Bush vs Triumph the Insult Comic Dog? Triumph! (“Here’s a nice turkey… for me to POOP on!!”)
Bush vs. Capt. Picard? Capt. Picard!
Bush vs. X-Men? X-Men!
Bush vs. Robot Monkey BUtlers? Robot Monkey BUtlers!
Bush vs. Quayle?
I’m not quite sure how you mean that…
But as long as you’re here…Old Spice or English Leather?
:: humming Oh Canada ::
Well, someone’s taking Mr. Sharpton seriously. “Equal Time” campaign provisions will keep his SNL appearance off the air* in Iowa.
Perhaps our wise gelded friend has something to say about this?
- “Sharpton to Host SNL, Iowa Won’t Air” AP News, via Yahoo! 12/05/2003
What’s to say? None of the declared candidates could do it, either (not that any of the others were asked, I’m guessing…).
well, see, there is a benefit to him running for office, it keeps him off everything else!
Because whether there’s a rule on it or not, MPSIMS really isn’t the right forum for humor of a partisan political nature.
As Tom Toles suggests in his cartoon, Dinner Accomplished, there’s a certain fractal quality to what is going on here - that old similarity-across-scales thing. Doesn’t matter if it’s the WMDs or what the war was/is about, or the Thanksgiving turkey or the alleged AF1 encounter with the British Airways pilot (now into its third White House version), these guys can’t seem to tell the straight story about anything.
And to clarify one last thing, I guess I’m laughing because the lies all seem to me to be of a piece - there really doesn’t seem to be any difference across scales. But while the big lies are tragedy, the small lies are comedy, precisely because of their lack of importance.
Excellent. Stay with that. Now what makes you think a different administration will change this tragedy of whole cloth?
Nice slice and dice, rjung, you cut out the parts of my post that were most relevant to what you had to say just to make me look bad.
Huh, I could have sworn that someone in this thread said that the primary motive for Bush’s trip was most likely political. Who was that? Oh yeah, it was me. And I did it twice too. Once in the same post you quoted as a matter of fact. Gee. How 'bout that?
My point was that the trip primarily being political doesn’t eliminate any other more honorable motives (like giving the troops thanks for the job they’ve done, which they deserve) on Bush’s part. Is it still scummy to use the troops for political purposes at all (aside from their official ones of course)? Yeah. So what the fuck is your point then?**
I acknowledged, albeit doubtfully, that there could be retribution against any troops that spoke out against being in Iraq on the record and I was unaware of it actually happening. You’ve confirmed that it has happened. However your own link also mentions troops speaking out against being in Iraq and in criticism of the army anonymously (the soldier’s e-mail for example), and in my post I specifically said that if soldier’s are disgruntled they will find a way to let us know, at least anonymously. Also your link ends with troops going on record to voice their complaints even after there had been a smack down on the other troops for doing just that. All in all, using your own link as an example, there doesn’t seem to be a dearth of US soldiers willing to complain, named or anonymously which leaves me to wonder, again, what your point is.
Dantheman, let’s assume that everything in your post is 100% true, that doesn’t automatically mean that the troops will not or can not still have appreciation for their Commander in Chief showing up to spend a holiday with them. Distilled down to its basics, that’s my point.
Odd, since that wasn’t my intent. Heck, I wasn’t even trying to disagree with you.
I’m wondering whether those motives existed at all. E.g., was it “let’s go to Iraq for a great photo-op and boost troop morale”, or was it “let’s go to Iraq for a great photo-op”, with the morale-boosting being treated as an inconsequential side-effect.
My point is that, after those incidents, AFAIK the troops have not been allowed to voice their own opinions on things. At the very least, I have not seen any high-profile criticisms of the Iraq mission dated recently, and I believe that’s because the Pentagon has imposed very strict controls on what the troops are allowed to say and write, anonymous or not.
Honorable motives.
Let’s think about them.
Shall we be generous and say, that with all his mechanical entourage, travel expenses, security, press and personnel, the President costs us $1,000 per minute*? This is of course, excluding the time it took to fly to Iraq and back, not to mention the price of the military escorts. Some of these figures are classified. 
So conservatively, 150 minutes, the length of time he was in Iraq, equals $150,000.
It has become clear that many of our soldiers are currently outfitted with substandard armor[sup]†[/sup]. I personally speculate that several of our dead have been made so because of shoddy equipment. They died of “small-arms fire to the chest.”
Some soldiers’ parents are now purchasing body armor and shipping it to their sons and daughters in the field. The cost is about $1,500 US.
Now look at the generous figure for the President’s time. $150,000 for the visit. One hundred soldiers could have been outfitted with body armor.
Put him on the fuckin’ videophone! Of course, the press value is somewhat limited, but what’s sexier than a non-dead GI?
- “Bush visit costs bucks: Hunts Point to hit up McCaw, GOP committee for $75,000 security bill” King County Journal, 08/26/2003
[sup]† [/sup]“Army sent without armour” Sydney Morning Herald, 12/06/2003
Well, duh. You can or can’t have appreciation for something no matter what the consequences are. That is, you either have appreciation or you do not. So you really aren’t saying anything here, other than that either condition can exist. What I’m saying is that I wouldn’t be surprised if there were plenty of soldiers over there who aren’t appreciative of this at all, who see this as a mere political ploy, who resent that they’re being used in such a heavy-handed manner.
When I read
“Officials said they did not know the turkey would be there or that Bush would pick it up. A contractor had roasted and primped the turkey to adorn the buffet line,”
my sleepy brain read it as “pimped the turkey.” Much more amusing and certainly worthy of a presidential pit thread 
Because, AFAICT, we’re out on a tail of the distribution: only Nixon’s White House, in my estimation, is comparable to this one in its dishonesty.
And if we’re out on a tail of the distribution, a random change will almost certainly take us away from that tail.
Another reason why any Democratic administration will be much less dishonest: Democrats are, as a rule, more fractious and less disciplined than Republicans. This militates against the ability of the Dems to hide secrets - including the truths that expose lies.
And yet another is the right-wing media machine that was built during the 1990s, which during the Clinton administration (and the Gore campaign) gave the conservatives the ability to keep even trivial untruths (or very often, truths that they painted as untruths) in play in the media for weeks at a time.
Remember when Gore supposedly claimed that he invented the Internet? That wild extrapolation from his actual words was there for all of 2000, never completely going away. And even if it had been true, it was about at the level of this stupid turkey. And the right-wing media machine was able to cobble five or six things like it into a full-blown impression that Gore was shifty and dishonest, and kept that in play for quite some time.
Any Democratic President knows he’s got that negative publicity machine riding his tail, ready to make the thinnest of white lies into a major contretemps. A Democratic President would have to be frickin’ nuts to lie the way the Bushies have, because he’d get ripped to shreds in the press if he did.
Stay away from the stuffing!!! 
Sick. Twisted. Abnormal.