He has not shown one shred of hostility, whereas McCain and Palin came across as mean-spirited (there is documentation about McCain's temper in Cliff's book The Real McCain, and elsewhere) and hostile.
There. I answered you.
Jen, I don't have time to personally drag this on. As you see, I post a million times a day.
If you need answers, I've told you this before, but let me repeat, go find them and then come back.
I can't be your personal Wikipedia, but it would serve you well to do more reading.
If you continue to read posts here, or perhaps at Talking Points Memo, or Daily Kos, or AmericaBlog, or other progressive sites, you'll get a well-rounded view and some answers you may be looking for.
I'm done with this convo. I'm starting to repeat myself.
While I admire your attempts to come here and see our p.o.v., your questions seem based on quotes from Fox News and places similar.
Read. A lot. Everywhere. Thank you.
Do you even hear yourself? To imply that I have my "mocking face" on as I type is ludicrous.
My only point with that was the fact that we do not know each other and really shouldn't make assumptions. For instance, you don't even know whether I am a Republican or otherwise. You just assume I am Republican. I already said that I didn't care for McCain or Obama for President. I don't care much at all for the Republican party's platform. But I don't think that Obama was without playing the race card. No matter what criticism came out about him, people cried 'racist!' I just don't think that was fair or honest. There are a good many black people who didn't vote for him because of his policies, certainly not for the colour of his skin.
I have and will continue to do a lot of reading. And I apologize for taking up your time.
Jen, I never once said you were a Republican. I said you spouted their points. Big difference. As I said, read. You didn't seem to read my comments carefully.
No apology necessary. I gave you what little time I could willingly.
I apologize once again. I should have said you seem to think I'm a Republican. But I don't see a lot of difference in saying I spout their points and I am one. If I spouted your points you'd think I was a liberal, wouldn't you?
Anyway, I really don't think I spout their points. I truly am just looking for the truth in all of this stuff. I think it's really important to get the full truth and not just tow a party line. I think that both sides get some stuff wrong, and both get some stuff right.
That's all.
Post a Comment