Monday, September 16, 2019Light Snow -5°C
Media

Zinger! Colbert rips Bush, White House

Posted by Chip / May 2, 2006

Colbert2b.jpg
This is simply amazing.

For many of us, there are those once in a lifetime moments when you have a chance to confront someone in a position of power. Many times, the power wins out and we are left wishing about what we should or could have said. Well, for all of us, we have a new hero – Steven Colbert. Whether you know him from his days of being a correspondent on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, or from watching his current - hopefully improving - show dubbed The Colbert Report, one thing is for certain: Colbert rarely, if ever, pulls any punches – his method of delivery gives new meaning to the term ‘dead pan’ (well, to me anyway).

Appearing at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner as the keynote speaker, Colbert goes to task on the American President with Dubya sitting a mere 5 feet away. It’s 20 minutes of shear mockery in front of the most uncomfortable audience you could imagine. To describe anymore would do it an injustice.

So just watch and enjoy…
Part 1: Did he just say that?
Part 2: Holy shit!
Part 3: Shakin’ hands.

To quote a friend, “Imagine just how much contempt he must have for the man [Bush], to be ok with doing that. Imagine how much luster the presidency must have lost in his eyes. He obviously cares enough about the subject matter that he & his writing team, producers, etc. regard it as an act of patriotism. But man, it's just awesome. A brotha would get his head chopped off for that a few hundred years ago...”

And in the words of Jon Stewart, it’s “balls-aliscious

Discussion

10 Comments

Hannah / May 4, 2006 at 03:52 pm
user-pic
According to BoingBoing, YouTube had to remove the Colbert videos from their site. The videos were removed at the request of CSPAN, who owns the copyright. Cory Doctorow over at BoingBoing recommends contacting CSPAN (http://www.c-span.org) directly to find out more from their perspective.

Also, the NYTimes finally caught wind of Colbert's performance. Scott McClellan had no comment.
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/02/nyt_finally_notices_.html
OJ / May 4, 2006 at 03:59 pm
user-pic
Hmmm, thanks. The links seem to still be working on ifilm. Here's part 1: http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2723919
Gray / February 5, 2015 at 03:24 am
user-pic
Barold, you raise some important isesus regarding the communication of our society, and personal preferences as well. In reference to the time frame where normal newspapers are published, each news company disperses a new publication each morning. In this publication, the news company the New York Times for instance displays headlines and stories that happened the day before, the current day, and what may happen tomorrow.Whether it is the World Series to global conflict in Libya, the NY Times provides information galore to its subscribers. But why would I want to read the Times if I can just go on CNN the night before and inform myself on what may have happened?Well, it is hard to predict the schedule of a working person. The only time to catch up on life's occurrences might be in the morning while drinking coffee, or on the train ride to work. It might be more preferable for people to read a paper copy of the news rather than browsing a website on the Internet.What if they like the commentaries and opinions of the writers in the Times? What if they prefer to read a vast array of news in one place? Can they do that on a blog?To my knowledge, sometimes blogs only cover one topic at a time. And it is up to the blogger to write about an issue that facilitates his/her followers to respond.Do blogs contain national headlines? Probably. Do they contain international headlines? Sometimes. How about New York headlines? Depends on the blog. Or what about business news? And sports? And science isesus? Oh, and how about the arts?See, blogs are informative, don't get me wrong, however, one blog cannot simply cover all of these topics. Newspapers offer its consumers access to everything that occurs around them. It may not be environmentally friendly, but that is an argument for another day.The NY Times is available on the Internet as well. However, physical displays of the news is sometimes better. Instead of focusing on your mobile device for an hour, endlessly scrolling to read a one page article, wouldn't it be easier to have it in a paper form in your hand?Again, any source that provides news for its subscribers is beneficial. It is the individuals personal preference as to what distributor is more appealing: a phone, a computer, or a newspaper.
Judy / October 28, 2016 at 01:20 pm
user-pic
Hiya very cool website!! Man .. Excellent ..

Amazing .. I'll bookmark your blog and take the feeds also...I'm satisfied to find
so many helpful info here in the publish, we need
develop extra strategies in this regard, thank you for sharing.

Add a Comment

Other Cities: Toronto