Newsfilter, I just couldn't help it.
March 10, 2003 6:58 PM   Subscribe

The first President Bush has told his son that hopes of peace in the Middle East would be ruined if a war with Iraq were not backed by international unity. via fox news Times Online.
posted by elwoodwiles (41 comments total)

 
This is what the NY Times has to say about the same speech. In other news, Americans are increasingly going to
European websites for news.
Coincidence?
posted by elwoodwiles at 7:07 PM on March 10, 2003


Or... you could actually read the speech instead of relying on the news.
posted by Stan Chin at 7:11 PM on March 10, 2003


Absolutely remarkable. I have been wondering for weeks what Bush Sr thought of the whole current situation, considering his different (and effective) approach that resulted in cooperation a decade ago. My guess was going to be that he'd never say anything about it, though. That's gotta be a difficult position to be in.

Mr Bush Sr even came close to conceding that opponents of his son’s case against President Saddam Hussein, who he himself is on record as loathing, have legitimate cause for concern.

The idea that Bush Sr. is "on record as loathing" Saddam Hussein absolutely wins understatement of the year for me. : )
posted by namespan at 7:12 PM on March 10, 2003


Thanks for the transcript Stan, and you're right, it's always better to find the source when trying to understand current world events. Here's what's on my mind though: I wouldn't have known to look for the speech if it wasn't directed to me somehow. The NY Times isn't going to tell me what was said, neither is Fox news. When I look for news about America and its dealings with the world I usually find the best information in a European website.

I am a sad and paltry googler - I looked for that transcript everywhere but the (DUH!) Tufts University website. *slaps forhead*
posted by elwoodwiles at 7:24 PM on March 10, 2003


Sweet Jesus.

I'm (almost) completely flabbergasted.
posted by influx at 7:25 PM on March 10, 2003


Clueless liberal: So does this mean the war is good, then? Help!

I like the Times Online/NYT contrast. Is the US media becoming more conservative or just pandering to idiots? Should 'or' be changed to 'and'?
posted by Ryvar at 7:31 PM on March 10, 2003


Great speech. Thanks Stan!
posted by hama7 at 7:36 PM on March 10, 2003


I think Fox News and London Times are both owned by Rupert Murdoch ...
posted by carter at 7:41 PM on March 10, 2003


anybody else notice this typo?

...despite a bigger rancher that continues to plague the region...
posted by eddydamascene at 7:45 PM on March 10, 2003


Thanks Stan. That linked quote is hopelessly out of context. Bush Sr. is speaking of his own actions in the Middle East the channels of communication that were opened, and have remained open, since Desert Storm.

At no point do his views conflict with his son's.
posted by eyeballkid at 7:49 PM on March 10, 2003


I believe the correct phrasing there would be that "the US media is pandering to idiots by becoming more conservative." Not saying that all conservatives are idiots, but in the "Smart/Stupid - Liberal/Conservative" truth table, the US media is definitely concentrating on box four.

My personal theory on why this is the case: Liberals both smart and stupid seem to put more stock in what they learn and hear, whereas Conservatives are more likely to be concentrating on doing the things they already know.

Therefore, smart Liberals can find their own news, because they are adept with learning and information; stupid Liberals can't distinguish truth for themselves and therefore don't trust established news sources; smart Conservatives are busy running the country; and that leaves stupid Conservatives to sit around watching CNN (and, unfortunately, voting).
posted by hob at 7:50 PM on March 10, 2003


"and the channels of communication that were opened..." ---damned keyboard ;)

(and switch out "hopelessly" to "criminally")
posted by eyeballkid at 7:51 PM on March 10, 2003


Is the US media becoming more conservative or just pandering to idiots? Should 'or' be changed to 'and'?

'by'
posted by Armitage Shanks at 7:52 PM on March 10, 2003


At no point do his views conflict with his son's.

I'd disagree with that just a bit. "Conflict" is probably too strong... but differences, definitely. The subtext is there in his speech (though not anywhere near as much as the linked title article implies) -- but it's not a diametric opposition, nor really a division. Just a difference.

Here's what's on my mind though: I wouldn't have known to look for the speech if it wasn't directed to me somehow. The NY Times isn't going to tell me what was said, neither is Fox news

Right on, elwoodwiles... this is the biggest problem with the media: they will rarely tell you how to dig deeper.
posted by namespan at 7:55 PM on March 10, 2003


Incidentally, the Madrid conference would never have happened if the international coalition that fought together in Desert Storm had acceded the U.N. mandate and gone on on its own if the United States had gone on on its own, had gone into Baghdad after Saddam and his forces had surrendered and agreed to disarm. The coalition would have instantly shattered. And the political capital that we had gained as a result of our principle restraint to jumpstart the peace process would have been lost. We would have lost all support from our coalition, with the possible exception of England. And we would have lost all support from the smaller nations in the United Nations as well. Bush Sr. -from the linked speech.
posted by elwoodwiles at 8:08 PM on March 10, 2003


Oh crap! eyeball kid may be right. My bad everyone.
posted by elwoodwiles at 8:11 PM on March 10, 2003


The original transcript of the Feb 26 speech.
posted by rudyfink at 8:17 PM on March 10, 2003


Anyone notice that the guy who wrote this, also cowrote the third weird-ass hans blix cover-up thing, with James Bone? WTF? Are they just hiring liars to test the waters?
posted by condour75 at 8:25 PM on March 10, 2003


Bush vs. Bush
posted by homunculus at 8:38 PM on March 10, 2003


[Several students stand up and demonstrate opposition to a possible war with Iraq]

We've now found a real good reason to use duct tape. [applause] Hey, this is calm. Barbara would kill me, but I'm going to tell you a story while they're being gracefully exited. You think this is something. You ought to have gone in with me when I was President, to San Francisco. We rode in – I picture the place well. The Secret Service police keep the people back. And this one demonstrator was standing there, the worst looking woman I've ever seen in my life. And she had a big sign. She came running up to the side of the car saying, "Stay out of my womb." No problem, lady. This is all right, this is okay. And they feel strongly. Let me say this: I do understand, I do understand where they're coming from. And I have no great concern about that. But, I hope they'll listen and see where I'm coming from. [applause]


1. doesn't want to have sex with ugly woman, check
2. but understands where they're coming from, check
3. doesn't really care tho, check
4. but still wants them to listen anyway, check
5. ????
6. applause!

i dunno, from a hawkish perspective "the Saudi's are our staunch allies and friends" didn't really ring true, especially the understatement, "We have different systems."

like if you subscribe to SDB's analysis (and he sounds like he knows what he's talking about :) "part of why we're going to take Iraq is for its oil fields. But the reason is that we need to control them so that the House of Saud will no longer have any weapons at all against us and we won't have to pretend they're our friends any longer." (altho i'm willing to believe HWB knows more :)

the economist elaborates!
All this will cost money. Will enough be found? America has only recently created a body to co-ordinate ideas for relief and reconstruction. NGOs complain that they have hardly been consulted, and UN agencies, their plans drawn up, remain strapped for funds. There is no hint yet of an international civilian force to do the kind of policing that American troops cannot. And the shallowness of world support for America may mean that too little aid will appear. Friends gave America $54 billion to pay for the last Gulf war. It will be lucky to get a fraction of that this time.

How much money will be needed? The Congressional Budget Office estimates the annual cost of peacekeepers at $250,000 a head. This puts the price for maintaining 100,000 foreign troops in Iraq at $25 billion a year, as much as the country's GDP. Immediate humanitarian aid for 5m people—a low estimate, given the numbers already on food rations—could cost $500 a head, for a total of $2.5 billion. Rebuilding basic infrastructure to the standard Iraq enjoyed in 1990 comes to another $25 billion. Throw in the reconstruction of institutions, from schools and hospitals to universities and museums, and the price-tag grows to $100 billion.

Ah, but Iraq has oil. True, and plenty of it. The trouble is that it is in the ground, and the infrastructure to move it is sadly battered, even if Mr Hussein ignores the option of torching his own wells. Current exports of 2.5m barrels a day (b/d) earn over $15 billion a year. Experts say raising this by 1m b/d will need an investment of at least $7 billion. Reaching 6m b/d—an ambitious target—would take more than another $20 billion and as much as ten years. At that level, Iraq could begin to pay for its own rapid development. It might even be able to pay some of its existing debt, which is estimated at anything between $60 billion and $140 billion. But with so many claims on oil revenue, relatively little may be reinvested in production.

Since Iraq's reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia's, foreign firms will rush to invest; but only if the place is stable and the terms attractive. The rewards, moreover, will come only in the longer term, meaning a painful stretch when Iraqi expectations and the harsh reality will remain far apart.
also, btw, i thought thomas friedman had a nice study in contrast between 41 and 43:
The Bush folks are big on attitude, weak on strategy and terrible at diplomacy. I covered the first gulf war, in 1990-91. What I remember most are the seven trips I took with Secretary of State James A. Baker III around the world to watch him build — face-to-face — the coalition and public support for that war, before a shot was fired. Going to someone else's country is a sign you respect his opinion. This Bush team has done no such hands-on spade work. Its members think diplomacy is a phone call.
which i imagine has direct bearing on whether, as HWB sez, "you will see the United States back together as allies and friends with both Germany and France."
posted by kliuless at 9:01 PM on March 10, 2003


The first President Bush has told his son that hopes of peace in the Middle East would be ruined if a war with Iraq were not backed by international unity.

And the Grandson of Winston Churchill, in a commentary in today's WSJ titled "My Grandfather Invented Iraq", states:

"... Eighty years later, it falls to us to liberate Iraq from the scourge of one of the most ruthless dictators in history. As we stand poised on the brink of war, my grandfather's experience has lessons for us.

The parallels between Saddam Hussein's repeated flouting of U.N. resolutions -- 17 over the past 12 years -- calls to mind the impotence of the U.N. forerunner, the League of Nations. In the 1930s, the victors of the First World War -- Britain, France and the U.S. -- fecklessly allowed the League of Nations' resolutions to be flouted. This was done first by the Japanese, who invaded Manchuria, then by the Italian dictator Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia and, most gravely, by Nazi Germany.

Had the Allies held firm and shown the same resolve to uphold the rule of law among nations that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair are demonstrating today, there is little doubt that World War II, with all its horrors, could have been avoided. Indeed it was for that reason that Churchill called World War II the "Unneccesary War." Tragically, the same sickness that infected the League of Nations -- a feebleness of spirit, an unwillingness to face the realities of the world we live in, and a determination to place corrupt self-interest before the common good -- now afflicts the governments of France, Germany and Belgium."

posted by MidasMulligan at 9:16 PM on March 10, 2003


Another contrast between 41 and 43:
As President Bush continues charting his Team B path, bringing the Cheney/Wolfowitz/Libby 1992 draft plan to fruition, there will likely be many more times where the son diverges far from where his dad would take the nation. In the March 10 issue of Time, the former president Bush recalls that "the night before [the Gulf War] I could not move my neck or arms. The tension had taken hold, the responsibility for those lives, even though I had been in combat myself." His son, who has never been in combat and even has a somewhat disconcerting (if seldom discussed) missing year in his service with the Air National Guard, recently told reporters that he's been sleeping well at night, sustained by people's prayers, which he called "the kindest act a fellow citizen can do for anybody, much less the president." The two have extremely different personalities and temperaments; and now they represent divergent schools of Republican foreign policy.
posted by homunculus at 9:23 PM on March 10, 2003


I'm still not sure that Desert Storm was a completely necessary war and worth future risks to our security - Sept. 11 might not have happened without it, although that's hard to say, given the crazed ideology of Al-Qaeda - given that no overwhelming or immediate national interest was involved there. (Bush even denies so himself, really, in implying that oil wasn't a big issue.) The threats to our security were minor. I still wonder why we could not have encouraged the use of force by Iraq's neighbors instead, which might have made things better for almost everyone involved over the long term.

Still, we were really acting as a authentic global cop there, with the backing and support of a broad, global coalition. By "authentic" I mean that's how cops are supposed to act - not alone, a la Dirty Harry (who, of course, in Magnum Force faces off against a crew of rogue cops who are acting as a Latin American-style death squad who tell him Harry's either "for us or against us," only to be informed that they "misunderstand" Harry) but with the backing of a state or people, something to make their force legitimate. Regardless of what you think of the need for that war, the U.S. was not out of line. And Iraq's violation of international law was more than clear, regardless.

Now, we're about to go to war to enforce international law without the backing of international community. That makes no sense at all. And it's been clear to me from the beginning that a war with Iraq is considerably less justifiable than Desert Storm was in '92. It's seemed unfathomable to me that anyone with a level head could say otherwise. I've tried to understand but I can't. The proposed unilateral action in Iraq will, if carried out, be completely irresponsible, radical in the extreme.
posted by raysmj at 9:45 PM on March 10, 2003


"We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater instability."

--George H.W. Bush, from his book "A World Transformed."


(Found in a CNN transcript, via XQUZYPHYR's xoverboard.com)
posted by Vidiot at 9:47 PM on March 10, 2003


sigh, I need to use search instead of trust in my reading of a thread.
posted by rudyfink at 9:50 PM on March 10, 2003


blah blah blah

Look it'll all be better when Jeb Bush takes over,and after Jeb, the Bush Daughters.keeping the Bush family as King of America Just be calm and wait, m'kay?
posted by rough ashlar at 10:06 PM on March 10, 2003


I found this amusing. Hope you do, too:

Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny
Subject: Disarmament Clinic
 
USA: (Knock)
Saddam Hussein: Come in.
USA: Ah, Is this the right place for disarmament?
Saddam Hussein: I told you once that I've disarmed.
USA: No you haven't.
Saddam Hussein: I've already disarmed.
USA: When?
Saddam Hussein: Just now.
USA: No you didn't.
Saddam Hussein: Yes I did.
USA: You didn't
Saddam Hussein: I did!
USA: You didn't!
Saddam Hussein: I'm telling you I did!
USA: You did not!!
Saddam Hussein: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Do you mean full disarmament
or just a couple of missiles?
USA: Oh, full disarmament.
Saddam Hussein: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
USA: You most certainly did not.
Saddam Hussein: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely disarmed.
USA: No you did not.
Saddam Hussein: Yes I did.
USA: No you didn't.
Saddam Hussein: Yes I did.
USA: No you didn't.
Saddam Hussein: Yes I did.
USA: No you didn't.
Saddam Hussein: Yes I did.
USA: You didn't.
Saddam Hussein: Did.
USA: Oh look, this isn't compliance with UN Resolution 1441.
Saddam Hussein: Yes it is.
USA: No it isn't. It's just defiance.
Saddam Hussein: No it isn't.
USA: It is!
Saddam Hussein: It is not.
USA: Look, you just contradicted me.
Saddam Hussein: I did not.
USA: Oh you did!!
Saddam Hussein: No, no, no.
USA: You did just then.
Saddam Hussein: Nonsense!
USA: Oh, this is futile!
Saddam Hussein: No it isn't.
USA: I came here for a full accounting for destruction of your weapons.
Saddam Hussein: No you didn't; no, you came here for compliance.
USA: Compliance isn't just saying "I've disarmed."
Saddam Hussein: It can be.
USA: No it can't. Compliance is revealing and destroying weapons of mass
destruction in full view of U.N. inspectors.
Saddam Hussein: No it isn't.
USA: Yes it is! It's not just empty statements.
Saddam Hussein: Look, if I comply with the UN, I must say I've disarmed.
USA: Yes, but full disarmament isn't just saying "I've disarmed."
Saddam Hussein: Yes it is!
USA: No it isn't!
USA: Disarmament is an open process. Declarations of de-weaponizing absent
records or hard evidence of actual destruction of WMDs is useless.
 
Pause
 
Saddam Hussein: No it isn't.
USA: It is.
Saddam Hussein: Not at all.
USA: Now look.
Saddam Hussein: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
USA: What?
Saddam Hussein: That's it. Good morning.
USA: I was just getting started.
Saddam Hussein: Sorry, the inspections are done.
USA: That was never disarmament!
Saddam Hussein: I'm afraid it was.
USA: It wasn't.
 
Pause
 
Saddam Hussein: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowing inspections anymore.
USA: What?!
Saddam Hussein: If you want me to allow inspections, you'll have to pass
another UN resolution.
USA: Yes, but that was never compliance, just now. Oh come on!
Saddam Hussein: (Hums)
USA: Look, this is ridiculous.
Saddam Hussein: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've passed
another U.N. resolution.
USA: Oh, all right. (passes 18th resolution against Iraq)
Saddam Hussein: Thank you.
 
Pause
 
USA: Well?
Saddam Hussein: Well what?
USA: That wasn't really compliance, just now.
Saddam Hussein: I told you, I'm not going to allow inspections unless you've
passed a UN resolution.
USA: I just did!
Saddam Hussein: No you didn't.
USA: I DID!
Saddam Hussein: No you didn't.
 
[Note - Original work by Eric Lindholm (MadSwede10 _at_ aol _dot_ com), http://vikingpundit.blogspot.com. Posted with his permission. My thanks to him - ed.]
 
--
Selected by Jim Griffith.
http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/03/Mar/disarmament.html

posted by five fresh fish at 10:15 PM on March 10, 2003


This has to be an embarrassing position for junior. I am not sure what to believe thought, is Bush senior just being objective or is he purposely embarrassing his son? Is this a possible exit strategy, Bush senior gives junior a good upbraiding and makes him see good sense? I suppose that would be slightly less embarrassing then giving in to Chirac.
posted by GreenDragon at 10:18 PM on March 10, 2003


also from that wsj commentary:
On Iraq and the Anglo-American alliance, the British prime minister has got it absolutely right: He is pursuing the true national interest of Great Britain, which is to stand at the side of the Great Republic, as my grandfather was fond of calling the land of his mother's birth.
and from the economist article linked above:
The country was forged by the British, who lost 20,000 troops capturing three neglected Ottoman provinces that were known to be rich in oil. Colonial administrators assumed they could bypass rural chieftains and the urban Sunni elite to impose representative government. A tribal revolt in 1920, suppressed only with mustard gas, convinced them otherwise. The British-backed monarchy, having largely reinstated the old class order, survived until 1958. Three coups later, Saddam Hussein consolidated power with a mixture of oil money, cunning and ruthlessness.
just sayin :) not that the project HWB elucidates, "to see all the people of the Eastern Mediterranean and indeed throughout the Arab world live in peace and security. We want them to have the freedom to determine their own destiny. And most of all, we want to see every child in that region grow up with a chance to succeed in a world full of opportunity and wonder," isn't on the level!

but that, as has been stated, perhaps, "if the United States had gone on on its own, had gone into Baghdad after Saddam and his forces had surrendered and agreed to disarm. The coalition would have instantly shattered. And the political capital that we had gained as a result of our principle restraint to jumpstart the peace process would have been lost. We would have lost all support from our coalition, with the possible exception of England. And we would have lost all support from the smaller nations in the United Nations as well." the reason being why the UN is there, to wit the past actions of superpowers were not especially noble (the great game?) and decidedly not in the interest of seeing "all the people . . . throughout the Arab world live in peace and security."

like david brooks (on pbs :) has said, people — the world! — would respond to this message. i respond to it :) so to me it's kind of sad that it's left to WB's dad in an address to tufts to try and get it across; i.e. with everyone wondering about the naked ambition and arrogance of the US or whatever, it seems kinda, i dunno, curiously counterproductive? like maybe fund USAID more and get natsios, and afghanistan reconstruction, in front of the tv and press more often? like how the christian children's fund operates! otherwise, i'd be prepared for more skepticism.
posted by kliuless at 10:39 PM on March 10, 2003


"Gulf War I vs Gulf War II" in the notoriously communistic Business Week (there's also a brief mention of Tufts Feb 26 speech)

Perhaps the wisest move by the first Bush Administration was figuring out a way to pay for a military action before launching it. Back in 1990, months before the Gulf war began, Secretary of State James Baker devised an "economic action plan" that in essence passed the hat among U.S. allies for cash to stand down Saddam. Baker figured on a high estimate ($15 billion) and Schmoozer-in-Chief Bush cajoled Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Egypt to pay for what was essentially a U.S. police operation designed to make their neighborhood safe again. With additional cash from Japan and Germany, the U.S. easily covered the cost of a $11 billion campaign.

Contrast that fiscal planning with the lack of any by the current Bush Administration. Costs for a military campaign this time range from $60 billion to $100 billion. Yet no one in the White House will even hazard an official estimate. And when former economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey suggested that the cost might come in at $100 billion, he angered Bush and was gone in a matter of months in a shakeup of the economic team.

Given strained relations with Germany, a Japan that is mired in economic stagnation, and a region eager to see Saddam gone but reluctant to get involved in a military operation, no one in the Bush Administration can pass the hat around this time, especially at a such a late date. That means this war's huge cost will only add more red ink to federal ledgers.


Also of interest in BW: Bush, the Bible and Iraq
posted by matteo at 12:35 AM on March 11, 2003


I must admit that little has done more to put me _off_ a war than the Bush Jr. Administration's actions. I consider myself a pro-American Canadian libertarian who is in favour of the liberation of Iraq, including through the use of military force if absolutely necessary. Nonetheless, I find it very difficult to support the current plans in light of the Bush administration's constant bungling. I said on another thread that "Some people, despite agreeing with one's position superficially, are not worth having on one's side," and I stand by that. I am unfortunately beginning to be forced to put the Bush administration in the latter group.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 12:48 AM on March 11, 2003


I shared the sketch above, only to get a freshly Saddamized Monty Python skit from Phineas...
---------------------

BUSH: Good Morning.
SADDAM: Good morning, Sir. Welcome to the Persian Gulf.
BUSH: Ah, thank you, my good man.
SADDAM: What can I do for you, Sir?
BUSH: Well, I was, uh, sitting in old 1600 Pennsylvania just now skimming through the Times and I suddenly came over old fear.
SADDAM: Old fear, sir?
BUSH: 1991.
SADDAM: Eh?
BUSH: Bad economy, bad polls
SADDAM: Ah, trouble at home!
BUSH: In a nutshell. And I thought to myself, "I'd better walk over to the old stomping grounds, make sure the bugger has the goods," so, I curtailed my Presidential activites, got on the horse, and penetrated your place of evil doers to negotiate the war on terror!
SADDAM: Come again?
BUSH: 'Ee, Ah'd like te' 'ave ay WAHR wit ye!'
SADDAM: (lustily) Certainly, sir. What would you like?
BUSH: Well, eh, how about a low-yield neutron bomb.
SADDAM: I'm, a-fraid we're fresh out of low-yield neutron bomb.
BUSH: Oh, never mind, how are you on armor-piercing shells?
SADDAM: I'm afraid we never have that at the end of the week, sir, we get them fresh on Monday.
BUSH: Tish tish. No matter. Well, stout yeoman, four ounces of weapons-grade plutonium, if you please.
SADDAM: Ah! It's beeeen on order, sir, for two weeks. Was expecting it this morning.
BUSH: 'T's Not my lucky day, is it? Aah, armored tanks?
SADDAM: Sorry, sir.
BUSH: Surface to air missiles?
SADDAM: Normally, sir, yes. Today the van broke down.
BUSH: Ah. Land mines?
SADDAM: Sorry.
BUSH: Serin gas? Microbes?
SADDAM: No.
BUSH: Any nerve gas, per chance.
SADDAM: No.
BUSH: Mustard gas?
SADDAM: No.
BUSH: Carbon monoxide?
SADDAM: No.
BUSH: Flame throwers?
SADDAM: No.
BUSH: M-16's?
SADDAM: No.
BUSH: AK-47's?
SADDAM: No.
BUSH: Hand grenades?
SADDAM: No.
BUSH: Bayonets?
SADDAM: No.
BUSH: Hammers, nailguns, Swords, knives, cutlery of any sort, ping pong paddles, bataka bats, steel-toed boot?
SADDAM: No.
BUSH: Napalm, perhaps?
SADDAM: Ah! We have Napalm, yessir.
BUSH: (suprised) You do! Excellent.
SADDAM: Yessir. It's..ah,.....it's a bit runny...
BUSH: Oh, I like it runny.
SADDAM: Well,.. It's very runny, actually, sir.
BUSH: No matter. Fetch me heah the gelatinized gazzoline de jour! Mmmwah!
SADDAM: I...think it's a bit runnier than you'll like it, sir.
BUSH: I don't care how fucking runny it is. Hand it over with all speed.
SADDAM: Oooooooooohhh........!
BUSH: What now?
SADDAM: The cat's eaten it.
BUSH: Has he.
SADDAM: She, sir.
(pause)
BUSH: Laser guided missiles?
SADDAM: No.
BUSH: Surface to air missiles?
SADDAM: No.
BUSH: Depth charges?
SADDAM: No.
BUSH: Handguns of any sort?
SADDAM: No.
BUSH: Rifles? Machine guns?
SADDAM: No, sir.
BUSH: You...do *have* SOME weapons, don't you?
SADDAM: (brightly) Of course, sir. It's an evil, dangerous weapons-of-mass-destruction-bearing nation, sir. We've got--
BUSH: No no... don't tell me. I'm keen to guess.
SADDAM: Fair enough.
BUSH: (muttering) Insane...
SADDAM: Yes?
BUSH: What?
SADDAM: Oh! I thought you were talking to me, sir. Saddam Hussein.

(pause)

BUSH: Dirty bombs?
SADDAM: Uh, not as such.
BUSH: Uuh, knapsack bombs?
SADDAM: no
BUSH: Exploding shoes,
SADDAM: no
BUSH: Exploding pens,
SADDAM: no
BUSH: B-B Guns,
SADDAM: no
BUSH: Slingshots,
SADDAM: no
BUSH: Rubber bands,
SADDAM: no
BUSH: Damp spitballs?
SADDAM: Not *today*, sir, no.
(pause)
BUSH: Aah, how about nuclear MISSILES?
SADDAM: Well, we don't get much call for them around here, sir.
BUSH: Not much ca--they're the single most popular weaponry in the world!
SADDAM: Not 'round here, sir.
BUSH: and what IS the most popular cheese 'round hyah?
SADDAM: SCUD missiles, sir.
BUSH: ARE they?
SADDAM: Oh, yes, they're staggeringly popular in this region.
BUSH: ARE they.
SADDAM: They're our number one best weapon, sir!
BUSH: I see. Uuh...Scud missiles, eh?
SADDAM: Right, sir.
BUSH: All right. Okay. 'Have you got any?' he asked, expecting the answer 'no'.
SADDAM: I'll have a look, sir... nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnno!
BUSH: It's not much of a evil, dangerous weapons-of-mass-destruction-bearing COUNTRY, is it?
SADDAM: The most dangerous in the region!
BUSH: (annoyed) Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please.
SADDAM: Well, we're so MEAN, sir!
BUSH: (Sigh)
SADDAM: (brightly) You haven't asked me about suitcase bombs sir.
BUSH: Would it be worth it?
SADDAM: Could be....
BUSH: (slowly) Have you got any suitcase bombs?
SADDAM: No.
BUSH: Figures. Predictable, really I suppose. It was an act of purest optimism to have posed the question in the first place. Tell me:
SADDAM: Yessir?
BUSH: (deliberately) Have you in fact got any weapons here at all.
SADDAM: No, sir.
BUSH: Now, I'm going to ask you that question again, and if you say 'yes' I'm going to shoot you right between the eyes.
SADDAM: Right-o sir.
BUSH: Do you have any weapons here at all?
SADDAM: Well, we have...

BOOM!

BUSH: What a *senseless* waste of human life.
posted by insomnia_lj at 1:09 AM on March 11, 2003


Since we have dialog parodies, I'll throw this in as one of the more amusing takes.

MMORPG take on the situation:

US: Ok, putting together RvR group for Iraq raid... who's in?
Turkey: Only if someone makes me new armor. Last Iraq raid I lost money
US: How much you need?
Turkey: 6 Plat.
US: WTF?! You're not building the armor out of platinum, ya tard...no frikking way.
Turkey: Yeah, but I wanna get it SC...
US: 3 plat, and that's all I'm offering.
Turkey: Sweet. Ok, I'm in.
Spain: I frikking hate Iraq. They were camped at our keep for frikking EVER, man--long time ago, but still pissed off about it. Meet you at Turkish keep.
US: Cool, thx.
Italy: Me 2

Chile: I'm in.
US: Ok, so far, got US, Turks, Spain, Italy, Chile.
Bulgaria: Umm, got room for some lowbies? Thought maybe we could leech some RP's.
US: Yeah, sure. Why not. Just don't attack anything. Set up a /assist US macro, ok?
France: Hey all, what's up?
US: Putting together an RvR raid, hitting Iraq.
France: No frikking way, dood. Look, I'm part of Alliance leadership, and I say no way do we go in there. I'm using Alliance veto.
US: WTF? Alliance Veto?
France: Yeah, it's in Alliance charter. Me, Germany, US, Russia, and China can all cancel any Alliance raid event.
Bulgaria: Hey, me and the other Eastern Europeans wanna go...
France: STFU, n00b. Your guild got no say in this.
Bulgaria: ,,!,,
Germany: I don't really want to go either.
US: ...
France: Yeah, we veto. No guildies go to Iraq.
US: What about you, Russia.
Russia: Well, if everyone else goes, it's ok, but if France and Germany say no, then that's cool.
US: Jeezus. Dood, show some balls. You used to love going on raids.
Russia: Yeah, but that Afghanistan raid a while back was a disaster. Total group wipe-out.
US: Yeah, but you were in different alliance, man. This is different.
Besides, we pwn3d last time we went on Iraq raid.
France: Doesn't matter. I say no.
Spain: .tell US doesn't matter if they don't go anyway, France just gives up anytime he sees any combat anyway. He's a bu77munch. Lives next door to me.
Spain: Oops. MT.
France: Oh yeah? Well you skipped that WWII raid completely.
Spain: Only cuz I'd just come back from dueling, was too tired to RvR.
Besides, you died in first wave, spent the rest of the raid licking dirt and whining.
France: ..!..
US: Guys, c'mon. I'm trying to put this thing together, here... look, I don't care what France says. I'm going, and anyone who wants to come with me can. China, you in?
China: *shrug* Don't feel like it.
US: Ok...
North Korea has challenged you to a duel! Type /duel accept to accept or
/duel decline to decline the challenge.
/duel decline

North Korea tells you: "Dood u r teh suq. I will r0xxorz u"

You tell North Korea: No thanks, guy. Trying to get an RvR raid going.
North Korea tells you: "Ur just scaerd of teh pwnage"
You tell North Korea: Riiiigh. STFU, okay? I'm busy
North Korea taunts you.
/ignore North Korea.
US: How come you're not coming, Germany?
Germany: I'm just not into the violence anymore.
You tell Germany: Bulls***, you're just waiting for us to go into Iraq so you can gank France again.
Germany tells you: Ooops. *blush* busted!!
You tell Germany: Dude, why bother? He's gray to you.
Germany tells you: It's just satisfying, I guess. It shuts him up for a while, anyway.
France: I'm telling you, if anyone goes, then it'll break the Alliance.
Spain tells you: Whoop-de-s***, this Alliance sucks anyway. Let's go anyways.
US: France, WTF is ur problem?
France:I want to send scouts in, first. Let them see if there's any reason to go in.
US: Ok, how long it gonna take them?
France: Couple weeks, maybe. Months, possibly.
US: MONTHS? WTF???! Dude, I don't want to wait that long. I'll give your scouts a week, at most. We'll reschedule then.
France: I may veto anyway.
US: Yeah, whatever.
/tell Spain yeah, may have to. He's a dips***.
United Kingdom tells you: Dude, I'm in... where u want me? I got stealths watching the Iraq Mile Gates.
Bulgaria tells you: If you go, let me know. Me and my lowbie buddies are in.
You tell Bulgaria: Cool, thx. Are you someone's ALT?
Bulgaria tells you: Some of us were Russia's buffbots, but we're soloing, now.
US: Ok, meet again next week. We'll take things from there.
posted by rudyfink at 1:48 AM on March 11, 2003


Thanks for all the great links and info, especially kliuless. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread and checking out all the references.
posted by nofundy at 5:23 AM on March 11, 2003


Funpost, thanx all. Greet paroodeeze!

Greendragon - I thinkx George Bush Sr. is a grown mammalian carnivore (____ fill in blank) swatting it's juvenile cub to demonstrate continued dominant status. *CUFF...cuff cuff....* ....Or maybe teaching juvenile proper way to 'hunt' , gesturally......[unspoken lesson would be: "NO!...STOP....listen...Full ahead charges SCARE prey.....THIS WAY : CREEP up to prey. Stalk prey. Stalk. Quietly. Creep. low to ground. quietly. pause. creep. pause. Close gap.....then.....LEAP!"]
posted by troutfishing at 7:36 AM on March 11, 2003


The first question and Bush's response in the Q&A at the institute is directly related to this debate over international support.
posted by mblandi at 7:56 AM on March 11, 2003


Has anyone considered the possibility of the Oedipal complex in this relationship and these actions?
posted by nofundy at 7:59 AM on March 11, 2003


France: Yeah, it's in Alliance charter. Me, Germany, US, Russia, and China can all cancel any Alliance raid event.

s/Germany/UK
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:11 AM on March 11, 2003


You know, nofundy, that really wasn't a very polite image to put into our minds at eight in the morning. Sheeez.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:18 AM on March 11, 2003


Ah.... Reference to Monty Python brings much-needed comic relief to Thread # 3,156,890 About The War With Iraq.
posted by eustacescrubb at 10:02 AM on March 11, 2003


This is a bit late, but this was also a classic. Thanks all for putting a smile on my face.
posted by carter at 7:16 PM on March 11, 2003


« Older who is this richard perle guy anyway?...  |  Camposites... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments