I say the Saudi Royal is more of a Bush "Best Friends with Benefits" rather than a "BFF" on the friend color coded chart.

They look darling together. There must be some way to work this into a gay marriage theme.

We all know the saying "When in Rome ..." And we know it's customary for men to walk around holding hands in the much of the Middle East.

But holding hands where and when it's not customary makes bush look like the weaker partner, or Abdullah's bitch ... take your pick.

I didn't vote for him!

Maybe Bush misses all those secret pepperoni deliveries that Gannon/Guckert used to make.

It's a measure of how much pleasure this blog takes in making jokes that you don't know what you have here. Put that picture up on billboards in the South and the West and it won't just hurt Bush, it will hurt the entire Republican Party.

Get MoveOn on it, or Soros, or any other lefty cause with deep pockets. No fancy ad campaign, no smart-ass we're-smarter-than-you tag line.

Just put the picture up where people can see it, day in and day out. Right in the heart of the red states.

yeah, saw that on MSNBC.com, it's really creepy.

They don't care. Remember, Bush and company are elitists and the just don't care what things look like to the "little people." They are very happy holding hands with other elitists.

That picture is worth a thousand words. Too bad most of the Country will never see it.

Just put the picture up where people can see it, day in and day out. Right in the heart of the red states.

Why?

Because they'll think it's queer?

Or because they'll be disgusted that Bush is so buddy buddy with the Saudis that he is perfectly comfortable taking part in a common Arab custom of walking hand-in-hand with a male friend?

I LOVE the billboards-in-the-South idea. But U.S. News might have a problem with copyright violations. And I think they're all FOB over there, too. (No, not the "B" of '92-'00.) (:>

Having worked with numerous Arabs and Muslims, they flatly deny that there are ANY homosexuals in their culture . . . then it actually turns out just to be sematics. You're only homo if you're a bottom.

Given the above post . . . I agree it's easy to tell who is the top in this relationship.

everything changed after 9/11..

There is another photo like this one on the cover of a book about Bush's family's connection to the House of Saud. Surely, we can find more photos like these to show.

In their view they think it makes him look like he is close and has the power to lower taxes with his close relationship with the Saudi's.

I would LOVE to have that photo and list underneath all the freedoms that women do not have in Saudi Arabia. Reframe the context.

But it is a good Man Date photo

I swear that photo was just up with the second top story on google news and now it is completely GONE. Wonder why?

Steve, that photo's obviously been faked.

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing some pre-summer pressure against rising oil prices. Is that something to root for or what?

found another

Oh, please. Show that pic to Republicans in the southeast and they'll think it's sweet that GWB is such a friendly man to hold hands with the rich oil goon.

To most Republicans, I imagine they find this photo just and right: two rich and powerful men discussing oil.

Toby, your powers of analysis have obviously been faked.

We know Bush is gay, but the rag head dude didn't know it!

THAT'S BUSH AND JEFF GANNON IN DISGUISE!

Muckrat:

"Why? Because they'll think it's queer?"

That's one reason. If your a homophone, or in denial about homosexuality, or against homosexuality, then there's just no way you're going to look at that picture and think anything except that it makes George Bush look like a pussy homo.

"Or because they'll be disgusted that Bush is so buddy buddy with the Saudis that he is perfectly comfortable taking part in a common Arab custom of walking hand-in-hand with a male friend?"

That's another reason. Nobody in the U.S. thinks the Saudis are are friends any more - except the Bush family. Nobody. And here's Bush holding hands with the guy.

Other reasons:

Do you get to hold hands with the president? Clearly there's some friendship there, but after all, he's our president, which means that's OUR hand he's using. In one frame that pictures says money = access.

The guy Bush is holding hands with is AN ARAB. Does Bush hold hands with Sharon? How are Jews going to take that picture?

The Saudis were the ones who blew up the World Trade Center on 9/11. And here's Bush holding hands with one of them. Ick.

I'm telling you: put that picture up in even one prime location, like Houston, Texas, and the press you'll get from it will be huge.

Looks like another Kodak moment for Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 and 1/2 in 2008.

If seeing this picture makes your blood boil, here's what you can do in response. Fill your vehicles up at CITGO. CITGO is owned and operated by PDVSA, the Venezuelan state oil company. I would rather send my money to Hugo Chavez than Bandar Bush.

Do you think if that photo were plastered on billboards would the repugs then demand something a la the fairness doctrine and if so, what would the FRC and the GOP put on their billboards?

Shiny happy people holding hands...

Can't you just feel the love?

Remember that alien episode of the Simpsons. They're just exchanging DNA strands.

Ok, tell me if I am being completely paranoid . . . they ran -- or tried to run this story on the local news and the tape was wrong (they showed the previous story again). Then it disappears from google news. And now, the signal completely died during The News Hour just at the beginning of the story. It's all in my mind, right?

argus:

Remember that alien episode of the Simpsons. They're just exchanging DNA strands.

And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.

The photo is still up on drudgereport, so hopefully some of his supporters will see the picture...

Face it. To most Bush supporters this photo will not change their perceptions of their man.

There have been hundreds of times in the last 5 or 6 years that we all watched Bush make a total ass out of himself and cringed. Only to find that his poll numbers went up overnight.

I'm pretty cynical as to what it would take to wake up that hard core group of Bush lovers. Hypocracy and contradiction don't seem to make a difference. Perhaps because the mainstream propoganda machine is so effective at selling it as conviction and passion.

Why is this picture any different or worse?

I admit I grew up a little sheltered, but men never seemed to cry, or hug, or hold hands. Maybe it's a Texas thing.

"I think you're pulling it off, Laura. People at the costume party are going to think you're the spittin' image of the Crown Prince. I'd kiss you, but I don't want to mess up your fake facial hair. But it might get me back in with the Log Cabin Republicans. They don't know about the party , do they? Pucker up, baby."

It's only a "Texas" thing in Hollywood. The boy king is as Texan as Marion Morrison.

Go ahead build you billboards, fill them with this picture as it is. You'll only guarantee Democrats will stay in the minority, maybe even fall further down in the food chain. Make sure to place some in SF, we'll take some more of the gay vote there. And this picture will only have the opposite effect in 'red' states. You thought we were mobilized in 2004, 62 million votes can grow to 70 fairly easy.

hmm. seems like there's a theme here. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

"GWB and his Special Friend" would be my choice for the billboard caption. Let the viewers form their own opinions of it.

Oaklander:

"Why is this picture any different or worse?"

Because it shows or buff he-man president, our war president, our commander-in-chief, our shit-kicking, ass-kicking, homo-kicking, atheist-kicking, pretzel-spitting leader, holding the hand of an Arab who's wearing a dress. You show that to a cowboy, or a born-again nut-job, or a rancher in Wyoming, and they're all going to think the same thing, which is that the president looks like a lefty-liberal-pussy-softy.

Put up just one billboard in a bible-belt red state. Just one.

Then sit back and watch.

(The best way to do this, by the way, is to go with the national security/energy angle, and focus on how holding hands with the Saudis - who supplied almost all of the 9/11 hijackers - puts us at risk.)

peter, peter, peter -- if this picture is so good for GWB and the GOP, why aren't you encouraging us to run with it? Or aren't you a clever enough GOP troll?

"GWB and his Special Friend" would be my choice for the billboard caption.

That's pretty good. My choice would be "With Friends Like These..."

62 million votes can grow to 70 fairly easy.

You aren't giving away Diebold trade secrets are you Peter?

Toby,

D'oh.

O/T -- Slaughter and Conyers follow-up to the FOIA on Gannon to Scotty. Slaughter's office is doing great work in leading the way on this from the Congressional perspective.

Marie, Perfect response to peter.

Fettucine - I agree with everthing you said. All I'm sying is that that is not the way fox news is going to be spinning it, and that is what the sleepwalking minions will believe. Inspite of what their eyes show them. Anyone could see John Kerry embarass Bush at all 3 debates. Conservatives argued forcefully that Bush won. And a sizable percentage of the public bought it too. This media will not criticize Bush. Period! The right wing will forgive ANYTHING Bush says or does. He's infallible to them. My moral outrage meter was pegged a long time ago. Wasn't yours?

And yet the crowd cheered on.

Matt -- but "Special Friend" prompts more spontaneous fantasies in the mind than "With Friends like these" -- even racists in this country have learned to stop and find a way to rationalize the presence of any minority seen with Bush; the same would apply for "Friend." "Special Friend" requires an extra mental step not to see this as a single word.

Hmmm. I think you're right.

There is really nothing wrong with the picture...unless it's the once leader of the free-world (Bwaa Haaa Haaa Haaa!) getting that close to the leader of the countrymen who did that 9/11 thang. But you can bet, the smart one of the two is on the left.

If you really want to get a hornets nest stirred-up, post that picture on billboards in all the Muslim countries.

Okay -- just checked with a friend who live in Saudi for a couple of years. All the men hold hands. She said it looks really bizarre to see a couple of policemen with guns swinging from their shoulders and walking down the street holding hands.

Donnie, you mean like on Fox Sunday morning when the audio kept cutting out when the Democratic representative was answering the question or giving a rebuttal. No, you are not paranoid. It is being done on purpose, because we no longer have freedom of the press or media.

By-the-way, to the poster who said "found another". Guess what, it's gone. Surprise, surprise.

This picture disappearing says Bush/Rove are afraid if not terrified that it has been seen at all.

Gay marriage theme? Absolutely!

"I DO!"

When I first saw this pic I went on a search. I have a simply darling shot on my blog.

I think the happy couple is on their way to Connecticut to renew their vows!

Thats definitely one way to reduce our "dependancy on foriegn oil." Marry it. Then the Saudi's and their oil are family.

And America worries about fags. Get your priorities straight! Gays won't hurt you, but W will!

Maybe chimpy is into bears. Wonder what Prince Abdullah's bear code is? Toby, you could probably help us out.

Judith, thanks for the reassurance. I was still snoozing on Sunday, so missed the other . . .

I like the idea of t-shirts with that picture on them.

Watched the American Experience tonight on PBS of the fall of Saigon in 1975. It really depressed me for one simple reason. Back then the Democratic Party had a spine. Those were the days when a Democrat would get on television and call the Republicans bastards and not give one hoot whether they liked it or not. What in the hell happened?

Photo not fake - it was on our Canadian news tonight, the two of them walking at the Crawford ranch.

Oaklander:

"All I'm sying is that that is not the way fox news is going to be spinning it, and that is what the sleepwalking minions will believe."

A billboard bypasses FOX News. And it's out in public, versus in the privacy of someone's home (on TV) - where the morons feel safe enough to stick their hands down their (own) pants. That picture of Bush, on a billboard in Texas, would EMBARRASS the whole fucking state.

"This media will not criticize Bush. Period!"

Agreed. Which is why you go with a billboard. Then get the press to cover the billboard, so more people see the image. Then put up MORE billboards if it causes a big enough stink.

"My moral outrage meter was pegged a long time ago. Wasn't yours?"

Yeah, but we're leading indicators. You have to remember that since the election, a whole lot of the rest of the country has caught up. Check Bush's poll numbers on almost every issue. Even on Iraq the body bags are coming home to roost. This guy is not loved, and I think the country is ready to turn on him. They just need an excuse.

Look, this picture is brilliant for one main reason, which is that the eye takes it all in, registers who's who, then looks around the frame for more and....WHAT THE FUCK?

THEY'RE HOLDING HANDS!

Seriously. Every little but hurts Bush and taints the Republican brand. One billboard.

Judith:

"Those were the days when a Democrat would get on television and call the Republicans bastards and not give one hoot whether they liked it or not. What in the hell happened?"

The Dems (via Kennedy and Johnson) fucked Vietnam up all to hell, and in so doing allowed the Republican Party to take national security over completely as an issue. Right now Dems have the first chance in 35 years to take the issue back, but I don't think it's going to happen, because the progressive left would rather be known as anti-war than responsible-defense.

So take your pick. If you want the Dems to have a spine, you have to back them as the party of national security, which means using force responsibly. If you can't stomach that, then the Dems don't get a spine.

As a native Texan with male relatives (mostly rednecks, unfortunately), some of whom I've heard from today, the consensus (among both 'necks and the sane) is that Fettucine's assessment is correct. Most common response, "What the ?!?!?!?"

Bring on the billboards.

Bush is extremely vulnerable on the gay issue. There are many many public pictures taken of Bush over the last 5 years that when viewed in a gay context paint a devestating picture. The ferocity of the trolls on this thread should tell you how scared they are of this approach. You don't even need captions. A billboard campaign each with a different selection of the many pictures, displayed completely untitled, placed throughout the bible belt would sway many opinions.

There are stacks and stacks of these if you look. They can't censor them all. Especially check out pictures from Bush's many many military base visits.

Is that Cheney's melon on the far right?

Fettucine - I concede. You may be right. In fact I hope you are. Unfortunately, I don't expect to see any billboards any time soon. And I do expect this to be a non-story within the next 36 hours. I'm sorry. I said I was cynical. As much as I want to be optimistic, and perhaps Bush's sinking poll numbers are cause for optimism, it still seems like dangerous times. This picture is as much scarey as it is wierd.

There is another picture taken on the same day of them holding hands. I agree with Fettucine, put that sucker up everywhere it will do damage. Do you think for a moment the Republicans wouldn't do it? Hell, they would have loved a picture of Monica doing Clinton. The Democrats need to get their collective heads out of the clouds and realize that this opportunity should be exploited and stop playing nice nice. On Travis Smiley tonight, he and Maureen Dowd had a brief discussion about the picture, so evidently people are seeing it.

Just a note that Move On is doing rallies across the US this Wednesday to protest the threat of the Nuclear Option by the Republicans and the threat of doing away with fillibusters. Go to Moveon.org and type in your zip code in to find where in your community the protest will take place.

Received a letter from AARP today explaining their position of SS. They posted 1-800-335-6946 to call your Senators and Representatives to protest. "We'll never get to that national solution until we dismiss the idea that private accouts created out of Social Security are a solution rather than a problem."

Wobbly, sure look like it. He's the cover to make it look like the meeting is legitimate. ;)

Fettucine -- because the progressive left would rather be known as anti-war than responsible-defense.

GMAFB. What "responsible defense" has this country practiced in the past fifty years? What is "responsible defense?" We've had the ability to blow up and destroy the world hundreds of times over for decades -- and where are our enemies? Some nutcase holed up in a cave in the middle of nowhere?

"Responsible defense" would have had this country fully engaged in securing all the USSR nuclear materials and not running around invading countries that posed no threat to the US. Where was our "responsible defense" on 9/11? Almost sixty years after the last successful foreign attack on US soil and hundreds of billions of dollars annually spent on defense, and we were helpless in the face of 19 men with boxcutters. We could have given the Pentagon ten times as much money and we would still have been defenseless on 9/11. Or ten years ago when it became known that some radical Muslim thugs were wanted to hijack planes, we could have mandated that carriers secure the cockpit doors.

This country has been in a continuous state of military readiness since the end of WWII. Yet, we went on from a skeletal military with the Pacific fleet in tatters to defeat two major world military machines in just over three years. Think about that -- from nowhere to victory in two theaters of operation in the same span of time since 9/11. The US was respected, admired and loved by many at the end of WWII. Exactly what has been accomplished this time around? Didn't win any friends, that's for sure.

Marie:

"GMAFB."

GYAFB.

"What 'responsible defense' has this country practiced in the past fifty years?"

You know what I dislike more than almost anything else? It's when someone chops out a particular time frame because they know it helps them make their point, but they also know they can't include what happened just before that time frame because it defeats their point. Like, say, World War Fucking 2.

"What is 'responsible defense?'"

Uh...think deadbolts and a neighborhood watch, only on a global scale. And as you yourself suggested, think limiting nuclear proliferation, not being hostage to foreign energy sources, locking down fissionable materials, getting a handle on immigration, and maybe even keeping an eye on people who have sworn to kills us. As in Osama bin Laden, but not as in Saddam Hussein.

"Where was our 'responsible defense' on 9/11?"

Stuck up Bush's ass on his ranch in Texas.

(You do understand that you're making my point for me, don't you?)

Bush and the Republicans can be blamed - rightly, justifiably - for everything you cite. So maybe I'm crazy, but you know, I think they ought to be. And the Democrats should assume responsibility for the nation's defense.

Look, the fact is that there's nobody to defend against, and there won't be for decades at least.

The responsible thing would be to divert more money to the other stuff that makes America strong, so that if/when we need to kick some more ass militarily, we have the economic strength to pull it off. Instead, partially because we spend so much on defense, we're deeply in hock to the Chinese--the very nation most likely to be the next contender for Hegemony.

But saying such things would be political anathema. Americans know only "peace through superior firepower." If this model is the only way to be taken seriously on defense, there's no way the Democrats can regain the security mantle, because we'll never be more into blowing shit up than Republicans.

19 saudis' involved in 9/11...oil and gas prices are at all time highs..and that piece of shit is walking around holding hands with the bastard..looks like mission accomplished..

Billboards! Billboards! The funny part is Bush looks sooooo comfortable.

Billboards- brilliant!! I'm in too- how can we make it happen??

Fettucine - okay, we agree on what "responsible defense" would be, and it also seems to be what the Progressive Left would agree with. Since we've had almost no power these past fifty years, (and I only used that time-frame because there has been one overarching theme to it that has diverted an astronomical sum of money from other more productive uses) it doesn't seem appropriate lay the blame for the "anti-war" label solely, or even priimarily, on the left. This is more the construct used by the GOP and the warhawk DEMs to beat us into submission. They all love the MIC and we don't. We probably should have bolted from the DEM Party sometime in the seventies and began building a new Party. Instead we continue this stupid and destructive dance with the DEM "centrists." On many issues, such as Israel, the country as a whole disagrees with the official position of both parties and agrees with liberals. Liberals, corporatists and fundies - those are the real political breakouts of this country today. It's a close call as to which one is the largest, but if I had to wager, I would say that it's the liberals.

(Sorry for being so harsh, but I tend to see red whenever the left is bashed by one of our own -- too much time on defense against the DLC/TNR criticism of us during the past few years.)

The Crown Prince and the Clown Prince; how sweeeet.

Oh, Peter, Peter, Peter...why are you so afraid of this? Do you have...ah..."issues" that need to be adressed?
Remember,the billboard idea worked pretty well for the GOP in 2000. Remember when they put up one of Gore hugging Clinton right outside Gore's campaign office? And that was two American men, a President and a Vice President, not a Resident holding hands with a foreign prince whose citizens were responsible for 9/11.