Poor Bush... ;)

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-03-26 07:44am

Bush's Iraq WMDs joke backfires
Opponents accuse Bush of being out of touch
US President George W Bush has sparked a political firestorm by making a joke about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

At a black-tie dinner for journalists, Mr Bush narrated a slide show poking fun at himself and other members of his administration.

One pictured Mr Bush looking under a piece of furniture in the Oval Office, at which the president remarked: "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere."

After another one, showing him scouring the corner of a room, Mr Bush said: "No, no weapons over there," he said.

And as a third picture, this time showing him leaning over, appeared on the screen the president was heard to say: "Maybe under here?"

If George Bush thinks his deceptive rationale for going to war is a laughing matter, then he's even more out of touch than we thought
John Kerry
Democratic Party challenger for the presidency
The audience at Wednesday's 60th annual dinner of the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association obviously thought the quips hilarious - there were laughs all round - but the next morning, in the cold light of day, things looked far less amusing.

The joke about the fruitless search for Iraqi WMDs so far, Washington's prime justification for the US-led invasion, has been branded as tasteless and ill-judged.

'Undermining' sacrifices

Mr Bush's election challenger Senator John Kerry described the president's attitude as "stunningly cavalier".

"If George Bush thinks his deceptive rationale for going to war is a laughing matter, then he's even more out of touch than we thought," he said in a written statement.

"Unfortunately for the president, this is not a joke."

Mr Kerry's statement also included a comment from Iraq war veteran Brad Owens, who said: "War is the single most serious event that a president or government can carry its people into.

"This cheapens the sacrifice that American soldiers and their families are dealing with every single day."

More than 500 US soldiers have died in the war and thousands more have been injured.

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asked what he thought of this incident at a press conference on Friday, but he dodged the issue, saying that he couldn't comment as he hadn't been at the event.

I actually do find myself feeling slightly sorry for him. His little show did bring a smile to my face.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-03-26 07:59am

What the hell was he expecting? That his political opponents would smile an laugh and say, "Yeah, that's a good one?"

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-03-26 08:34am

Typical of selfish sons of bitches, this fuckhead didn't check to see whether his joke would be appropriate. That's right you monkey, piss on the graves of the people you sent to a false war while you're at it.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-03-26 08:49am

this might have been phunnay if it didn´t involve a whole bunch of dead people.
on the other hand, i´m only a bleeding heart euro wimp...

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-03-26 08:50am

salm wrote:this might have been phunnay if it didn´t involve a whole bunch of dead people.
on the other hand, i´m only a bleeding heart euro wimp...

Some of the other stuff was reasonably amusing, such as him memoriising the names of world leaders.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-03-26 09:01am

He should shove his head up his ass,maybe he`ll find some WMD in there.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2004-03-26 09:07am

Note to ALL Americans here: VOTE FOR KERRY!

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-03-26 09:29am

Well the biggest reason why Iraqi WMD argument was false is the fact that Iraq never used their WMD against coalition forces during the war.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-03-26 10:03am

evilcat4000 wrote:Well the biggest reason why Iraqi WMD argument was false is the fact that Iraq never used their WMD against coalition forces during the war.

That and they didn't have any in the first place.

Alferd Packer · Post by **Alferd Packer** » 2004-03-26 10:04am

Montcalm wrote:He should shove his head up his ass,maybe he`ll find some WMD in there.

Actually, they'd then be called WAD(Weapons of Ass Destruction).

...what?

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-03-26 10:05am

Gandalf wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:Well the biggest reason why Iraqi WMD argument was false is the fact that Iraq never used their WMD against coalition forces during the war.
That and they didn't have any in the first place.

Yes, they did have some at one point. Whether they had them at the time of the war is unlikely.
However, they certainly could not account for them, nor did they try their hardest to comply with inspections. Blix himself said that to the security council (every alternate week

)

Invader ZIm · Post by **Invader ZIm** » 2004-03-26 10:09am

evilcat4000 wrote:Well the biggest reason why Iraqi WMD argument was false is the fact that Iraq never used their WMD against coalition forces during the war.

Brilliant.

You would have thought the Iraqis would have come up with a "No WMD Here" indicator that did not require the 1st MEF to be rolling across the Tigris river.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-03-26 10:13am

Sharp-kun wrote:
Gandalf wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:Well the biggest reason why Iraqi WMD argument was false is the fact that Iraq never used their WMD against coalition forces during the war.
That and they didn't have any in the first place.
Yes, they did have some at one point. Whether they had them at the time of the war is unlikely.
However, they certainly could not account for them, nor did they try their hardest to comply with inspections. Blix himself said that to the security council (every alternate week )

You better hope Vympel misses this thread.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-03-26 10:22am

BoredShirtless wrote: You better hope Vympel misses this thread.

Why?

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-03-26 10:30am

Yes, they did have some at one point. Whether they had them at the time of the war is unlikely.

The last time they were confirmed to have them was 1994, IIRC. That was the last time UNSCOM "found" anything of substance in Iraq (whether it was a find or the Iraqis just gave something up, don't remember). I'd say that's quite a serviceable date for when they last had anything of consequence, and it fits squarely with the late Hussein Kamel's 1995 testimony that all the weapons were destroyed by both the Iraqis themselves and of course UNSCOM.

However, they certainly could not account for them, nor did they try their hardest to comply with inspections. Blix himself said that to the security council (every alternate week

Blix was unsatisfied with Iraqi "proactive" cooperation until about Jan 03, however, he has insisted that in terms of access for his inspectors, he got complete, 100% cooperation- they were never turned down at any site they visited. He also has stated that as war got closer, the Iraqis got more frantic and started to proactively cooperate, but of course the ball had already been set to roll and it didn't matter what happened.

As it is, I didn't matter what the Iraqis did, you cannot prove a negative. It doesn't matter what you do- and that includes presenting written records. All the enterprising "invade Iraq" activist has to say is "well, they're false. We have intelligence. No, you can't see it. Well, maybe this plagiarized term paper. And this forged document. Never mind."

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-03-26 10:46am

Vympel wrote:He also has stated that as war got closer, the Iraqis got more frantic and started to proactively cooperate, but of course the ball had already been set to roll and it didn't matter what happened.

That's the Iraqi's fault. 1441 (which the UN did agree on) didn't let them arse about. Had they done at the start what the UN asked the whole affair could have perhaps been avoided.

Bush could well have had his sights set on Iraq the whole time. Other supporters I doubt. Had Iraq made an effort some of them might not have supported the war.

Vympel wrote:As it is, I didn't matter what the Iraqis did, you cannot prove a negative. It doesn't matter what you do- and that includes presenting written records. All the enterprising "invade Iraq" activist has to say is "well, they're false.

Yes, but they weren't exactly helpful. Had they done as 1441 said, the chances of the war happening could have been slightly lower. Instead they pissed about until they realised that the US was actually serious, by which point it was far too late.

You are correct in that a negative connot be proved, though if the Iraqi's had actually made an effort when they were supposed to, some people might have been more inclined to listen to them at the time,

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-03-26 10:52am

Sharp-kun wrote: That's the Iraqi's fault. 1441 (which the UN did agree on) didn't let them arse about. Had they done at the start what the UN asked the whole affair could have perhaps been avoided.

You believe that? I don't.

Bush could well have had his sights set on Iraq the whole time. Other supporters I doubt. Had Iraq made an effort some of them might not have supported the war.

The only country that offered even moderate support to the war was Britain- and Blair was as bent on Iraq as Bush. Australia only provided a token force, and Spain provided nothing IIRC. The other countries of the "coalition of the willing" were mainly rent-a-nations that noone had ever heard of, and who offered (meaningless) verbal support only, if any.

Vympel wrote: Yes, but they weren't exactly helpful. Had they done as 1441 said, the chances of the war happening could have been slightly lower. Instead they pissed about until they realised that the US was actually serious, by which point it was far too late.

They did do as 1441 said. Hans Blix was in charge of saying whether Iraq breached 1441, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you'll find him saying they were. Furthermore, even if 1441 was breached, it provided no justification or 'trigger' for regime change. The UN doesn't deal in 'automatic' war provisions.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-03-26 11:05am

Vympel wrote:and Blair was as bent on Iraq as Bush.

He was? Why?

I would say its more likely he genuinly believed Iraq was a threat. Was IDS (leader of the opposition) also as bent on Iraq? He offered Blair full support pretty much from the beginning.

Vympel wrote:Australia only provided a token force, and Spain provided nothing IIRC. The other countries of the "coalition of the willing" were mainly rent-a-nations that noone had ever heard of, and who offered (meaningless) verbal support only, if any.

Support is support. If nobody had approved of the war, the US might have had more difficulty with it.

Vympel wrote:They did do as 1441 said. Hans Blix was in charge of saying whether Iraq breached 1441, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you'll find him saying they were. Furthermore, even if 1441 was breached, it provided no justification or 'trigger' for regime change. The UN doesn't deal in 'automatic' war provisions.

Did 1441 not demand complete complience?
You yourself said:

Blix was unsatisfied with Iraqi "proactive" cooperation until about Jan 03

Had 1441 been complied with he would not have been unsatisfied in the first place. Iraq arsed about and simply increased the chances of war more than they already were.

I never said 1441 was any justification for war. I do say that Iraq shares some of the blame in causing the war.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-03-26 11:12am

Sharp-kun wrote: He was? Why?

Buggered if I know. Look how he acted- practically as bad as the Bush administration, and just as "certain" that WMD would be found (which he told Hans Blix, when Blix asked him what would happen if there were no weapons).

I would say its more likely he genuinly believed Iraq was a threat. Was IDS (leader of the opposition) also as bent on Iraq? He offered Blair full support pretty much from the beginning.

Does it really matter?

Vympel wrote: Support is support. If nobody had approved of the war, the US might have had more difficulty with it.

That depends on whether the support offered any material advantage- it didn't.

[quote[
Did 1441 not demand complete complience?
You yourself said:[/quote]

Which is a different thing from "proactive" cooperation. That's just Blix's wish that the Iraqis would presumably fall all over themselves and take initiative in providing Blix with all the information. How to put it- there's cooperation, and there's cooperation. Blix never said that Iraq wasn't cooperating.

Had 1441 been complied with he would not have been unsatisfied in the first place. Iraq arsed about and simply increased the chances of war more than they already were.

I never said 1441 was any justification for war. I do say that Iraq shares some of the blame in causing the war.

I agree, but really, with Saddam in power, it's not like they'd need to try very hard.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-03-26 04:23pm

What I don't get is if they knew there were no WMDs, why did they say there were? Are they simply relying on the media to sweep it under the carpet (seems like its worked so far)?

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2004-03-26 04:37pm

Getting back to the original topic of the thread, I wonder how many times worse the reaction would have been if Bush cracked a joke about 9/11. Something along the lines of "My advisors have come up with a new slogan for my campaign, 'Vote for Bush, 04, to fight terrorism...20,000 dead New Yorkers can't be wrong!' " It deals with the same subject, death and war, if Bush has no problem cracking a joke about his own soldiers dieing in war, I'm sure he wouldn't have a problem cracking a joke about several thousand dead civilians.

-Damien

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-03-26 04:38pm

Superman wrote:Note to ALL Americans here: VOTE FOR KERRY!

No thanks.

For me, it was either Dean, a third party, or skip the Presidential section of the ballot.

Looks like I won't be voting in the Presidential race this year.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-03-26 04:38pm

HemlockGrey wrote:What I don't get is if they knew there were no WMDs, why did they say there were? Are they simply relying on the media to sweep it under the carpet (seems like its worked so far)?

But did they know there were no WMDs? Maybe they thought the UN just couldn't find them.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-03-26 04:45pm

Invader ZIm wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:Well the biggest reason why Iraqi WMD argument was false is the fact that Iraq never used their WMD against coalition forces during the war.
Brilliant.

You would have thought the Iraqis would have come up with a "No WMD Here" indicator that did not require the 1st MEF to be rolling across the Tigris river.

Cut the shit, that's what the inspectors were there for.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-03-26 05:13pm

Glocksman wrote:
Superman wrote:Note to ALL Americans here: VOTE FOR KERRY!
No thanks.

For me, it was either Dean, a third party, or skip the Presidential section of the ballot.

Looks like I won't be voting in the Presidential race this year.

If you don't vote, don't bitch about the results.

In other words: VOTE for SOMEONE at least.