Nintendo gifts birthday boy Bush with DS Lite, Brain Age

Just like you're not supposed to tug on Superman's cape, it's probably not the best idea to send the most powerful man in the world a gag gift on his birthday, so we've got to give props to our good friends at Nintendo for risking an ugly international incident to break President Bush off with a DS Lite in honor of his sixtieth -- and bundling in a copy of Brain Age to presumably help ward off his impending dementia. According to our sources inside the White House, after muttering under his breath about how "this doesn't work like my iPod," Mr. Bush decided to move onto more important matters like national security and regift the console to his Scottish Terrier Barney -- who was able to have a game of Nintendogs up and running within minutes.

[Via Joystiq]

[Jason @ Jul 6th 2006 10:44AM]

Happy BDay W!

[John Doe @ Jul 6th 2006 10:52AM]

Screw Bush. What's the worst he could do? Invade your country and botch it up? Good going Nintendo. Stick it to the village idiot.

[Ternt @ Jul 6th 2006 10:59AM]

impending dementia?

[martintxo @ Jul 6th 2006 11:08AM]

comment#2, you forgot to accent the word "impending"

[Rohit Kapur @ Jul 6th 2006 11:10AM]

LOL.... Very, very funny. There's stickin' it to the man! lol...

[GDUB @ Jul 6th 2006 11:10AM]

Nintendo could have just X'd the DS for a full on Brain Transplant.

Now that would have been a good gift for W.

[arthur barnhosue @ Jul 6th 2006 11:10AM]

Props for the Jim Croce reference.

[Blacknimbus @ Jul 6th 2006 11:15AM]

Everytime I see a post like John Doe's, it makes me smile. I do believe that BDS is treatable.

On topic, this seems like a decent choice for a game selection. The guy goes to bed early and by all accounts is a bit of a old fogey. I doubt he'd get much of a kick out of Mario Kart.

[DarkFader @ Jul 6th 2006 11:18AM]

Perhaps it's a special version of Brain Age :)
Made easier and loaded with spyware.

[Irony @ Jul 6th 2006 11:19AM]

isn't one of the requirements for playing brain age that you have a brain first?



Just sayin

[LittleJoe @ Jul 6th 2006 11:22AM]

"George Bush... your Brain Age is... 4."

"Awww dammit Laura... that 2+2 gets me every time!"

[Korey @ Jul 6th 2006 11:22AM]

no no no its not impending dementia its already in full force

JUST CANT WAIT FOR 2008

[Noah Bogdonoff @ Jul 6th 2006 11:27AM]

Ah. I love Nintendo now.

Best. Thing. Evar.

[atomicthumbs @ Jul 6th 2006 11:34AM]

IMPENDING dementia? I think that you should take out the impending.

[oshean @ Jul 6th 2006 11:35AM]

Presidential Picochat?

What's your friend codes dubya?

[still conservative @ Jul 6th 2006 11:50AM]

i'm sick of all these bush haters. find something new... geez.

[JT @ Jul 6th 2006 11:56AM]

"Still Conservative", I'm sick of Bush and yet I can't do anything about it. I guess my problem will have a longer and worse impact on the world than yours. So be happy.

[Tyre @ Jul 6th 2006 12:10PM]

"Screw Bush. What's the worst he could do? Invade your country and botch it up? Good going Nintendo. Stick it to the village idiot."
-John Doe

HA HA HA! You are so funny! It's because bush is dumb right? HA that is just hilarious. Good Lord get some new material.

[Skrilla @ Jul 6th 2006 12:10PM]

"JUST CANT WAIT FOR 2008"

so another worthless politician can take office - both sides are crooked!

[Peter @ Jul 6th 2006 12:13PM]

1/20/2009 The End of an Error.

[Josh* @ Jul 6th 2006 12:16PM]

Haha... Bush got burned.

[Mojo_Yugen @ Jul 6th 2006 12:17PM]

That decides it. I'm buying a Wii now.

[ne.kid @ Jul 6th 2006 12:21PM]

Yes, yes, everyone already knows from the numerous times you've made your loud opinions known that you don't like Bush. Way to go; you posted it again, again in a place that makes little sense to do so, and again the world has been changed because you did so ("sarcasm"). Thank you all for your excellent work in fixing such an awful problem by whining more about it.

In other news, I think the point of the article was that Nintendo sent the president (regardless of whom that is) a gift for his birthday, and that it was a unique gesture on their part. Good for them.

[cz440 @ Jul 6th 2006 12:23PM]

Got a DS Lite just recently, wow am I ever unimpressed... all hype, but there are no good games!

[JSanchez @ Jul 6th 2006 12:23PM]

You are kidding right? For one, it's a fox news link... for two, they found degraded weapons from 15-20 years ago. Not quite a reason to go to war with a country over some mustard gas that probably isn't even harmful anymore...

[Sick of the GOP @ Jul 6th 2006 12:26PM]

I'm sick of Bush and the incompetent no-nothing right wing fools running this country into the ground.

[mastershake @ Jul 6th 2006 12:27PM]

How did he botch Iraq? Have you been there? It is one of the most successful campaigns in history! And one of the most greatful peoples! and they say that terrorist propaganda and misinformation don't exsist and we are the evil ones. gee look around the terrorists understand us so well they have fooled so many, especially those in the media who only support the left because THEY are the ones who tax the poor and not the rich, go check your taxes, did you lose 36% of your income under Clinton, think not John Daily.
on a lighter note, the Japanese should have sent him a PSP with a special edition Splinter Cell or SOCOM, where the president can eliminate Kim the crazy Korean. after all he really isn't a threat to us, we're involved because the Japanese rely on us for defense since we took away thier army for misbehaving in the pacific. and while I agree he wouldn't have played mario cart, he might have actually liked nintendogs. Now if they really want to push some buttons, they need to send Dick Cheeney a DS with a ported Duck Hunt! that would be funny. Stop eating and start reading America, or you will look and sound like Michael Moore!!!!

[Sick of the GOP @ Jul 6th 2006 12:28PM]

That's "know nothing" grrr...

[Sukato @ Jul 6th 2006 12:32PM]

"Not quite a reason to go to war with a country over some mustard gas that probably isn't even harmful anymore..."

That right there shows that you really did no factual checking whatsoever, and you're just spouting nonsense without any actual basis to your claim, other than the fact that you just don't understand politics, and so you hate Bush for no reason. People make such a big deal over how terrible the war is and act like it's the biggest waste of life ever. Let me put it into perspective for you. We've been in Iraq for four years. We've lost 2,000 troops. We lost that much weekly during WWII. There are far worse things to have happened to America, and you incompetent Liberals can't see past your own egos to understand it.

And what's the fox news link have to do with anything? And they definitely weren't degraded. They were fully functional.

Dang, I said I wouldn't get involved...

[Zadillo @ Jul 6th 2006 12:41PM]

Sukato, please enlighten us. What history course would you recommend someone take that would show them that what Bush did (I assume you're referring to the invasion of Iraq) was "legitimate"? I can probably take some guesses, but I'd like to hear from you what course, and more particularly what previous historical examples add legitimacy. And for what it's worth, and something you should think about; a military operation can still be legitimate and still be a bad idea. There are many military operations that have had more legitimacy but would still be considered to be ill-advised.

And mastershake, I have to admit that I originally thought you were being sarcastic - "one of the most successful campaigns in history" - really? Have you been paying attention to the problems in Iraq right now, between the insurgency and the continuing political conflict? Even if you meant just the military operation itself, the only thing that can probably be said for it is that it was fast. But how could one say it was one of the most successful? The leadership did not listen to the military advisors who warned that going in with not enough troops to secure the country would be disasterous, and we've seen the results of that mistake. Namely, we didn't even have enough troops to properly secure the conventional weapon depots, so after the invasion, it was easy for many of the people causing the current problems to swoop in and take a lot of the weapons and explosives currently being used against the Iraqi people and American soldiers. And that still raises the big question; what if there had been active WMD's in the country? If we didn't even successfully gain control of the known conventional weapons, how could we have gained control of the WMD's they thought were there? And if we didn't plan to actually take control of the WMD's so they wouldn't fall into enemy hands, what exactly was the real purpose of the invasion? And I mean, what was the real purpose at the time (because if the real purpose was just to get rid of Saddam Hussein and set up a democracy, there are plenty of other countries that should have been done to).

And that isn't even to mention Afghanistan. That was also arguably a "successful" operation, but the US has neglected it, and now the Taliban is gaining control again in many pockets of the country. The US had a pretty bad history of sort of dropping the ball on this kind of thing.

[Zadillo @ Jul 6th 2006 12:53PM]

Sukato, did you even READ the FoxNews article you linked to? You said:

"And they definitely weren't degraded. They were fully functional."

But if you read Santorum's comments in the article, he said:

"Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent."

What part of degraded in that quote are you having trouble with?

Before you start namecalling and accusing someone else of not doing any fact-checking, you should do your own.

And for what it's worth, Santorum's general claims (that the WMD's found were the ones talked about in justifying the invasion), even the President disagrees with him.

The White House supported the Duelfer analysis and the Iraq Survey Group. in October 2004 he said:

"The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there."

The general conclusion of that report (which you can read at http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw_key-findings.htm still stands):

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."

This is where Santorum's comments fall apart. The justification for invading Iraq was that they were trying to produce new WMD's, and specifically that they already had them (thus the imminent threat that made invasion necessary). This is why the discovery of some old degraded WMD's does not really change anything, even though Santorum and FoxNews tried to argue that it did.

[Captain Obvious @ Jul 6th 2006 12:53PM]

Sukato, at least read the damn article fully.

From the Fox news article...

"Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions."

Doesn't sound like "fully functional" to me.

[still conservative @ Jul 6th 2006 12:56PM]

lol, i knew there'd be backlash, but this is more than i expected.

point is, liberals are just communists patting themselves on the back, congratulating themselves for being so enlightened.

liberals also preach tolerance, acceptance and love.
except for those that oppose them.
sounds fair right?...

[Zadillo @ Jul 6th 2006 1:00PM]

"He invaded Kuwait in the 90's, and the Democrat response was "Let him go. He won't do it again." "

What in the world are you talking about? Seriously, this is almost too funny. Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, and this was what precipated the Gulf War. The Democratic response has nothing to do with this, as George H.W. Bush was president then, and the US Congress actually voted for war in Iraq in 1991.

Where are you getting this that the Democratic response was to "let him go"?

Remember, we didn't actually take out Hussein during the Gulf War precisely because the elder Bush and his advisors, including Colin Powell, realized that it would not be wise to do so.

Iraq did not invade Kuwait again during the 90's. Iraq actually recognized Kuwait's borders in 1994.

Either way, there isn't specifically a comparison of European history and the current war in Iraq. Now, if we had let Hitler stay in power in WWII, and then 15 years later if we decided that Hitler was up to his old tricks and invaded Germany without them actually invading anyone again, that might be vaguely more comparable. But it's still a stretch.

[Zadillo @ Jul 6th 2006 1:04PM]

still conservatives, why should any liberal take you seriously if you are going to say they are communists? Just as a hint, liberalism and communism are not identical. I realize this may be hard for you to grasp, but this is the same reason why it is ridiculous when someone says that fascism and conservatism are the same, because they are not.

And really, this is one of the most tired arguments - saying that liberals who disagree with conservatives must somehow be hypocrites because that disagreement somehow violates the tenets of compassion, tolerance, etc. This is of course ridiculous. It's possible to have compassion for and tolerate someone while also still disagreeing with them on a political point.

[scott @ Jul 6th 2006 1:05PM]

look at engaadget and the rest of the abb crowd getting on their recycled, mother-earth friendly, non-animal tested soapbox! congrats to you! you're really sticking it to the conservatives with your witty commentary.

newsflash to john, good luck finding a major media outlet that is not slanted in some way, whether it's cnn, fox, the nyt, etc. that's life. they're all equally to blame for skewing news and op ed pieces, and have been doing it since colonial america. ever read any of the commentaries cnn runs from lou dobbs? they're as frothing at the mouth about how bush sucks as the right-wing/extremist conservatives go on and on about the perils of redefining marriage or any other ridiculous social issue they feel they need to control.

you may not like bush. guess what? nobody cares. in 2008, you think either side is going to run a better set of candidates? think again.

[Captian Obvious @ Jul 6th 2006 1:05PM]

I think my point was that people that twist phrases like “not usable” into “fully functional” look like a complete idiot.

[Sukato @ Jul 6th 2006 1:07PM]

Why is it that the only actual names that are given are the ones that are promoting the article. The only mentioned person who says they aren't functional is an "official". Real reliable.

"The report does suggest that some of the weapons were likely put on the black market and may have been used outside Iraq."

Sounds like you could use some of them to me. You really think people would buy non-functional weapons?

"Filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist." Working and non.

The justification was not that they were trying to produce new WMDs. It was that they had them, were lying about having them, were using them on their own people, and were planning to use them on us. There's still a whole lot of the report that is still classified. Yes, I admit that these are not the weapons we believed Iraq to have, but if they were lying about them, why would they be telling the truth now? It took three years for this part of the report to be declassified. We'll see what the rest of it says.

[Zadillo @ Jul 6th 2006 1:11PM]

Also Sukato, to respond to this point: "If there weren't any WMD's in Iraq, you really think that Hussein would have denied UN weapons inspectors?" - The general understanding now, and the only seemingly logical explanation for Hussein's behavior, is that he actually was fairly insulated, and did believe it when his advisors told him that they had active WMD production going on, etc. Of course, this was Hussein's justification for believing they had active WMD production, and thus his treatment of weapons inspectors, etc. Outside of Iraq, there was in fact intelligence that did make it pretty clear this wasn't true. However, the US and UK in particular, as well as other countries, seemed to ignore that intelligence and focus more on the intelligence that backed up the story that there was active WMD production, since that is the intelligence we were able to use to justify the invasion.

This was really one of the main problems, and is hopefully something we'll learn from in the future. You can not selectively pick and choose which intelligence you listen to. You can't give your intelligence community a directive to look for evidence that will back up what you already think you know, and ignore evidence that contradicts it. What you end up with is something like the current Iraq invasion and war. This is something that historians will be looking at and studying for a very long time, since all you can hope for is to not repeat the mistakes of the past.

[Craig Wood @ Jul 6th 2006 1:14PM]

Long Live the NES !!!

[Bronyaur @ Jul 6th 2006 1:15PM]

Sukato,

Trying to talk logically with the moonbat left is a lost cause. They get their facts from the people in the know, Dan Rather and his ilk.

Give it up.

[Sukato @ Jul 6th 2006 1:15PM]

Yeah that makes sense. You really think the guy who has that much power wouldn't know if his own country had WMD's or not? That is the most ridiculous justification I've ever heard. The man killed people on a whim if they told him something he didn't like. He had absolute control. He was the modern Absolute Monarch. The man's not stupid. He's shown that much. If he was, how could he have gotten as far as he did? Saying "Oh, my inspectors told me there weren't. I'm too stupid to find out what is happening in my own country" is just absurd.

[Sukato @ Jul 6th 2006 1:18PM]

And Ebolaboi, maybe if you'd define "real war", we could have an actual discussion. You've got to define your terms if you want to have a real argument.

[Zadillo @ Jul 6th 2006 1:18PM]

Well Sukato, again, this goes back to the previous question. We now know that we didn't even send in enough troops to control the conventional weapons depots that we did know about (thus allowing those weapons to fall into the hands of the current insurgency). If the justification for the war was to deal with the pre-existing WMD's from before 1991, what exactly was the purpose of the invasion? We didn't even send in enough troops to gain control of the conventional weapons depots, much less to gain control of these supposed WMD depots that we were worried they were going to use on us, Kuwait, etc.

That is the real problem here. Even if you try to revise the justifications (and please, you had administration officials warning about mushroom clouds and the like, not that they were worried Hussein was going to use pre-1991 WMD's).

Please feel free to continue interpreting events so that they don't cause you any cognitive dissonance. I just think it's funny that you can't seem to even admit things that even President Bush himself has admitted, however reluctantly.

[Sick of the GOP @ Jul 6th 2006 1:19PM]

"liberals also preach tolerance, acceptance and love.
except for those that oppose them.
sounds fair right?..."

Sounds like you hate liberals, but don't have a clue as what they actually believe. Imagine that! Another victory for Fox "News".

[Zadillo @ Jul 6th 2006 1:23PM]

Sukato, it's not specifically a justification (and btw, this is an issue that's been discussed by conservative think-tanks, etc. If you think it's ridiculous, blame them.). But yes, it is possible though for the leader of a country to be fairly insulated, and trust what his advisors tell him. Hussein after the 1st Gulf War was not an "absolute monarch", as you described (I think you are thinking of what he was like in the 80's, when the US supported him against Iran, and he had much more power to do whatever he wanted).

It doesn't really have anything to do with stupidity. But Hussein does seem to have lost something; you only need to see how unhinged he is right now (you have been paying attention to his trial right?). I mean, this is a guy who's claiming that the US is going to make him President again. It doesn't mean he's stupid, but he has been unhinged.

There aren't too many explanations for Hussein's actions in the late 90's and how he dealt with weapons inspectors. But there has been some evidence that does back up the idea that Hussein was incredibly insulated from what was going on around him.

[Anthony @ Jul 6th 2006 1:23PM]

I like Bush. He seems like a nice guy. Happy B-day, Mr. President. :-)

[Sukato @ Jul 6th 2006 1:26PM]

Right. Well, this is extremely off topic, and neither one of us is going to give in to the other, so there's really no point in discussing politics on Engadget.


I still love Nintendo.
The Wii is gonna own.

Thank you and goodnight.

[Zadillo @ Jul 6th 2006 1:27PM]

"And Ebolaboi, maybe if you'd define "real war", we could have an actual discussion. You've got to define your terms if you want to have a real argument." - Presumably Ebolaboi was referring to the difference between declared wars (like the Gulf War and WWII) and things like the current Iraq operation, where war was never actually declared (similar to Vietname, where war also was never specifically declared, or numerous other operations). I don't know that I'd say it isn't a "real war" though, even if some people don't want to admit as much, because it is a real war for the soldiers and civilians affected by it.

[Sukato @ Jul 6th 2006 1:31PM]

Yeah, great. He can answer for himself. I don't really care. You can just read my previous comment.