February 29, 2004

Quote of the Day

Billy Crystal said the first time he hosted the Oscars 13 years ago, things were different: "Bush was president, the economy was tanking and we'd just finished a war with Iraq."

He then alluded to President Bush's Vietnam-era service: "The academy and the Oscars have been very gracious to me. They let me come and go the past few years. It's kind of like being in the Texas National Guard."

Posted by Pedram at February 29, 2004 11:12 PM
Comments

I was in the Guard, as well as active duty.
1) If your in the Guard you're allowed to move to another state. They can't stop you, your a civilian soldier with the right to a civilian career, and the right to move anywhere in, or for that matter out of the country.
2) If you move they try to find another post so you can serve your time. If they can't find one your discharged.
3) If they find another post for you, it is very common for there to be a lapse in weekend meetings. When I went away to grad school they simply let me go.
4) If you miss meetings, because of a move, or in my case because I wanted to study for finals, you make them up. It is common to miss months when moving of meetings when moving to another station.
5) I saw that fat retard Chuck Rangle (Dem, NY) on the TV news saying that it should be investigated why Bush was allowed to work on a political campaign when he was in the National Guard. When you are in the military you are allowed to be political. When you are in the guard you are allowed to have a civilian career. For instance several of our senators and congressmen are in the Guard or Reserve while simultaneously serving in congress, and working toward thier own election. Chuck Rangle knows this. But he is phony as a three dollar bill. In short Chuck Rangle's accusation that it was wrong for Bush to have worked on a political campaing while in the Guard is COMPLETELY BASELESS MUD SLINGING!

Posted by: A.H. at March 1, 2004 03:53 AM

If little Billy thinks that he has so much to offer the country, let him run for President. It worked for Ronald Reagan and, since left-leaning actors are so much smarter than right-leaning ones, he should have no trouble getting a gig in the Oval Office.

Encourage him to run; it would be amusing to watch. He needs a program and platform, however, not just a cutesy comedy routine. But I'm sure, with the entire intellegentia on the liberal side of things this should be no problem to acquire.

Posted by: Person of Choler at March 1, 2004 06:44 AM

Crystal was brilliant in his opening sketch and if it makes the previous two commentors this mad, he was certainly right too.

Posted by: visitor at March 1, 2004 08:52 AM

It's laughable to see Republican ideologs, like the first two posters above, grow so angry about a simple comic sketch. Bush is a moron and a coward (even A.H's longwinded attempt to explain the workings of the National Guard doesn't explain why NO ONE can vouch that Bush EVER reported for duty at the time he said he did. There’s even a $10,00 Reward if you can verify he wasn’t AWOL. No one has yet come forward to claim it. No big Surprise there: he was AWOL!).

The rest of the world has known for along time what an idiot and a coward Bush is. It is heartening to finally see this realization beginning to emerge in American popular consciousness through the backdoor of humour -- because the front door has been long closed shut by the American corporate gatekeepers who own and control America's supposed "free press".

Posted by: Sean at March 1, 2004 10:48 AM

Sean, you seem to have little idea how the National Guard works. Furthermore, why would anyone remember Bush thirty years ago? It's not like he was anyone important back then. Plus, it's not like it was a full-time job or anything.

Frankly, Bush is not AWOL unless the military declares him so. Which they didn't, and I have yet to see a stitch of proof that he should have been. Your phony "lack-of-evidence" won't convince anybody but fellow zealots like yourself.

Posted by: Rayonic at March 1, 2004 11:48 AM

If the intelligent comments made by Billy Crystal has hit a raw nerve with the "Busho-maniacs" then my hat off to Billy! Intelligence is an affront to those lacking it !

Posted by: Peyman at March 1, 2004 01:57 PM

Billy is KING... I was laughing out loud when I heard his comment... and then there was Sean Pen who quickly said; "there are no WMDs..." LOL...

The house of card is falling and it is fun to watch it all come down.

Posted by: Nima at March 1, 2004 03:00 PM

A couple of things here. First of all, I am not angry whatsoever, Crystal's comments were funny in a comedy sense but only in a comedy sense.
Next, what all the liberals are asking the President to do is prove a negative. They ask that President Bush prove that he was performing his Guard duty. They are making the charges that he didn't, so it is incumbent upon the accuser to prove the President didn't do his service. That is the way it works in a court of law. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. AWOL is a felony in the military and if there was any proof, it would have already come out. I ask that anyone in the Guard at the same time as the President, prove he was not performing his service.
As for Sean Penn, for a high school drop out he sure seems to know a lot. I am sure the Iranian army would be surprised to know there were no WMDs. I am sure the people of Halabja would also be surprise to know that Sean Penn has declared there were no WMDs. Ahh but they cannot be surprised because they are all dead. I am sure the UN would also be surprised to know that the report the Iraqis submitted saying Iraq had WMDs but destroyed them (although they could not prove it) is wrong because a high school drop out says so...interesting.
But yes, Crystal's comments were funny.

Posted by: Steve at March 1, 2004 06:17 PM

steve,

i don't care much for the debate about bush in the national guard. whether he did or did not serve is such a minor point in light of all that he has done wrong. but there are 2 major faults with your logic:

1) just how is asking the president to prove that he *did serve* tantamount to proving a negative??? it is typically easy to prove that you actively did something (like serve in the military)because there are usually records of things people actively do.

if anything, you're the one that's asking the liberals to prove the negative. it is virtually impossible to prove with complete certainty that someone *didn't* serve. but given the absence of any proof to the contrary, i think that it all one can infer, no?

2)in your point about sean penn, you're using the most tired logical trick in the books. you're simply equivocating as to a central term. when people like sean penn say "there were no wmds", it means "there were no wmds found in iraq when bush claimed there would clearly be some." that statement did *not* mean, as you'd falsely like to portray, that "there were NEVER wmds in iraq." even those of us that were staunchly against the war recognize that at some point, iraq had biological and chemical weapons and used them. but that's not why we went to war, was it? we supposedly went to war because bush was claiming that saddam was in actual possession of wmds last year.
unless YOU have some info that the rest of the world is not privy to, i think that sean penn's point was correct and the wmds that bush sent us to war for have not been found.

i appreciate your noble effort at argument steve. but i think that before you make such grandiose statements, you should consider learning the basics of aristotelian logic.

k.s.

Posted by: kaveh at March 1, 2004 08:28 PM

What is the average age here? This is not a high school debate contest, is it? The truth always somewhere in the middle....

Posted by: Ali at March 1, 2004 08:59 PM

Someday A.H. might realize that arguing for sake of arguing is such a waste of time.

Posted by: Ali at March 1, 2004 09:00 PM

Steve,
Talking about 'proving negative', Wasn't it asking to prove negative when last winter the White House OFFCIALLY asked Iraq to PROVE they didn't have WMD? Just wondering.

Posted by: jafar at March 2, 2004 11:21 AM

Angry? Me? Nope, I said I would be amused to see Little Billy put his profound ideas in front of voters instead of an audience for a standup gig.

The result would be at least as funny as his comedy routine.

Want to win elections in America? You need to articulate geopolitical and economic ideas. You can't get by with wisecracks, although I hope you keep trying.

Posted by: Person of Choler at March 2, 2004 11:25 AM

If Dubya can "articulate geopolitical and economic ideas", I guess anyone can!

Posted by: An Irooni at March 2, 2004 11:40 AM

K.S.,
Thank you for your response. What the liberals are accusing the President of is being AWOL at best or being a deserter at worst. As I stated before, both of these are felonies in the military with the penalty for desertion being death at certain times. All I am saying is if you are going to accuse a person of a felony, the burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused. If you accuse someone of a crime (like being AWOL or desertion) you cannot ask them to prove they did not commit the crime. That would be like me sayinig John Kerry is a mass murder (due to his servie in Viet Nam) and I would like him to prove he is not. That would not be right, it would be on me to prove he is a mass murder.
Now as to the question of WMDs. I have written about this before. The WMD cards were stacked in the Saddam's favor. I and a few friends have been a part of the search for Iraqi WMDs in the 90s. Do to the weakness of the UN the Iraqis had all the opportunity in the world to hide or ship WMDs out of the country. During the UN inspections in the 90s, the UN was required to give at least 24 hours notice of upcoming inspection sites prior to the UN being allowed to visit the sites. It would be easy to hide the WMDs. But if we all agree that at some point Iraq had WMDs, my question is, what happened to them? The Iraqis have NEVER been able to prove what they did with them. So then the question becomes, if we cannot prove what they did with them, then which side do we error on? The side that says they no longer have them or the side that says they do have them and they are a threat? Now consider a couple possible answers to those two questions. First, we say they do not have them and come to find out they do not. I would say, great and we made a mistake. Now another answer, we error and say they don't have them and they use WMDs against someone (say the US by whatever means). What is the question that must be asked, why didn't the US (Bush administration) do anything to avert a tragedy?
So the next senario is, we do something about it and they don't have them. Well, I say we have ensured that no one can suffer at the hands of Saddam's WMDs or we do something about it and we eventually find WMDs, we again have averted a possible tragedy. In the mean time, we have added an extra bonus of getting rid of a brutal dicator. So it goes back to where are the WMDs we all agree Saddam had at one point and can you prove whatever the answer is? I would like to ask you personally, if you truly believe Saddam did not have WMDs I can understand, but if it turned out he did and then used them, would you hold the Bush administration responsible for the consequences?

Jafar,
Thank you as well but it is not a negavtive when the Iraqis themselves in their report to the UN security council addmitted to having WMDs but destroyed them. Asking for the proof of destruction is not proving a negative. It would be if the Iraqis had claimed they never had them. But, they cannot claim they never had them since they used them at least twice.

Posted by: Steve at March 2, 2004 06:54 PM

"Want to win elections in America? You need to articulate geopolitical and economic ideas."

Was I asleep or am I missing something here? American people need geopolitical and economic ideas? give me a break! In Vietnam war, half of America didn't even know where Vietnam was!!!

What's with this hollier than touh attitude these many ignorant Americans possess?

Posted by: CornerDude at March 2, 2004 10:23 PM

CornerDude, Vietnam? That was finished three decades ago; the current war is with nutty Islamic terrorists and the regimes who support them. America finally got around to fighting the present one on 11 September 2001. To answer your question: yes, I think you have been asleep for quite a while. Good morning. Did you rest well?

Posted by: Person of Choler at March 3, 2004 12:42 AM

My anger was directed at Chuck Rangle, who is an idiot and a democrat from New York.

I tell you what does hit a nerve. You guys lie about the AWOL thing, then I reply to it and you say AHAH! WE HIT A NERVE! As if that was the origional idea, your intent was to 'hit a nerve' regardless of the fact that the AWOL accusation is untrue. Yeah, you hit a nerve, but not for the reasons you had hoped.

In my post I list off replies to the accuations being made. Is this having a nerve hit?

Posted by: A.H. at March 3, 2004 07:01 AM

A.H.,
You are absolutely correct and I am sure you have it a nerve. I am retired from active duty (Air Force) and had the opportunity to serve with several Guard members. I think you outlined the way the Guard works with respect to work and transfers very well.
It is very easy for people to accuse and offer no proof (in other words lie). Of those who just blindly repeat the lies, I wonder how many have served either in the Guard or on active duty? I am sure the answer is NONE.
It makes for very boring debate if the other side does not have any facts to base their arguement on. I would like to ask anyone who questions the President's Guard service, give me the facts you base you accusations on. I don't want "well no ones remembers him being there" as a fact. The President has provided official documentation for his service. If anyone on the other side has documentation that shows he did not serve, then bring it on! (not meant to steal a phrase from the President).
I am sure no one can remember me from my third grade class, does that meant I didn't attend the third grade?
Anyway, nice job with the outline.

Posted by: Steve at March 3, 2004 10:42 AM

Two people have come forward so far saying they remember seeing him at Guard meetings. They appeared on cable news shows and immediately the democratic party dropped its accusations. I have not heard a single party luminary mention it since those two guys went on the cable news.

I am not a Bush synchophant. But I will point out that since people started coming forward, the only place you hear such accusations are in blogs like this, and in commedy routines by non-funny has-beens.

Posted by: A.H. at March 3, 2004 12:00 PM

com·e·dy n. pl. com·e·dies

A dramatic work that is light and often humorous or satirical in tone and that usually contains a happy resolution of the thematic conflict.

Posted by: at March 3, 2004 01:30 PM

Yeah it is funny that you don't hear it on the news anymore.

Posted by: Steve at March 3, 2004 05:47 PM

Person of Choler

Don't worry babe, Bin Laden will appear on the news right before the Bush's re-election.

And thanks for asking, I was enjoying a very good rest because America's history is repeated all the time by its corrupted politicians particularly republican LIARS. They wanna go to war no matter what Vietnam, Bin Laden, Iraq doesnt' matter they wanna show how fucking patriotic they are. I am really sad that American people are so ignorant that they vote for them. Well, in fact it doesn't matter whether you vote for them or not, Suprme court is there to help when going gets tough.

Posted by: CornerDude at March 3, 2004 06:29 PM

Oh by the way, they might find some WMD right before the election as well. Kerry is one hell of clueless dude if you ask me.

Posted by: CornerDude at March 3, 2004 06:37 PM

i·ro·ny n. pl. i·ro·nies

The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.

An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.

A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect.

See Synonyms at wit1.

Posted by: at March 3, 2004 09:41 PM

Uh...Kerry's post-war actions are far worse than Bush missing a few days in the Guard. Kerry protested with people who proudly waved the VietCong flag. His actions emboldened the enemy, prolonged the war, and led to thousands more American deaths. The North Vietnamese government even used some of Kerry's comments as propaganda to rally its fighters to continue to fight.

Now you tell me which is worse?

Posted by: Steven at March 20, 2004 03:51 AM