Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DBAHO

George Bush Joke

Recommended Posts

Here's da link, and it should hav audio below da picture.

Bush Story

 

Did you hear the one about the President...

By Paul Colgan and wires

March 26, 2004

 

US President George W. Bush made a joke about weapons of mass destruction not being found in Iraq at a late-night dinner for Amerian journalists yesterday.

 

Mr Bush poked fun at himself and other members of his administration at the annual White House dinner for Radio and Television correspondents in Washington.

 

0,3600,331297,00.jpg

 

In one, he showed a picture of him down on all fours rummaging under a desk in the Oval Office, saying "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere."

 

It was quickly followed by another similar picture. "Nope, no weapons over there," he said.

 

In his four years on the national and international stage, Mr Bush has often been ridiculed for his tendency to muddle sentences and confuse words - and even invent new ones.

 

He made this tendency the butt of another of his jokes, saying: "Fortunately my verbal phonation and electrocution have improved."

 

There was a shot of Vice President Dick Cheney, a frequent butt of gentle Bush ribbing, holding his fingers a few inches apart. Mr Bush said: "Whenever you ask him a question, he replies: 'Let's see what my little friend says'."

 

And there was Mr Bush again, in an odd contortion in front of his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice.

 

He said he was trying to explain to her the foreign policy of Democratic challenger John Kerry.

 

His slide show segued into a sombre ending, showing a group of special forces troops in Afghanistan at the site where they buried a piece of the fallen World Trade Centre in commemoration of the dead from September 11.

 

About 1500 guests attended the dinner.

 

Asked at a news conference if the weapons issue was an appropriate matter for jokes, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declined to comment, saying he had not been at the dinner.

 

The Bush administration launched a war a year ago against Iraq with its prime justification being its accusation that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Searches since the fall of former dictator Saddam Hussein so far have not turned up such arms.

 

The chief US inspector, David Kay, said in January he thought it was unlikely any would be found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

570 some americans killed, God knows how many dead Iraqis for this war on false pretenses, but Bush mocks the search for WOMD , the same Buish has hasn't attended a dead armed forces member's funeral yet but he can make jokes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that pisses me off... he's sick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys need to chill out a bit. This took place at the Correspondent's Dinner, where things like this always take place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IlliniBob, it wasn't the greatest comment to make but then again Bush isn't the coldest beer in the fridge. With everything the WMDPRA caused it probably wasn't the best idea for the guy who initiated the Iraq invasion to make light of their major claim for war.

 

Also, ChiSox...it's not that the anti-war activists wanted Saddam in power. It's how the case for war was built. The Bush administration *could* have built a case on humanitarian reasons and took that to the UN and had, in my eyes, a much easier time getting support from countries. Instead, they built their claims on WMDPRA and got caught in a lot of lies. That's the reason so many, including myself, were against the military action in Iraq. Osama bin Laden was the one who attacked us and the one we should have focused the billions of dollars and troops on capturing and neutralizing the terrorist threat of Al Qaeda...not invading Iraq who had not done anything to us or in the region since the end of Gulf War I. The numerous lies and problems with their case for war did not show to me an impending reason (with the claims they made) for military intervention in Iraq, especially when our focus should have been on Al Qaeda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't find the joke to be in bad taste. The world community believed there were WMDs in Iraq. The left loves to remind us how we were the ones that gave Saddam the weapons and yet these same people claim to have known that there were no WMDs in Iraq last year??? What happened to them??? I don't get it. Anyway, I believe the humor wasn't intended to imply that Bush knew that there were never WMDs, but rather display a puzzled Bush looking for something that he was convinced was there (keys under the couch, whatever).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
570 some americans killed, God knows how many dead Iraqis for this war on false pretenses, but Bush mocks the search for WOMD , the same Buish has hasn't attended a dead armed forces member's funeral yet but he can make jokes!

cw,

I cannot believe a veteran like W has not attended a single funeral. I guess he thinks his presence may be an unwelcome distraction to a family mourning the loss of a loved one. In fairness to George, it is probably a no win situation. It would be foder for the talk shows if a family started screaming at him that their father, son, daughter, mom died because he had a hunch their were WMD around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't find the joke to be in bad taste.  The world community believed there were WMDs in Iraq.  The left loves to remind us how we were the ones that gave Saddam the weapons and yet these same people claim to have known that there were no WMDs in Iraq last year???  What happened to them???  I don't get it.  Anyway, I believe the humor wasn't intended to imply that Bush knew that there were never WMDs, but rather display a puzzled Bush looking for something that he was convinced was there (keys under the couch, whatever).

IIRC, much of the world did not believe there were WMD there. Hence why we had so few allies willing to back us.

 

He may just have destroyed the weapons we sold them. We decided that years of weapons inspectors were not enough, we needed to send in the US military to search. And they produced the same results. The right will continue to say he moved them. Perhaps, in that dengerous little corner of the globe he didn't want his enemies to know he was defenseless?

 

But we all feel safer now, don't we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IIRC, much of the world did not believe there were WMD there. Hence why we had so few allies willing to back us.

 

He may just have destroyed the weapons we sold them. We decided that years of weapons inspectors were not enough, we needed to send in the US military to search. And they produced the same results. The right will continue to say he moved them. Perhaps, in that dengerous little corner of the globe he didn't want his enemies to know he was defenseless?

 

But we all feel safer now, don't we?

I just hope you aren't referring to France or Russia as "allies" who didn't support us. Although not fully investigated at this point in time, there is credible evidence that both France and Russia had their hands in Saddam's deep pockets in exchange for UN vetos. IIRC, there wasn't a single country who declared that the WMDs weren't in Iraq, the majority of resistance were from countries hoping for peaceful inspections that would result in the disarmament of Iraq as opposed to an invasion.

 

I'm not trying to defend the administration, I believe we were led to war under false pretenses brought about by hyped up charges from the administration and faulty international intelligence. I am to this day convinced that there are certainly WMDs buried somewhere or they made their way to Syria. I didn't feel that Iraq was an imminent threat but at the time, with the evidence presented, felt that pre-emptive action was just and necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cw,

I cannot believe a veteran like W has not attended a single funeral. I guess he thinks his presence may be an unwelcome distraction to a family mourning the loss of a loved one.  In fairness to George, it is probably a no win situation. It would be foder for the talk shows if a family started screaming at him that their father, son, daughter, mom died because he had a hunch their were WMD around.

Thank you for the excellent analysis, Tex!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IIRC, there wasn't a single country who declared that the WMDs weren't in Iraq, the majority of resistance were from countries hoping for peaceful inspections that would result in the disarmament of Iraq as opposed to an invasion. 

Yep. That's how I remember it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cw,

I cannot believe a veteran like W has not attended a single funeral.

I think he has not attended because this administration isn't even allowing photographs or coverage of the bodies being returned home, they want to pretend there are no dead. That would be "downer" in the PR campaign to pretend this is all happy and jolly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would be "downer" in the PR campaign to pretend this is all happy and jolly.

I love the latest release from the White House PR department showing the happiness and jolliness of war. You know, that one where those 6 marines were shot at, one got his head blown off, but the other 5 took out 20 Iraqis then celebrated singing happy and joyous songs. I'll tell ya, I didn't think it was possible, but Karl Rove has just done an amazing job at making this look like a happy war.

 

For a man that 99% of the time comes across as clear, concise, and intelligent, that was just really a stupid comment CW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would be "downer" in the PR campaign to pretend this is all happy and jolly.

but never gay. Happy and jolly at the white house but never, ever gay, happy, and golly. :ph34r:

 

What is the historical perspective on Presidents attending the funerals of US Servicemen and women?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but never gay. Happy and jolly at the white house but never, ever gay, happy, and golly.  :ph34r:

 

What is the historical perspective on Presidents attending the funerals of US Servicemen and women?

I guarantee you that Abraham Lincoln did not attend 360,000 funerals for soldiers that died fighting for the Union.

 

Bush is in a no-win situation with people that will find any reason to bash him. He is criticized for not attending funerals, and then he was criticized for visiting the soldiers in the warzone. If he attended 25% of the funerals, he'd be ripped for not attending them all. Do I believe that Bush does not care about the sufferings and sacrifices made by our soldiers? Not for a second.

 

There are complaints that we don't get to see the flag-draped coffins being brought back home. My first thought is why do people want to see them? But that's for another time. Can we all agree that looking back on the way the people at home handled the Vietnam War was not good for the country or for the soldiers at the front? Why else would everyone be so adamant that they "support the troops"? Because that didn't happen during Vietnam. Part of the problem with public morale was the fact that the public was constantly bombarded with images of bodybags and coffins. Also, you know damn well that whatever we see here the soldiers will end up seeing there. I can't imagine anything worse for morale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guarantee you that Abraham Lincoln did not attend 360,000 funerals for soldiers that died fighting for the Union.

 

Bush is in a no-win situation with people that will find any reason to bash him. He is criticized for not attending funerals, and then he was criticized for visiting the soldiers in the warzone. If he attended 25% of the funerals, he'd be ripped for not attending them all. Do I believe that Bush does not care about the sufferings and sacrifices made by our soldiers? Not for a second.

 

There are complaints that we don't get to see the flag-draped coffins being brought back home. My first thought is why do people want to see them? But that's for another time. Can we all agree that looking back on the way the people at home handled the Vietnam War was not good for the country or for the soldiers at the front? Why else would everyone be so adamant that they "support the troops"? Because that didn't happen during Vietnam. Part of the problem with public morale was the fact that the public was constantly bombarded with images of bodybags and coffins. Also, you know damn well that whatever we see here the soldiers will end up seeing there. I can't imagine anything worse for morale.

Bob,

Sanitizing the view may not be in the countries best interest either. These men and women are heroes in my book. I do not understand why we are hiding their sacrifice. Men and women die in war. Every citizen has a responsibility to the men and women who choose to serve to be diligent in allowing where our elected leaders to send them off to victory or defeat.

 

Some causes I agree with and understand we need our military, some causes I have not agreed with and write my leaders and will tell anyone and everyone why I disagree.

 

The best way I can support our Troops is to make certain they do not die for an unjust cause. I also do not want their sacrifice to go unnoticed.

 

Of course Lincoln could not go to them all, but I suspect he went to some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every president has done s*** like this at the Journalists dinner, Democrat or Reuplican.

 

People need to chill the f*** out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IlliniBob, it wasn't the greatest comment to make but then again Bush isn't the coldest beer in the fridge.  With everything the WMDPRA caused it probably wasn't the best idea for the guy who initiated the Iraq invasion to make light of their major claim for war.

 

Also, ChiSox...it's not that the anti-war activists wanted Saddam in power.  It's how the case for war was built.  The Bush administration *could* have built a case on humanitarian reasons and took that to the UN and had, in my eyes, a much easier time getting support from countries.  Instead, they built their claims on WMDPRA and got caught in a lot of lies.  That's the reason so many, including myself, were against the military action in Iraq.  Osama bin Laden was the one who attacked us and the one we should have focused the billions of dollars and troops on capturing and neutralizing the terrorist threat of Al Qaeda...not invading Iraq who had not done anything to us or in the region since the end of Gulf War I.  The numerous lies and problems with their case for war did not show to me an impending reason (with the claims they made) for military intervention in Iraq, especially when our focus should have been on Al Qaeda.

yes, the campaing *COULD* have been built better, but let's just get past that for a second. Saddam himself WAS a WMD. He is no longer in power. Us, Iraq, the Middle East, and the rest of the world is safer now b/c of it. Regimes like that are bad for the country, the region, and the world. Also, who is to say that Iraqs supposed WMDs werent shipped out? We gave them so much warning we were coming they could have easily shipped them out to Libya or Syria. Yes, they are 'IFs' but not too far fetched, right? It is known that they have had them, and based on Saddams track record, what is there to assume he actually followed the UN resloutions THIS time around? But you know, maybe he did, who knows. Also, we know the UN is reluctant to do anything. So, you're right, the campaign COULD have been built better, but it wasnt. Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, the Senate (Kerry included) all had access to the same documents. They voted for it, and as a result Saddam is out of power, and yes, Iraq is better because of it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Can we all agree that looking back on the way the people at home handled the Vietnam War was not good for the country or for the soldiers at the front?

 

2, Why else would everyone be so adamant that they "support the troops"? Because that didn't happen during Vietnam.

1. I cannot agree on that. The thrust of your argument is that showing all of reality is bad politics. That is so. That becomes immoral to me. The political should not be ranked as the priorty over truth and full disclosure.

 

2. And to that, I totally disagree. The war was not supported. The political and military leadership was ot supported. The troops were. Who do you think "the troops" were? They were my friends and my buds and people just like them. Amazing perhaps to you is that I was very close to many people who served in that era, who served in Nam, some never came back, those that did, I am friends with to this day with my passion against that war and the current joke. "Support the troops, they weren't supported then" is a political spin (and total lie) to silence dissent.

 

As the father of a current troop, trust me that he is smart enough to know that troops die and the reality being presented to the American public will not effect his morale. The very real problems with morale in those currently serving overseas has everything to do with the reality not being presented. The current suicide rate of active duty troops is 4 times higher than it has ever been and that is with the current PR spin to hide reality.

 

Every day the Tribune prints the biographies of 1-4 of the American service personnel whose lives have been lost in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, with the pictures of 1 or more of those killed in action. I read those very seriously every day, knowing full well it could be my own son some day. He is a big boy and he enlisted and I bless him for his choosing in hood conscience with all knowledge a path that he thinks is right, alol I ever asked of him.

 

Hiding the caskets, hiding the cost of war is to me (in words you will not like) part of the moral bankruptcy of this era and this administration. It is the same as in the economic policy- spend and spend and never count the cost. And so in war - spend and spend and never acknowledge or admit the cost.

 

Advocate the policies one wants but be fully honest about what the cost of everything is.

 

Hide the cost for "morale" problems or political concerns and that says everything about where real values are.

 

Again: advocate the policies one wants but be fully honest about what the cost of everything is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes, the campaing *COULD* have been built better, but let's just get past that for a second. Saddam himself WAS a WMD. He is no longer in power. Us, Iraq, the Middle East, and the rest of the world is safer now b/c of it. Regimes like that are bad for the country, the region, and the world. Also, who is to say that Iraqs supposed WMDs werent shipped out? We gave them so much warning we were coming they could have easily shipped them out to Libya or Syria. Yes, they are 'IFs' but not too far fetched, right? It is known that they have had them, and based on Saddams track record, what is there to assume he actually followed the UN resloutions THIS time around? But you know, maybe he did, who knows. Also, we know the UN is reluctant to do anything. So, you're right, the campaign COULD have been built better, but it wasnt. Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, the Senate (Kerry included) all had access to the same documents. They voted for it, and as a result Saddam is out of power, and yes, Iraq is better because of it

I absolutely crack up when the folks who voted for the Iraq bill says ... (paraphrasing) "but I didn't KNOW that Bush would ACTUALLY go to WAR?!?" and then now say that they wouldn't have voted the authorization for use of force had they known he actually would do it.

 

What a crock.

 

That's one of the bigger reasons why I wouldn't vote for Kerry. That's just yella in my opinion, he can't even own up to his own vote(s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, who is to say that Iraqs supposed WMDs werent shipped out? We gave them so much warning we were coming they could have easily shipped them out to Libya or Syria.

If you believe that, go right ahead.

 

With all the survelliance of Iraq by sattelite, air, and all the other means, if you think that all these supposed WOMD were trucked or in any way transported across the border and no one noticed, everyone in the current administration should be jailed.

 

How many Reagan appointed public officials saying what O'Neil and Clarke are saying do you need?

 

I respectfully suggest a tour of Hans Blix' new book would be helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What a crock.

 

That's one of the bigger reasons why I wouldn't vote for Kerry.  That's just yella in my opinion, he can't even own up to his own vote(s).

"yella" is not John Kerry.

 

 

I disagreed with his vote on that matter. I am not totally happy with it yet. "Yella" might be lying in the State of the Union address and elsewhere about things that Bush knew were not true, that his own people advised against saying, and he said them anyway to build a case for war - such as the fsabricated nuclear fuel rods - and then "yella" would be outing a CIA officer because her husband criticized the administration over that issue.

 

And the time line of that vote was that there were still claims that the US would go back to the UN which the adminsutrationwas to "yella" to do. Remember the vow to have "an up or down" vote? But the yella Bush administration never kept their public promise to go back for that second up or down vote because they knew they would lose badly. And that is as "yella" as it comes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"yella" is not John Kerry.

 

 

I disagreed with his vote on that matter.  I am not totally happy with it yet.  "Yella" might be lying in the State of the Union address and elsewhere about things that Bush knew were not true, that his own people advised against saying, and he said them anyway to build a case for war - such as the fsabricated nuclear fuel rods - and then "yella" would be outing a CIA officer because her husband criticized the administration over that issue.

 

And the time line of that vote was that there were still claims that the US would go back to the UN which the adminsutrationwas to "yella" to do.  Remember the vow to have "an up or down" vote?  But the yella Bush administration never kept their public promise to go back for that second up or down vote because they knew they would lose badly.  And that is as "yella" as it comes.

I'm not calling John Kerry himself "yella" - the guy fought for our country and to that we all owe a debt of gratitude, but I am calling his backtrack from his vote "yella". No where in that bill did it say we had to have UN Approval. But they all want to claim that they "didn't know" what would happen with that vote, and that's running away from a vote in IMO.

 

I think that Bush truely beleived what he said in the State of the Union and other speeches, I don't disagree that it turned out to be BS. As to taking the "go to war" vote to the UN for an up or down vote, the UN never had the balls to enforce the UN resolutions against Iraq in the first place. And really, it was two countries that had problems with our stance, France and to a lesser extent, Russia, because they were owed billion$ by Iraq, and knowing that siding with the US, they weren't going to even have a chance of getting paid that money and furthermore another export market to France and Russia would be cut off if the US took down Saddam's regime certainly didn't help that stance.

 

The WMD's claim was BS. They've even pretty much said that now, and if that's GWB's undoing, so be it. America will decide that. But it's still "yella" in my book to be out there and agree with the President and then now that Kerry has the spotlight he runs like there is no tomorrow from a stance he took a year ago, but hell, they all do that. I guess that's why I don't even want to vote, and I thought I would never say that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1.  I cannot agree on that.  The thrust of your argument is that showing all of reality is bad politics. That is so.  That becomes immoral to me.  The political should not be ranked as the priorty over truth and full disclosure. 

 

2.  And to that, I totally disagree.  The war was not supported.  The political and military leadership was ot supported.  The troops were.  Who do you think "the troops" were?  They were my friends and my buds and people just like them.  Amazing perhaps to you is that I was very close to many people who served in that era, who served in Nam, some never came back, those that did, I am friends with to this day with my passion against that war and  the current joke.  "Support the troops, they weren't supported then" is a political spin (and total lie) to silence dissent. 

 

As the father of a current troop, trust me that he is smart enough to know that troops die and the reality being presented to the American public will not effect his morale.  The very real problems with morale in those currently serving overseas has everything to do with the reality not being presented.  The current suicide rate of active duty troops is 4 times higher than it has ever been and that is with the current PR spin to hide reality.

 

Every day the Tribune prints the biographies of 1-4 of the American service personnel whose lives have been lost in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, with the pictures of 1 or more of those killed in action.  I read those very seriously every day, knowing full well it could be my own son some day.  He is a big boy and he enlisted and I bless him for his choosing in hood conscience with all knowledge a path that he thinks is right, alol I ever asked of him.

 

Hiding the caskets, hiding the cost of war is to me (in words you will not like) part of the moral bankruptcy of this era and this administration.  It is the same as in the economic policy- spend and spend and never count the cost.  And so in war - spend and spend and never acknowledge or admit the cost. 

 

Advocate the policies one wants but be fully honest about what the cost of everything is. 

 

Hide the cost for "morale" problems or political concerns and that says everything about where real values are.

 

Again: advocate the policies one wants but be fully honest about what the cost of everything is.

I never said it was political. It is wartime policy. The cost of the war is not being hidden. There is no doctoring of casualty reports as happened during Vietnam. You can find out the name of every soldier killed in action. Doing things for the morale of the troops and the people at home has been going on for centuries. s***, in the Civil War actual battles were fought to make up for a disaster or slow going. Progress against Vicksburg was slow going, so they took 30,000 troops and captures Arkansas Post, held by a few thousand. Why? To help morale and make the people at home think progress was being made. Besides, the policy to not televise caskets being unloaded is a policy that predates GWB and was kept in place by Clinton.

 

As for the Vietnam troops being supported, so all I've read about soldiers returning home to being spat upon and called baby killers and such is bulls***? Everything I've read says that the treatment of American soldiers on their return was truly shameful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×