posted
At a recent dinner with news media bigwigs, Bush cracked the following joke:
quote:Bush put on a slide show, calling it the "White House Election-Year Album" at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association 60th annual dinner, showing himself and his staff in some decidedly unflattering poses.
There was Bush looking under furniture in a fruitless, frustrating search. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere," he said.
What a prize wit! I'm sure it takes expert delivery to win over your audience with jests about how you started a war for questionable reasons. "I sent all those troops to kill and be killed, to disarm Iraq of its WMDs, and now look at me hunting for them under my couch! Ho ho ho!"
posted
And you left out the part where he spent some time that night honoring the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posts: 1481 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's this specific joke I don't like, rather than the practice of the president joking about himself. As a rule, you shouldn't joke about something you've done that's had deadly consequences.
Did Johnson go up there and wisecrack about sending kids to the Nam?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think it's more of a confession of his stupidity that he put so much stock in finding weapons of mass destruction. He's poking fun at himself, not anyone else.
But I can understand why Dems would get upset by this, so, have fun.
posted
this is actually from a year before at the same dinner.
quote:Despite his many oral mishaps, Bush said, "life goes on. Our military still protects our shores. Americans still get up and go to work. I don't think it's healthy to take yourself too seriously, but what I do take seriously is my responsibility."
This is how the night ended....
quote:His slide show segued into a somber ending, showing a group of special forces troops in Afghanistan at the site where they buried a piece of the fallen World Trade Center in commemoration of the dead from Sept. 11.
[ March 25, 2004, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: Trogdor the Burninator ]
Posts: 1481 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno, Trogdor, I'm not a Democrat (I'm a liberal independant), and I think that his joke was in bad taste.
I can imagine the "outrage" from conservatives (not just Republicans) if Clinton had started making jokes about Bosnia (blowing up the Chinese embassy) or about Monica Lewinisky (because we know that the pres sleeping around is so much more important than a war under false pretences ).
Posts: 851 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really, the biggest indicator for how one would feel about this joke is how one felt about Bush before it was made.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So just out of curiousity, do you folks find all jokes about WMDs offensive? Even the ones made by, say, Jay Leno or David Letterman?
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, really if one was inclined to think them offensive from Bush, it'd be for a variety of reasons beyond joking about the war. If one believes a man started an unnecessary war, sent men to kill and die for a lie, I can certainly understand why they'd be offended by that man joking about it, but not a talk show host.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
And my disapproval does not hinge on my belief that the war was wrong. Just the fact that there are allegations that he misled people about the WMD should make that topic sensitive enough to be off-limits for his joking.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every day the left is outraged at Bush for SOMETHING. The man can do nothing right in their eyes.
I think the joke is stupid, but s/he who has not told a joke that flopped or was in bad taste throw the first stone.
Kerry for instance
"Somebody told me the other day that the Secret Service has orders that if George Bush is shot, they're to shoot Quayle," Kerry joked in 1988. The Massachusetts Democrat then said, "There isn't any press here, is there?"
posted
If Pixiest only posted that joke as a tit-for-tat, I can't help wondering when it all STARTED -- when the first political figure outraged members of the first political opposition, and they went public with their annoyance.
Frankly, given that Bush has apparently dedicated his life to doing the opposite of what most of the people who dislike him would want a president to do, I'm rarely surprised that they find things to dislike about him. *shrug* That doesn't mean that their complaints are invalid, or that their complaints AREN'T petty, either; they just lie on top of deeper complaints like a thin sheen of ice on a deep lake.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was not terribly surprised at the joke -- certainly so-called humor as part of public discourse by politicians (image-building, 'one of the boys') has always gone awry from time to time -- but it did offend me.
Here's why. The imminence of WMD's in the hands of Al Qaeda and terrorist-sponsoring states was the one threat which made any sort of sense as a justification for what was actually an extraordinary paradigm shift:
an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign state
a publicly acknowledged and celebrated campaign of assassination against a foreign head of state and his cronies
the exercise of US military might and deadly force in unprecedented scale for such an 'uninvited' police action...
...a paradigm shift which moreover was attended by massive risks and costs, including, besides costs in dollars and lives:
severe erosion of goodwill and trust toward the US worldwide
profound doubts about the longevity of an occupation and how or when it might end
and, as is now seen quite clearly, a nearly opposite effect to that intended, of bolstering the zeal of radical Arab fundamentalists and adding to their ranks....
These risks and costs far outweighed the other lesser goals advanced for the war against Iraq: further suppression of Al Qaeda to prevent future 9-11's; establishment of a new order for peace in the Middle East; taking out "bad man" Saddam; etc. Only the imminent threat of WMD's in the hands of implacable and uninhibited enemies, justified these enormous risks and costs. ... Furthermore, it was already the suspicion of many -- 'confirmed' in various leaks -- that the WMD argument had been heightened for just those calculated reasons (and in order to pursue these hawkish policices for the lesser goals above and many others, including the oil factor). Wolfowitz himself as much as admitted it on the radio earlier this week. Now this central controversy -- the signal emblem of an administration apparently determined to do and say anything necessary in order do whatever it pleases, at home or on the world stage, no matter what law or custom might contravene -- is fodder for a lame joke by our Commander in Chief. Folks, he is laughing in our faces. This WMD thing was just a goof from the start! Of course it's a joke now.
Thank goodness for Hatrack anyway... I know many of you disagree with me, but the one thing that disappoints me about as much as what I've written above, is the reluctance in the administration to undertake real discourse on some of these themes with the public. Questions such as:
The WMD threat is real, certainly in theory. What should be our preparations, our responses? An atomic device, a nerve agent, in a US city -- unthinkable. But who is the enemy? How to preempt them?
These are complex, important questions. And instead of clear-eyed admission of the difficulty of these questions, balanced debate about the trade-offs (e.g., security vs. liberty!), etc., we get half-truths, misdirection, a political campaign draped with the flag, easy emotionalism over 9-11 and fallen soldiers -- and gags. I'm glad we can talk about it here. (Edit... punctuation, repeated word)
[ March 26, 2004, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: John Van Pelt ]
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did not vote for Bush, but I was glad to see that he can poke fun at himself. His "searching for WMDs behind the furniture" sketch was genuinely funny, and Democrats who want to manufacture an issue by claiming it was "insensitive" need to get a life. Perhaps they would do well to take a tip from the president, and learn to laugh at themselves once in a while. Taking yourself so seriously all the time so that you can't do this, is unhealthy.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well since someone brought up Clinton, how about ordering airstrikes the morning Monica Lewinsky was to testify before Congress?
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:His slide show segued into a somber ending, showing a group of special forces troops in Afghanistan at the site where they buried a piece of the fallen World Trade Center in commemoration of the dead from Sept. 11.
Can someone explain the significance of this to me? I was watching MSNBC, and it was clear that this was emotionally rousing to people of just about every political pursuasion.
I honestly don't get it. Is there a historical precedent? Is a piece of Pearl Harbor buried in Japan somewhere?
Afghanistan wasn't supposed to be "the enemy" - just the parts that were led by the Taliban and the Al-Qaida.
I'm not being cute - I honestly don't get why this is considered appropriate and evokes an emotional response across the political spectrum.
Please help me out - without anger, if possible, since I know I'm in a very small minority.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps they would do well to take a tip from the president, and learn to laugh at themselves once in a while. Taking yourself so seriously all the time so that you can't do this, is unhealthy.
You see, I like to laugh at myself when I make a slip of the tongue or my dishwasher overflows or something. Not when I've caused deaths. Anyone who can start a war and then sit back and chuckle about it is a little too laid back for my taste.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, its people like you that I hate the most. The ones that enrage me more than anything else. So selifhs in your wisdom and ideals and "truths" that you simply can't take the world as the world. It must always be right or left, black and white. A man can't have both good and bad in him, he most be one or the other. Its the people like you that let thousands of civilians and soldiers die in one event or another.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How can you jump from starting a war to sitting back and laughing about it?
quote: You see, I like to laugh at myself when I make a slip of the tongue or my dishwasher overflows or something. Not when I've caused deaths. Anyone who can start a war and then sit back and chuckle about it is a little too laid back for my taste.
Do you interpret the joke as Bush laughing about starting a war and killing people? Weren't there a plethora of reasons behind going to war of which WMD were just one? The left and the media (oops, same thing)harp on the missing WMD, so why not joke about that? I can't see how that is joking about death and war and killing people.
Posts: 277 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact is sometimes you have to laugh about the grisly things so they aren't so bad. Believe me I've made more than a few of them. In my mind you have to laugh a little about everything thats important to you. Thats simply life.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, Fox, I've always liked you, and I understand you've been through a lot in this war, so no hard feelings about this stuff.
I don't believe that Bush has no good in him. Obviously he does have some. I would say that freeing Afghanistan from the Taliban was a good act.
But here I think he's done something inappropriate. He's not laughing ruefully at his mistakes. He's making light of them. I think he's being disprespectful to you and others in the service by joking around about matters that are, for you and others, deadly serious. Whatever you might say about WMD, that is the reason that the balance of the American people stood behind him in support of the war. It is, in this sense, the reason for the war.
He could joke about this stuff in private, and that would be cool with me. Like you said, a bit of levity helps one's outlook. But he was speaking in public to the press.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi, BlackFox. GOOD to see you back. You've been a favorite poster since the bonduca days before you enlisted.
"The left and the media (oops, same thing)harp on the missing WMD..."
Do you mean the left and liberal media like Fred Barnes, Jim Bohannon, Neal Boortz, Brent Bozell, Neil Cavuto, Linda Chavez, Greg Corombus, Ann Coulter, Blanquita Cullum, Matt Drudge, Larry Elder, Mike Gallagher, Bob Grant, Ken Hamblin, Sean Hannity, James Hirsen, David Horowitz, Brit Hume, Don Imus, Laura Ingraham, Jason Jarvis, Jack Kemp, Alan Keyes, Don Kroah, Lars Larson, G. Gordon Liddy, David Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh, Marlin Maddoux, Michelle Malkin, Michael Medved, Dennis Miller, Alan Nathan, Peggy Noonan, Ollie North, Robert Novak, Bill O'Reilly, Dennis Prager, William Safire, Michael Savage, Joe Scarborough, Debbie Schlussel, Laura Schlessinger, Tony Snow, Thomas Sowell, Doug Stephan, Cal Thomas, George Will, Armstrong Williams, Walter Williams, etc?
posted
Mostly Matt Drudge links to other websites. Though I agree he shouldn't link to admitted liars like the New York Times which he does far too often.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
TheDrudgeReport is ranked # 7 in popularity out of all internet news services. His choice of links is editorial control in the same manner as any other news outlet.
posted
Wow The Pixiest, can you show any more animosity towards liberals (or possibly people who aren't considered to be conservative enough)? The last time I heard, it wasn't EVERYONE at the NYT that had fabricated stories (if I'm wrong, I appologize and please, feel free to correct me). Does this mean that everyone at USA Today is a bunch of liars as well (I just want to be sure that we're treating all news sources that make up articles correctly) since one of their own was recently found to have fabricated stories as well?
quote: Every day the left is outraged at Bush for SOMETHING. The man can do nothing right in their eyes.
I think that Bush can do right, but I think that both Bush and his administration have done some other things wrong. I supported the war in Iraq (and still do), but I don't like the fact that we were lied to (or mislead - however you want to spin it). If he had just come out and had said that they felt that it was time to remove him for reasons OTHER than WMD's (be it the human rights violations, firing on US troops enforcing the No Fly Zone, revenge for Saddam wanting to kill his father, etc) and just left WMD off as a reason, I'd have been more happy to stand behind my government in the war.
Of course, I'm sure the exact opposite is true/will be true to Republicans (or some conservatives): that Clinton and Kerry (if he is elected) will be able to do nothing right during their administrations.
posted
So slacker, how do you know which articals by the NYT are written by the liars and which ones are written by the non-liars? How many oppinions were shaped by the stories by Jason Blair and his ilk there? How many have they still not rooted out? Mr Blair said that it was the culture of the NYT to juice things up and what I've read at the NYT I see evidence to support his claim. And I don't think it's restricted to the NYT, they're just the worst.
Like this WMD business. Everyone knows that Sadaam had them. We haven't found them yet and he had over a year to hide them while the left tried to stop us from going in. They're probably in Syria right now. Yet the press is out there every day hammering the No-WMD-Bush-Lied story. Heck, even Kerry said "If you don't think Sadaam has WMD's don't vote for me" (oh how I long for a LexisNexis subscription)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. Armed with Lexis/Nexis, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between you and Ann Coulter. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would, however, be accurate to say that Saddam Hussein did obviously have them at one point-and used them on civilians. It would also be accurate to say that no one really believed he did not have them before Gulf War II (to be charitable, let's say no one would enthusiastically deny he had them), just that they wanted what I feel was an unreasonable burden of proof. Weapons inspections without the consent of the inspected are nonsense. (OK, that last part was just my own opinion:) )
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay this might take awhile, but this is honestly whats on my mind at the moment. Well its been on my mind since we were moving through Karbala. Sort of has been on my mind for a long time. Well even from when I was a child. I've always had a sort of odd view on what it meant to be a soldier. My father was always a patriot, but never the blind sort. Well I suppose this really is going to take a lot of room so I suppose I'll post it here and then post it in its own topic so. Yes.
I don't mean to disrespect someone when I say the word civilian and I don't mean it in the broad sense of the word. I mean it in the sense of what I have seen to be the average American. So.. I suppose here goes with what has been torturing my soul.
The Average American is the sort to help a stranger who has fallen on the ground, or to help an old lady across the street. The average guy I've met loves his Grandma and most of the time loves his mother like no other. The thing is he is inherently racist.. well I shouldn't say racist, but he is unfeeling for the most part for the plight of those in the far away lands. Lands where most likely his forefathers had never heard of , at the very most heard of in some far off story of some sort or another. Democracy and polls have put the average American into a rather unusual and unprecedented postion if you ask me, that he though uniformed and uneducated on a majority of the world has great decision making power of the vast sort. He is simply educated by what he reads in the news. But every event in life tends to be very polar. War for example is very much towards the negative, while say good economy is positive. My favorite example is the fact that we would suffer a minor ambush in Iraq in our battalion area and it would be on CNN. While we would be in another larger encounter a week from then where we took down some odd target or simply ambushed would be ambushers. This of course is for the most part not broadcast out to the general media. Its not like there was a reporter on every corner. Plus news is simply geared towards the more radical and interesting rather than perhaps that which is most pertitent for a citizen to make an informed educated choice. The thing is if you ask me most people make their choices based on things that are false. That and I have found that those that are educated tend to develop traits and ideas I find to be very false, but I'll get into that later.
So for the most part I utterly and totally hate the average American. This might come as a shock to many people, but it is honestly the truth now. I do not like the average civilian anymore. Why is this? Well mainly it comes about that I find Americans, and to be honest most of humanity is very fixed on his comfort level. He complains and whines when he should laugh and take heart at his situation. Me and my buddy Watson laugh and joke about his scars, he caught a large amount of shrapnel to his right shoulder, one piece through his torso into his intestines and chipped part of his liver, and then a piece into the side of his face , plus it drove the sunglasses he was wearing into his eyeballs taking away 50% of his perepherial vision plus putting a small dot of blackness in his right eye. He still goes out and runs 5 miles a day and enjoys life as he did before for the most part. He is of course lucky as my good buddies Rowe and Hutchinson were both killed as well as a aquantance of mine in HHC and B co. My friend Abbot lost his right arm, my friend Zamora was shot in the thigh, My friend rednour had a silver dollar sized hole punched a inch and a half deep in his skull. Those are just the men that I know extremely well in my tiny band of brothers so to speak. You know what we had it easy if you ask me. Soldiers before me have had to bear so much more and fight with so much less. Yet the civilian tells me when to stop, when I've had enough, he tells me how much I'm capable of giving up. A friend of mine once said that Iraq is stupid as there are no WMDs there and why remove an evil dictator. That we would have to take out the rest of them as well. Of course I simply said that I wouldn't mind fighting in a dozen more wars. Not that I feel like it, but then to be honest I think most of all to a piece of advice from my father. He hates the civilian world because you will have to do a job with ten people and no one will take charge, and when someone does they whine about how it should have been done this way or that way. How they failed etc. Then of course they get up there and can't do nearly as good of a job, or can't do it at all. His favorite leaders, and those I admire the most, are the ones who will see a situation in which no one has any idea how to approach it. Instead of ignoring it or pushing it off on someone else he jumps in and trys to accomplish his mission or duty. Though he may fail or take more time doing it that one time, from then on he knows better on how to handle it. Yes I don't even think the war was directed correctly? But would any of you honestly know how to approach it correctly 100%? Or would you simply have left it alone, shoved it off on the internationl community as if we are not a part of it. Yes we the United States are a bit imperialistic, practically all powerful nations and empires have been that way. However we do so in a way I feel most empires and nations have not. We do not conquer our prey, but attempt to have him see things our way. Of course I'll be honest, I don't think its so great to make the rest of the world like America, but at the very least the world should let its people and populace do things in the manner which they see fit.
I notice so many people go to college and university and say that they are finally seeing the world. I always laugh at this as when you go to college you experience the life of college as at every stage of your life you experience life, simply through your lens. I will say that education helps people, and for the most part it is a very good thing. The thing is so many seem to believe that they know the world through a textbook through the writings of others. And of course this is a good thing to a point, the thing is everything is skewed towards the authors point of view. The thing is I feel that far too many people who get put through the system are highly mechanical or entirely emotional. I will give an example, They believe in following the plan ( evil methodists ) the path of execution which will bring them the wealth, power, or even emotional pleasure that they wish. This of course isn't the worst of things. Then there are the emotional, those that believe in following ideals and emotions, love, hate, anger, pride, honor, etc. and basing there actions on those. What I seem to find most contorting is that all these ways of thought they always seem to be mostly for the individual. Have you ever felt no gratitude, no happiness, no good warm fuzzies from helping someone and continued to do so simply because there is a logic of sort behind your actions. Simply because it is correct. Have you ever planned your life for others and yourself at the same time. I suppose that I find the belief that one must love themself before they can love others is utterly false. But that one most love others in all their imperfections before they can love themselves. Though I hate Americans I still love them in my own way. I suppose most of all what I want to be is no longer an American, no longer a German, no longer even a human being. Simply an entity, an object amongst many other objects. I interact with my world and before I can clean it I must empty all the drawers, closets, I must move the refrigerator of the world and sweep behind it. I of course can't do that all alone, and I highly doubt I will be able to do it any time in my lifetime, or even the lifetime of my children if they are ever born. I feel people should act and stop talking. That perhaps compromise is not always the best thing , that one most evolve and become a human being that can handle and accept evil as readily as he/she can accept good. Sorry that this is all.. a bit well very staticy in its presentation. I suppose I'm a little staticy as well.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
An extremely excellent post... I am an idealist who wants to take action to change the world somehow... Which is crazy and completely illogical... But not impossible...
I love what you said here...
quote: suppose most of all what I want to be is no longer an American, no longer a German, no longer even a human being. Simply an entity, an object amongst many other objects.
Because I feel the same. If I have offended you, I am truly sorry...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I understand your words, Black Fox. I can understand antipathy towards Americans, but I am startled when you say you hate them. Nevertheless I honor your candor and committment, and would only ask that what you see on the news...that's not America. It's sensationalist, slanted (I think) media coverage.
Take care, may you stay safe and continue to grow in wisdom.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
).
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
