Door thwarts quick exit for Bush [Archive] - Comic Book Resources Forums

Ed Cunard

11-21-2005, 02:24 PM

This one doesn't work. I mean, Bush wasn't evading any Iraq-related questions here, was he? As it is, it just seems like you're trying too hard.

Also, this may be from how I looked at the cartoon, but the "i" would read better as an upper-case "I", as all the other letters are upper-case.

And Bush's foot looks caught in the door, rather than pushing on it. And the handles aren't in perspective.

Grazzt

11-21-2005, 02:37 PM

This one doesn't work. I mean, Bush wasn't evading any Iraq-related questions here, was he? As it is, it just seems like you're trying too hard.

It would make sense if Bush were trying to exit Iraq. Then it would be a comparison between his efforts to leave that Press Conference and his exit strategy in Iraq. However, I really don't think that Bush is trying hard enough to exit Iraq to merit that.

BlairH

11-21-2005, 02:41 PM

On the subject of China: What about a cartoon on China's crackdown on the Fulan Gong? Or their threats to retake Taiwan? Or their continued suppression of Tibet?

All of these things are a bit more worthy of addressing than a lame duck President who was thrawted by a door.

warspite1805

11-21-2005, 02:43 PM

On the subject of China: What about a cartoon on China's crackdown on the Fulan Gong? Or their threats to retake Taiwan? Or their continued suppression of Nepal?

All of these things are a bit more worthy of addressing than a lame duck President who was thrawted by a door.
Nepal????
You mean Tibet I presume :confused:

BlairH

11-21-2005, 02:44 PM

Nepal????
You mean Tibet I presume :confused:

Yeah. I was reading a piece about the British Army Ghurkas so I can't get Nepal out of my head.

darkkeeperjr

11-21-2005, 02:47 PM

Oh I get it! he locked in iraq because the troops can't leave intill the mission is complete.

Brian M.

11-21-2005, 02:51 PM

Gaz

11-21-2005, 03:00 PM

That's perfect. Leaving Iraq will solve nothing. It's funny b/c he really didn't lie to anyone or mislead anyone. In order to liar you have to know what your saying is false, at the time no one knew the intelligence was false. Not Great Britian, not France, not Russia, not Germany. It may have been suspect but it was never known that we would not find the WMD's. I've not talked to one person against the war who can tell me what he lied about.
Simple, he went from "War on Terror" and then decided that Saddam=Terror when no progress was made. It was misdirection.
"How come you can't find Osama?"
"WOOOOOHOOOO, LOOK OVER HERE EVERYONE, IT'S REAL BAD, I THINK!"

west3man

11-21-2005, 03:07 PM

President George W Bush tried to make a quick exit from a news conference in Beijing on Sunday - only to find himself thwarted by locked doors.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4454738.stm

http://dc.indymedia.org/usermedia/image/9/large/bushiraq.jpg
There are some visual peculiarities, but it works.

Alex

11-21-2005, 03:09 PM

There are some visual peculiarities, but it works.
As a picture yes, it works fine...though those colors look horrible. (Not latuffs fault there though, but damn are they ugly)
With the set up he provided it doesn't work, because him leaving had nothing to do with Iraq, nor does he really dodge questions on it. One of the few benefits of having such a simple message on the issue really.
But in general, it works.

Dennis K

11-21-2005, 03:41 PM

How about one for the victims of the bombings in Jordan, you know the (moderate) Palestinians you keep paying lip service to how much you support? Oh wait, I forgot you're not interested. My bad. Sorry.

Valmore

11-21-2005, 04:49 PM

Wow, this stretches so much that it completely breaks.

1.) bush was ducking a question on his performance about his earlier statement and having a lack of enthusiasm and hurrying through it. It had nothing to do with Iraq.

2.) Bush has done anything BUT want a quick exit from Iraq. He sees it as an accomplishment, and stands behind it. So trying to "escape" doesn't even fit the character.

This is a completely wasted effort.

And how about a Palestinian drawing?

gary bolt

11-22-2005, 10:03 AM

west3man

11-22-2005, 10:05 AM

SteelTownr

11-22-2005, 10:05 AM

The story that I read didn't make it sound like he was trying to escape anything.

It seemed like the press conference was over and he was leaving the room, unsuccessfully.

Mark B.

Converge

11-22-2005, 10:07 AM

bush was ducking a question on his performance about his earlier statement and having a lack of enthusiasm and hurrying through it.

i don't even know what this sentence means.

Dreadstar

11-22-2005, 10:08 AM

The story that I read didn't make it sound like he was trying to escape anything.

It seemed like the press conference was over and he was leaving the room, unsuccessfully.

But the spin, man! What about the spin?

Can't throw stones without spin!

Grazzt

11-22-2005, 10:10 AM

The story that I read didn't make it sound like he was trying to escape anything.

It seemed like the press conference was over and he was leaving the room, unsuccessfully.

Mark B.

Except, of course, for the incredibly few questions answered. Or is it normal for a press conference to only consist of six questions?

Valmore

11-22-2005, 10:14 AM

i don't even know what this sentence means.

The last question, before Bush made ill-fated attempt at opening a door, was from a reporter asking him why he seemed to rush through his earlier statement and seemed to lack enthusiasm.

Converge

11-22-2005, 10:16 AM

The last question, before Bush made ill-fated attempt at opening a door, was from a reporter asking him why he seemed to rush through his earlier statement and seemed to lack enthusiasm.

what was the earlier statement about?

Valmore

11-22-2005, 10:21 AM

what was the earlier statement about?

The reporter was referring to an earlier public appearance in Bejing with President Hu.

Converge

11-22-2005, 10:27 AM

The reporter was referring to an earlier public appearance in Bejing with President Hu.

And what was the particular statement that the reporter was asking him about?

Valmore

11-22-2005, 10:29 AM

And what was the particular statement that the reporter was asking him about?

I'm still looking for a transcript. Why do you keep asking me?

Converge

11-22-2005, 10:31 AM

I'm still looking for a transcript. Why do you keep asking me?

Because it's relevent. The reporter was asking him about his previous statement and Bush was running away from the reporter. If the statement was about foreign policy then the cartoon is relevent.

Valmore

11-22-2005, 10:36 AM

Because it's relevent. The reporter was asking him about his previous statement and Bush was running away from the reporter. If the statement was about foreign policy then the cartoon is relevent.

It would appear Bush mostly talked about religious and political freedoms. It doesn't appear that he touched on Iraq at all in that statement.

And no, the cartoon would still be wrong, since Bush clearly thinks of Iraq as a great victory for himself - he hasn't been ducking Iraq at all, and has no plan for leaving Iraq in the near future. Hance, the cartoon doesn't work at all. Bush hasn't tried to escape Iraq.

Also, the question was about how he performed in his speaking - how he appeared rushed and and all. Maybe he didn't want to tell the reporter, "I had to use the can really bad."

Basically, it's your typical "latuff misses the point" drawing.

If it were all the Senators who voted for the war on Iraq in it, it would work.

west3man

11-22-2005, 10:38 AM

latuff may be missing a point, but so, apparently, are a few people here.

He doesn't appear to be saying Bush is trying to get out of Iraq so much as he was trying to duck the Iraq ISSUE, which is what he's done in one way or another for quite some time, now.

Converge

11-22-2005, 10:44 AM

It would appear Bush mostly talked about religious and political freedoms. It doesn't appear that he touched on Iraq at all in that statement.

And no, the cartoon would still be wrong, since Bush clearly thinks of Iraq as a great victory for himself - he hasn't been ducking Iraq at all, and has no plan for leaving Iraq in the near future. Hance, the cartoon doesn't work at all. Bush hasn't tried to escape Iraq.

Also, the question was about how he performed in his speaking - how he appeared rushed and and all. Maybe he didn't want to tell the reporter, "I had to use the can really bad."

Basically, it's your typical "latuff misses the point" drawing.

If it were all the Senators who voted for the war on Iraq in it, it would work.

The cartoon isn't about Bush trying to escape Iraq, it's about Bush trying to escape the issue of Iraq which has been a hot topic not just among the public but has been a large issue among Congress, especially in regards to the false intelligence and the poor handling of the situation.

Bush has been on the defensive recently about the Iraq issue and I think this is a funny cartoon. One thing about the Iraq issue is that Bush has been trying to pass the buck when it comes to blame for any problems arising from the Iraq situation and I think the cartoon works in the sense that Bush is trying to dodge the Iraq issue in the public forum, even if the locked door situation isn't specifically about Iraq.

Noah Johnson

11-22-2005, 11:17 AM

Except, of course, for the incredibly few questions answered. Or is it normal for a press conference to only consist of six questions?
Actually, for Bush, that's unusually forthcoming. Generally he only talks to the press on rare occasions, and only when the reporters are working from a script.

And could we please all drop the "everyone thought Hussein had WMDs" lie? I mean, it's just so provably false, for god's sake.

BlairH

11-22-2005, 11:20 AM

And could we please all drop the "everyone thought Hussein had WMDs" lie? I mean, it's just so provably false, for god's sake.
You might not want to click on this link if you're squeemish. It contains quite a disgusting image. Nevertheless, the guy in the picture would probably disagree with you.
http://www.iranvision.com/images/iraqwarchem1.jpg

Converge

11-22-2005, 11:23 AM

Noah Johnson

11-22-2005, 11:24 AM

You might not want to click on this link if you're squeemish. It contains quite a disgusting image. Nevertheless, the guy in the picture would probably disagree with you.
http://www.iranvision.com/images/iraqwarchem1.jpg
So, waving a bloody shirt makes you retroactively right about something that's been proven to be wrong?

Can I post revolting photos of Iraqis killed by U.S. forces in lieu of making an argument?

Hell, as long as we're doing non sequiturs, can I post pictures of Thora Birch? I think we'd all enjoy that more.

BlairH

11-22-2005, 11:25 AM

What was he hit with?

Weaponized phosphorous from US troops?
Nope. WP isn't a chemical weapon, it's an incindeary.

This guy was an Iranian soldier during the Iran Iraq war. Hit with some form of weaponised blister agent most likely.

BlairH

11-22-2005, 11:28 AM

So, waving a bloody shirt makes you retroactively right about something that's been proven to be wrong?
It's not wrong. Iraq had chemical weapons. End of.

Can I post revolting photos of Iraqis killed by U.S. forces in lieu of making an argument?

Depends on the argument. If somebody says that the US didn't use chem weapons, then you can post pics of Iraqis killed with chem weapons.

Hell, as long as we're doing non sequiturs, can I post pictures of Thora Birch? I think we'd all enjoy that more.
Certianly.

Noah Johnson

11-22-2005, 11:42 AM

It's not wrong. Iraq had chemical weapons. End of.

Depends on the argument. If somebody says that the US didn't use chem weapons, then you can post pics of Iraqis killed with chem weapons.

Certianly.
Here, we'll compromise.
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a269/NoahJohnson/fullofshit.jpg

Hussein did not, as of the U.S. invasion, have the WMDs it was falsely claimed he did have. And you know it perfectly well.

BlairH

11-22-2005, 11:51 AM

Hussein did not, as of the U.S. invasion, have the WMDs it was falsely claimed he did have. And you know it perfectly well.
A few years ago, a man in Scotland stabbed and killed another man. This year he was arrested and found guilty of murder. He did not have -in his posession- the murder weapon (presumably he got rid of it to hide the evidence).

Does the fact that he did not have the weapon mean that he should not have been punished?

I believe that Saddam definately needed to answer to his crimes, and there was no way he could have done that if he was still President of Iraq.

Converge

11-22-2005, 12:02 PM

A few years ago, a man in Scotland stabbed and killed another man. This year he was arrested and found guilty of murder. He did not have -in his posession- the murder weapon (presumably he got rid of it to hide the evidence).

Does the fact that he did not have the weapon mean that he should not have been punished?

I believe that Saddam definately needed to answer to his crimes, and there was no way he could have done that if he was still President of Iraq.

Punishing Saddam for chemical weapons that he used to have wasn't a reason for going to war and you know it. Stop trying to retcon the Iraq war.

If Powell had gone up in front of the UN and said "Iraq used to have chemical weapons. They don't have them anymore, but we're going to attack them anyway because we want to punish Saddam" he would have been laughed off the podium.

BlairH

11-22-2005, 12:05 PM

Punishing Saddam for chemical weapons that he used to have wasn't a reason for going to war and you know it. Stop trying to retcon the Iraq war.

Oh I agree that it wasn't the official reason for going to war. However I'm not advocating punishing him for owning chemical weapons that he used to have. I'm advocating punishing him for chemical weapons that he has used, and could have used again should the situation arise.

Converge

11-22-2005, 12:14 PM

Oh I agree that it wasn't the official reason for going to war. However I'm not advocating punishing him for owning chemical weapons that he used to have. I'm advocating punishing him for chemical weapons that he has used, and could have used again should the situation arise.

How could he use them again if he no longer has them?

I'm not really getting your logic.

Saddam used chemical weapons in the Iraq-Iran war that were probably given to him by the US. Therefore the US should be at war with Iraq now, even though Iraq no longer has chemical weapons?

Did you fall in a well? Because you're really reaching.

Noah Johnson

11-22-2005, 12:25 PM

Oh I agree that it wasn't the official reason for going to war. However I'm not advocating punishing him for owning chemical weapons that he used to have. I'm advocating punishing him for chemical weapons that he has used, and could have used again should the situation arise.
Now I'm enjoying this too much to quit...
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a269/NoahJohnson/distorting.jpg
(Hey, he's British, I figure odds are >80% he's always wanted to hear a girl say that...)

Grazzt

11-22-2005, 12:27 PM

Damn it, why can't people argue with me using beefcake pictures?

StoneGold

11-22-2005, 12:31 PM

Of course Hussein had WMDs at some point. We have the receipts. The question is, did he have any left. All signs point to no.

And Blair? All you've proven is that he might have had weapons of one guy's destruction. One guy in a bed /= mass.

Noah Johnson

11-22-2005, 12:46 PM

Damn it, why can't people argue with me using beefcake pictures?
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a269/NoahJohnson/fiveminutes.jpg

I think this should be the new standard. Got something unwelcome to say? Soften the blow with a gratuitous hottie!

BlairH

11-22-2005, 12:49 PM

How could he use them again if he no longer has them?

I'm not really getting your logic.
Saddam was still there. Still as evil as ever.
He has used chem weapons before.
If he had them before he could easily synthesise more

Saddam used chemical weapons in the Iraq-Iran war that were probably given to him by the US.
hmm. Yes it is a fact that the US sold "dual use" technology to Iraq. The US also probably knew that said technology would see military use.

Therefore the US should be at war with Iraq now, even though Iraq no longer has chemical weapons?
It's not weapon ownership that's the "bad thing". I'm talking about punishing Saddam for his crimes against humanity. Yes, that wasn't the reason given by the administration for going to war. I don't care though, because it's MY reason for supporting the war in Iraq, just as Wesley Dodds' reason for supporting the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was to reduce our dependancy on oil.

BlairH

11-22-2005, 12:53 PM

(Hey, he's British, I figure odds are >80% he's always wanted to hear a girl say that...)
Well...Scottish actually.

Grazzt

11-22-2005, 12:55 PM

Well...Scottish actually.

Isn't Scotland part of Great Britain?

Forefinger

11-22-2005, 12:58 PM

BlairH

11-22-2005, 12:58 PM

Isn't Scotland part of Great Britain?
http://members.tripod.com/bob_newcumnock/mural/welcome/IMAG0000.GIF
Hell no!
We have our own church, our own parliament, our own legislature, our own unique cultural heritage, our own political parties, our own army regiments and our own language.

Grazzt

11-22-2005, 01:03 PM

http://members.tripod.com/bob_newcumnock/mural/welcome/IMAG0000.GIF
Hell no!
We have our own church, our own parliament, our own legislature, our own unique cultural heritage, our own political parties, our own army regiments and our own language.

I'm sorry, but I thought the entire island that was composed of Wales, England, and Scotland was called Great Britain. What is the island called then?

Noah Johnson

11-22-2005, 01:05 PM

Saddam was still there. Still as evil as ever.
He has used chem weapons before.
If he had them before he could easily synthesise more

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a269/NoahJohnson/kidding.jpg

Just a thought here, Blair... since you're so concerned about his possibly synthesizing chemical weapons, being as it's so easy according to you, maybe there's an intermediate step we could try before we, you know, slaughter thousands of innocent people. Maybe some kind of vigorous inspection program to ensure compliance.

Oh, wait, we did that. And the inspectors said they weren't finding anything, and wanted to complete the inspection, but Bush ignored them and invaded anyway, hence the above-mentioned slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people.

Nope, sorry, still not defensible.

Noah Johnson

11-22-2005, 01:06 PM

Well...Scottish actually.
But you do admit you're into it. :)

BlairH

11-22-2005, 01:06 PM

I'm sorry, but I thought the entire island that was composed of Wales, England, and Scotland was called Great Britain. What is the island called then?

Spain and Poland are on the same continent. What is that continent called?

Converge

11-22-2005, 01:08 PM

Spain and Poland are on the same continent. What is that continent called?

Europe. That's why the Spanish and the Polish are both called Europeans.

BlairH

11-22-2005, 01:09 PM

Europe. That's why the Spanish and the Polish are both called Europeans.

Yeah, you try calling a Polish guy European and see what kind of whoopass he'll administer.

BlairH

11-22-2005, 01:10 PM

But you do admit you're into it. :)
Naturally! It's Thora for god's sake!

Grazzt

11-22-2005, 01:13 PM

Yeah, you try calling a Polish guy European and see what kind of whoopass he'll administer.

Really? I never knew Polish people hated being called European.

And you never answered my question.

Lubichev

11-22-2005, 01:18 PM

Russians like to be called Russians. We basically live on a sub-continent.

Grazzt

11-22-2005, 01:21 PM

Russians like to be called Russians. We basically come from a sub-continent.

Well, yes, but Russia spans two continents, so European or Asian is hardly accurate all of the time.

Forefinger

11-22-2005, 01:22 PM

http://members.tripod.com/bob_newcumnock/mural/welcome/IMAG0000.GIF
Hell no!
We have our own church, our own parliament, our own legislature, our own unique cultural heritage, our own political parties, our own army regiments and our own language.
It's all part of the United Kingdom though eh? How is the island referred to? The British Isles?

Noah, more hot pictures of Thora please!

Lubichev

11-22-2005, 01:25 PM

Well, yes, but Russia spans two continents, so European or Asian is hardly accurate all of the time.

Eurasian?

Nah, sounds to much like a declaratory statement.

Grazzt

11-22-2005, 01:28 PM

It's all part of the United Kingdom though eh? How is the island referred to? The British Isles?

Nope, British Isles includes Ireland, I believe, as well as a bunch of smaller ones.

Lubichev

11-22-2005, 01:33 PM

The not completely united United Kingdom?

Mike Smith

11-22-2005, 01:58 PM

The story on Bush trying to escape the journalists and being foiled by a locked door is comedy gold. He looks like Johnny Carson in this image.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41039000/jpg/_41039224_doorap.jpg

...and just a second before this he responded in typical prick Bush manner and was ready to do his arrogant stroll, it was very refreshing to see his pompous ass have to turn around and face reporters.

Paul McEnery

11-22-2005, 02:01 PM

Nope, British Isles includes Ireland, I believe, as well as a bunch of smaller ones.
Including Montserrat!

Noah Johnson

11-22-2005, 02:06 PM

Noah, more hot pictures of Thora please!
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a269/NoahJohnson/allthework.jpg
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a269/NoahJohnson/braoffer.jpg
[Note: Bra offer may not be honored. Users may have to resort to Google image search. Not valid in all states.]