If it doesn't work out for Kerry in November...

[vraiblonde]

...he can always try for President of France!

http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/g...Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2004/03/15&ID=Ar00104

His face graces the covers of magazines and newspapers on Paris newsstands. He’s the subject of radio phone-in and television talk shows. Journalists chase down distant relatives and long-forgotten acquaintances in search of anecdotes.

Anyone ever hear the Weird Al song "I'm a Genius in France"? I'll find the lyrics....

 

[vraiblonde]

I'm not the brightest crayon in the box
Everyone says I'm dumber than a bag of rocks
I barely even know how to put on my own pants
But I'm a genius in France, yeah, genius in France, genius in France

I may not be the sharpest hunk of cheese
I got a negative number on my SATs
I'm not good looking, and I don't know how to dance
But nevertheless and in spite of the evidence I am still widely considered to be a
Genius in France, genius in France, genius in France

People say I'm a geek, a moronic little freak
An annoying pipsqueak with an unfortunate physique
If I was any dumber, they'd have to water me twice a week

But when the Mademoiselles see me, they all swoon and shriek
They dig my mystique, they think I'm c'est magnifique
When I'm in Par-ee, I'm the chic-est of the chic
They love my body odor and my bad toupee
They love my stripey shirt amd my stupid beret
And when I'm sipping on a Perrier
In some café down in St. Tropez
It's hard to keep the fans at bay
They say "Sign my poodle, s'il vous plait"

Folks in my hometown think I'm a fool
Got too much chlorine in my gene pool
A few peas short of a casserole
A few buttons missing on my remote control
A few fries short of a happy meal
I couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel

But when I'm in Provence, I get free croissants
Yeah, I'm the guy every French lady wants
And if you ask 'em why, you're bound to get this response:
(He's a genius in France! Genius in France!)

I'm not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree
But the folks in France, they don't seem to agree
They say, "Bonjour, Monsieur, would you take ze picture with me?"
I say, "Oui, oui"

I'm dumber than a box of hair
But those Frenchies don't seem to care
Don't know why, mon frere
But they love me there
I'm a genius in France
Yeah... I'm a genius in France

Gonna make a big splash when I show up in Cannes
Gonna make those Frenchies scream, "You ze man! You ze man! You ze man!"

Like a fine Renoir (waa!), I've got that je ne c'est quoi (quoi!)
Like a fine Renoir (ooh la la!), I've got that je ne c'est...
Quoi quoi quoi quoi quoi, oo-we-oo

I'm a taco short of a combo plate
But by some twist of fate, I'll the Frogs think I'm great
Oh, the men all faint and the women scream
They like me more than heavy cream
When I'm in Versailles, I'm a popular guy
My oh my, I'm as French as apple pie
They think I'm awfully witty, a riot and a half
When I tell a stupid joke, they laugh and laugh

People in France have lots of attitude
They're snotty and rude, they like disgusting food
But when they see me, they just come unglued
They think that I am one happening dude

I'm about as sharp as a bowling ball
But they like me better than Charles de Gaulle
Entre nous, it's very true
The room temperature's higher than my IQ
But they love me more than Gerard Depardieu
How did this happen? I don't have a clue

Well... I'm not the quickest tractor on the farm
I don't have any skills or grace or charm
And most people look at me like I'm all covered with ants
But I'm a genius in France, yeah, genius in France, genius in France

And I'm never goin' back, I'm never goin' back
I'm never never never never goin' back home again
I'm tearin' up my return flight ticket
Gonna tell the folks back home where they can stick it
'Cause I'm never goin' back, I'm never goin' back
I'm never goin' back

The girls back home never gave me a chance
But I sho nuff got them Frogs in some kinda trance
And I'm aware that it's a most improbable circumstance
But GREAT GOOGILY MOOGILY, I'm a genius in France

Every Frenchie that I meet
Just can't wait to kiss my feet
Get in line, pucker up! Tout suite!

I'm gettin' even more famous by the hour
I'm stuffed with pastries and drunk with power
Now they're puttin' up my statue by the Eiffel Tower

I'm the biggest dork there is alive
My mom picked out my clothes for me till I was 35
And I forgot to mention
I'm not even welcome at the Star Trek convention
But the Frenchies think
That my poop don't stink
I'm a genius in France

 

[Larry Gude]

This is one...

...of the many reasons Kerry is the worst possible candidate this fall.

In this corner, American Cowboy.

In that one, Jerry Lewis.

Now, I guess, the moderates will go for it if 'ole Jer can find a Dean Martin to go along with him?

 

[SamSpade]

Someone commented on a radio show I heard the other day, commenting that one of Kerry's biggest problems in getting elected is, he always looks like he's scowling.

 

[willie]

Several articles in this mornings Post referred to Kerry as John F. Kerry and J.F. Kerry. Is this some kind of subliminal message?

 

[SamSpade]

It's been widely observed that his initials are the same, and that he hobnobbed with the Kennedys in his youth. Not terribly subliminal when it's all over the place.

 

[willie]

Originally posted by SamSpade
It's been widely observed that his initials are the same, and that he hobnobbed with the Kennedys in his youth. Not terribly subliminal when it's all over the place.

It just seemed a much heavier dose this morning.

 

[Tonio]

The Europeans are so anti-Bush that they would have us elect a cow or a horse for president.

 

[SamSpade]

They're p*ssed because for once we didn't kiss their lily white azz before doing something.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by willie
Several articles in this mornings Post referred to Kerry as John F. Kerry and J.F. Kerry. Is this some kind of subliminal message?

If it is don't tell Lee Harvey Gude.

 

[rraley]

I recently had the opportunity to have a British man teach my global diplomacy class the past couple of days and he brought with him papers from England that represented all parts of the political spectrum. And I noticed this about all of them, regardless of their political leanings: they all covered the US election extensively so I am not surprised to hear that the French newspapers have John Kerry on the front of their papers.

I do not agree with the premise that John Kerry (or JFK as he would like to be referred to it appears) is the worst candidate this nation could have out there. President Bush has some very solid ideas in his foreign policy, but his methods by which to accompish his goals are terrible. The American president must speak before groups with the thought in his head that he is not just addressing the people that will be voting in 2004, but the people of the world. Using overly simplistic phrases like "you are either for us or against us" or referring to a battle in the Middle East as a "crusade" are things that a president in this time cannot do. The only way that we can defeat the terrorists is to have strong allies overseas and right now we do not have that besides Great Britain. The rest of Europe basically hates us (including most of the UK people I remind you) and Middle Eastern countries do not trust us. It is this sort of situation that we must escape because it is such a situation that prevents our government from receiving good, credible information about terrorist threats and serious help when we commit troops overseas. We live in a globalized society and our foreign policy as a result cannot be as unilateral and isolationist as this administration's has. From researching John Kerry and looking over his record, it is clear to me that he is the candidate that understands that and will create a foreign policy that will make our fight against terrorism to be very effective.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by rraley
From researching John Kerry and looking over his record, it is clear to me that he is the candidate that understands that and will create a foreign policy that will make our fight against terrorism to be very effective.

I disagree. I think John Kerry will destroy the effort by paying off terrorist nations like Clinton did, then we'll be right back where we started from and 300 American soldiers will have died in vain.

There are two methods of dealing with these sort of people: Pay them off or kill them.

Paying them off only lasts until they need more money, then you're back to square one. Plus, other groups say, "Hey! We want some money and stuff too!" and now you have more problems.

Killing them lasts forever and sends a different message to wannabes.

France, Germany and these other nations don't like Bush because he's making them look like a bunch of cowardly losers. The UN made resolutions that Iraq ignored, then the UN ignored them ignoring it. Bush finally said, "We're not going to ignore this. Anyone else sick of it too?" And Chirac, Schroeder and the rest hid behind their chairs and said, "No thanks," even though they knew there was a problem to be addressed.

And we're having success in Iraq so now they're doubly embarrassed. They would love to have Kerry beat Bush in November because it would validate them and make them look like they knew what they were talking about after all.

 

[Ken King]

The American president must speak before groups with the thought in his head that he is not just addressing the people that will be voting in 2004, but the people of the world.

This is where the man doesn’t understand us. You see, we already kicked his country’s @ss (twice) and we really don’t care what he thinks. The President talks to us and talks for us, he speaks to the world when he needs to, but it won’t be strapped with your need for social grace and nicety. Currently we aren’t dealing with those that you can deal with and we shouldn’t have to when they have attacked us or act in defiance of un-enforced world declarations. Another flip-flopping, wishy-washy, Kennedy wannabe in the Whitehouse isn’t what we need leading our country. I think that we will leave that to Europe as they seem to have a firm handle on it.

 

[rraley]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I disagree. I think John Kerry will destroy the effort by paying off terrorist nations like Clinton did
France, Germany and these other nations don't like Bush because he's making them look like a bunch of cowardly losers. The UN made resolutions that Iraq ignored, then the UN ignored them ignoring it.
And we're having success in Iraq so now they're doubly embarrassed.

The only instance where I can see Clinton "paying off" terrorist nations as you put it was in the case of providing financial aid to North Korea in 1994 so that they could alleviate the problems created by famine there (and in return to our minimal aid package, the North Koreans halted their nuclear weapons program). I do not see anywhere in Senator Kerry's speeches, proposals, or record where he has indicated that he is going to pay terrorists off. Let me remind you that Senator Kerry rightly voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq and he voted for an alternative version of the $87 billion reconstruction package for Iraq and Afganistan (while he voted against the one that passed as a protest vote, he voted for a version in which part of the Bush tax cuts would be rolled back to finance the operation). He has voted for the past three defense budgets which are the largest because he has noticed the changing environment our nation is in as a result of the specter of terrorism. There is a lack of true difference between President Bush and Senator Kerry on matters of foreign policy except on the issue of internationalism, which must be a major tenet of our foreign policy in order to succeed.
It was absolutely terrible that the United Nations chose to ignore the consistent Iraqi violation of Security Council resolutions, but the United States' delegation did very little to prove this point to the Security Council when it convened. I again remind you that the Security Council passed a resolution several months prior the the introduction of the US-UK resolution to authorize force that strongly condemned Hussein for his inability to comply with UN resolutions. This resolution was passed without a single vote of dissent, and there was renewed vigor in the inspection of Iraqi weapons facilities. If the United States and United Kingdom had not been so insistent on early deadlines for these inspections, they could have continued and several scenarios could have happened: 1) the inspectors discovered weapons of mass destruction, 2) the inspectors found no illegal weapons, 3) the Iraqis did not allow the inspectors in, 4) the Iraqis did not allow inspectors to investigate based on international demands. In three of these scenarios (which were far more likely than the second one that I mentioned) had occurred, the UN would have jumped on the opportunity to authorize force against Saddam Hussein. There was ample opportunity for the United States to receive international approval and as a result, provide legitmacy to our operations there.
I would also not say that the Chirac, Shroeder, and Putin refused to pass the second resolution for the mere fact that they did not like Mr. Bush. I would say of course, number one, they had pretty strong ties to Iraq (the Soviet Union and subsequently the Russian Federation has traditionally taken the side of a Middle Eastern nation) that made the nations weary of regime change there. That is of course the main reason for those three nations' reactions to the second resolution. But there reaction was so intense that they came out and announced that they would all veto the second resolution. That does not occur just because they have economic ties to the nation (it is understood that a free Iraq would continue to trade with these nations). Rather the Bush Administration's early foreign policy actions in office perpetuated the image of an isolationist America. Consider the first three actions of the United States when President Bush came into office. Our nation withdrew from the Kyoto Treaty, which mandates stronger environmental standards throughout the world, the International Criminial Court, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. All three of these treaties had been signed by the overwhelming majority of the world community, but the United States refused to sign on. Such an action is akin to flipping the world the bird and creates major resentment worldwide, not just among leaders, but the people as well. The world community had a bad taste in its mouth after the these actions and produced the environment in which three leading European powers would vigorously oppose what they saw as a rush to war.
Just to close this part of this long post up, I want to make clear that the Iraq should have been liberated, but it should have been liberated with the world's approval, which was easily obtainable in my opinion. After 9/11, the entire European world was just as shocked as we were. There was tremendous goodwill towards us and as a result, the UN soundly endorsed the US-UK action against Afghanistan. A more articulate foreign policy that does not amount to "you are either with us or against us" would have definitely gotten UN approval for the war in Iraq. That is my main point here, and maybe that got lost a little in my very, very long post here (I'm bored as crap).
And this is my last point and last paragraph I promise...I would definitely not characterize what is going on in Iraq as resounding success (though I am not going to say that it is unobtainable). There are still an average of 25-30 attacks a day on "coalition" forces and reconstruction sites. There have been 500 civilian deaths the past two months as a result of terrorist bombings. The month of February was the deadliest month of the war since "major combat missions" ended last year. Sectarian fighting is breaking out and foreign jihadists are starting to pour into Iraq over a fractured border that will soon only be guarded by a smaller, ill-trained Iraqi border police group. The nation is just one 9/11 or 3/11 bombing away from complete civil war among the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. While I will definitely say that the Iraqi people themselves are better off without Saddam Hussein as their leader, I must also say that success in Iraq is still a little further down the road.

 

[Larry Gude]

And there you have...

France, Germany and these other nations don't like Bush because he's making them look like a bunch of cowardly losers. The UN made resolutions that Iraq ignored, then the UN ignored them ignoring it

...the thorn in the side of the Democratic party. They are standing out on the end of a plank they chose to walk out on...opposing freeing oppressed people and the removal of a despot.

They are in so deep they're stuck, like France, in an ignorant, vapid position.

 

[rraley]

Re: And there you have...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...the thorn in the side of the Democratic party. They are standing out on the end of a plank they chose to walk out on...opposing freeing oppressed people and the removal of a despot.

Just a reminder: John Kerry and John Edwards, the two leading contenders for the Democratic nomination, both supported the war. The vast majority of this party is thrilled to see that Saddam Hussein is in a cell rather than a palace torturing his people.

 

[vraiblonde]

Re: Re: And there you have...

Originally posted by rraley
The vast majority of this party is thrilled to see that Saddam Hussein is in a cell rather than a palace torturing his people.

Then why don't they act like it? How long should the US have waited and how many more Iraqis would have been killed or tortured while we were? How many more Al Qaeda operatives would have been trained? It wasn't looking like the UN was EVER going to go for it. France and Germany were saying they'd veto before Powell even made his case.

It wasn't like Bush decided overnight to send troops over. This went on for months before any action was taken - remember? Gave Saddam plenty of time to ship his stuff to Syria - which is what David Kay said in his report, that the media barely mentioned.

This had been going on since the Gulf war - like 12 years. Does that sound like a "rush to war" to you?

Kerry voted for the Iraq War, it's true. But he's done nothing but talk about how wrong it is since. I have no reason to believe he'd stay the course in Iraq and with the War on Tara.

 

[SamSpade]

Re: Re: Re: And there you have...

Originally posted by vraiblonde

Kerry voted for the Iraq War, it's true. But he's done nothing but talk about how wrong it is since.

Kinda like his stance on Vietnam, huh?

 

[Bruzilla]

I really hate to say this rraley, but President Bush isn't the one being simplistic, it's you and people who think like you do. I don't fault you for feeling the way that you do as you're young and haven't really gotten a chance to get kicked in the teeth a couple of times by the World. Once you do, you'll better understand what we're talking about.

In regards to international security, once you strip away all of the bravado, the flags, and the political BS, you end up with a simple animal behavior - Fight or Flight. You, Bush, a dog, etc., will all execute this instinct. The only difference is which way you'll go. Bush has chosen to fight, while the Spanish have recently chosen the flight option.

You also have to look at national interests. Back in the 1980s, The French were in a proxy war with Libya over the nation of Chad. Yet, even though Libyan troops were killing French troops, when the Libyans needed a special ship to transport their new submarines from the Soviet Union to Libya, guess who rented them one? The French! Guess who was still Libya's biggest trading partner? France!

European nations were largely defanged after World War II by the US and it's protection against the Soviet Union. Most Europeans serve in their militaries at their leisure, and it's more of a hobby or status thing for them. They have lived under a blanket of security provided by the US, and like any people in that environment, they have become risk-adverse. The French and the Germans have a history of looking the other way when it comes to terrorism. Not because they support terrorism, but because they would rather suffer the evils of living with it than to suffer the evils of fighting it. They are no different than the people who know there's a crack house on their street and do nothing about it, or who pull the window shade down when they hear a scream from outside.

You talk about how Bush shouldn't say things like "you're either with us or against us." I would agree with you if you're talking to most Americans, but how do you deal with countries like France, Germany, and Russia? Countries that are afraid to deal with adversaries, or worse, that are taking bribes from adversaries? How do you get a country like France, who's leaders are taking bribe money from Hussein; who's banks are owed billions of dollars by Hussein and that won't see a penny if he falls; and who's businesses have billions of dollars in contracts with Hussein; to be an honest broker of what's right and wrong? I find it amazing that hypocrites like Kerry can wag their fingers at Dick Cheney for daring to have a blind trust, that he has no control over, with Halliburton, yet see nothing wrong with the French and their dealings with a murderous dictator like Hussein. Most of the arguments that I hear from Democrats are so obsurd that it embarasses me to be an American.

Sure... Bush could have spent weeks and months trying to get the French, the Germans, and the Russians to support us, but he would have never gotten them to. Recently captured documents have shown that the leaders of these countries were supporting Hussein right up to the end. They didn't do it because they liked the guy, or supported what he was doing. They did it because they had a huge financial stake in his staying in power, and they placed that interest ahead of any sense of morality. Are these the kind of people you want your President trying to placate? Or would you rather have a President who's smart enough to know when he's getting jerked around and has the guts to say "FU" to those who need to be told it? That's why I'm voting for Bush.