PDA

View Full Version : Guardian Ed: Bush during debates like a toddler showing off its first bowl movement


Taco John
10-24-2004, 02:38 AM
Dumb show

Charlie Brooker
Saturday October 23, 2004
The Guardian

Heady times. The US election draws ever nearer, and while the rest of the world bangs its head against the floorboards screaming "Please God, not Bush!", the candidates clash head to head in a series of live televised debates. It's a bit like American Idol, but with terrifying global ramifications. You've got to laugh.
Or have you? Have you seen the debates? I urge you to do so. The exemplary BBC News website (www.bbc.co.uk/news) hosts unexpurgated streaming footage of all the recent debates, plus clips from previous encounters, through Reagan and Carter, all the way back to Nixon versus JFK.

Watching Bush v Kerry, two things immediately strike you. First, the opening explanation of the rules makes the whole thing feel like a Radio 4 parlour game. And second, George W Bush is... well, he's... Jesus, where do you start?

The internet's a-buzz with speculation that Bush has been wearing a wire, receiving help from some off-stage lackey. Screen grabs appearing to show a mysterious bulge in the centre of his back are being traded like Top Trumps. Prior to seeing the debate footage, I regarded this with healthy scepticism: the whole "wire" scandal was just wishful thinking on behalf of some amateur Michael Moores, I figured. And then I watched the footage.

Quite frankly, the man's either wired or mad. If it's the former, he should be flung out of office: tarred, feathered and kicked in the nuts. And if it's the latter, his behaviour goes beyond strange, and heads toward terrifying. He looks like he's listening to something we can't hear. He blinks, he mumbles, he lets a sentence trail off, starts a new one, then reverts back to whatever he was saying in the first place. Each time he recalls a statistic (either from memory or the voice in his head), he flashes us a dumb little smile, like a toddler proudly showing off its first bowel movement. Forgive me for employing the language of the playground, but the man's a tool.

So I sit there and I watch this and I start scratching my head, because I'm trying to work out why Bush is afforded any kind of credence or respect whatsoever in his native country. His performance is so transparently bizarre, so feeble and stumbling, it's a miracle he wasn't laughed off the stage. And then I start hunting around the internet, looking to see what the US media made of the whole "wire" debate. And they just let it die. They mentioned it in passing, called it a wacko conspiracy theory and moved on.

Yet whether it turns out to be true or not, right now it's certainly plausible - even if you discount the bulge photos and simply watch the president's ridiculous smirking face. Perhaps he isn't wired. Perhaps he's just gone gaga. If you don't ask the questions, you'll never know the truth.

The silence is all the more troubling since in the past the US news media has had no problem at all covering other wacko conspiracy theories, ones with far less evidence to support them. (For infuriating confirmation of this, watch the second part of the must-see documentary series The Power Of Nightmares (Wed, 9pm, BBC2) and witness the absurd hounding of Bill Clinton over the Whitewater and Vince Foster non-scandals.)

Throughout the debate, John Kerry, for his part, looks and sounds a bit like a haunted tree. But at least he's not a lying, s******ing, drink-driving, selfish, reckless, ignorant, dangerous, backward, drooling, twitching, blinking, mouse-faced little cheat. And besides, in a fight between a tree and a bush, I know who I'd favour.

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

Taco John
10-24-2004, 02:38 AM
Wow.... That last sentance was over the top.

Hel'n
10-24-2004, 02:44 AM
Shouldn't this be in the DC forum??

Taco John
10-24-2004, 02:54 AM
my bad...

KCWolfman
10-24-2004, 02:55 AM
This is the world support we are looking for?

Taco John
10-24-2004, 03:12 AM
Yeah. People who can tell the difference between a leader, and a guy in a suit are always welcome allies.

History will remember Bush as what went wrong with America.

KCWolfman
10-24-2004, 03:15 AM
History will remember Bush as what went wrong with America.
Do you guys invent these statements or are they issued en masse? What a load of crap.

Taco John
10-24-2004, 03:21 AM
Nothing but the truth...

KCWolfman
10-24-2004, 03:22 AM
Nothing but the truth...
So you turned off the lie detector, eh?

jcl-kcfan2
10-24-2004, 06:48 AM
taco what ever you think, this is wrong.


NO weight can be given to anyone who would advocate the killing of our president, in any sense.

BigOlChiefsfan
10-24-2004, 07:08 AM
More sweetness and light:

http://metafilter.com/mefi/36472

Warrior5
10-24-2004, 07:44 AM
The Guardian, a lamp post of inbiased journalistic integrity if there ever was one. I don't cuss often, but right now I'm at a loss for clean words.

What an absolutely shitty thing to say (and yes, I'd say the same thing regardless of political party was represented in the oval office).

Baby Lee
10-24-2004, 07:59 AM
History will remember Bush as what went wrong with America.
Nothing but the truth...
Brilliant!!

Perhaps now we have a better grasp on Taco's concept of the term 'truth.'

It is metaphysically impossible for a prediction about the future to be 'truth' at the time that it is uttered.

Cochise
10-24-2004, 09:58 AM
Brilliant!!

Perhaps now we have a better grasp on Taco's concept of the term 'truth.'

It is metaphysically impossible for a prediction about the future to be 'truth' at the time that it is uttered.

Good point.

This article though, exemplifies why the rest of the world should piss off.

RINGLEADER
10-24-2004, 10:42 AM
Sorry, but when you advocate assassinating a president all your other opinions are flushed down the toilet.

Taco John
10-24-2004, 01:41 PM
NO weight can be given to anyone who would advocate the killing of our president, in any sense.



Oh, I agree... But I can understand where the frustration is coming from. I would never advocate killing anyone, let alone the president... I thought that was in poor taste.

But I refuse to just dismiss all of the opinions that this writer has because of his over the line comment at the end. This president's lack of brains is very frustrating. He's the worst president I could ever imagine. And even more frustrating is that he's got a rabid base of support from people who have decided to stick with him despite demonstrating his ineptitude over and over and over again. I like to call these people "September 10th" people. They just don't understand the stakes. (/tic)

The guy is just not good at being president. And thus, he's just not good at being the leader of the free world. Which is why I can understand the frustration coming out of other countries.

BigOlChiefsfan
10-24-2004, 05:30 PM
The column has been removed, this has been posted in it's stead.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/tvradio/story/0,14676,1335307,00.html

The final sentence of a column in The Guide on Saturday caused offence to some readers. The Guardian associates itself with the following statement from the writer.
"Charlie Brooker apologises for any offence caused by his comments relating to President Bush in his TV column, Screen Burn. The views expressed in this column are not those of the Guardian. Although flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action - an intention he believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand. He deplores violence of any kind."

stevieray
10-24-2004, 05:40 PM
I gotta say I'm embarassed I've even engaeged in this childish BS in the past.

keep up the good work, Taco.

KCWolfman
10-24-2004, 06:35 PM
Oh, I agree... But I can understand where the frustration is coming from. I would never advocate killing anyone, let alone the president... I thought that was in poor taste.

But I refuse to just dismiss all of the opinions that this writer has because of his over the line comment at the end. This president's lack of brains is very frustrating. He's the worst president I could ever imagine. And even more frustrating is that he's got a rabid base of support from people who have decided to stick with him despite demonstrating his ineptitude over and over and over again. I like to call these people "September 10th" people. They just don't understand the stakes. (/tic)

The guy is just not good at being president. And thus, he's just not good at being the leader of the free world. Which is why I can understand the frustration coming out of other countries.
translation - Just because he wants GWB dead does not mean he is all wrong.


Sad, sad, little man

KCWolfman
10-24-2004, 06:36 PM
I gotta say I'm embarassed I've even engaeged in this childish BS in the past.

keep up the good work, Taco.
In other words, par for the course.

Brock
10-24-2004, 11:57 PM
The US election draws ever nearer, and while the rest of the world bangs its head against the floorboards screaming "Please God, not Bush!",

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses.

Anything to make America weaker.

the Talking Can
10-25-2004, 12:09 AM
http://home.earthlink.net/~ian_burns/images/forest.jpg

Taco John
10-25-2004, 12:30 AM
In other words, par for the course.



I wonder if Stevie has the balls to drop a line about his embarassment of you then... If not, it was nothing more than a hollow attack with not an ounce of principle to back it...

Saggysack
10-25-2004, 02:16 AM
By Mark Sage, PA News, in New York


The importance of the presidential election in the United States stretches far beyond its shores.

Whoever serves as the next president will shape the way America behaves in the world and toward its main ally, Britain.

George Bush, the current president, and his Democratic challenger John Kerry, have each laid out starkly different views on how they see America’s international role.

Mr Bush has stated that he is not interested in a global “popularity contest” while Senator Kerry has vowed to rebuild America’s global alliances.

Britons are overwhelmingly against a second Bush term. National polls have shown a large majority supports Mr Kerry.

But in America, the White House’s current resident has a narrow lead.

So how would the election of either man affect people and politics in Britain?

Tony Blair.

Some believe that a Bush victory would be a boost for the Prime Minister because it would appear to validate the tough decisions taken over Iraq.

But others believe that a Kerry win would help Mr Blair draw a line under his most controversial policy – the decision to follow America in to war without a second United Nations resolution.

One of Downing Street’s biggest fears must be that a second Bush Administration would launch military action somewhere else in the world.

It would be almost impossible for Mr Blair to politically survive taking the country into war with America again, unless Britons could see an immediate danger to themselves.

But to snub Mr Bush would risk putting a serious dent in the transatlantic relationship.

Mr Blair would, of course, be able to work with Mr Kerry – Labour and Democrats are seen as natural allies. Some believe that the two men could work together on the environment and restore the importance of the United Nations.

Such behaviour could rescue Mr Blair from the decline in support he has suffered for remaining close to Mr Bush.

The reverse of this is that if Mr Bush follows Jose Maria Aznar of Spain out of office, the only major pro-war leader still standing would be Australian conservative John Howard, who was recently re-elected. Mr Blair could start to look politically isolated.

Britain’s Middle East policy

Mr Blair thought he had won a victory when, in return for his support in Iraq, Mr Bush threw his backing behind the so-called Road Map to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But the plan has faltered and many Foreign Office officials are known to be despairing at the lack of interest the Bush White House has in the ongoing crisis.

Britain’s environment policy

Mr Blair has championed the issue of global warming, warning that it is the biggest threat facing the future of the world.

But Mr Bush still refuses to sign to Kyoto Protocol, to reduce harmful emissions into the atmosphere.

The president summed up his policy on foreign relations during the first presidential debate with Mr Kerry, saying: “Trying to be popular in the global sense, if it’s not in our interests, makes no sense.”

Mr Kerry plans a much more ambitious plan for cleaning up the environment, although he too has said Kyoto was “flawed“. A Blair-Kerry partnership would be far more likely to champion the environment than Blair-Bush.

The Labour Party

Many Labour backbenchers are known to be desperate for a Kerry victory, angry with Mr Bush for his invasion of Iraq and fearful of his future military intentions.

The Iraq war has confused the old order, when Labour would traditionally back the Democrats. Mr Blair and Chancellor Gordon Brown were characterised as “Clintonising” Labour with “third-way” politics when they came to office.

There have been suggestions that Mr Blair does not seem to have leant any implicit backing to the Kerry campaign. In fact, to some Democrats, a recent visit by Mr Blair to Washington, where he appeared in the Rose Garden of the White House with Mr Bush, marked the starting point of the Bush-re-election bid.

In an Independent newspaper article in September, former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who resigned over the war, said: “No doubt in-trays in Downing Street are full of plans for the eventuality of a Bush re-election.”

But he added: “Tony Blair appears to be the only member of his own government who still would like to see it happen.”

The Conservatives

In another reversal, the Tories no longer offer unfaltering backing to the Republicans Party deputy leader Michael Ancram said recently that the Conservatives would question Mr Bush if his policies went against the best interests of Britain.

“Michael Howard has made it absolutely clear, and quite rightly, that it is not the job of a British prime minister, or even a British leader of the opposition, to give unquestioning support to an American president where it is against the interests of this country,” he said.

KCWolfman
10-25-2004, 06:01 AM
I wonder if Stevie has the balls to drop a line about his embarassment of you then... If not, it was nothing more than a hollow attack with not an ounce of principle to back it...
He said from his Defining moment of what is wrong with America statement.