For Dems only.

[Gregory Pratt]

I'd like to see the entire clip, not just six seconds of it. What happened right after? What'd she say?

 

This is bizarre.

[Balta1701]

I'd like to see the entire clip, not just six seconds of it. What happened right after? What'd she say?

 

This is bizarre.

The video clip itself is pretty darn poor quality, aside from the pacing you can see the actual move a lot better in the still images. The Daily Show showed it last night, the massage thing lasted only like a second, she really pushed her arms back with some authority when he tried it. Comedy Central or Youtube will probably have the clip by the end of the day. I'd check, but I'm at home and on a modem, not at school on high speed.

Edited July 19, 2006 by Balta1701

[Soxy]

Youtube search results

[Gregory Pratt]

So, is the consensus that he WAS trying to make a move on her, then?

[Soxy]

So, is the consensus that he WAS trying to make a move on her, then?

My only consensus is "yuck."

 

 

And she showed more restraint than I would.

[Gregory Pratt]

My only consensus is "yuck."

And she showed more restraint than I would.

 

Pfft, then you and Merkel are the aberration.

Don't you know that Bush is God's gift to women?

 

(Actually, I've read from several sources that he's an awful husband and Laura is an emo First Lady who sits around smoking a million cigarrettes a day and feeling down about things.)

[FlaSoxxJim]

So, is the consensus that he WAS trying to make a move on her, then?

 

I think the concensus is just that he has no concept of what is appropriate behavior and what isn't. A world leader happens to be a woman and something goes pop in his brain and he decided it is appropriate to give the old gal a shoulder massage. I haven't seen him giving Putin or Sherak any impromptu back rubs at world summits. Though I am pretty sure he and Blair play footsy inder the table when they make joint appearances.

Edited July 19, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim

[Gregory Pratt]

I think the concensus is just that he has no concept of what is appropriate behavior and what isn't. A world leader happens to be a woman and something goes pop in his brain and he decided it is appropriate to give the old gal a shoulder massage. I haven't seen him giving Putin or Sherak any impromptu back rubs at world summits. Though I am pretty sure he and Blair play footsy inder the table when they make joint appearances.

 

I cracked a joke about creepy Presidential behavior on my blog.

 

Lyndon Johnson was famous for urinating in potted plants and asking people to carry a conversation with him while he used the washroom. Bill Clinton had an insatiable lust for women other than his wife. Ronald Reagan insisted on being allowed to makeup stories no matter who he was talking to, most famously illustrated when he told the Israeli Prime Minister that he’d been shot out of a plane during World War II. These things are all odd, creepy character traits, but not one of them is as creepy as this, which is a clip of George W. Bush giving Angela Merkel an unsolicited and apparently unwelcome neck massage. For all the knocks against Clinton’s libido, at least he never gushed that Vladimir Putin’s eyes betrayed a beautiful soul, and he certainly didn’t molest a foreign leader.

 

Aside from Tony Blair.

[NorthSideSox72]

He's really an embarrassment. A frat boy from Texas. I should have known.

 

(disclaimer: I voted for him in 2000, and I was also at one time a member of a fraternity, but I have never lived in Texas)

[longshot7]

I should be surprised, but I'm not.....

 

Hopefully Bush gets taken to the mat for this. I thought knowledge of what is sexual harassment was well-known nowadays, but I guess not.

[Rex Kickass]

There's no stained dress - that we're aware of - so it's perfectly fine.

 

I think its awkward, but innocent. It's just a leader who wanted to bring "the grown ups back to D.C." realizing that politically, he and his administration are acting like awkward teenagers. It's just sad.

 

Me thinks our President just needs a cuddle.

[Balta1701]

[mr_genius]

I think the concensus is just that he has no concept of what is appropriate behavior and what isn't. A world leader happens to be a woman and something goes pop in his brain and he decided it is appropriate to give the old gal a shoulder massage.

 

 

yea, pretty much

 

Bush is an idiot, always has been.

[BigSqwert]

Obama in '08?

 

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_t...ama_eyeing.html

[Balta1701]

"I was a Republican - until they lost their minds."

 

The Great Sir Charles.

 

More from the Round Mound of Rebound.

 

“The word conservative means discriminatory practically. It’s a form of political discrimination. [Conservatives are] against gay marriage and for a war that makes no sense. A war that was based on faulty intelligence. That’s all they ever talk about. That and immigration. Another discriminatory argument for political gain.“

Edited July 21, 2006 by Balta1701

[Balta1701]

A Federal District Court has refused to dismiss the first of the lawsuits challenging the Bush Administration's NSA spying program. The Bush Administration had sought dismissal on the grounds that the case would expose state secrets. The decision will presumably be appealed to the 9th circuit court of appeals, followed by the Supreme Court. One of the money quotes on why the State Secrets argument fails:

 

"[N]o case dismissed because its 'very subject matter' was a state secret involved ongoing, widespread violations of individual constitutional rights, as plaintiffs allege here. Indeed, most cases in which the 'very subject matter' was a state secret involved classified details about either a highly technical invention or a covert espionage relationship."

[Balta1701]

Current Federal Law:

 

The President shall provide to the Congress a report detailing the estimated costs over the period from fiscal year 2006 to 2011 of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, or any related military operations in and around Iraq and Afghanistan, and the estimated costs of reconstruction, internal security, and related economic support to Iraq and Afghanistan… the report referenced above shall be submitted no later than January 1, 2005.

 

The White House's Reply?

Instead of a presidential waiver, Joshua Bolton, director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote congressional leaders in May 2005 that the Pentagon couldn’t compile the estimates because “there are too many variables to predict accurately.'

I'm sure Congress doesn't really mean it when they pass laws, right? They still haven't presented that report. Edited July 21, 2006 by Balta1701

[Balta1701]

So, it seems someone has been casually editing NASA's mission statement in the hopes that the research direction at NASA could be changed without anyone really noticing. The part they removed?

 

From 2002 until this year, NASA’s mission statement, prominently featured in its budget and planning documents, read: “To understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers ... as only NASA can.”

 

In early February, the statement was quietly altered, with the phrase “to understand and protect our home planet” deleted. In this year’s budget and planning documents, the agency’s mission is “to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.”

Hmmm, what part of our home planet might people in power not wanting NASA spending their research dollars on. I wonder.

[Gregory Pratt]

Balta, you're paranoid.

 

Bush simply wants NASA to focus on the colonization to Mars.

 

Who says he lacks vision?

[Soxy]

Some Baptist Colleges cutting church ties.

 

Exerpts:

But to William H. Crouch Jr., the president of Georgetown, it was among the last straws in a struggle that had involved issues like who could be on the board of trustees and whether the college encouraged enough freedom of inquiry to qualify for a chapter of Phi Beta Kappa.

 

Dr. Crouch and his trustees decided it was time to end the college’s 63-year affiliation with the religious denomination. “From my point of view, it was about academic freedom,’’ Dr. Crouch said. “I sat for 25 years and watched my denomination become much more narrow and, in terms of education, much more interested in indoctrination.’’

 

David W. Key, director of Baptist Studies at the Candler School of Theology at Emory, put it more starkly. “The real underlying issue is that fundamentalism in the Southern Baptist form is incompatible with higher education,’’ Professor Key said. “In fundamentalism, you have all the truths. In education, you’re searching for truths.’’

[Balta1701]

Harry Reid is yet another victim of Identity Theft. In response, Congress will make it easier for identity theft to happen in another attempt to cut costs for the credit industry. Congress says it only has about 200 million to go before it reaches its goal of having everyone in America be the victim of Identity Theft.

[Balta1701]

In 2003, a group of 4 Senators introduced a bill to create even more stringent regulation of campaign finance in this country. The 4 senators: Shays, Meehan, Feingold, McCain. The bill did not pass then.

 

A nearly identical copy of that bill has been reintroduced. Care to guess which senator suddenly is less interested?

[Balta1701]

A great day for America.

[Balta1701]

Calling it “the biggest political and military blunder of my lifetime,” Sturgeon said to Bayh, “I’d like you to explain your vote on the war and why you gave the president a blank check to get us into this disaster.”

 

Bayh calmly answered that “I wouldn’t cast the same vote today as I did then.” He noted that “the French believed that (there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq), the Germans believed that, the Russians believed that, everybody believed he [saddam Hussein] had weapons of mass destruction.”

 

Bayh said if the Iraqi factions “get their political act together — and we will know this in the next six to eight weeks… if they can form a government… then there’s something to work with there.” If not, then “we’re out.”

Evan Bayh, by my count, a little over 8 weeks ago. Link

 

 

July 31, 2006

 

 

 

The President

The White House

Washington, D.C.

 

 

 

Dear Mr. President:

 

 

 

While the world has been focused on the crisis in the Middle East, Iraq has exploded in violence. Some 6,000 Iraqis were killed in May and June, and sectarian and insurgent violence continues to claim American and Iraqi lives at an alarming rate. In the face of this onslaught, one can only conclude that the Baghdad security plan you announced five weeks ago is in great jeopardy.

 

 

 

Despite the latest evidence that your Administration lacks a coherent strategy to stabilize Iraq and achieve victory, there has been virtually no diplomatic effort to resolve sectarian differences, no regional effort to establish a broader security framework, and no attempt to revive a struggling reconstruction effort. Instead, we learned of your plans to redeploy an additional 5,000 U.S. troops into an urban war zone in Baghdad. Far from implementing a comprehensive "Strategy for Victory" as you promised months ago, your Administration's strategy appears to be one of trying to avoid defeat.

 

 

 

Meanwhile, U.S. troops and taxpayers continue to pay a high price as your Administration searches for a policy. Over 2,500 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice and over 18,000 others have been wounded. The Iraq war has also strained our military and constrained our ability to deal with other challenges. Readiness levels for the Army are at lows not seen since Vietnam, as virtually no active Army non-deployed combat brigade is prepared to perform its wartime missions. American taxpayers have already contributed over $300 billion and each week we stay in Iraq adds nearly $3 billion more to our record budget deficit.

 

 

 

In the interests of American national security, our troops, and our taxpayers, the open-ended commitment in Iraq that you have embraced cannot and should not be sustained.

 

 

 

Rather, we continue to believe that it is time for Iraqis to step forward and take the lead for securing and governing their own country. This is the principle enshrined in the "United States Policy in Iraq Act" enacted last year. This law declares 2006 to be a year of "significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq." Regrettably, your policy seems to be moving in the opposite direction.

 

 

 

This legislation made clear that Iraqi political leaders must be informed that American patience, blood and treasure are not unlimited. We were disappointed that you did not convey this message to Prime Minister Maliki during his recent visit. Reducing the U.S. footprint in Iraq will not only give the Iraqis a greater incentive to take the lead for the security of their own nation, but will also allow U.S. forces to be able to respond to contingencies affecting the security of the United States elsewhere in the world.

 

 

 

We believe that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin before the end of 2006. U.S. forces in Iraq should transition to a more limited mission focused on counterterrorism, training and logistical support of Iraqi security forces, and force protection of U.S. personnel.

 

 

 

Additionally, every effort should be made to urge the Iraqis to take the steps necessary to achieve a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources. It is also essential to disarm the militias and ensure forces loyal to the national government. Finally, an international conference should be convened to persuade other governments to be more involved, and to secure the resources necessary to finance Iraq's reconstruction and rebuild its economy.

 

 

 

Mr. President, simply staying the course in Iraq is not working. We need to take a new direction. We believe these recommendations comprise an effective alternative to the current open-ended commitment which is not producing the progress in Iraq we would all like to see. Thank you for your careful consideration of these suggestions.

 

 

 

Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Leader

Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader

Dick Durbin, Senate Assistant Democratic Leader

Steny Hoyer, House Minority Whip

Carl Levin, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee

Ike Skelton, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee

Joe Biden, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, House International Relations Committee

Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee

Jane Harman, Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee

Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member, Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee

John Murtha, Ranking Member, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee

Link Edited August 1, 2006 by Balta1701

[FlaSoxxJim]

So . . . where is Evan Bayh's signature on that doc?