Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston





The U.S. was just downgraded from a “Full” to “Flawed Democracy.”

You can thank President Porn-Star Shagger, the one who praised a murderous North Korean dictator and insulted our closest ally, Canada.


Friday, February 6, 2009


Andy Card, George W. Bush's ex-Chief of Staff, criticized President Obama this week for working without a suit jacket and tie in the Oval Office, saying it disrespected the office.
CARD: "The Oval Office symbolizes...the Constitution, the hopes and dreams, and I'm going to say democracy. And when you have a dress code in the Supreme Court and a dress code on the floor of the Senate, floor of the House, I think it's appropriate to have an expectation that there will be a dress code that respects the office of the President."

Since he uttered this stupidity-- (BTW, Andy, it's not the clothes that confer respect to the occupant of the Oval Office, it's how diligently the president works for the American people that should earn respect)--bloggers have been busy turning up photos of Bush, et. al, working, GASP! without a jacket on in the GASP! Oval Office.
"It turns out that going casual in the Oval Office is a long, time-honored tradition that pre-dates the Bush administration: JFK did it. Gerald Ford did it. Ronald Reagan did it. Jimmy Carter did it. Clinton did it (a lot)."--H/P

What's the matter with Andy? Is he really that dumb?


dmarks said...

100% agreement here. As long as they keep their pants on inside the office, all should be OK.

I don't think that Card is playing with a full deck.

Arthurstone said...

I can't blame Andy Card.

Pettiness and mediocrity always come 'shining' through.

But it's inexcusable for so much press attention showered on this non-story.

There are real problems to grapple with.

This isn't one.

Anonymous said...

Arthurstone, the whole point of bringing it up is to show that some people (mostly Obama haters) want to make him seem wrong no matter what he's doing and no matter how small a matter. And they are excused from having to fact-check before opening their mouths. Palin is the most famous of these lying non-fact based morons. Bush could do no wrong in some people's eyes even though he did SO much wrong, and Obama is in office 2 minutes and already he's violating some made up dress code made up by some douchebag. I read a blog 2 days after the inauguration and the title of the post was Worst President Ever and they were talking about OBAMA not BUSH so this is the nutbaggery we're dealing with. Nutbags.

Arthurstone said...


TAO said...


Nice article, now here is one from the conservative side that says basically the same thing:

So, we would rather give Andy Card attention for his comments....

I think it is what was meant when they said that "...Nero fiddled while Rome burned..." kind of summed up the last 8 years.

Anonymous said...

Well then perhaps he should have criticized Obama and his band of crooks and cheats for dismissing the charges against Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the U.S.S. Cole bombing mastermind.
Would you call him a nincompoop for that?

I guess that Obama thinks we are supposed to feel guilty about the fact Al-Nashiri, a mass murdering son of a bitch psychopath, was water-boarded?

dmarks said...

Palin often doesn't even wear pants. I guess that is reason enough to keep her out of the Oval Office.

"I read a blog 2 days after the inauguration and the title of the post was Worst President Ever and they were talking about OBAMA not BUSH so this is the nutbaggery we're dealing with"

I heep nutbaggery scorn on those who use that description for either man.

There were impeach Obama blog posts even before Obama was elected. So, I would think that the "worst president ever" stuff might have existed back then too.

Shaw Kenawe said...


Read this:

“No Right Way To Do The Wrong Thing”
Thursday, July 3, 2008

"No right way to do the wrong thing" is an old saying; a Google search doesn't shed much light on its origins, although one website suggests that "no right way to do a wrong thing" is an old Turkish proverb. One of its most recent incarnations is in a Toby Keith song, entitled "Ain't No Right Way". The "wrong things" in this case are single motherhood, child abuse and banning school prayer.

Now, while this set of "wrong things" (or at least some of them) may be controversial, what is not, or should not be controversial, is that executing someone after a blatantly unfair trial is a "wrong thing." That's why, following the chaotic arraignment in Guantanamo of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the 4 others charged with involvement in the 9/11 attacks, the chief of US military defense lawyers for the military commissions told a press conference that there "ain't no right way to do a wrong thing."

He may have been quoting Toby Keith slightly out of context, but he is absolutely correct. Bringing anyone to trial, and seeking the death penalty, in a system as fundamentally flawed as the current military commissions is simply, extremely wrong. As Amnesty International, which had an observer at the June 5 proceedings, concluded in its June 6 report "The Show Trial Begins":

"The military commissions are designed to facilitate the conviction and even execution of foreign nationals designated as ‘enemy combatants' by the US military, as well as their continued detention in the event of acquittal, while keeping secret the intelligence methods used by the USA. Torture, enforced disappearances, and secret detention have been among these methods. Crimes by non-state actors have been met with crimes by state officials in the ‘war on terror', and the government has developed a detention and trial system that may whitewash the abuses from its side of the ledger. For justice read injustice."On Monday, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions issued a statement in which (in addition to talking about the death penalty in Alabama and Texas) he stated flatly of the military commissions that: "these trials utterly fail to meet the basic due process standards required for a fair trial under international humanitarian and human rights law". He also called the commissions a "gross violation of the right to a fair trial." And he added that, "It would violate international law to execute someone following this kind of proceeding."

Undeterred, that same day the US Department of Defense announced it was filing capital charges against another Guantanamo prisoner, ‘Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi Arabian national who was held incommunicado in secret prisons for almost 4 years, and who, according to a CIA admission in February, was "waterboarded" during the course of his interrogation. He is charged with organizing the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000. (Two other men have been indicted for involvement in this attack, but in a regular Federal court. So, why not proceed the same way with al-Nashiri?)

According to Amnesty's July 2 report on the al-Nashiri charges:

"Detainees held by the USA in the name of counter-terrorism have had their right to the presumption of innocence systematically undermined by a pattern of official commentary on their presumed guilt. They have been subjected to enforced disappearance, secret detention and torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, including in terms of the interrogation methods and detention conditions employed against them. Such abuses heighten the need for any trials to take place before courts independent of the executive and legislative branches which have authorized or condoned these human rights violations. Instead, trials are looming before military commissions lacking such independence and specifically tailored to tolerate government abuses, including by allowing the admission into evidence of information coerced under ill-treatment."The Military Commissions set up to try Guantanamo prisoners are wrong, and there is simply no right way to conduct trials under a system so fundamentally unfair. Carrying out executions after such unfair proceedings compounds, or multiplies the wrong. But as the new Amnesty report also makes clear, there is a "right thing" (or several "right things") that can be done.

I realize that you and other believe that the US should continue to torture those who perpetrated criminal acts against the United States.

Torture is not an American value. We have prosecuted foreign nationals for waterboarding--using torture.

Values are what you stick to even in horrible, scary times. Our values are what made us the "good guys."

If you don't honor your values in difficult times, even times when we face danger, then they're not values, they're just hobbies.

I find it depressing that so many of my fellow Americans don't understand that.

Handsome B. Wonderful said...

Man, I don't care if he's wearing his pj's in the oval office as long as he's making the right decisions.

And I think that people make better decisions when they dressed in a more casual attire. I mean come on, he's still wearing a tie and business shirt.

Speaking of cards, Andy Card is a few cards short of a full deck.

TRUTH101 said...

I was wearing one of my signature flannel shirts when negotiating better pay and easier access to family time off for the ladies in my workplace secretarial pool.

TAO said...


In Wisconsin and Michigan I believe that a flannel shirt is considered formal business attire! :)

TRUTH101 said...

They mostly wear hoodies to formal gatherings in central Illinois where I live TAO. I just try to be as rebellious as a 46 year old can be without hurting himself.

dmarks said...

Tao: "In Wisconsin and Michigan I believe that a flannel shirt is considered formal business attire! :)"

That's a Wisconsin-only thing now. Business in Michigan is a thing of the past.

libhom said...

Those dress codes are based on a truly infantile mentality.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.