It was a slap bang dead certainty it would happen. An Iranian university has invited US leader George W Bush to speak following his Iranian counterpart's turn at a US college last week.
The head of Ferdowsi University in Iran's second largest city of Mashhad said Mr Bush could answer students' questions about the Holocaust, terrorism and human rights.
"This is what President Ahmadinejad did" said the University president Alireza Afshour.
A White House spokeswoman responded to the invitation on behalf of Mr Bush saying "If Iran was a free and democratic society that allowed its people freedom of expression, and wasn't pursuing nuclear weapons, and wasn't advocating to destroy the country of Israel, the president might consider that invitation."
You not going then Bush? Have to speak up old boy, the sound of your backside squeaking is drowning you out.
26 comments:
The decision not to speak was a no-brainer, for a no-brainer like dumbya.
This is just like that story that Paula linked to was saying. We expect the message of our own inherent superiority to speak for itself, so we don't bother speaking it ourselves. Not that a crappy public speaker like Bush COULD, but still. We arrogantly think that dictatorships will wither and die if we refuse to speak to them, despite the fact that it has never, ever, happened that way. You'd think that Cuba would be enough of a reminder of that. Or China - would they moving toward capitalism if we had not engaged them 30 years ago?
If we want to convince the Iranian people that our system is better than what they have, we have to engage them and SHOW them why it's better. Being too snotty to talk to them until they toe our line simply isn't going to do it. That just allows the Ayyatollahs and the government to control all aspects of their information about us.
Of course, Bush doesn't want that. He only wants an excuse to start bombing.
I'm thinking that it's REALLY important to have the next Prez be someone articulate. We cannot afford another 8 years of a bumbling dope who can't speak two sentences without messing up.
It amazes me that Americans still want to have a President after George. Most people learn from their mistakes!
Okay, Daniel, I leave you alone a LOT, but that was just plain lame. If you're going to indulge in continual nationalistic haranguing, at least prepare jokes at our expense that MAKE SENSE. I mean, what else would we have? A farooking PRIME MINISTER? An OMAN, perhaps?
Yeesh. It's getting harder and harder to find good gadflies these days.
"Yeesh. It's getting harder and harder to find good gadflies these days."
At least witty and non-condescending ones.
Oh, and BTW, how about Grand Poobah, leader of the Loyal order of Water Buffalo.
Sorry, just a little Flintstone humour
I could vote for a grand Poobah, now that the office of President is ruined for eternity. :-)
Unfortunately it's not a laughing matter, Joe. Surely the fiasco of Bushco would suggest to any rational person that the anachronistic American Constitution is badly flawed.
Why not do away with the Presidential Branch altogether. That would make sure another George or Richard can't stuff up your country as well as the rest of the world!
Why do you still have a Prime Minister then, you arrogant yet senseless sack of dung? Your whole premise is moronic. What IS a laughing matter is the fact that you think you have a point. Give it up, or I shall harangue you a second time.
Stop acting like anyone in your government is capable of having an idea that doesn't come from Washington. Stop pretending that England has not ALWAYS been a major contributor to someone else's problems. Get of your high horse, because your country hasn't earned the right to be on one.
"The anachronistic American Constitution is badly flawed.
Why not do away with the Presidential Branch altogether"
I'm sure I'm going to hate myself for asking this but, Daniel, What is your recommendation for our system of government?
I doubt he has one, Cody. I've never seen him propose anything. He just makes snarky Anti-American remarks as if that makes him look smart. I disagree with a LOT of what our government does, and I know you do too. Daniel seems to think that only Brits have the wherewithall to disagree with their government, but I see that they're pretty much helpless to do anything about it, just like the folks here who want Bushco out.
Normally I just ignore his nonsense, but this time I think it may be amusing to watch him try to pull some actual usable point out of this one. The ball's in your court, Daniel.
"Argue not with fools, frauds or fanatics. Seek instead better companions!" Cheers.
Hey! Cody's not a fraud. Take that back.
In fact, he's such a swell fellow, I'm sure he'll give you plenty of time to answer his question. Midwesterners are laid back.
Daniel, if you were just posting a snarky quick quote, than fine, but if your serious about abolishing the office of the President, and the constitution as well, I'm interested in your thoughts as to the process, and what the government will look like when your done. I'm one American who is curious as to what you have to say, even though you might think me foolish, dishonest, and overzealous. Please elaborate on your thoughts,
Respectfully
Cody Bones
Cody, what I'm saying is that America doesn't need the office of a President for efficient government. A President has too much power and, as everyone knows, power corrupts.
With the Presidential branch gone, effort could then be put into reforming Congress and the Senate. The financial connection between Big Business and politicians must be completely broken as should the nonsensical power of political dynasties like the Clintons, Bushs, etc.
Politicians must be made to do what they were elected to do: to represent the people not their own self-interest. Voting should be made compulsory and the method of voting made foolproof.
Thanks for your courteous comment!
Hmmm. Daniel, I think that we will have to agree to disagree, left without an executive branch, Congress and the Judiciary will have that power which you alluded to, and according to your logic, they will become corrupted as well. That is called the system of checks and balances , and I think that it has served us passably well for the last 200 or so years. Besides, an unchecked Congress is more likely to spend themselves into oblivion without the executive branch passing or vetoing bills
Your statement "Politicians must be made to do what they were elected to do" already has a remedy, and it's called an election. I don't always like who gets elected, but I respect the process. As far as the ties to "big business" goes, I've always wondered, what exactly is big business, what is medium business, and what is small business. I know if I don't get off my ass, I don't get any business. My vote would go to unlimited campaign funding for whoever wants it, just list it for all to see, so that I don't have to guess where money comes from. Make it transparent.
Now, as to your comment about political dynasties, my first comment is that we get who and what we vote for, no more no less, and secondly, I wouldn't be too quick to anoint the Clinton's as a dynasty, a lot can happen in 13 months.
On to your last comment "Voting should be made compulsory" I havn't missed a state or federal election since I've been 18 years old, and so help me, if it's made mandatory, that will be the LAST election I ever vote in. Voting is a privlege, that I choose to exercise, not an obligation like it was in Soviet Russia. I research candidates, and vote for the ones who come closest to my beliefs, I might not be totally thrilled with either candidate, but I make an informed choice. If someone can't be bothered to vote, than I don't want them voting. Simple as that.
Daniel, you sound a little paternalistic for my views, and it also sounds like you would like to impose a certain order to the world. I prefer that we muddle along ourselves with out the help/hindrance of a central government or control. I think that we might just stick to the whole constitution thing for now, but thanks for the nice comments, I always love a difference of opinion.
Well put, Cody. I don't agree with everything you said and won't get into all that here, but you are proof of what I love most about the U.S. - that intelligent, passionate and informed people with differing opinions can offer up their greater and lesser disagreements to try to make the best of things for all concerned.
Keep your pecker up, Daniel - it was a nice try, anyway.
Not a problem, o'tim! Cody's comment illustrates why America is a danger to itself and to the world.
Its people, too many of whom are conceited beyond belief, are incapable of changing themselves or their anachronistic, deeply flawed Constitution even when things are at rock bottom.
Is it any wonder they are the most hated and feared country in the world! They will pull the whole world down with them while they piously sing, "God Bless America and Wall Street."
Yuk!
"Cody's comment illustrates why America is a danger to itself and to the world."
How so?
Daniel - it's easy for a liberal person who does not live in the U.S. to focus on the empty (and coincidently upper) half of the glass. But you shouldn't let the past 6.5 years lead you to believe that the U.S. is capable of pulling the whole world down with it.
I think our next president (hopefully being the person I vote for this time, and - hooray for Cody - by my own free will) is going to be on cleanup duty for a spell, and I hope the recent negative actions of our government will have many more Americans begin looking a bit more critically at our nation's flaws with focus shifted inward.
BTW, I think your stated contempt for zealots belies your stated belief of anyone being "incapable of changing themselves." You may be right that too many people are incapable, but IMO that's a rather zealous position.
So now you have Cody's question plus one: How is the U.S. Constitution "deeply flawed?"
It really does astound me that, after the fiasco of Bushco and the total disaster he and his Neocon mates have caused for America and the world, Americans can still naively ask: what is wrong with our Constitution?
Perhaps if George creates WW3 and nuclear war you guys might finally get it!
You see, guys? HE DOESN'T HAVE A POINT. I know you're trying to be nice and open-minded and all, but let's face facts. Daniel just wants to make pissy comments about the U.S. He has nothing in the way of real discourse to offer. Especially when it comes to explaining why his government has been kneeling before Bush for six years, mouth wide open.
BTW, Daniel- if you were as informed as you like to pretend you are, you'd know that those of us who don't like Bush are in favor of the Constitution. BUSH IS NOT.
Joe the Troll is right. I think the US Constitution is a splendid document. It is the Bush administration's blatant disregard for it that is reprehensible.
But surely, if your Constitution had been written properly and had proper safeguards within it then a gringo like Bush couldn't flout it?
But look, if you want to brag about the 'perfection' of the American Constitution, go ahead. Don't let the facts get in the way!
Why are you putting a word no one used in quotes?
You still haven't told us what idea you have for us that would be better, or why England didn't have safeguards to prevent Tony Blair from following his Master straight to the oil fields.
Daniel, I would like to hear your thoughts on the exact changes that you are proposing for the constitution. Imagine you have Carte Blanche, and can remake the constitution any way you like. What exactly would it say, and how exactly would it be different from the present incarnation. In the interest of serious debate, I would really like to know. Oh and while your at it, if you could also respond to my question as why I am a danger to the rest of the world, I would appreciate it.
Thanks
Post a Comment