Merkel at Bush ranch today: 'Anything she wants'

Oh yummy, barbecued turkey hot dogs and diet A & W root beer, down on the ranch.

And for company while enjoying this repast? Internationally-noted raconteur, George Bush. Of course, he'll be turning in for bed about 8:30.

The only prayer for a laugh or two will be if he shows up blotto.

Let's just hope Cheney doesn't drop in and offer to take Merkel hunting. She might just go to relieve the boredom.

More maniacal meanderings from the Canadian embarrassment. Hey John, I've been to Canada countless times, in fact I have been to every Canadian province, except for the most northern, from British Columbia to Newfoundland. In Newfoundland at a function one of the dishes was like Shepherd's Pie. Almost had some, glad I didn't. The meat? Seal. I'll take turkey and hot dogs any day over seal meat, thank you.

We fear seal meat.

I just love the look on Merkel's face when bush is giving her a back rub!

Ewwwww. Ugly, Mad Boy Bush. Backrub. Squeezing the lady Chancellor's--
another woman's-- shoulders. Knowing full well it was all on film. Ewwwww. That was a very big power play on the chimp's part. I thought it showed he had very little respect for Merkel; very little respect for Germany. So not tasteful. So not statesman like. The big question is--on the ranch--will he eat with his mouth open--dropping crumbs--while verbally swearing--and slouching in his chair--as we saw and heard him behave in news snips with Tony Blair? Bush remained seated while Blair came over to talk. Disrespectful fool. I really hope he doesn't ask the Chancellor to pull his finger. Bush is just bad, egocentric, and dangerous on so many levels.

I think others come to visit Bush, not out of respect, but as a curiosity--something they can go home and talk and laugh about. In years to come, they can hang autographed pictures of themselves with Bush-- over the mustard counter in a family restaurant--in their country.

John D,

No wonder you've been so supportive of this administration's foreign policies -- you have the same level of skills.

Maybe YOU should take a hike with W.

Well, Kenny, I would let the Canadian government know that I frown on the annual baby seal hunt. I also would let the Japanese know that I frown on their continued whale killing sprees. And, Kenny, I would let the Chinese government know that I especially frown on their continued importing and killing of endangered animals such as the Bengal Tiger.

Hmmmm, being Mr. Nice and Softy Diplomatic Guy or being a loud, undiplomatic supporter of those creatures that need our help??? I think I'll go with the endangered tigers, monkeys, whales and the cute, cuddly baby seals.

John from Toranto,
I just wanted to say thank you for your input here. I often read The Globe and Mail, National Post, and Vancouver Sun online, and appreciate the sometimes unvarnished view from the north. I have had some very nice meals in Windsor, Toronto and Montrial. Regional cooking is one of the things that travel is all about. In the 90s, when the kids were young, we vacationed often in Canada and enjoyed the fact, then, that there were no "Kid's Meals" at fast food places, and there were no taxes on childrens' books. I think that has changed, however, the thinking and priorities then were good and right for a time.

John D,
I agree with saving baby seals. Would you agree with saving baby Iraqis?

Kinda quite when President Cheney participates in canned hunts. Double standard? I think not. It is SOP for Mr John D the caring compassionate conservative who's tough on crime.

He supports freedom because he supports torture (for information).

He supports wild life because he is okay with any type of canned hunting.

He is not a racist(anti gay) because he has a black (gay)friend.

You know the type. It makes perfect sense.

Vivian, I am all for saving baby Iraqis and that is what the U.S. has been doing the past 4.5 years.
Vivian, do you know that Hussein and his henchman murdered more than 1 million of his own people? They also tortured millions more. You know, things like chopping hands off, blinding people, etc. Real torture, not the waterboarding stuff.
Vivian, do you know that most of those killed in Iraq the past 4+ years have been killed at the hands of their fellow Arab?

Vivian, what about the Sudanese babies being killed? The Left and your favorite countries like China and Russia have been impediments in doing anything about the situation in Darfur.
Or how about Rwandan babies? Clinton did nothing about Rwanda and even said it was one of his greatest regrets as president.

John D,

Our neighbor from Toronto mentioned turkey Hot Dogs in his post. The rest of the edible animal stff is all you.

Like I said, same skill level.

"We'll do anything she wants,'' Bush says. "If she wants to go for a hike, I'll go for a hike.''

She should have made him read a book. Banking on Bagdad would be a good one.

Is the United States the only country whose leader invites other leaders to his personal mansion for meetings? I mean, how many times has Bush spent a few days in the personal home of another world leader?

That is one EXCEPTIONALLY creepy picture. Merkel looks like she's doing her utmost to hold her meal down.

"Vivian, do you know that Hussein and his henchman murdered more than 1 million of his own people?"

John D- you throw that number around alot. Please provide documentation for it.

Doesn't he look like a four year old discovering the world tact tile style. Dazzed amazed and unaware all at the same time of what he is doing.

AJF, seems to me like you idolized Hussein.

Anyway, here are some links (the numbers do vary):
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html

Here is one you really ought to like from the Socialist people, who claim 1 million Iraqis killed by Hussein:

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/7289

This one doesn't talk numbers, but is a history on Hussein and, oh my, HIS SUPPORT OF TERRORISM!!

http://www.emergency.com/hussein1.htm

And AJF here are two letters John D meant to sign with his buddies but they cut him off; not enough room on the paper.

One. Open letter to Clinton

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey

Two. Open letter to Bush

By William Kristol & others

Project for the New American Century
1150 17th St NW
Suite 510
Washington, DC 20037

September 20, 2001

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
Washington, DC

ear Mr. President,

We write to endorse your admirable commitment to "lead the world to victory" in the war against terrorism. We fully support your call for "a broad and sustained campaign" against the "terrorist organizations and those who harbor and support them." We agree with Secretary of State Powell that the United States must find and punish the perpetrators of the horrific attack of September 11, and we must, as he said, "go after terrorism wherever we find it in the world" and "get it by its branch and root." We agree with the Secretary of State that U.S. policy must aim not only at finding the people responsible for this incident, but must also target those "other groups out there that mean us no good" and "that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies."

In order to carry out this "first war of the 21st century" successfully, and in order, as you have said, to do future "generations a favor by coming together and whipping terrorism," we believe the following steps are necessary parts of a comprehensive strategy.

Osama bin Laden
We agree that a key goal, but by no means the only goal, of the current war on terrorism should be to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and to destroy his network of associates. To this end, we support the necessary military action in Afghanistan and the provision of substantial financial and military assistance to the anti-Taliban forces in that country.

Iraq
We agree with Secretary of State Powell's recent statement that Saddam Hussein "is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth…." It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a "safe zone" in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.

Hezbollah
Hezbollah is one of the leading terrorist organizations in the world. It is suspected of having been involved in the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Africa, and implicated in the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Hezbollah clearly falls in the category cited by Secretary Powell of groups "that mean us no good" and "that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies." Therefore, any war against terrorism must target Hezbollah. We believe the administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority
Israel has been and remains America's staunchest ally against international terrorism, especially in the Middle East. The United States should fully support our fellow democracy in its fight against terrorism. We should insist that the Palestinian Authority put a stop to terrorism emanating from territories under its control and imprison those planning terrorist attacks against Israel. Until the Palestinian Authority moves against terror, the United States should provide it no further assistance.

U.S. Defense Budget
A serious and victorious war on terrorism will require a large increase in defense spending. Fighting this war may well require the United States to engage a well-armed foe, and will also require that we remain capable of defending our interests elsewhere in the world. We urge that there be no hesitation in requesting whatever funds for defense are needed to allow us to win this war.

There is, of course, much more that will have to be done. Diplomatic efforts will be required to enlist other nations' aid in this war on terrorism. Economic and financial tools at our disposal will have to be used. There are other actions of a military nature that may well be needed. However, in our judgement the steps outlined above constitute the minimum necessary if this war is to be fought effectively and brought to a successful conclusion. Our purpose in writing is to assure you of our support as you do what must be done to lead the nation to victory in this fight.

Sincerely,
William Kristol
Gary Bauer
Jeffrey Bell
William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner
Eliot Cohen
Seth Cropsey
Midge Decter
Thomas Donnelly
Aaron Friedberg
Hillel Fradkin
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Jeffrey Gedmin
Reuel Marc Gerecht
Charles Hill
Bruce P. Jackson
Eli S. Jacobs
Michael Joyce
Donald Kagan
Robert Kagan
Jeane Kirkpatrick
Charles Krauthammer
John Lehman
Clifford May
Richard Perle
Martin Peretz
Norman Podhoretz
Randy Scheunemann
Gary Schmitt
William Schneider, Jr.
Richard H. Shultz
Henry Sokolski
Stephen J. Solarz
Vin Weber
Leon Wieseltier
Marshall Wittmann

John D-

From YOUR source.

"DOING the arithmetic is an imprecise venture. The largest number of deaths attributable to Mr. Hussein's regime resulted from the war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988, which was launched by Mr. Hussein. Iraq says its own toll was 500,000, and Iran's reckoning ranges upward of 300,000. Then there are the casualties in the wake of Iraq's 1990 occupation of Kuwait. Iraq's official toll from American bombing in that war is 100,000 — surely a gross exaggeration — but nobody contests that thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians were killed in the American campaign to oust Mr. Hussein's forces from Kuwait. In addition, 1,000 Kuwaitis died during the fighting and occupation in their country. "

Hmm, so to get to the number of people Hussein "murdered", you count the soldiers killed in the army during a war initiated by him as head of state.

So, by your own logic John D, you have just stated that George W. Bush is guilty of the murder of 3859 Americans.

Now if we look at the numbers that truly can be connsidered as being "murdered" by Hussein the numbers are a bit different...

Again, from your source:

"Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000."

(actually those numbers have since been called into question

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1263901,00.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/05/news/graves.php)

A huge and appalling number all on it's own. There is no need to exagerate it 3-fold John D. In fact your need to exagerate the number implies that oyu think killing 300,000 civilians isn't such a big deal.

The truth is important.

Nice work, AJF. It reminds me of the fabricated story we were fed leading up to the Kuwait invasion that had a Kuwaiti girl sobbing about babies being pulled from cribs. All dreamt up by a DC PR firm. Can't believe people didn't get more upset by such blatant lies to drum up support for a war.
911review.com/precedent/decade/incubators.html

Cool your jets, guys. Have a sense of humor once in a while. You take life too seriously. It's schnitzels and beer (non-alcoholic, of course) at the Bush ranch with an oom-pah band for entertainment. Sounds like fun to me. How do I get an invitation?

Hello John D,
Just wondering, why would you write that China and Russia are my favorite countries? I have never posted that. You are a bit fast with the false information re other posters. Why not just state your own thoughts/opinions-- any ones-- about the topic--then have the guts, confidence, and integrity to know that is enough--then be done with it?

Ugh...I think J.D. gets paid by someone each time one of us responds to his attacks.

Toronto--all Os.

It's schnitzels and beer (non-alcoholic, of course) at the Bush ranch with an oom-pah band for entertainment. Sounds like fun to me. How do I get an invitation?

Posted by: Heinrich | November 9, 2007 3:58 PM

I'm sure he's still got some whiskey and cocaine laying around. Your invited!

Vivian,

Although the majority of both parties supported the war, most of those that opposed the war favored “containment”. (Contain what exactly, I ask, if there was no problem?) Anyway, in addition to Saddam’s brutality, which as the above shows has varying estimates, the number of Iraqi civilians killed by UN sanctions needs to be also factored in to the equation:

http://www.arab-american-affairs.net/archives/UNICEF.htm

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Iraq/Sanctions.asp

Most estimates range from 2000 – 5000/month. Most of these were women and children. Consider that when you pose the question about “saving Iraqi babies”.