Bush not even sure if he needs to use the bathroom.

OK, by now everyone’s seen the Reuters photo of Bush writing a note to Condoleezza about a bathroom break during a Security Council meeting at the 2005 World Summit and 60th General Assembly of the United Nations in New York. It’s kinda cute and definitely funny, but, hey, everyone’s gotta go once in awhile and there’s no reason to think Bush should be any different in that regard. What really amuses me about the note, however, is the fact that Bush isn’t even certain if he needs a bathroom break or not. Take a good look at the end of the sentence in the photo:

See that question mark at the end? Bush isn’t sure if he might need a bathroom break and is looking to Condoleeza for advice. I never knew that one of the functions of the Secretary of State was ensuring that the President knew when he needed to go to the potty, but I guess you learn something new every day. We won’t even go into the fact that the next sentence appears to be asking if it’s even possible to get a bathroom break.

19 thoughts on “Bush not even sure if he needs to use the bathroom.

  1. Maybe bathroom break is code for something else.  Perhaps it means he needs to leave the room for a moment and have someone explain what just transpired at the summit in simpler terms.

  2. I’m happy you posted this. I think this explains why it took the president some 20 odd minutes to respond to a terrorist attack on native soil. Lets face it, when our president is looking for a hand to hold when he decides to go to the little boys room….. that shit is kind of disturbing. It puts into perspective how incompetent our…..wait…..what do they call themselves….. “World leaders

  3. It puts into perspective how incompetent our…..wait…..what do they call themselves….. “World leaders

  4. Condi, will you call Laura and get my dick back for me? I need to pee something awful I think…

    No, not THAT DICK, not Cheney, my DICK, The First Member, the other Commander in Chief … I need to PEE … ok Condi.. and will you hold it for me?

  5. After reading this post and the comments so far, I’ll concede that you liberals are right…

    We really aren’t putting enough money into “No Child Left Behind.”

    If we were, you might have immediately noticed the “I gotta pee” text was block print, while President Bush was writing in cursive script. He did not author the comment.

    In addition, Reuter’s has some photo doctoring questions to answer.

    Why is it that every other pencil on this planet uses graphite, which leaves a comparatively think and light gray mark upon the page, while President Bush’s pencil leaves a thick black mark?

    I remember that the last time they pulled this darkening stunt, you liberals pitched an absolute fit when they darkened up O.J. Simpson for a magazine cover.

    You called them unethical, and you called them raists, and you called them things not fit to print.

    Somehow, I don’t think I’ll be hearing you cry out for fairness this time around.

  6. You claim the photo was doctored, but I’ve yet to be able to find anything to support that claim. So far the White House hasn’t said anything to that extent and while Reuters did get some criticisms about the photo no one else seems to be suggesting it isn’t legit. It’s certainly possible that Bush is merely adding to a note someone else composed. Snopes.com lists it as undetermined as of yet, but points out that the photographer is reputable.

    Why is it that every other pencil on this planet uses graphite, which leaves a comparatively think and light gray mark upon the page, while President Bush’s pencil leaves a thick black mark?

    Depends on the pencil in question. You do know that you can buy more than just the standard No. 2 pencils, right? Some create darker lines and some lighter. The type of paper in question and how much pressure is used can also play a role in how dark the writing turns out.

    I remember that the last time they pulled this darkening stunt, you liberals pitched an absolute fit when they darkened up O.J. Simpson for a magazine cover.

    You’re not seriously contending that these two events are even remotely similar, are you? Thanks. I needed a good laugh.

    Reuters didn’t do that, Time magazine did. As I recall I didn’t really care about it myself. Just the same, making O.J. Simpson look even more dark skinned in a mugshot is hardly comparable to making Bush look like he may have written an awkward note about going to the bathroom.

    You called them unethical, and you called them raists, and you called them things not fit to print.

    What’s a “raists?” No child left behind indeed.

    Somehow, I don’t think I’ll be hearing you cry out for fairness this time around.

    First prove to me that the image was doctored and then we’ll talk about how much of an outcry there should be.

  7. Reuters has now admitted to PhotoShopping the photo almost exactly as I described, “burning” the note photo, which makes the pencil marks appear black as I claimed.

    Gary Hershorn, a picture editor for Reuters posted an article on PDN Online,a professional photography site. The link is here, but I’ll warn you in advance that the PDN web server is currently unable to handle the strain from the many news outlets that have linked it.

    Perhaps you can get to it later tonight once they’ve had a chance to balance the server load better.

  8. I got in no problem…

    Once he saw what it said, Hershorn decided the note was interesting and worth publishing. The white parts of the picture were overexposed, so a Reuters processor used Photoshop to burn down the note. This is a standard practice for news photos, Hershorn says, and the picture was not manipulated in any other way. (emphasis MINE)

    The image was not manipulated (read: changed) it was simply enhanced so that the text would be legible, so what is the issue with that? Every single photo published in every media outlet around the world goes through photoshop (or similar) to be cleaned up… your point is well… pointless.

    It is not like they changed the text, they just cleaned up the image, as any good photoeditor would do prior to publication…

    All I see from you is FUD FUD FUD … Distraction Distraction Distraction…

    G’bye now…

  9. I was able to pull up the article just fine. I second what John said. You claimed the photo was doctored. This is clearly not the case. Try again.

  10. Is Reuters now feeding images to Weekly World News and the Sun?

    This is “newsworthy”, if you’re a 9 year old boy who still giggles when you fart.  Hey, let’s see if we can slip a camera into the bathroom stall, so we can watch the leader of the free world pinching a loaf.  How about it, Reuters?

    You mean Bush doesn’t just hold it for 8 years and the go when he’s not president anymore???

  11. Oh for crying out loud, I don’t think I’ve heard anyone try to describe this as news. Not even the folks at Reuters. It is an unusual sneak peek at something that we normally don’t get to see and it is funny, but then I still giggle at some farts too.

    Damn, Daryl, anything that might possibly portray your beloved Bush in a bad way really gets your panties into a bunch these days it seems.

  12. Les:

    Damn, Daryl, anything that might possibly portray your beloved Bush in a bad way really gets your panties into a bunch these days it seems.

    He must have the gordian panties at this point then no?

    Sorry Daryl (and your other brothers Daryl) if our humor is not urbane enough for you this evening, but lauging at our leaders is about as American as it gets … well it was until we had a leader to laugh at to the point it was actually quite sad, but that’s another issue all together smile

    And people say liberals are uptight …feh!

  13. your beloved Bush

    You must be joking.  You would have to look for a long, long, long time to find someone who dislikes Bush more than I do.

    This is the man who gave us No Child Left Behind, the Medicare drug benefit, disastrous adventures in Iraq, and a new Department of Homeland Security.  Oh, and his big plans for the future include blowing $100 billion of my daughter’s college fund to put a couple people on the moon for a few days, and giving $200 billion of my paycheck to people in the Gulf Coast who didn’t bother to purchase flood insurance, even though the government already subsidizes it.

    Yeah, that’s what conservatives want.  Give me a president who talks less and gets more done.  Let’s start by eliminating the corporate income tax, reducing the upper tax brackets, phasing out Social Security and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp, abolishing Medicaid and welfare, cutting off federal funding for education, and firing 80% of the federal workforce.  Then we can talk about my “beloved” president.  *swoon!*

    Back on the Reuters topic.

    I stand by my original analysis, and trying to pin it on some sort of loyalty to Bush completely misses the point.  This is the type of thing you expect from the low-end tabloids.  By not apologizing—by putting this tasteless picture on the wire in the first place—Reuters makes itself the journalistic equal of those illustrious magazines.  Even a high-scool newspaper has more class than running something like this (assuming their faculty advisor is in the room).

    Furthermore, the whole “Bush doesn’t know if he needs to pee” is totally at odds with Bush’s personality.  This is not a man who is capable of doubt.  I suspect the reason he put that question mark at the end of the first sentence was to inquire whether a bathroom break would be possible.

  14. You must be joking.  You would have to look for a long, long, long time to find someone who dislikes Bush more than I do.

    With the way many of your comments around here have gone you certainly fooled me into thinking you’re a big fan.

  15. With the way many of your comments around here have gone you certainly fooled me into thinking you’re a big fan.

    As far as I can gather from his comments, Bush isn’t radical enough for him. Well, high hopes and then he disappoints.

    At least the second part of Bush’s modus operandi is pretty well known to us liberals too.

  16. As far as I can gather from his comments, Bush isn’t radical enough for him.

    Bush is a Pro-Government Conservative.  That means he wants to turn this country into a Socialist Worker’s Paradise, but he wants to do it slowly.

    Daryl is an Enterpriser.  That means he believes that individual rights trump collective rights (this is indeed a radical notion these days!)..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.