I feel your exhaustion

President Obama being too tired to entertain British P.M. Gordon Brown was a hot topic around the blogosphere last week, but because I had something in common with Mr. Obama, I didn’t post about it. You see, I was too tired.

My children are 7, 5, 3 and 8 months and, being a deranged lunatic who should know better, I homeschool them. The ones who are old enough for school, anyway. The other one just takes the house apart bit by bit while I teach math and phonics. They all joined in the taking apart this week because I was busy sitting on the phone with Dell tech support and trying to get caught up on a backlog of bank statements in preparation for being patriotic and sending in some of our wealth to be redistributed. But I digress. Probably because I’m tired.

President Obama’s job is much harder than mine, of course. If I don’t teach Elizabeth how to subtract with borrowing today, the Daily Mail isn’t going to excoriate me for it. If I don’t get the laundry out of the dryer and folded, the worst that will happen is that it will get wrinkled. The British Foreign Office will not be involved, and nobody will know but me and my family. If I don’t get Microsoft Money running properly….wait, that’s a bad example. There will be consequences on that one. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama need my money, after all. There are banks and insurance companies and car companies to be bailed out, overextended homeowners to be kept in homes they can’t afford, and embryos to be dismembered in the name of apolitical science. But again, I digress. Probably because I’m tired.

I really do understand that the President is tired. I understand that the job is harder and more taxing (okay, pun intended) than he thought it was going to be. I understand that he needs that work-out every day to keep him in tip-top shape for tackling what ails the country. I get it. I really do.

What I don’t get is this: does the man not understand the concept of delegating? I mean, aren’t there protocol apparatchiks over at State whose job it is to know what’s an appropriate gift for a head of state and where you’re supposed to meet a head of state and how much fawning and sucking up is necessary? Who dropped the ball on this one? The President, or Madam Secretary? Was this a case of PUMA vengeance? I’m asking because I really don’t know. After all, I’m not the President or the Secretary of State or even a protocol apparatchik.

I’m thinking it might be a generational thing. Barack and Michelle Obama are the same age as my husband and I. And our generation is notorious for not giving a damn about the niceties of protocol. We’re lousy at thank you notes and the like, and we don’t always know the right things to say and the right gifts to give. I’ve made a conscious effort to learn these things, but I think most of my contemporaries think it’s just stupid and pointless: So what if he gave the guy a bunch of DVDs? The polar ice caps are melting and these people are talking about inappropriate gifts?

Don’t worry, Mr. President. Shoot some hoop and have a nap. The British Empire’s in the dustbin of history, and if you want to treat the P.M. as though he were the president of Burkina Faso, it’s all good. What are they going to do, not invite us to tea?

Comments 27

  1. Dan wrote:

    I also like how Bowden is so vastly stupid that he’s not even aware that Iraq invaded Iran and not vice versa.

    Posted 14 Mar 2009 at 8:57 pm
  2. Bowden Russell wrote:

    I also like how Bowden is so vastly stupid that he’s not even aware that Iraq invaded Iran and not vice versa.

    Yes, I said that earlier. Carter encouraged Iraq to attack Iran in September of 1979.

    You’re losing it with your insults Dan. The sure sign that you’re getting your hat handed to you is this display of mental desperation with the insults.

    Man that must bug you that the entire world looks upon your favorite President, Bill “BJ” Clinton as a sexual deviant.

    Posted 14 Mar 2009 at 9:45 pm
  3. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Go get a blowjob somewhere you stupidhead!

    Wow. That’s a new low Dan, even for you.

    Posted 14 Mar 2009 at 9:46 pm
  4. Foxfier wrote:

    *cough* So, working looking for “moderate Taliban”– fine.

    Finding moderate Iranians and helping them– bad.

    o.0

    Posted 14 Mar 2009 at 11:28 pm
  5. Dan wrote:

    Foxfier are you really pretending that Reagan sold weapons to “moderate Iranians” and not the central Iranian government who Bowden claims we were at war with? Nevermind that Bowden believes that the US was at war with any country that was even sympathetic to the USSR (a group that includes our current ally, India).

    The way that Republicans pretend that Reagan was a great president and didn’t engage in all kinds of illegal activities that ultimately leads to 9/11 and then pretend he was too stupid/old to remember doing so never ceases to amaze me.

    Then again those same Republicans actually believe that 9/11 happened because terrorists “hate us for our freedom” and not because of all the ways we’ve fucked middle eastern countries over (under presidents and congresses of both parties) so I suppose its excusable for delusional people to believe delusional things.

    Posted 14 Mar 2009 at 11:47 pm
  6. Bowden Russell wrote:

    The way that Republicans pretend that Reagan was a great president and didn’t engage in all kinds of illegal activities that ultimately leads to 9/11 and then pretend he was too stupid/old to remember doing so never ceases to amaze me.

    Wow, tough day Dan? You’ve been on a roll recently.

    Look Dan, History has already given Reagan a pass on the Arms-for-Hostages deal. I didn’t know we we’re going to re-fight 1986 again. He shouldn’t have done it, but his motives were good: to free the CIA agents held captive in Lebanon.

    Again, it was a mistake.

    But a mistake tha pales in comparison to Carter’s numerous FUBARs with the Shah and the Iranian govt.

    It also pales in comparison to Clinton’s sexual harassment of women in the Oval office (I have to keep myself from typing “Oral Office”) and his failure to persecute his own war on terror, which was an unmitigated disaster. His failure directly led to the 9/11 atrocity. Let’s face it, he was more interested in grouping Kathleen Wiley than nailing Bin Laden. Shame on Clinton and his supporters.

    Jimmy Cater was a disaster of the 4th-degree. I know that bothers you that history hasn’t been kind to Cater, like it has been to the Cold-war winning Reagan, but those are the breaks.

    Posted 15 Mar 2009 at 1:10 am
  7. Brigette Russell wrote:

    Go get a blowjob somewhere you stupidhead!

    Oh, dear. Things are getting rather sophomoric around here. Am I going to have to post one of those annoying “comments policy” things?

    Posted 15 Mar 2009 at 4:15 am
  8. Foxfier wrote:

    Hey, Dan, please show where I said anything about Reagan in in 53.

    That is what is called a “throw away remark”– because you made it plenty clear that taking you seriously is a waste of time and effort.

    Do love how you try to blame EVERYTHING on “St. Ronny”, despite the bend-over-backwards clarity that Carter planted a lot of the ideas, and Clinton threw fertilizer on the weeds.

    Looking back, Prez Reagan shouldn’t have pulled our guys out after the Marine barrack bombings; this is hind sight, where he was treating the situation in a way that is culturally fitting to our way of thought he should’ve been thinking like a *blankety blank* terrorist. They see it as running away, we see it as taking our ball and going home.

    Clinton, on the other hand, turned down getting Bin Laden– even though that’s culturally *inappropriate* to both sides.

    Really love how you try to take an obvious throw-away as an excuse to ignore the person who actually offered something you’d have work to counter, though.

    Posted 15 Mar 2009 at 4:34 pm
  9. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Looking back, Prez Reagan shouldn’t have pulled our guys out after the Marine barrack bombings; this is hind sight, where he was treating the situation in a way that is culturally fitting to our way of thought he should’ve been thinking like a *blankety blank* terrorist. They see it as running away, we see it as taking our ball and going home.

    Actually FF, Reagan had no political option but to pull the Marines out of Lebanon. The Democrats, led by Tip O’Neil, made it very clear that they would hang the “Lebanon is Viet Nam” tag on the mission the entire campaign season (pull out began in February of 1984).

    So we lost Lebanon because the Democrats wanted to play politics with national security.

    And, as you pointed out, thousands of Americans would die because of the Democrat perfidious political strategy years later.

    Posted 15 Mar 2009 at 5:59 pm
  10. Foxfier wrote:

    BR-
    I just know looking back, stratigically, it made the wrong folks look strong. (Makes a lot more sense to know that folks did the stupid ‘Nam thing.)

    It’s about as useful as saying “oh, if Bush had just stopped all airplanes on 9/11, the towers would be in place!”

    Thanks for taking the time to offer a bit more background.

    Posted 15 Mar 2009 at 9:26 pm
  11. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Thanks for taking the time to offer a bit more background.

    Well, I figure someone has to counter the revisionism that is prevalent here due to a certain someone.

    ;->

    Posted 15 Mar 2009 at 10:31 pm
  12. Brigette Russell wrote:

    Actually FF, Reagan had no political option but to pull the Marines out of Lebanon. The Democrats, led by Tip O’Neil, made it very clear that they would hang the “Lebanon is Viet Nam” tag on the mission the entire campaign season (pull out began in February of 1984).

    This is the sort of thing most people don’t know because the media doesn’t point it out periodically the way they repeatedly remind people about Iran-Contra and anything else they think will make the Republicans look bad. Anything that makes the Democrats look bad gets left out of all those “retrospective” news pieces that are really thinly disguised DNC compaign ads. Conservatives have to pay very close attention and work hard to collect their ammunition in the rhetorical struggle for the future of our country, whereas liberals get spoon-fed theirs.

    Posted 16 Mar 2009 at 4:02 am
  13. Dan wrote:

    Just to summarize this comment stream:

    Bowden’s argument is that getting a blowjob is worse than selling weapons to a country he claims we were at war with. Consensual oral sex is worse than treason, as long as that treason is done in order to fund far-right wing guerrillas! You see, when you agree with terrorists’ goals, you call them “guerrillas”. Indiscriminate attacks on civilians? Necessary in order to overthrow the oppressors! Targeting health workers for assassination? A harmless joke! Raping civilian women? They probably enjoyed it! Executing civilian men, women, and children? Better than the alternative! Also, abortion is worse than all those things!

    Clinton also gets the blame for 9/11 despite his administration’s well-documented attempts to make the Bush administration understand what a grave danger Al Qaeda was, because he had been too busy getting a blow job four years earlier! Did he mention Clinton got a blow job? Blow job! Also, he definitely sold nuclear secrets to China. Proof? Unnecessary! Seriously, blow job! By the way, you must show him hard evidence that Reagan’s immediate commencement of arms sales to Iran upon taking office had nothing to do with their deciding to release the US Hostages simultaneously! Its all a coincidence! Prove its not! You can’t prove it!

    He’s also of the opinion that Reagan was a hero for being too much of a wimp to stand up to those frightful democrats in the Senate for political reasons. Doing what he knew to be wrong to score political points? Heroic! Presumably after securing re-election in 1984 he was too forgetful to remember that he intended to invade Lebanon. Dazzling! Was Hezbollah aided by the same Iranian government that Reagan sold weapons to just two years earlier? Irrelevant! Reagan is a hero!

    Bowden believes Reagan’s eagerness to sell weapons to Iran and direct funding and support for Nicaraguan terrorists makes him an anti-terror hero.

    Carter’s refusal to sell Iran weapons makes him, to quote Bowden, “good friends with the terrorists of the world!” Examples of this friendship with terrorists: None? Irrelevant!

    Posted 16 Mar 2009 at 11:18 pm
  14. Foxfier wrote:

    Just to summarize this comment stream

    Translation:
    Strawman, I summon YOU!

    Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 3:13 am
  15. Dan wrote:

    Actually, I can back up every assertion in it with quotes from Bowden. Which one do you think is a stra man?

    Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 3:44 am
  16. Bowden Russell wrote:

    1. Bill Clinton approved the technology transfer by Loral Industries to China that enabled China to put multiple sattelites on their missiles, thus giving China MIRV capabilities (look that acronym up Dan). He signed off on this tech transfer against SECSTATE Christopher Warren’s objections w/r/t encryption technologies he gave to the Chicom.

    2. In return the Chinese gave the Clinton Re-election committees $100,000. This donation was ILLEGAL and it came from China Aerospace, a branch of the Communist People’s Liberation Army. Therefore, the Chincom directly were attempting to help re-elect their main benefactor in Washington.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05E5DA1739F93AA25756C0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

    From Softwar.com:

    President Clinton also overrode the objections of Secretary of State Warren Christopher who opposed exporting advanced encryption technology to China.

    So yeah, I back it up. He was more interested in getting serviced and taking ILLEGAL communist campaign contributions than getting Bin Laden.

    Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 6:57 am
  17. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Carter’s refusal to sell Iran weapons makes him, to quote Bowden, “good friends with the terrorists of the world!” Examples of this friendship with terrorists: None? Irrelevant!

    Son, lay off the stupid pills. Have you not seen Carter kissing the ASS of Hezbollah and Hamas? He loves those terrorists.

    Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 6:58 am
  18. Dan wrote:

    Son, lay off the stupid pills. Have you not seen Carter kissing the ASS of Hezbollah and Hamas? He loves those terrorists.

    I admit I would need pills to be as stupid as you. Carter’s supposed asskissing of Hezbollah and Hamas is worse than Reagan’s direct military and monetary support for the country you claim the US was at war with, Iran (which would amount to Treason), and the raping, murdering, pillaging terrorist Contras? Right. Or did you want to back off your claim that the US was at war with Iran?

    Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 1:48 pm
  19. Dan wrote:

    So yeah, I back it up. He was more interested in getting serviced and taking ILLEGAL communist campaign contributions than getting Bin Laden.

    You seem to be making the same connections between Clinton and China as I did with Reagan and Iran. Both have an obvious quid pro quo pattern but neither is hard evidence. Typically, you’re unable to see your own hypocrisy. Could it be your partisan blinders?

    Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 1:52 pm
  20. Foxfier wrote:

    Actually, I can back up every assertion in it with quotes from Bowden.

    And they’re just as accurate as your quote from the Bible in another list of replies– you know, the one you offered against the death penalty, which flat out says that the ruler packs the sword to use against evil doers?

    Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 3:46 pm
  21. Bowden Russell wrote:

    You seem to be making the same connections between Clinton and China as I did with Reagan and Iran. Both have an obvious quid pro quo pattern but neither is hard evidence. Typically, you’re unable to see your own hypocrisy. Could it be your partisan blinders?

    AS I SAID BEFORE DAN: Reagan shouldn’t have done that. We all know what happened and why Reagan did it. He did it to free the CIA hostages being totured in Lebanon.

    Clinton, on the other hand, compromised national security for his own personal gain: Getting re-elected. He knowingly took bribes from numerous individuals who had known connections to the Chincom Army. He had these “donors” to the white house for fund-raising. Believe me, the FBI does background checks on all individuals who attend these fund-raisers: Clinton knew it was illegal for them to donate money and he still took it.

    For you to compare the serial-sexual-predator Clinton to President Reagan is beneath the pale, even for you Dan.

    Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 4:36 pm
  22. Dan wrote:

    And they’re just as accurate as your quote from the Bible in another list of replies

    I think your memory is playing tricks on you. I didn’t quote the bible, I just referenced a specific verse and a specific commandment from it without quoting it at all.

    Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 7:21 pm
  23. Dan wrote:

    AS I SAID BEFORE DAN: Reagan shouldn’t have done that. We all know what happened and why Reagan did it. He did it to free the CIA hostages being totured in Lebanon.

    So you admit Reagan committed treason. Good, we’re on the same page. Now we just need to work on the part where either adultery or getting illegal campaign funds is worse than treason.

    Clinton, on the other hand, compromised national security for his own personal gain: Getting re-elected. He knowingly took bribes from numerous individuals who had known connections to the Chincom Army. He had these “donors” to the white house for fund-raising. Believe me, the FBI does background checks on all individuals who attend these fund-raisers: Clinton knew it was illegal for them to donate money and he still took it.

    And yet you yourself said that Reagan pulled out of Lebanon following the Beirut bombings for purely political reasons – so that he could get re-elected. Reagan also knew that both selling arms to Iran and aiding the Contra terrorists were illegal. I will give you this though, at least Reagan never got a blow job as far as we know.

    Isn’t it funny how the GOP controlled congress spent nearly $30 Million investigating Clinton – good ole fiscal responsibility! – and all they could come up to try him on was lying about whether he got a blow job or not? High crime or misdemeanor indeed! It was especially funny when it came out that half the house leadership were also engaged in extra-marital affairs, most notably Republican superhero Newt Gingrich.

    This as opposed to Reagan’s getting off on Iran-Contra by being senile.

    Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 7:29 pm
  24. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Dan said,

    AS I SAID BEFORE DAN: Reagan shouldn’t have done that. We all know what happened and why Reagan did it. He did it to free the CIA hostages being totured in Lebanon.

    So you admit Reagan committed treason. Good, we’re on the same page. Now we just need to work on the part where either adultery or getting illegal campaign funds is worse than treason.

    Instead of addressing Dan in my posts, which appears to be a waste of time as he doesn’t believe in discourse, but only in yelling and propaganda (of the worst sort), I had decided to use Dan’s comments as an exercise in taking apart and dealing with the comments of a person who is ignorant of history and who has been spoon-fed pablum from some hyper-socialist university.

    No one accused Reagan, until tonight that is, or Clinton of Treason. Dan’s ranting is just beyond the extreme. I never accused Clinton of treason and Reagan’s actions don’t come near to the level of treason, as witnessed by Jane Fonda. Note, Fonda we were told in the 1970s couldn’t be tried for treason for her actions in North Viet Nam since an official state of war never was declared against North Viet Nam.

    And yet you yourself said that Reagan pulled out of Lebanon following the Beirut bombings for purely political reasons – so that he could get re-elected. Reagan also knew that both selling arms to Iran and aiding the Contra terrorists were illegal. I will give you this though, at least Reagan never got a blow job as far as we know. </I.

    Reagan was told by the Democrats who controlled the House no funding would be appropriated to continue the mission in Lebanon in the following year, 1984. Thus, the Democrats forced Reagan to pull out.

    Isn’t it funny how the GOP controlled congress spent nearly $30 Million investigating Clinton – good ole fiscal responsibility! – and all they could come up to try him on was lying about whether he got a blow job or not? High crime or misdemeanor indeed!

    Again, we see one of the favorite tools of the left-wing in the world: Obfuscation. Dan likes to leave out at Clinton was impeached for LYING IN A FEDERAL COURT UNDER OATH.

    He wasn’t impeached for preying on Monica Lewinsky, he was impeached for perjury and obstructing justice. You see, the Republicans believed that no one, not even Clinton, is above the law. The Democrats, as typified by Dan, like to think that when it comes to their president they can tell whatever lies they want under oath at any time. Dan’s attempt to lessen the charge is again, just another sad attempt to apologize for one of the most pathetic human beings to serve as President in our life-time.

    Frankly, the Republicans should have impeached Clinton for “Lying to the American public” just like the Democrats were doing to do to Nixon (the first article of impeachment which was drawn up for Nixon was lying to the American public).

    Notice how Dan attempts to equate the affairs of Gingrich, whom I despise, to that of Cliton’s pefidity of corrupting the judicial system! This only shows what a hyper-partisan individual he is.

    Instead of just saying that Clinton was a terrible man he stoops to “Gingrich did it also!”. No, Gingrich, whom I despise, didn’t lie under oath. But those are just minor details that, as usual, get in the way of Dan’s continuous “big lie.”

    And lest any one forget, Clinton was stripped of his law license by the Arkansas Supreme Court for his perjury in the federal case.

    How humiliating for the President of the US to be disbarred. I don’t think any other President has that distinction!

    Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 4:55 am
  25. Grue in the Attic wrote:

    I didn’t quote the bible, I just referenced a specific verse and a specific commandment from it without quoting it at all.

    It’s effectively the same result, you referencing it is just as good as you quoting it just with you leaving someone else to do the legwork. No weaseling. 😛

    Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 5:13 pm
  26. Dan wrote:

    It’s effectively the same result, you referencing it is just as good as you quoting it just with you leaving someone else to do the legwork. No weaseling.

    You implied that my quotes would be inaccurate because of inaccuracies in quotes from the bible that I never actually made. Just sayin.

    Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 9:33 pm
  27. Foxfier wrote:

    You implied that my quotes would be inaccurate because of inaccuracies in quotes from the bible that I never actually made. Just sayin.

    No, you listed a verse which clearly states that “rulers” are to use the sword against evil doers as an anti-death penalty argument.

    Either you were ignorant of what you were citing, or you were amazingly wrong in your interpretation of the verse cited.

    Posted 21 Mar 2009 at 8:08 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *