Simply validating what many already know…
And I love it when even his fervent supporters call him “uncomplicated.”
Two makes a pair! :eek:
Hahahahaha thats good, I wonder what he saw?
surferdude: the link doesnt work G 
dawood
Yea I know, it was a picture of him and monkeys that had the same face!!!
It was great, look exactly alike… too bad it doesnt work:mad:
I don’t care about his looks, although he does have a chimpesque face. The photo of the binocs is much more frightening, because from his expression he doesn’t seem to think anything is wrong. It’s as if stuff happens to him all the time, but he doesn’t get it and so he refuses to comment if anything seems out of the ordinary because he’s worried he’ll seem stupid. Like he’s thinking: “Uh oh, I can’t see through the lens! I better fake it, or else they’ll know I don’t know how to use them.” And of course, it backfires as seen in the photo (I looked for photoshop artifacts - couldn’t see any, except for the red circle.)
It’s akin to the way he NEVER has an unscripted press conference, because he’s just too inarticulate to be able to field questions convincingly. Even on script, we end up with goobledegook like “Fool me once, shame on you…fool me twice…foolmuh…can’t get fooled again.”
Terrifying, I tell you.
More than one explanation!
re binoculars.
a. he can’t see the light whether it’s on or off.
b. he lies.
c. he saw, all right. It was blackness, and his imagination said “Oil!!!”.
Cody
Maybe he thought those were “night vision” binoculars,so it is normal to see the dark!:rolleyes:
haha.
Is that true???
LMAO at the binocs pic - every time i see that i p|ss myself! he looks like hes concentrating so much… priceless
i would almost start following international politics just to have a laugh, but am not THAT bored
Jaza: if u mean about what old jong said, in a word: No.
dawood
the army dudes prolly like george **** you see that…bush prolly all yah, yes i do…is that brazil!?
Turns out this particular picture/theme has quite a history, check out the link of Clinton doing the same thing:
"CBS’s Bob Schieffer claimed on Imus in the Morning that when President Ronald Reagan visited the Korean DMZ he failed to remove the lens cap from his binoculars, but as pictures shown by RushLimbaugh.com and FNC prove, that was a problem President Bill Clinton really had.
On the February 20 Imus in the Morning radio program simulcast on MSNBC, on the occasion of President George W. Bush going to the demilitarized zone (DMZ) between North Korea and South Korea, Schieffer recalled his own visits to the DMZ. MRC analyst Ken Shepherd took down his memories:
Schieffer: "I’ve been up there a couple of times, it’s quite an impressive thing. I went up there once with George Schultz when he was Secretary of State and once actually with Jimmy Carter when he was President. The interesting thing is they always, you know, have these big binoculars that the President can look through and you look across the DMZ and you see the, you can see the communists on the other side and Ronald Reagan when he was President-"
Don Imus quipped: "Or you could have looked at the press corps frankly, you wouldn’t need the binoculars."
Schieffer, missing Imus’s hit on journalists, blithely continued: "Exactly. Well, what happened with Reagan was they gave him the binoculars and he looked through them and Reagan knew, there’s never been a bad picture of Ronald Reagan, after all he did have the Hollywood background, he looked through the binoculars and so forth and then somebody realized they hadn’t taken the caps off. I mean this is for sure, this is for real. And so they had a little glitch there while they took ‘em down but he wasn’t about to let on when they first gave them to him."
Last night to end FNC’s Special Report with Brit Hume, fill-in anchor Tony Snow showed side by side photos of Clinton in 1993 and George W. Bush a few days ago as each looked north through binoculars when they were at the DMZ. Clinton’s binoculars had the lens caps on, Bush’s did not. Rush Limbaugh’s Web site has posted the side-by-side photos:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/folder/dumb_at_the_dmz.guest.html
I can’t guarantee that Reagan didn’t have the same problem as Clinton, but I’d put my money on Schieffer getting it wrong, especially since he had a whole explanative narrative going about Reagan playing a movie role. And if Reagan did have a lense cap problem, Clinton is a much newer example Schieffer could have cited for his humorous anecdote." "
This Clinton/Bush photo on the Limbaugh site was so touted (even I saw it when Bush was first elected), that it makes me wonder if Bush doing the same thing is a set-up. Either that, or the press is continually asking the President for a quick pic with the binoculars up…and you eventually forget for a sec to take the cap off, but long enough for a political enemy to take the shot.
:rolleyes:
This sort of stuff can be really amusing, but none of you seriously think it reflects poorly on Bush as a politician, do you?
I think an inability to speak convincingly off the cuff is a liability, yes.
Don’t you think policy is what you should be worried about, rather than presentation? Substance rather than style?
Sure, but I oppose his policies pretty much straight across the board, too.
I understand.
I’m just trying to suggest that style and substance are different things, one of which we should be concerned about.
Confounding this point is a common tool of propaganda.
BTW, I answered your questions in the Terry Jones thread.