• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

W.'s Stiletto Democracy

BBond

Diamond Member
There may have been a time when a U.S. president could lecture a foreign leader on democracy.

Thanks to W that time is gone.

I wonder how Putin kept himself from laughing in Bush's face...

From the subversion of U.S. elections to the subversion of the U.S. Constitution to using taxpayers' money to sell policy like soap suds to the subversion of a once free press to "extraordinary rendition" to the naked aggression that is the unprovoked invasion of Iraq -- this president has forfeited any right to preach democracy to anyone.

OP-ED COLUMNIST

W.'s Stiletto Democracy
By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: February 27, 2005

WASHINGTON

It was remarkable to see President Bush lecture Vladimir Putin on the importance of checks and balances in a democratic society.

Remarkably brazen, given that the only checks Mr. Bush seems to believe in are those written to the "journalists" Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher and Karen Ryan, the fake TV anchor, to help promote his policies. The administration has given a whole new meaning to checkbook journalism, paying a stupendous $97 million to an outside P.R. firm to buy columnists and produce propaganda, including faux video news releases.

The only balance W. likes is the slavering, Pravda-like "Fair and Balanced" coverage Fox News provides. Mr. Bush pledges to spread democracy while his officials strive to create a Potemkin press village at home. This White House seems to prefer softball questions from a self-advertised male escort with a fake name to hardball questions from journalists with real names; it prefers tossing journalists who protect their sources into the gulag to giving up the officials who broke the law by leaking the name of their own C.I.A. agent.

W., who once looked into Mr. Putin's soul and liked what he saw, did not demand the end of tyranny, as he did in his second Inaugural Address. His upper lip sweating a bit, he did not rise to the level of his hero Ronald Reagan's "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Instead, he said that "the common ground is a lot more than those areas where we disagree." The Russians were happy to stress the common ground as well.

An irritated Mr. Putin compared the Russian system to the American Electoral College, perhaps reminding the man preaching to him about democracy that he had come in second in 2000 according to the popular vote, the standard most democracies use.

Certainly the autocratic former K.G.B. agent needs to be upbraided by someone - Tony Blair, maybe? - for eviscerating the meager steps toward democracy that Russia had made before Mr. Putin came to power. But Mr. Bush is on shaky ground if he wants to hold up his administration as a paragon of safeguarding liberty - considering it has trampled civil liberties in the name of the war on terror and outsourced the torture of prisoners to bastions of democracy like Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. (The secretary of state canceled a trip to Egypt this week after Egypt's arrest of a leading opposition politician.)

"I live in a transparent country," Mr. Bush protested to a Russian reporter who implicitly criticized the Patriot Act by noting that the private lives of American citizens "are now being monitored by the state."

Dick Cheney's secret meetings with energy lobbyists were certainly a model of transparency. As was the buildup to the Iraq war, when the Bush hawks did their best to cloak the real reasons they wanted to go to war and trumpet the trumped-up reasons.

The Bush administration wields maximum secrecy with minimal opposition. The White House press is timid. The poor, limp Democrats don't have enough power to convene Congressional hearings on any Republican outrages and are reduced to writing whining letters of protest that are tossed in the Oval Office trash.

When nearly $9 billion allotted for Iraqi reconstruction during Paul Bremer's tenure went up in smoke, Democratic lawmakers vainly pleaded with Republicans to open a Congressional investigation.

Even the near absence of checks and balances is not enough for W. Not content with controlling the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court and a good chunk of the Fourth Estate, he goes to even more ludicrous lengths to avoid being challenged.

The White House wants its Republican allies in the Senate to stamp out the filibuster, one of the few weapons the handcuffed Democrats have left. They want to invoke the so-called nuclear option and get rid of the 150-year-old tradition in order to ram through more right-wing judges.

Mr. Bush and Condi Rice strut in their speeches - the secretary of state also strutted in Wiesbaden in her foxy "Matrix"-dominatrix black leather stiletto boots - but they shy away from taking questions from the public unless they get to vet the questions and audiences in advance.

Administration officials went so far as to cancel a town hall meeting during Mr. Bush's visit to Germany last week after deciding an unscripted setting would be too risky, opting for a round-table talk in Mainz with preselected Germans and Americans.

The president loves democracy - as long as democracy means he's always right.

 
You're right. America should abandon all efforts to discuss the plight of democracy overseas because you personally dislike President Bush. Brilliant as ever.
 
What country is the oldest democracy on earth? Oh yeah, the United States. Who is primarily responsible for the spread of democracy around the world? The United States. Why shouldn't we be able to preach democracy?

Just b/c your man lost to Bush in 04 doesn't mean that it's some conspiracy and that Bush is a "dictator." It was a fair election, get over it, democracy is alive and well in the USA.
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
What country is the oldest democracy on earth? Oh yeah, the United States. Who is primarily responsible for the spread of democracy around the world? The United States. Why shouldn't we be able to preach democracy?

Just b/c your man lost to Bush in 04 doesn't mean that it's some conspiracy and that Bush is a "dictator." It was a fair election, get over it, democracy is alive and well in the USA.

WE should be able to preach democracy. People who are hypocritical about democracy shouldn't be taken seriously when they preach it.
 
Originally posted by: TheBDB
Anyone care to respond to the article?
Meh, that's just the Author's opinion. You can say the same about all the Presidents in my lifetime. EWven JFK who was the Champion of European Democracy (Berlin, etc..) did some pretty shady things

 
Originally posted by: TheBDB
Anyone care to respond to the article?
What's to respond about for the umpteenth time? The first half of the article casts Putin as a tyrant, Bush as a bastard for having a news station support his views, pretends that there is reason to "convene Congressional hearings on Republican outrages" but the Democrats don't have enough power (how convenient) and neatly caps with derogatory remarks about the female SecState. I imagine it's a sign of a low quality piece when you have to stoop to insulting a woman's footwear.

When the op-ed writer substantively addresses the subject - for the first time - I'll tune back in.
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
What country is the oldest democracy on earth? Oh yeah, the United States. Who is primarily responsible for the spread of democracy around the world? The United States. Why shouldn't we be able to preach democracy?

Just b/c your man lost to Bush in 04 doesn't mean that it's some conspiracy and that Bush is a "dictator." It was a fair election, get over it, democracy is alive and well in the USA.

I guess I'm one of those increasingly rare people who can seperate the president from the country. As I'm sure you're all aware, I don't think Bush is the best president ever by any means, and I don't think he is the ideal person to tell the rest of the world how to run a democracy (obviously, since I voted for someone else). Still, America as a whole isn't bad when it comes to democracy, and I think we're still a good example for other countries interested in democracy.

In other words, WE can still talk about the virtues of democracy and how democracy can work, I'm less sure about Bush doing the same thing. Remember, no matter how much you like or dislike Bush, he's simply part of an ongoing transition. As ntdz said, the US has been a democracy for a long time (before Bush), and will be a democracy for a long time after 2008. Bush's actions of the past 4 years are hardly a blip on the radar screen of what should be the larger example of democracy. Bush doesn't make or break that.
 
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: TheBDB
Anyone care to respond to the article?
What's to respond about for the umpteenth time? The first half of the article casts Putin as a tyrant, Bush as a bastard for having a news station support his views, pretends that there is reason to "convene Congressional hearings on Republican outrages" but the Democrats don't have enough power (how convenient) and neatly caps with derogatory remarks about the female SecState. I imagine it's a sign of a low quality piece when you have to stoop to insulting a woman's footwear.

When the op-ed writer substantively addresses the subject - for the first time - I'll tune back in.

Yet you still cared enough to make a post dismissing the thread. Why not just ignore it? Sorry, I really don't mean to single you out, I'm just pointing out something that bothers me about P&N.
 
Originally posted by: TheBDB
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: TheBDB
Anyone care to respond to the article?
What's to respond about for the umpteenth time? The first half of the article casts Putin as a tyrant, Bush as a bastard for having a news station support his views, pretends that there is reason to "convene Congressional hearings on Republican outrages" but the Democrats don't have enough power (how convenient) and neatly caps with derogatory remarks about the female SecState. I imagine it's a sign of a low quality piece when you have to stoop to insulting a woman's footwear.

When the op-ed writer substantively addresses the subject - for the first time - I'll tune back in.

Yet you still cared enough to make a post dismissing the thread. Why not just ignore it? Sorry, I really don't mean to single you out, I'm just pointing out something that bothers me about P&N.

Sorry, I really don't mean to single you out, but if yllus is doing something that bothers you about P&N, why not JUST IGNORE IT INSTEAD OF POSTING ABOUT IT.......

Heh heh....Not so easy is it?


Good for W, lecturing the dumbass.
 
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: TheBDB
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: TheBDB
Anyone care to respond to the article?
What's to respond about for the umpteenth time? The first half of the article casts Putin as a tyrant, Bush as a bastard for having a news station support his views, pretends that there is reason to "convene Congressional hearings on Republican outrages" but the Democrats don't have enough power (how convenient) and neatly caps with derogatory remarks about the female SecState. I imagine it's a sign of a low quality piece when you have to stoop to insulting a woman's footwear.

When the op-ed writer substantively addresses the subject - for the first time - I'll tune back in.

Yet you still cared enough to make a post dismissing the thread. Why not just ignore it? Sorry, I really don't mean to single you out, I'm just pointing out something that bothers me about P&N.

Sorry, I really don't mean to single you out, but if yllus is doing something that bothers you about P&N, why not JUST IGNORE IT INSTEAD OF POSTING ABOUT IT.......

Heh heh....Not so easy is it?


Good for W, lecturing the dumbass.

There is a difference between posting mindless drivel (something you know a lot about 😉)and trying to help people increase the quality of posts.
 
Originally posted by: TheBDB
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: TheBDB
Anyone care to respond to the article?
What's to respond about for the umpteenth time? The first half of the article casts Putin as a tyrant, Bush as a bastard for having a news station support his views, pretends that there is reason to "convene Congressional hearings on Republican outrages" but the Democrats don't have enough power (how convenient) and neatly caps with derogatory remarks about the female SecState. I imagine it's a sign of a low quality piece when you have to stoop to insulting a woman's footwear.

When the op-ed writer substantively addresses the subject - for the first time - I'll tune back in.

Yet you still cared enough to make a post dismissing the thread. Why not just ignore it? Sorry, I really don't mean to single you out, I'm just pointing out something that bothers me about P&N.
Forget that - why are we posting here, period? There's microscopically little of educational value, we're never going to change each other's minds and none of what we say will ever influence world events (thank whatever deity you believe in for that).

So I don't know about you, but all my posts in P&N (or on the 'Net in general) are made for purely for personal entertainment. BBond threads tend to be rather weighty with entertainment value.
 
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: TheBDB
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: TheBDB
Anyone care to respond to the article?
What's to respond about for the umpteenth time? The first half of the article casts Putin as a tyrant, Bush as a bastard for having a news station support his views, pretends that there is reason to "convene Congressional hearings on Republican outrages" but the Democrats don't have enough power (how convenient) and neatly caps with derogatory remarks about the female SecState. I imagine it's a sign of a low quality piece when you have to stoop to insulting a woman's footwear.

When the op-ed writer substantively addresses the subject - for the first time - I'll tune back in.

Yet you still cared enough to make a post dismissing the thread. Why not just ignore it? Sorry, I really don't mean to single you out, I'm just pointing out something that bothers me about P&N.
Forget that - why are we posting here, period? There's microscopically little of educational value, we're never going to change each other's minds and none of what we say will ever influence world events (thank whatever deity you believe in for that).

So I don't know about you, but all my posts in P&N (or on the 'Net in general) are made for purely for personal entertainment. BBond threads tend to be rather weighty with entertainment value.

:beer: You are right, fvck it.
 
Originally posted by: TheBDB
Originally posted by: yllus
Forget that - why are we posting here, period? There's microscopically little of educational value, we're never going to change each other's minds and none of what we say will ever influence world events (thank whatever deity you believe in for that).

So I don't know about you, but all my posts in P&N (or on the 'Net in general) are made for purely for personal entertainment. BBond threads tend to be rather weighty with entertainment value.

:beer: You are right, fvck it.
:thumbsup:

 
Originally posted by: TheBDB
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: TheBDB
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: TheBDB
Anyone care to respond to the article?
What's to respond about for the umpteenth time? The first half of the article casts Putin as a tyrant, Bush as a bastard for having a news station support his views, pretends that there is reason to "convene Congressional hearings on Republican outrages" but the Democrats don't have enough power (how convenient) and neatly caps with derogatory remarks about the female SecState. I imagine it's a sign of a low quality piece when you have to stoop to insulting a woman's footwear.

When the op-ed writer substantively addresses the subject - for the first time - I'll tune back in.

Yet you still cared enough to make a post dismissing the thread. Why not just ignore it? Sorry, I really don't mean to single you out, I'm just pointing out something that bothers me about P&N.

Sorry, I really don't mean to single you out, but if yllus is doing something that bothers you about P&N, why not JUST IGNORE IT INSTEAD OF POSTING ABOUT IT.......

Heh heh....Not so easy is it?


Good for W, lecturing the dumbass.

There is a difference between posting mindless drivel (something you know a lot about 😉)and trying to help people increase the quality of posts.
I don't recall anyone asking for your fvcking help. If you don't like it here, then the solution is simple. LEAVE.

Or as an alternate post:

:beer: Fvck it.
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
What country is the oldest democracy on earth? Oh yeah, the United States. Who is primarily responsible for the spread of democracy around the world? The United States. Why shouldn't we be able to preach democracy?

Just b/c your man lost to Bush in 04 doesn't mean that it's some conspiracy and that Bush is a "dictator." It was a fair election, get over it, democracy is alive and well in the USA.

Hehehe. "Alive and well."

Bwahaha.

Ask Maher Arar.

It's Called Torture

Alive and well...

 
Originally posted by: ntdz
What country is the oldest democracy on earth? Oh yeah, the United States. Who is primarily responsible for the spread of democracy around the world? The United States. Why shouldn't we be able to preach democracy?

Just b/c your man lost to Bush in 04 doesn't mean that it's some conspiracy and that Bush is a "dictator." It was a fair election, get over it, democracy is alive and well in the USA.

Actually, the greeks inveted democracy. And please do elaborate on why we should go and start wars and kill people to "spread" democracy
 
Originally posted by: Darthvoy
Originally posted by: ntdz
What country is the oldest democracy on earth? Oh yeah, the United States. Who is primarily responsible for the spread of democracy around the world? The United States. Why shouldn't we be able to preach democracy?

Just b/c your man lost to Bush in 04 doesn't mean that it's some conspiracy and that Bush is a "dictator." It was a fair election, get over it, democracy is alive and well in the USA.

Actually, the greeks inveted democracy. And please do elaborate on why we should go and start wars and kill people to "spread" democracy

I think it's because Bushies believe dead people are much easier to "democratize".

 
Originally posted by: Darthvoy
Originally posted by: ntdz
What country is the oldest democracy on earth? Oh yeah, the United States. Who is primarily responsible for the spread of democracy around the world? The United States. Why shouldn't we be able to preach democracy?

Just b/c your man lost to Bush in 04 doesn't mean that it's some conspiracy and that Bush is a "dictator." It was a fair election, get over it, democracy is alive and well in the USA.
Actually, the greeks inveted democracy. And please do elaborate on why we should go and start wars and kill people to "spread" democracy
Yeah, but they still had slaves and women weren't allowed a part in the gov't.

Actually, we're not a democracy. We're a representative republic.
 
I don't even know how much of a democracy we are anymore. It's moving more towards a 'christian' theocracy. Damn I hate dubya.
Anyone who presumes to know what God would want is a scary individual, and then to force it down everyone's throats as the 'right' way is just wrong. Personally, I THINK that God would want us to accept everyone, regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. Do not judge, lest ye be judged, and I think smacky the clown (aka dubya) is gonna be standing in judgement a long time.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: ntdz
What country is the oldest democracy on earth? Oh yeah, the United States. Who is primarily responsible for the spread of democracy around the world? The United States. Why shouldn't we be able to preach democracy?

Just b/c your man lost to Bush in 04 doesn't mean that it's some conspiracy and that Bush is a "dictator." It was a fair election, get over it, democracy is alive and well in the USA.

I guess I'm one of those increasingly rare people who can seperate the president from the country. As I'm sure you're all aware, I don't think Bush is the best president ever by any means, and I don't think he is the ideal person to tell the rest of the world how to run a democracy (obviously, since I voted for someone else). Still, America as a whole isn't bad when it comes to democracy, and I think we're still a good example for other countries interested in democracy.

In other words, WE can still talk about the virtues of democracy and how democracy can work, I'm less sure about Bush doing the same thing. Remember, no matter how much you like or dislike Bush, he's simply part of an ongoing transition. As ntdz said, the US has been a democracy for a long time (before Bush), and will be a democracy for a long time after 2008. Bush's actions of the past 4 years are hardly a blip on the radar screen of what should be the larger example of democracy. Bush doesn't make or break that.

Hopefully you are right.

Trust and Credibility is something built up over a long time, Bush destroyed that in a very short time.

How many False Wars on false pretenses of WMD has the U.S. started before Bush's Iraq Adventure???

 
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: TheBDB
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: TheBDB
Anyone care to respond to the article?
What's to respond about for the umpteenth time? The first half of the article casts Putin as a tyrant, Bush as a bastard for having a news station support his views, pretends that there is reason to "convene Congressional hearings on Republican outrages" but the Democrats don't have enough power (how convenient) and neatly caps with derogatory remarks about the female SecState. I imagine it's a sign of a low quality piece when you have to stoop to insulting a woman's footwear.

When the op-ed writer substantively addresses the subject - for the first time - I'll tune back in.

Yet you still cared enough to make a post dismissing the thread. Why not just ignore it? Sorry, I really don't mean to single you out, I'm just pointing out something that bothers me about P&N.
Forget that - why are we posting here, period? There's microscopically little of educational value, we're never going to change each other's minds and none of what we say will ever influence world events (thank whatever deity you believe in for that).

So I don't know about you, but all my posts in P&N (or on the 'Net in general) are made for purely for personal entertainment. BBond threads tend to be rather weighty with entertainment value.

If he didn't just keep repeating himself, he would be a lot more interesting. I mostly just move on when I see a posting by him. Took me a couple of days to even read this thread for that reason. Just bored this morning.

 
Back
Top