• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

Bush not so dumb after all? <g>

JMS just posted this on the mod:

So I was talking to Doug Netter this afternoon, who had in turn spoken with Bruce Boxleitner earlier in the day about the year 2 DVD. In the course of that conversation, Bruce mentioned something that Doug in turn mentioned to me.

To wit:

Bruce had been at the White House about a month ago, in the company of wife Melissa Gilbert, president of the Screen Actors Guild, for a discussion with some of the functionaries there concerning acting roles moving north of the Canadian border.

As they're talking, in a long conference room, in the middle of the meeting the door opens and Karl Rove -- main strategist for the Republican Party and power behind the White House throne -- comes in. He says (paraphrased from memory) to Melissa, "I hope you'll forgive me, but I'm actually here to see Bruce."

He then tells Bruce, "I just wanted to tell you that I'm a big science fiction fan, and that Babylon 5 is the best science fiction television series *ever*."

Then there's a pause, and he adds....

"And the President thinks so too."

Upon hearing this, I went to lie down for a spell, but I fully expect to be back on my feet by Spring, latest.


(all message content (c) 2002 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
Memo to Warner Bros.
Screw up the season 2 B5 DVDs and the White House is going to want to talk to you.

... and on a totally unrelated matter: where's "Jeremiah" being filmed again, JMS? /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
He especially likes that shapeshifting guy and the girl with the spots. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Sheridan would just load Air Force One with nukes and fly it into the Middle East.
Gee, I better forget about this. Wouldn't want it to ruin my enjoyment of B5. But what a good laugh it was! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Let's see... This happened about a month ago, before the DVDs came out. Since they're such big fans, presumably both Karl and the Prez bought copies. I wonder if either of them got scratched discs or mislabelled Disc 2s? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif Watch for news stories about an SEC probe of AOL/Time-Warner if they did. And expect the problems to be fixed fast.

On a more serious note, maybe the White House will get behind an examination of Hollywood's accounting practices. The movie biz is the only industry in the world where none of the products has ever turned a profit (according to the accountants) in nearly 100 years, but everybody still makes tons of money. That would make JMS happy. He might even see some money from B5 beyond his steadily-declining writer's royalties.


On a more serious note, maybe the White House will get behind an examination of Hollywood's accounting practices. The movie biz is the only industry in the world where none of the products has ever turned a profit (according to the accountants) in nearly 100 years, but everybody still makes tons of money.

That might be happening yet. The SEC is sniffing around both Vivendi Universal and AOL/TimeWarner. Accounting and disclosure issues.

Should be interesting to see. Real business reform will require more in the way of teeth than the MBA administration is willing to show so far, though.

Ah, well, hope do spring eternal.


Nice to hear Rowe and Bush are Scifi/B5 fans. And as for Bush being dumb, those who think so are kidding themselves. He is master politician, as the recent election proved. It's the old story, "Never underestimate your opponent," which is exactly what the Democrats did.
"And the President thinks so too."

Of course, Karl Rove failed to mention the rest of Bush's comment on the subject:

"...Yeah, I think Babylon 5 is the best sci-fi series ever. My absolute *favorite* part is that way cool, selfless, for-the-people hero that's the center of the show. Yeah, you know, the one that embodies all that it means to be a true, heroic, patriotic leader. I think his name was Clark...."


Bush and I actually have something in common .Gee now that is a shocker .Now WB let's have lots of interviews and extras to please the prez and Karl. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I think Bush identifies with that guy who assembled a bunch of bickering, selfish and often stupid allies into a coherent army of light to battle the forces of darkness and chaos. What was his name again? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif


Wild. You really see the majority of the world's leaders as
a bunch of bickering, selfish and often stupid allies into a coherent army of light to battle the forces of darkness and chaos.

I guess I'm not that "American" yet. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

I think "we" are pursuing oil and a diversion to a failing economic strategy, personally.
Given their love of the show, do any of them post here?

Holy cow, maybe I've been rubbishing Bush Jnr and not even know it!

<Oatley looks out his window>

That's interesting, I've never seen that black car outside my house before...
It's so nice to find out what people *really* think of everyone else in the world, isn't it? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

The parallel with Sheridan, and this particular explanation, is a good one though... yet another little thing that helps me understand why I disliked - even hated - Sheridan so very much.
I think "we" are pursuing oil and a diversion to a failing economic strategy, personally.

We don't get very much oil from Iraq, and if we stopped buying from the tomorrow we could easily buy more elsewhere. In other words, we don't get much of their oil and we don't need any of it. So scratch one of your imaginary "reasons" for what's happening with Iraq.

And I want you to think about your second slander. Do you seriously believe that any President of the United States, of any party, would send Americans off to kill and die just to "take peoples minds off the economy"? That's the kind of drivel that poli-sci students with no experience of the real world (or their professors, ditto) believe. I don't think that any man or woman who could reach the Presidency would do such a thing. And I certainly don't think that any Congress would vote to support it. We're not talking about chucking a cruise missle at an aspirin factory here, we're talking about actual war. And we're not having some boozy dorm room bull session where everybody spouts their favorite crackpot theories about the evil government.

Do you think Dick Gephardt voted to approve the use of force against Iraq to help George Bush distract the voters? Grow up.

Iraq is in the hands of a mad dictator. It would be better if it does not become a country in the hands of a mad dictator with nukes, germ warfare and chemical weapons. It will certainly be easier and less costly to fight Iraq now, before they have such weapons, than it would be later. The best outcome would be for Hussein to disarm on his own, but nobody with any sense believes he's going to do that. So we'll have to disarm him.

BTW, speaking of oil. Why do you think the French and the Russians gave us such a hard time in the U.N. Becasue they are high minded idealist who sit around singing "Give Peace a Chance" They did it because they have very lucrative oil concessions under the current Iraqi regime, and they're afraid that they might lose them if the dictator they've helped prop up for the past 11 years (while the U.N. was unwilling to get its thumb out of its ass and enforce its own resolutions) gets tossed out on his ear and the people he's been oppressing come to power. Nor did they change their minds because of some cosmetic language changes to the final resolution. They did it because they were assured we would put in a good word for them with a post-Saddam regime so they get to keep their oil. Hmmm... did somebody say something about "greedy, bickering" world leaders?


I don't have time this second to look up more articles, but here is one:
Iraq oil

Containing some interesting information.
The above analysis shows that the oil reserves of the three countries from the Middle East, viz. Iraq, Kuwait and UAE, are likely to last longer than the oil reserves of any other country. These reserves can, therefore, become great strategic assets in the near future, and getting control of them can become crucial for a global hegemon like the USA. It is also notable that, apart from Iraq, the USA has friendly regimes in the other two Middle Eastern countries. Therefore, a regime more friendly than the current one in Iraq is definitely of strategic significance to the USA in the medium and long run.

Here's another that talks mostly about the destabalizing effect war with Iraq could very well have in the long-term:
Oxford Energy.org

And why was the USA actually supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan at first? Hmm, I don't suppose it would have anything to do with the oil, would it? Afghanistan and oil

Enjoy. It seems there are plenty of people who seem to think this is a valid criticism.
Oh my god! Bush likes B5!!! /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

This leaves me with two options:
1) start liking Bush
2) start hating B5
Both are impossible.

So, I'll make a third option:
3) Ignore that I ever heard of this. Ah denial! /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Here's another from Corpswatch:
Corpwatch on Afghanistan

Some exerpts:
President Bush has appointed a former aide to the American oil company Unocal, Afghan-born Zalmay Khalilzad, as special envoy to Afghanistan.


As an advisor for Unocal, Khalilzad drew up a risk analysis of a proposed gas pipeline from the former Soviet republic of Turkmenistan across Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean. He participated in talks between the oil company and Taliban officials in 1997, which were aimed at implementing a 1995 agreement to build the pipeline across western Afghanistan.


Khalilzad also lobbied publicly for a more sympathetic US government policy towards the Taliban. Four years ago, in an op-ed article in the Washington Post, he defended the Taliban regime against accusations that it was a sponsor of terrorism, writing, ''The Taliban does not practice the anti-U.S. style of fundamentalism practiced by Iran.''

Khalilzad only shifted his position on the Taliban after the Clinton administration fired cruise missiles at targets in Afghanistan in August 1998, claiming that terrorists under the direction of Afghan-based Osama bin Laden were responsible for bombing US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. One day after the attack, Unocal put Centgas on hold. Two months later it abandoned all plans for a trans-Afghan pipeline. The oil interests began to look towards a post-Taliban Afghanistan, and so did their representatives in the US national security establishment.

Nancy: if Hitler was a vegetarian, does that mean we all have to stop being vegetarians? Having some taste in television viewing doesn't make a person a great leader, of course. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.