For those who missed "The Economist" cover

[Cyrus]

Bear in mind that this is a pro-Bush newsmagazine we're talking about. (From the editorial : "The Economist endorsed Mr Bush in the 2000 election once he had beaten our favorite candidate, John McCain. That still loks the right choice for that election.")

Now, the cover of the magazine shows a picture of Dubya, strutting purposefully, as they say, wearing a military helmet, denim pants, and a workshirt. The cover's title is

BETTER WAYS TO ATTACK BUSH

There are arrows pointing to various parts of the President's anatomy and his clothes, with captions:

HELMET <-- "All hat and no plans for post-war Iraq"

MOUTH <-- "The miscommunicator"

EAR <-- "Never hears a spending plan he doesn't like"

SHIRT <-- "Too close to vested interests"

BACK <-- "Backs unequal rights for homosexuals"

ARM <-- "Strong but not humble"

BELT BUCKLE <-- "Budget belt far too loose"

BALLS <-- "No cojones on Palestine/Israel"

ARSE <-- "Hot air on WMDs"

KNEE <-- "Weak-kneed on trade : farms, steel, sugar, cotton..."

SHOES <-- "Tramples on civil liberties"

[ACPlayer]

Here is the cover that is offered in this thread.

Enjoy.

Economist cover page

[GWB]

This is hardly a pro-Bush magazine. They attack me all the time.

If this is what paaes as pro-Bush in your mind, I wonder what qualifies as anti-Bush.

W

[Cyrus]

I see now you don't read.

I meant, I see now you don't read The Economist!

(Sorry for that, Mr Prezident, the line was cut off, temporarirarily.)

So you are saying that The Economist is anti-Bush?? Very interesteting. Pray tell, then, who is that publication supporting then?

Names please, Mr Prezident. Names.