SkinsTerps26 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Bush: Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is Finally Over January 17, 2001 | Issue 37•01 The Original link: http://web.archive.org/web/20010123230000/www.theonion.com/onion3701/bush_nightmare.html The gist http://politicalirony.com/2009/01/19/when-satire-becomes-ironic/ When Satire becomes Ironic In January 2001, mere days before Dubya took office for the first time, satire magazine The Onion published a then-funny piece about president-elect Bush giving a speech assuring the country that ‘Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over’. Bush pledged to end the Clinton era — “eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us.” According to The Onion, Bush promised to attack the environment, send the nation into massive debt, deregulate dangerous, greedy industries, start “at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict”, bring back economic stagnation, and heal the “terrible wedge President Clinton drove between church and state”. They satirically had Bush concluding: We as a people must stand united, banding together to tear this nation in two. Much work lies ahead of us: The gap between the rich and the poor may be wide, be there’s much more widening left to do. We must squander our nation’s hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it. The ironic thing is, their over-the-top predictions came true. Pity that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spjunkies Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Damn that's kind of crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 So, what does The Onion say about Obama? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 And that pretty much sums up our last 8 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Wondering a) If the article created a thread on ES at the time. If it did, how many people were called loony, hateful, Bush bashers for believing something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 you realize that by definition satire is irony? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsTerps26 Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 you realize that by definition satire is irony? yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Now that was interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 yes. alright, just checking. Move along :cop: /syntax police Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsTerps26 Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 i was just paraphrasing the article that I found, didn't want to imply that it was my finding and new idea. just figured i'd share it w/ everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Not fair. W. put in a lot of hard work to prepare for the Presidency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie4redskins Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Except there was nothing "peaceful" about the Clinton presidency. The attacks on Cole and U.S. embassies were acts of war. Just because you choose to ignore doesn't make an era "peaceful." Prosperity? By slashing the military and intelligence services? :thumbsup: Clinton rode the IT bubble that would've made Mao look like an economist. It popped late 2000 and people actually blamed Bush for it. Laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Prosperity? By slashing the military and intelligence services? He did neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Admiring the lack of posts in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 **** man, even after you guys win you just keep piling on with the Bush bashing. There is such a thing as being poor winners too and a lot of you are qualifying yourselves for that position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 He did neither. The CIA was a shell of itself by 1999 that it was just a decade earlier. Part of it was due to the Aldrich Ames case in the mid 1990s. The other part was due to some major losers being DCI until Tenant came on board in 1997 That is a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 The CIA was a shell of itself by 1999 that it was just a decade earlier.Part of it was due to the Aldrich Ames case in the mid 1990s. The other part was due to some major losers being DCI until Tenant came on board in 1997 That is a fact. That's an opinion. Show me some objective data. You know, things like budget numbers, that aren't just somebody's opinion. Bill Clinton increased defense spending. (In constant dollars. Allowing for inflation, defense spending went down a bit less than 1% per year.) That's a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 isnt it kind of funny that he increased defense spending by downsizing the size and amount of bases the military had? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie4redskins Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 He did neither. Uh, yes he did. Approximately $620 billion over his tenure. Pesky facts. http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/11/22/defense-spending-reaganbush-i-vs-clinton-vs-bush-ii/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 That's an opinion. Show me some objective data. You know, things like budget numbers, that aren't just somebody's opinion. Bill Clinton increased defense spending. (In constant dollars. Allowing for inflation, defense spending went down a bit less than 1% per year.) That's a fact. Its actually not an opinion. Its based on several books I have read written by former spooks. Guys like Bob Baer and "See No Evil". Bob Baer of course who was almost indicted for the attempted assasniation of Saddam Hussien by the FBI in 1995. Steven Coll and "Ghost Wars" Ron Kessler and "Inside the CIA" Trying to find CIA budget numbers is like trying to find a Philadelphia Superbowl trophy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Be fair, Mike. Clinton bashing was in vogue until at least 2005. You've still got a few good weeks, months, years left of Bush bashing. Relax though, it's a merry go round... your turn will be up soon enough and then the liberals will launch the same complaint. The Onion does seem precient, doesn't it? I guess this is part of the answer between the line that divides comedy and tragedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Be fair, Mike. Clinton bashing was in vogue until at least 2005. You've still got a few good weeks, months, years left of Bush bashing. Relax though, it's a merry go round... your turn will be up soon enough and then the liberals will launch the same complaint.The Onion does seem precient, doesn't it? I guess this is part of the answer between the line that divides comedy and tragedy. I feel ya and I didnt think the Clinton bashing was cool either. But you're right, it is what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 The Onion does seem precient, doesn't it? Actually, I just read the whole article (as opposed to the bits selected), and it's not that prescient. Still, I think they deserve some credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 To think that we should have maintained Cold War levels of military spending is crazy. Clinton should have made huge cuts, but he didn't because we are in the pockets of the military manufacturing companies. What's even crazier is thinking that defense spending cuts somehow cause terrorism or stop our ability to fight it. The gullibility of some people is astounding. The CIA was a shell of itself by 1999 that it was just a decade earlier.Part of it was due to the Aldrich Ames case in the mid 1990s. The other part was due to some major losers being DCI until Tenant came on board in 1997 That is a fact. The assertion was the President Clinton was the cause Your fact ignores that The huge amounts of waste in military spending is one thing, the CIA is another. I'm not saying Clinton didn't do that, but that your fact hardly makes the argument logically valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiLfan Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 life imitates onion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.