Lil' Bush

[Saxon]

For the past couple of weeks, there have been ads circulating that comedy central has planned to release the aclaimed hit "Lil' Bush". This cartoon, first produced for amp mobile, depicts the child-like replicas of Dick Cheney, George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld in tongue-in-cheek adventures following the current headlines. As of last night the pilot for Comedy Central took off and caught on like wildfire. Having two fifteen minute episodes, Lil' Bush first takes the premise of George trying to find his dad a father's day gift. Amid the penguin-like grunts from Lil' Cheney (who also bit the heads off of various birds during the episode), Lil' Rummy's quiet revelations of sexual abuse, and George's constant one liners they decided to go to Iraq to find a 'feel good' story. Cutting to the second episode, George and his friends make a bet in order to see who can be the first to kiss a girl. This boils down to Lil' George trying to become a sinner by attempting to kill dim-witted Jeb Bush, and Lil' Cheney raiding the girl's lockeroom.

Amid the laughs and cackles, Lil' Bush brings up an interesting new phoenomena amidst the American people. Sure there have been cameos of presidents in various cartoons (The Simpsons, King Of The Hill..), an endless assortment of political cartoons, but this is probably the first time a television corporation has adopted a full-length show dedicated to slamming the presidential office and its advisors. It makes one wonder what exactly George Bush and the others depicted will do about this show. Will they play it off as a political slam? Or will they try to undermine Comedy Central and the effigy they've made towards our president? Regardless of the politcal reprocussions, tune in on wednesdays at 10:30 PM EST to see Lil' Bush in all its glory. For those of you who missed the premiere, click these two links for the first two episodes:

First: The Haliburton Fun Zone (http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=88554&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=%2Fmotherload%2F%3Fml_video%3D88554&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true=true)

Second: "No Child Left Behind" (http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=88555&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=%2Fmotherload%2F%3Fml_video%3D88555&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true)

[Serilliant]

Don't forget, Comedy Central also ran the (short-lived) That's My Bush! back in 2001.

I doubt the administration will take any action at all against Comedy Central or the creators of Lil' Bush. As all featured characters are in the public eye, they do not have the right to privacy protections against satire that many of us hold. Any statement made against the show would result in severe backlash and plenty of slippery-slope "if we stop protecting satire, what about freedom of speech?" arguments.

Instead, I believe the administration will just publicly pretend that the show doesn't exist. The Daily Show has been lampooning the administration since 2000 with no response, so I doubt Lil' Bush will be any different.

[Saxon]

Don't forget, Comedy Central also ran the (short-lived) That's My Bush! back in 2001.

*snaps fingers* Damn, I knew I missed something! Think I actually watched an episode of that when it first premiered too. I agree that the administration has very little power in how we depict our president, though sometimes it could be said that we go to some pretty extreme lengths to show our hatred for him. However, I'm beginning to wonder if Bush's reign over our country has led to a serious decay on the role of the president in society's eyes, which I'm having a hard time believing will be able to recover in the future from some of the stupid decisions he has made over the years. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bush isn't FULLY responsible for the public's cynical attitude towards the presidental office. If I remember correctly, it occurred first around the times of hoover and taft, and it managed to pick up again around the end of Nixon's reign and has been snowballing ever since. I realize that George Bush is a horrible president, but it makes me feel ashamed that the days of addressing our figurehead as "Mr. President" and giving the people of that office the respect that was once deemed necessary are coming to a sweeping close.

Times are a' changing, eh?

[Death's Nephew]

I was hoping it would be funnier....but I guess you can't really make our good ol' president anymore ridiculous, huh?

[Rith]

I'm not going to get into the arguments of Bush is a bad president, because in my eyes, he's not. He's just done some really stupid things but, his overall actions, considering you've taken the time to acutally research things he has done, are not all that bad. The media always displays the downside of things to make people look bad, people's faults, things where someone has made mistakes. Though Bush's foreign policy is down right horendous, the things he has done for our country he gets no credit for.

Let me ask you this, do you remember how you felt after the attacks on the WTC? Do you remember how patriotic this nation felt when we Declared the War on Terror? Do you remember how the anthrax attacks? That is why we are now in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iraq did house chemical and biological weapons and the UN failed to report and destroy them by the books some years ago prior to why we invaded Iraq. Saddam killed over 100,000 of his OWN people in his OWN country with chemical and biological weapons which was against international law, yet because of fear in oil prices rising, the United States nor did any other country take action and they just swept it under the rug.

Iraq housed Al-Queda(sp?) networks, and because of the UN improperly disposing of the chemical weapons, and Saddams failure to cooperate with us to search his country for them, we invaded in fear he was going to provide them with that weapons access. I won't deny Bush really did make some bad decisions while over there, at the time they were in OUR country's best interest.

I could go on, but I thought I'd just enlighten all of you Bush-Haters out there.



But as for the cartoon and any other public program there is no way they can be silenced. As that is infact a violation of free press and free speech. Unless these shows actually start depicting things that are untrue, nothing will be done.

[Sighter Tnailog]

Public attacks of any sorts on any president are far from having their origination in Nixon. From the attacks on Grover Cleveland ("Ma, ma, where's my pa?") to the assertions that Thomas Jefferson was a heretic to the blistering hatred visited upon Andrew Johnson by the Radical Republicans, I think it's a bit arrogant to suggest that somehow our day and age has a lock on cynicism and meanspiritedness towards political leaders.

These things run in cycles, and I'm sure that a day will come when we'll have a bit more faith in public officials, and then we'll have another round of cynicism and people will act as if they invented the term.


Let me ask you this, do you remember how you felt after the attacks on the WTC? Do you remember how patriotic this nation felt when we Declared the War on Terror?

I remember a Bush Administration that used the attacks as an excuse to foist their rabid conservative ideology on the country in every way possible, not only in foreign affairs but also in domestic regulatory policy. While we all felt attacked on that terrible day, a number of us felt as though we'd been attacked twice -- once by terrorists, and then once again by a President who callously used a nationwide crisis and outpouring of goodwill to attack the past 70 years of progress on educational and social fronts.


Iraq did house chemical and biological weapons and the UN failed to report and destroy them by the books some years ago prior to why we invaded Iraq.

A blatant falsehood. Read the National Intelligence Estimate, the reports and public statements of UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, and anything you can find regarding the inaccurate statements by administration officials prior to the war. There is clear and damning evidence that the public was misled on this point.

It was funny -- during the build-up to the Iraq war, claims were repeatedly made that Saddam's regime was woefully corrupt and inept, unable to keep track of even the simplest paper trails and public records. And yet they were, at the same time, asked to present extraordinary amounts of documentation concerning weapons destruction. You can't have it both ways -- either Saddam's regime was a nation of plutocrats who had lost all their triplicates, or they weren't. And if they were, expecting them to hand over such documentation was an exercise in bloviating and saber-rattling.

What would have served the country better would have been for the United States to allow the weapons inspection process that had begun again in 2003 -- and had been given extraordinary rights to inspect in Iraq, had found and destroyed a few banned missiles (although not WMD), and had received unobstructed cooperation from the Iraqi government -- to go forward properly. Instead, the US decided to circumvent the process and invade.


Saddam killed over 100,000 of his OWN people in his OWN country with chemical and biological weapons which was against international law, yet because of fear in oil prices rising, the United States nor did any other country take action and they just swept it under the rug.

Hyperbolic droolings aside, it had nothing to do with oil prices. It had everything to do with the fact that Iraq was fighting Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. As a matter of fact, during the same year that Saddam Hussein gassed Kurds in the north, Donald Rumsfeld went on a diplomatic mission to Saddam under the auspices of Reagan's government. The purpose? To sell arms to Iraq.

If we're toppling Saddam because he gassed his own people, we should also be toppling our own government for providing the materiel he used against them.


Iraq housed Al-Queda(sp?) networks, and because of the UN improperly disposing of the chemical weapons, and Saddams failure to cooperate with us to search his country for them, we invaded in fear he was going to provide them with that weapons access.

Simply untrue. There were no connections between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. In fact, Al-Qaeda's religious affiliation was diametrically opposed to the secular Ba'athist regime of Saddam. Furthermore, even if Al-Qaeda was willing to overlook Saddam's rampant secularism within the state, Saddam himself was a tinpot dictator. And if you learn anything about tinpot dictators, they simply do not introduce elements into their societies that they do not control.

Asserting an Al-Qaeda-Iraq connection is not only intellectually dishonest, it is immoral. The connection has been refuted by credible experts on both sides of the partisan aisle. The only people left who assert the connection are hopelessly entrenched in dangerous and immoral ideology, and you would serve your side better if you stopped repeating this absolutely ignorant and inaccurate position.

[Saxon]

Sighter, I meant more in our era rather then the entire span of U.S. history, because well, its a bit foolish to think history doesn't repeat itself at least once or twice in a span of a couple centuries. I agree that its probably more of a cycle, and I'm looking towards the future for a more stable person with sound judgment to give a new perspective on our current situation and can actually fix what has been done. Obama anyone?

But, anyway, we're getting a bit off topic of the subject at hand. My fault. I thought Lil' Bush as a cartoon was hilarious with some of the little stuff they put in for gags. An abortion clinc with the quote "No Child Left Behind" under the sign? What a riot! :rolleyes:

[Koran]

And so begins the slow spiral down into anarchy.

Wheee!

[Rith]

Public attacks of any sorts on any president are far from having their origination in Nixon. From the attacks on Grover Cleveland ("Ma, ma, where's my pa?") to the assertions that Thomas Jefferson was a heretic to the blistering hatred visited upon Andrew Johnson by the Radical Republicans, I think it's a bit arrogant to suggest that somehow our day and age has a lock on cynicism and meanspiritedness towards political leaders.

These things run in cycles, and I'm sure that a day will come when we'll have a bit more faith in public officials, and then we'll have another round of cynicism and people will act as if they invented the term.



I remember a Bush Administration that used the attacks as an excuse to foist their rabid conservative ideology on the country in every way possible, not only in foreign affairs but also in domestic regulatory policy. While we all felt attacked on that terrible day, a number of us felt as though we'd been attacked twice -- once by terrorists, and then once again by a President who callously used a nationwide crisis and outpouring of goodwill to attack the past 70 years of progress on educational and social fronts.



A blatant falsehood. Read the National Intelligence Estimate, the reports and public statements of UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, and anything you can find regarding the inaccurate statements by administration officials prior to the war. There is clear and damning evidence that the public was misled on this point.

It was funny -- during the build-up to the Iraq war, claims were repeatedly made that Saddam's regime was woefully corrupt and inept, unable to keep track of even the simplest paper trails and public records. And yet they were, at the same time, asked to present extraordinary amounts of documentation concerning weapons destruction. You can't have it both ways -- either Saddam's regime was a nation of plutocrats who had lost all their triplicates, or they weren't. And if they were, expecting them to hand over such documentation was an exercise in bloviating and saber-rattling.

What would have served the country better would have been for the United States to allow the weapons inspection process that had begun again in 2003 -- and had been given extraordinary rights to inspect in Iraq, had found and destroyed a few banned missiles (although not WMD), and had received unobstructed cooperation from the Iraqi government -- to go forward properly. Instead, the US decided to circumvent the process and invade.



Hyperbolic droolings aside, it had nothing to do with oil prices. It had everything to do with the fact that Iraq was fighting Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. As a matter of fact, during the same year that Saddam Hussein gassed Kurds in the north, Donald Rumsfeld went on a diplomatic mission to Saddam under the auspices of Reagan's government. The purpose? To sell arms to Iraq.

If we're toppling Saddam because he gassed his own people, we should also be toppling our own government for providing the materiel he used against them.



Simply untrue. There were no connections between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. In fact, Al-Qaeda's religious affiliation was diametrically opposed to the secular Ba'athist regime of Saddam. Furthermore, even if Al-Qaeda was willing to overlook Saddam's rampant secularism within the state, Saddam himself was a tinpot dictator. And if you learn anything about tinpot dictators, they simply do not introduce elements into their societies that they do not control.

Asserting an Al-Qaeda-Iraq connection is not only intellectually dishonest, it is immoral. The connection has been refuted by credible experts on both sides of the partisan aisle. The only people left who assert the connection are hopelessly entrenched in dangerous and immoral ideology, and you would serve your side better if you stopped repeating this absolutely ignorant and inaccurate position.

We sold arms to Iraq to help them win the war between Iraq and Iran, and they did with the use of Chemical weapons THEY developed in their own presicide factories. After the war was over and Saddam gassing thousands of Iranians, he turned then the full force of his military against the Kurds in northern Iraq. He began conventional bombing runs there which forced people into their underground shelters where he then later began chemical attacks because the people figured they were normal attacks. Little did they know they began suffering from many varities of chemical agents and he killed over 30,000 in one village alone.

For me, the fact that all that shit he did then was wrong and those presidents are the ones who should have removed him from power, but no, everyone was afraid seeing as Iraq controlled the largest oil reserve in the world at the time that he would skyrocket prices for everyone if they did invade, so it was all brushed under the rug. Bush used the excuse to look for that stuff to remove him from power from what he did a long time ago, even if they did have the records. Saddam still had the capibility to produce more chemical agents in his own pesticide factories but they were the priority target when we launched the air campaign. This war was a bunch of crap, but to me it seems it was Karma coming back to Saddam and his ass needed to be removed for breaking those international laws many years ago...



But on topic... I didn't find the show that funny. Not that I wasn't eagar to watch it for a good laugh, it just didn't amuse me. Maybe I just wasn't paying close enough attention...

[Nadia]

Ironically, I think the entire show is a joke on extremist views bashing Bush. But, some people thought Swift was serious about eating babies.

Still, D-bags on Newgrounds could probably do better with the animation, and a lot of it was so extreme you'd have to REALLY hate Bush to find it funny