Gawd I hope we never see anything like this again...
See more funny videos at Funny or Die
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Can we submit this to a dictionary of some sort? Webster? The next time u search for the definition of ownership or owning....this video comes up....man, i mean, the guy didn't have a clue then, and he sure as hell doesn't have one now....in fact, he isn't even trying to hide shit now....scary....
US, this was your leader for 8 years....im sorry....
Absolutely disgusting. We should have had followup after followup on this question from our press until he came forward with a serious and legitimate answer. There's so much more to say and do before we can put this episode in our history behind us. Obama has a hell of a job on his hands, that's for sure.
I have seen the video a few times, and I always want the next question to be something like:
Mr. President, are you kidding? No really, are you? Is this a joke?
During the Bush years, "delegation" became a code word for "abdication" of responsibility.
Christ, I'm so glad this shit is over with.
that is the most embarassing thing I have ever seen.
Wow, just think how awful things would have been under that smartypants Gore (apart from no 9-11, no Iraq Invasion, no regressive tax cuts, competent appointees, and what have you, I mean).
Also, I remember reading that Kerry might have been worse (the awesome "the devil you know" argument).
Ed, do you really think there would have been no 9/11 if Gore was President?
Ed, do you really think there would have been no 9/11 if Gore was President?
For a variety of reasons, I think it's a distinct possibility. It's kind of hard to prove until I finish up my time machine, but a decent case can be made (e.g., PNAC needed an excuse to invade Iraq, PDB ignored, utter incompetence of the Cheney Administration, and dumb luck spring to mind).
Just to play devil's advocate, I thought this was quite hilarious. Would you rather he more subtly avoid the question by putting a few clever phrases together, general ambiguous statements and finish off by quickly sliding to the next question? My guess is that Obama could pull that off quite well. And for that I respect his rhetorical abilities. I also respect Bush for being honest in this situation. It just so happens that everyone perceives him to be the village idiot so this fits nicely into that schema. When Obama has one of these moments, it shows he's "human," whatever that means.
I also respect Bush for being honest in this situation. It just so happens that everyone perceives him to be the village idiot so this fits nicely into that schema. When Obama has one of these moments, it shows he's "human," whatever that means.
And which moments would those be, Arjun? Could you point to one? Anything close to this? I didn't think so. George Bush, Jr. is an incompetent fraud in way over his head. Anyone who cannot or will not see that is a Republican.
I apologize, I meant to say that I imagine that when Obama has such gaffes during his first term, I don't believe that they will be looked at under the same scrutiny.
No, I am not a Republican. I do consider Bush's first six years to be riddled with incompetence though. But my point stands: there are definitely some the questionable perceptions about President-elect Obama among liberals. I voted for him, but I remain skeptical.
1. i have no doubt bush is as stupid as he appears to be
2. while this is not a mutually contradictory possibility, i also believe he declines all responsibility for everything
3. imho, bush ***never*** actually quit drinking
4. rock on
Personally, that's just sad really. Professionally, its pathetic.
Would you rather he more subtly avoid the question by putting a few clever phrases together, general ambiguous statements and finish off by quickly sliding to the next question? - Arjun
No. I expect him to state and explain his position. He works for us. We deserve an answer on that especially when he claims to be so confident about privatization being the way towards greater government efficiency. How can he be so sure, if he does not know what he is talking about? Asking the secretary is not leading; that's following.
Arjun - This is a pretty bad example of the double-standard you speak of, if for no other reason than a president has a duty to give the appearance of competence. I'm sure it was a case of Bush trying to make a joke over a difficult/touchy question, but it makes him look like an idiot and undermines his image at home and abroad.
I'm all for being skeptical, but being universally cynical of all things Obama is just as lazy/unproductive as being universally approving of him. It just has the added negative of making you a party-pooper.
There I said it.
Look, the fact that he didn't have an answer to a legitimate question about the legal status of military contractors w/r/t Iraqi sovereignty is pretty serious and shows just how uninterested he was in actually "promoting freedom and liberty" over there.
I'm not sure what was worse: that he didn't have an answer or that he had an answer he didn't want the public to know.
if for no other reason than a president has a duty to give the appearance of competence.
Exactly, Exactly, Exactly!!!
As Ed showed in the video he linked to even when he tries to be serious & deflect the question he's awful. People were laughing at that sovereignty answer in the background. As a nation you can't have your president look like a fool.
But beyond that, one of my main problems with him doing this is that it is his M.O. He did/does this kind of stuff all the time.
Honestly, I thought and still think that this is hilarious and that the president came off as witty and I sort of liked him.
That is, it would be hilarious and witty if it was in a movie and HE WEREN'T REALLY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! Fuck! fuck! This so epitomizes... man that pisses me off.
How can he actually fail so completely to take the office seriously? I take my own job more seriously! (and I could do a lot better.) In all honesty. I've seen this plenty of times in the past and it still leaves me at a loss for words. The question cuts to the core of a very central issue in the conduct of the war in general and in fact, to one's whole perspective on foreign policy, on sovereignty, and on the rule of law! Some of these contractors have killed people with impunity before. Some have been killed, and they (not just the military ones) are still in the hundreds of thousands over there, plugging holes in our military which is too small (since we dont have millions of soldiers in our standing army) to occupy Iraq. How could he not even have thought about who is, you know, in charge of these guys running around doing whatever? It really is 'whatever'! They can, if they want, be like American warlords loosed over foreign citizens in their own country!
I can't even do anything more than sputter incoherently at this point because I could really write a book about how and why this has all been so fucked up. Sorry. It's very representative of a worldview which is so wrong, worse than wrong because it is no view at all, it just results in unthinkingly bringing seas of death and humiliation to foreign people for ends which are not even achievable and which don't even benefit....
Okay. I'm just gonna slowly back away and breathe. It's almost over.
Would you rather he more subtly avoid the question by putting a few clever phrases together, general ambiguous statements and finish off by quickly sliding to the next question?
Yes. I would much prefer that. I want a leader who sounds smart even when he doesn't have an answer, as opposed to one who sounds dumb even on the rare occasions when he does.