posted
What it comes down to, 0M, is that they stretch out their jokes too much. All TV skit shows do. If that skit were only two minutes long, they wouldn't have had to push so hard. Still, it was better than most SNL fare.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will admit, an item that bears similarity to a shelf is not what I thought of when I first heard iRack...
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Er, I thought of something else, too. I was sort of surprised to see an actual rack and not either a bust, antlers, or a medieval torture device.
I agree that it could have been shorter, but I enjoyed the joke. I saw the iRan thing coming, but I couldn't help laughing anyway.
This has nothing on the Daily Show's bit about IranIraqKorea, though.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Excuses as to what the president actually meant are falling on deaf ears because the White House has shown that hyperbole is perfectly acceptable behavior on their part. The White house has even gone as far as to crop out the "Mission Accomplished" banner on the White House page with the speech and in the video of the president giving the speech.
You will have to do better than pointing out a few words with your defense, Qaz.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet it really isn't the truth. Just spin. Similar to saying "well, he didn't use those exact words. . ."
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet it really is the truth, literally, without spin, only facts.
But if you call your interpretations "truth" and the bare facts "spin" and "not the truth" there is no point in discussion so I will let it pass.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
In the May 1st speech he announced the "end of major combat operations" in Iraq. That is fact
Since then there have been no less than FIVE troop surges, at least two of which had nearly the troop levels equal to the invasion. That is fact.
So, the assumption that his words were misleading at best, lies at worst, but either way false. No nitpicking at words is going to change that fact. The truth is that the May 1st comments about the militay operations and what has actually happened since then are contradictory. Or, will this turn into a disagreement of what "is" means as well? Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, what defines "major combat operations"? Is it troop levels? That seems irrelevant.
It seems that you could involve many MORE troops in holding a country than it took to invade that country, and still mark a date and time when the "invasion" is finished and successful.
If "major combat operations" = "invasion" and not "troop levels", then there is nothing false about Bush's statement.
I mean, you can say that this war is a bad idea, or poorly run, or immoral, or whatever you want. But I don't understand the focus on the "mission accomplished" thing. The very day he said it, everyone started criticising it. It's not like he convinced us all that the war was over, we all believed him, and then were disappointed.
It seemed to me, even at the time, that all he was saying was, "The invasion is successful, now on to the next phase." Which I think is what he meant. The huge negative reaction seems to stem from deliberate misinterpretations of his intent.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
