Join 3,432 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Prove it...
February 24, 2004 4:20 PM   Subscribe

That's right, we're offering $10,000 cash! Yours to either spend or invest in job creation. All you have to do is definitively prove that George W. Bush fulfilled his duty to country. Garry Trudeau, like the rest of us, is weary of the "partisan assault on [Geo W's] character," and is taking brave steps to finally end the liberal accusations...
posted by Shane (36 comments total)

 
I love this. It's been going on for a bit now and no one has claimed the prize yet. ROOPS!
posted by velacroix at 4:29 PM on February 24, 2004


This guy says he was with him the whole time.
posted by homunculus at 4:40 PM on February 24, 2004


~guffaw~

Calpundit's been following the case of President AWOL pretty closely.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 4:43 PM on February 24, 2004


Trudeau....that's a...French name, isn't it?
posted by uosuaq at 4:47 PM on February 24, 2004


Classic. For $10,000 if he was there, we'd know about it.

So you want to bring back the draft do you, Mr. President?
posted by maggie at 5:02 PM on February 24, 2004


I still think that, as an election-year campaign weapon for the Democrats, the AWOL issue is pretty lame.
he's a Republican, he talks tough, he surrounds himself with fawning people in uniform, nobody is allowed to film or photograph all those coffins coming back from Iraq Attaq, disgruntled relatives of 9-11 victims or Iraq Attaq KIAs are nowhere to be seen in the media, the media etiquette must have labelled them as "shrill" or "still shocked" or something -- that's more than enough, for the majority of the electorate (which is of course in itself a minority of the whole over-18 population anyway).

also, too many people saw the "fighter pilot" photo-op, the turkey photo-op. these were very simple, effective, powerful narratives. the awol issue on the other hand is too fuzzy at the moment ("fuzzy math!") -- remember nobody really cared about Reagan serving in Hollywood during WWII -- the Gipper is and will remain forever for the majority of Americans a tough-talking, badass, pro-military hero president. even he weaselled out of risky service in the war, letting some other draftee do the dying for him

99% of electoral politics is about simple narratives.

unless of course the community service rumor actually grows into something really, really bad -- and usable by Democrats in simple, tough ads. but even that, perhaps, wouldn't be good enough -- that was then, this is now -- he's discovered Jesus almost 20 years ago, remember? the healing power of prayer, etc

Kennedy broke the "no Catholic Presidents" taboo, Reagan the "no divorced Presidents" taboo. Bush II already broke the "no-recovering-addict Presidents with a criminal record" taboo in 2000. hence, Democrats need something better than this.
it takes only a silly photo-op in a tank to destroy a real war veteran's credibility. it takes only a photo-op in a fighter pilot costume to massively build up an admittedly shaky resume
posted by matteo at 5:11 PM on February 24, 2004


...$10,000 cash! Yours to either spend or invest in job creation.

Sort of. From further down on the same site:

Q: Is there some sort of hitch?
A: Well, yes, but it's a hitch for a good cause. The winner won't actually receive the reward for himself; instead we'll be donating $10,000 in his name to the USO. That way everyone's a winner, including GBT's tax accountant.


Incentive, yes, I suppose, but not quite the same, eh? Hmmm.
posted by .kobayashi. at 5:15 PM on February 24, 2004


Matteo: "I still think that, as an election-year campaign weapon for the Democrats, the AWOL issue is pretty lame."

I thought this too, until yesterday. Listening to an NPR interview with Bush campaign manager, Mark Racicot, I heard him state that Bush had volunteered to serve in Vietnam. That is blatantly, as Bush would tell you himself, untrue. The fact that his campaign chairman, who considering the scrutiny Bush's military record is under at the moment must be fully aware of the record, would fabricate such a story astounds me.

I think it's indicative of the arrogant disdain with which the current administration treats the electorate. These people don't just make me angry, they insult me on a daily basis.
posted by cedar at 5:24 PM on February 24, 2004


"the AWOL issue is pretty lame."

It's not the AWOL, it's the lie. Bush lied about his military service. Even as a Bush hater I don't really care about whether he avoided Viet Nam or was AWOL. Lot's of people did similar stuff. It was a messed up time.

But once he goes on a national talk show and lies about it in front of the American people the gloves are off.
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:36 PM on February 24, 2004


y6y6y6, don't forget the latest round of fundraising lies from Racicot claiming that GW volunteered for service in Vietnam.
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:41 PM on February 24, 2004


Isn't Trudeau normally Democratic in his positions? Or is he more libertarian?

This just doesn't seem much like him, personally.
posted by ajpresto at 5:43 PM on February 24, 2004


ajpresto: check your irony detecor, the batteries may be a bit low :)
posted by cedar at 5:48 PM on February 24, 2004


I was trying, but by golly, this one was really hard. It sounded like he was supporting the president..
posted by ajpresto at 5:50 PM on February 24, 2004



posted by Shane at 5:50 PM on February 24, 2004


Even as a Bush hater I don't really care about whether he avoided Viet Nam or was AWOL...But once he goes on a national talk show and lies about it in front of the American people the gloves are off.

bullshit. tell that to clinton haters.

so, what 'major' issus are we looking at now for the the 04 election? gay marriage rights, abortion and a supposedly awol president? that's golden!
posted by poopy at 6:18 PM on February 24, 2004


" too many people saw the "fighter pilot" photo-op"
Funny thing is, nobody has denied that his flying privileges were revoked, or explained why. I believe that in excess of a million dollars is invested in training a fighter pilot, and that investment was wasted. Do any military folks here know if he was even supposed to be on an airplane wearing a flight suit without having his flight privileges restored?
posted by 2sheets at 6:24 PM on February 24, 2004


He's the Shrub-in-Chief - who's going to tell him he can't pose in his flightsuit?
posted by FormlessOne at 6:57 PM on February 24, 2004


poopy: "so, what 'major' issus are we looking at now for the the 04 election? gay marriage rights"

You sure you don't mean the proposition that we should amend a document that was intended to increase liberties and protect people from the government to restrict liberties? You sure you don't mean Dubyas willingness to pervert the republican (in the literal sense of the word, not the Carl Rove sense of the word) process to further a political agenda in an election year?

"abortion"

You mean the guy who just weaseled his second federal judicial apointment behind the back of congressional oversight using abortion as a litmus test? The same guy who claims that his stance on the same sex marriage amendment is based in opposition to an activist judiciary.

"supposedly awol president"

Is this the same one whose campaign manger just lied on national radio about his volunteering to serve overseas while he is continuing to send troops to die... uh, overseas?
posted by cedar at 7:04 PM on February 24, 2004


Of the Mefi users out there...(I soooooo shouldn't ask this.)

Which is worse? A man who lies primarily to his wife about extra martial activities? Or a man who lies to the country about his record of service (or lack thereof?)
posted by filmgeek at 7:05 PM on February 24, 2004


cedar, try selling that to the american people during election. we'll see who wins.

this isn't about what is right and wrong for fucks sake. this is politics, unless someone has severely changed the rules.
posted by poopy at 7:24 PM on February 24, 2004


Poopy, I think you may surprised how the next election goes.

On preview, let me rephrase that. I hope your surprised at how the next election goes. I may be niave but I'm not totally lacking in faith that, as a people, we eventually do what what's right.

Dubyas biggest error is going to be relying too heavily on the assumption that the electorate is stupid ... I mean, we are for the most part idiots, but not that stupid.
posted by cedar at 7:35 PM on February 24, 2004


Trudeau:
Q: Is there some sort of hitch?
A: Well, yes, but it's a hitch for a good cause. The winner won't actually receive the reward for himself; instead we'll be donating $10,000 in his name to the USO. That way everyone's a winner, including GBT's tax accountant.


.kobayashi.:
Incentive, yes, I suppose, but not quite the same, eh? Hmmm.

Good catch, .kobayashi. I should have included that disclaimor in the post. Now I feel as if I've misled the American public...
posted by Shane at 7:50 PM on February 24, 2004


Dubyas biggest error is going to be relying too heavily on the assumption that the electorate is stupid

one of the many strategies used on the left, sad to say.

the politicians will have their soundbites. the media will embrace and condense it. and we will vote.
posted by poopy at 8:03 PM on February 24, 2004


Weird that that catch - donating the money rather than giving it directly to the person who steps forward - undermines the point of the whole project.

An appeal to greed might indeed cause someone to come forward, if there is such a person. Not that there is. Bush was probably in jail or something during the time in question. Who else but his own father - who was the director of the CIA - could have expunged all of George's records? And why else would so many files be missing?
posted by interrobang at 8:21 PM on February 24, 2004


Which is worse? A man who lies primarily to his wife about extra martial activities? Or a man who lies to the country about his record of service (or lack thereof?)

Pointless, senseless question. They are both liars. Whether that fact is of consequence to you or not is another question entirely.

Which is worse? A man who rapes and murders a child or a man who rapes and murders an adult?

Feh.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:34 PM on February 24, 2004


interrobang, is it true that "so many files" are missing?
Can this be documented? There is a perfectly good sound-bite in such information. Where are the missing records of the president's military career? Who has hidden them? What other records might we want to see? Are they missing too? It's questions like that that excite us stupid Americans, not all this vague, common, abstract naughtiness.
posted by donfactor at 11:48 PM on February 24, 2004


It remains that many of the president's files can't be found, donfactor. If they weren't missing, wouldn't that particular issue not be an issue?
posted by interrobang at 12:11 AM on February 25, 2004


Filmgeek asked: Which is worse? A man who lies primarily to his wife about extra martial activities? Or a man who lies to the country about his record of service (or lack thereof?)

Bush' lies to his country have cost thousands of innocent lives - and I count the US Armed Forces casualties as innocent deaths as well.

I think the implication to marital infidelity is a reference frame to make us think "Bill Clinton!" You all remember Bill? Peace, prosperity, no deficit, jobs, and a quiet but effective anti-terror security policy? Wasn't so long ago.

Clinton's wee-wee didn't kill anyone, and he dribbled on Monica's dress hours after his daily 6:45 AM daily security meeting to discuss the location and possible killing of Mr. Bin Laden.

And as I remember, the whole scandal died on Capitol Hill as soon as Larry Flynt offered one million dollars to any woman who would testify to a marital infidelity with a Republican member of Congress.
posted by zaelic at 3:37 AM on February 25, 2004


These people don't just make me angry, they insult me on a daily basis.

Thank you cedar. Very well put. Imagine how the living-in-denial sycophantic Defenders Of All Things Duhbya must cringe each and every time their Dear Leader gets caught in yet another big lie.
posted by nofundy at 4:49 AM on February 25, 2004


matteo: I still think that, as an election-year campaign weapon for the Democrats, the AWOL issue is pretty lame.

I dunno. I think I initially agreed with this, but I also think it has more than adequately blunted his flight-jacket-strutting photo-ops. I think few people can look at those now without flashing on the question of his epehmeral military service. It isn't a fulcrum issue to pin all your hopes upon, but it is an effective secondary one.

Also, what y6y6y6 said ...
posted by RavinDave at 5:31 AM on February 25, 2004


But they don't cringe, nofundy, that's exactly what frustrates and disgusts me about them. They believe the lies, as obvious and insulting as they are. It started before BushCo. were even elected (does anyone even remember now how Dick Cheney "suddenly" became a resident of... where was it? Oklahoma? Minnesota?... despite living in Texas for about fifty thousand years, all because that darned Constitution says the President and the Vice-President must be residents of different states? No?) and it won't stop until they're removed from the White House.
posted by JollyWanker at 5:38 AM on February 25, 2004


Which is worse? A man who rapes and murders a child or a man who rapes and murders an adult?

I don't see the connection. Which is worse, a man who rapes and murders his wife or a man who rapes and murders the whole country? would be more appropriate.

They both might be liars, but the consequences of their actions are vastly different. Failing to take that into account, on their or your part, simply makes matters worse.
posted by magullo at 6:08 AM on February 25, 2004


They both might be liars, but the consequences of their actions are vastly different. Failing to take that into account, on their or your part, simply makes matters worse.

Absolutely. As Eddie Izzard pointed out, we have degrees of murder. We recognize that not all murders deserve the same punishment. But we don't do the same with lies. Stavros' implication that a lie is a lie is ridiculous. Maybe (s)he should ask (her)himself if (s)he has ever lied about anything. If so, (s)he should be ready to have job, life, and reputation dependant on it.
Ask yourself whether a president cheating on his wife, or the Iran-Contra coverup deserved more investigation. Then take a look at which got more funding.
posted by lumpenprole at 6:38 AM on February 25, 2004


Regarding the $10k donation "hitch"- I think this is to prevent a slew of spurious claims, as well as to prevent the impression that journalistic truth has to be bought.
posted by mkultra at 8:57 AM on February 25, 2004


"It remains that many of the president's files can't be found, donfactor. If they weren't missing, wouldn't that particular issue not be an issue?"

I've been trying to parse your last sentence and have so far failed, interrobang. All I am after is a sound bite as good as those used against Gore, Clinton, etc. I'm actually agreeing with mat, that draft doging is pretty lame. But how about something better? Like, Do you know what Bush hiding in the bushes? Or, Funny how George just dropped off the face of the earth between 19xx and 19xx. Even though these are admittedly pretty lame there must be some better stuff around. I mean, "wine drinking, French lover" is pretty good anti-Kerry stuff in certain circles but draftdoger? C'mon.

Or, c'mon Trudeau, give us a great one liner we can live with.
posted by donfactor at 5:56 PM on February 25, 2004


They both might be liars, but the consequences of their actions are vastly different.

Yes, but the question is not about consequences, is it? Once again, that's an entirely different question.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:57 PM on February 25, 2004


« Older Ashes and Snow....  |  Is Salt The New Olive Oil?... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments