St. Dubya, God's chosen president
Posted by: Bhoyo on 21 October 2004
We've been discussing elsewhere how the Christian Right - or, as I prefer to view them, the fundamentalists - support the Republican Party. Please read this article from the NY Times for a truly astonishing insight into this country. It's a long piece, but is essential reading from beginning to end.
You'll have to register, but it's free. Even if you had to pay, it would be worth it.
Without a doubt
Regards,
Davie
You'll have to register, but it's free. Even if you had to pay, it would be worth it.
Without a doubt
Regards,
Davie
Posted on: 21 October 2004 by Bhoyo
Some highlights
Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: ''This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them...
Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: ''This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them...
Posted on: 21 October 2004 by Bhoyo
More
The nation's founders, smarting still from the punitive pieties of Europe's state religions, were adamant about erecting a wall between organized religion and political authority. But suddenly, that seems like a long time ago.
George W. Bush - both captive and creator of this moment - has steadily, inexorably, changed the office itself. He has created the faith-based presidency.
And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the
president. He started by challenging me. ''You think he's an idiot, don't you?'' I said, no, I didn't. ''No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or
Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when
you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!''
The nation's founders, smarting still from the punitive pieties of Europe's state religions, were adamant about erecting a wall between organized religion and political authority. But suddenly, that seems like a long time ago.
George W. Bush - both captive and creator of this moment - has steadily, inexorably, changed the office itself. He has created the faith-based presidency.
And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the
president. He started by challenging me. ''You think he's an idiot, don't you?'' I said, no, I didn't. ''No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or
Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when
you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!''
Posted on: 21 October 2004 by ejl
One of the article's best points comes in the first sentence (about civil war in the Republican party). This doesn't get developed in the article, but it hits on exactly what I've been wondering. When is the libertarian wing of the Republican party going to wake up and realize that they don't have a voice anymore?
Except for defense, Bush has actively undermined nearly every central platform dear to classical libertarianism. His actively interventionist foreign policy is the antithesis of libertarians' preference for isolationism. His massive extension of the federal government bureaucracy is the antithesis of their governmental minimalism. His all-time record deficits (in real and inflation-adjusted terms) is the opposite of their fiscal conservativism. And his eagerness to use government to futher his Christian fundamentalism can't be anything but an abomination to libertarians' laissez faire ideology.
It's just incredible.
At least with Reagan and Bush I, you had the sense that they were basically libertarians who could put on a good game around the Chrisitian fundies. (Even if Reagan blew the budget on the Cold War simulation.) With Bush II it's the opposite; a fundamentalist who talks the libertarian game but who's actions have been very different. The intersting thing is that you can fake faith but not fiscal discipline.
Except for defense, Bush has actively undermined nearly every central platform dear to classical libertarianism. His actively interventionist foreign policy is the antithesis of libertarians' preference for isolationism. His massive extension of the federal government bureaucracy is the antithesis of their governmental minimalism. His all-time record deficits (in real and inflation-adjusted terms) is the opposite of their fiscal conservativism. And his eagerness to use government to futher his Christian fundamentalism can't be anything but an abomination to libertarians' laissez faire ideology.
It's just incredible.
At least with Reagan and Bush I, you had the sense that they were basically libertarians who could put on a good game around the Chrisitian fundies. (Even if Reagan blew the budget on the Cold War simulation.) With Bush II it's the opposite; a fundamentalist who talks the libertarian game but who's actions have been very different. The intersting thing is that you can fake faith but not fiscal discipline.
Posted on: 22 October 2004 by Simon Perry
ejl - good points. Are you a writer or political commentator by any chance? I was wondering why many in the republican party would put up with all this.
Can I ask our US Naimees a question. Have you heard about the imminent redeployment of British troops in Iraq? Its caused a lot of debate in the UK, but its seems too minor in terms of numbers of troops involved to hit the radar in the US media. The accusations here are that the troops are being deployed as part of a Bush pre-election ruse to look like the UK is taking on more of a role in Iraq.
Simon
Can I ask our US Naimees a question. Have you heard about the imminent redeployment of British troops in Iraq? Its caused a lot of debate in the UK, but its seems too minor in terms of numbers of troops involved to hit the radar in the US media. The accusations here are that the troops are being deployed as part of a Bush pre-election ruse to look like the UK is taking on more of a role in Iraq.
Simon
Posted on: 22 October 2004 by Bhoyo
Simon:
The redeployment has been reported fully here. However, in the closing weeks of an election campaign and with American soldiers dying every day in Iraq, you won't be surprised to hear that this is viewed in the States as a side issue.
Certainly it's a ruse. But it's only one of many. For instance, an assault on Fallujah could be seen as an electoral tactic. But that would be a double-edged one; heavy casualties could bolster Kerry. Many cynical observers are half expecting another ruse: the parading before the cameras of a captive Bin Laden or Zarqawi.
Regards,
Davie
The redeployment has been reported fully here. However, in the closing weeks of an election campaign and with American soldiers dying every day in Iraq, you won't be surprised to hear that this is viewed in the States as a side issue.
Certainly it's a ruse. But it's only one of many. For instance, an assault on Fallujah could be seen as an electoral tactic. But that would be a double-edged one; heavy casualties could bolster Kerry. Many cynical observers are half expecting another ruse: the parading before the cameras of a captive Bin Laden or Zarqawi.
Regards,
Davie
Posted on: 22 October 2004 by Simon Perry
I am flying to Denver (for work) on the 2 November. Should be interesting...
Simon
Simon
Posted on: 22 October 2004 by Simon Perry
No, but I live in hope. 
Posted on: 22 October 2004 by Joe Petrik
Found this commentary the other day, but forgot to post it. It's a letter written by John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D, the former Republican president.
Joe
__________________________________________
The Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 3½ years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.
Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we “always have.” We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.
As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.
The fact is that today’s “Republican” Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word “Republican” has always been synonymous with the word “responsibility,” which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today’s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.
Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.
In the Middle East crisis of 1991, President George H.W. Bush marshaled world opinion through the United Nations before employing military force to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Through negotiation he arranged for the action to be financed by all the industrialized nations, not just the United States. When Kuwait had been freed, President George H. W. Bush stayed within the United Nations mandate, aware of the dangers of occupying an entire nation.
Today many people are rightly concerned about our precious individual freedoms, our privacy, the basis of our democracy. Of course we must fight terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone overboard in doing so? I wonder. In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, “If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both.” I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.
The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation’s financial structure sound.
The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today’s Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.
Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically.
I celebrate, along with other Americans, the diversity of opinion in this country. But let it be based on careful thought. I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one’s parents or of our own ingrained habits.
John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, served on the White House staff between October 1958 and the end of the Eisenhower administration. From 1961 to 1964 he assisted his father in writing “The White House Years,” his Presidential memoirs. He served as American ambassador to Belgium between 1969 and 1971. He is the author of nine books, largely on military subjects.
Link here.
Joe
__________________________________________
The Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 3½ years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.
Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we “always have.” We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.
As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.
The fact is that today’s “Republican” Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word “Republican” has always been synonymous with the word “responsibility,” which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today’s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.
Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.
In the Middle East crisis of 1991, President George H.W. Bush marshaled world opinion through the United Nations before employing military force to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Through negotiation he arranged for the action to be financed by all the industrialized nations, not just the United States. When Kuwait had been freed, President George H. W. Bush stayed within the United Nations mandate, aware of the dangers of occupying an entire nation.
Today many people are rightly concerned about our precious individual freedoms, our privacy, the basis of our democracy. Of course we must fight terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone overboard in doing so? I wonder. In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, “If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both.” I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.
The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation’s financial structure sound.
The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today’s Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.
Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically.
I celebrate, along with other Americans, the diversity of opinion in this country. But let it be based on careful thought. I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one’s parents or of our own ingrained habits.
John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, served on the White House staff between October 1958 and the end of the Eisenhower administration. From 1961 to 1964 he assisted his father in writing “The White House Years,” his Presidential memoirs. He served as American ambassador to Belgium between 1969 and 1971. He is the author of nine books, largely on military subjects.
Link here.
Posted on: 22 October 2004 by MarkLamble
quote:
Originally posted by AlexG:
Simon
Have you ever had a full cavity search?
ag
Reminds me of a borrowed Porsche, a boot full of beer and some German border police with a sense of humour failure..... but that's a story for another time.....
Posted on: 23 October 2004 by Jez Quigley
Those without a sense of humour failure might want to amuse themselves with this:
http://i.euniverse.com/funpages/cms_content/6019/bohemianrhapsody.swf
http://i.euniverse.com/funpages/cms_content/6019/bohemianrhapsody.swf
Posted on: 23 October 2004 by Derek Wright
Posted on: 23 October 2004 by rodwsmith
Charlie Brooker has neatly encapsulated my feelings in words:
"Heady times. The US election draws ever nearer, and while the rest of the world bangs its head against the floorboards screaming "Please God, not Bush!", the candidates clash head to head in a series of live televised debates. It's a bit like American Idol, but with terrifying global ramifications. You've got to laugh.
Or have you? Have you seen the debates? I urge you to do so. The exemplary BBC News website (www.bbc.co.uk/news) hosts unexpurgated streaming footage of all the recent debates, plus clips from previous encounters, through Reagan and Carter, all the way back to Nixon versus JFK.
Watching Bush v Kerry, two things immediately strike you. First, the opening explanation of the rules makes the whole thing feel like a Radio 4 parlour game. And second, George W Bush is... well, he's... Jesus, where do you start?
The internet's a-buzz with speculation that Bush has been wearing a wire, receiving help from some off-stage lackey. Screen grabs appearing to show a mysterious bulge in the centre of his back are being traded like Top Trumps. Prior to seeing the debate footage, I regarded this with healthy scepticism: the whole "wire" scandal was just wishful thinking on behalf of some amateur Michael Moores, I figured. And then I watched the footage.
Quite frankly, the man's either wired or mad. If it's the former, he should be flung out of office: tarred, feathered and kicked in the nuts. And if it's the latter, his behaviour goes beyond strange, and heads toward terrifying. He looks like he's listening to something we can't hear. He blinks, he mumbles, he lets a sentence trail off, starts a new one, then reverts back to whatever he was saying in the first place. Each time he recalls a statistic (either from memory or the voice in his head), he flashes us a dumb little smile, like a toddler proudly showing off its first bowel movement. Forgive me for employing the language of the playground, but the man's a tool.
So I sit there and I watch this and I start scratching my head, because I'm trying to work out why Bush is afforded any kind of credence or respect whatsoever in his native country. His performance is so transparently bizarre, so feeble and stumbling, it's a miracle he wasn't laughed off the stage. And then I start hunting around the internet, looking to see what the US media made of the whole "wire" debate. And they just let it die. They mentioned it in passing, called it a wacko conspiracy theory and moved on.
Yet whether it turns out to be true or not, right now it's certainly plausible - even if you discount the bulge photos and simply watch the president's ridiculous smirking face. Perhaps he isn't wired. Perhaps he's just gone gaga. If you don't ask the questions, you'll never know the truth.
The silence is all the more troubling since in the past the US news media has had no problem at all covering other wacko conspiracy theories, ones with far less evidence to support them. (For infuriating confirmation of this, watch the second part of the must-see documentary series The Power Of Nightmares (Wed, 9pm, BBC2) and witness the absurd hounding of Bill Clinton over the Whitewater and Vince Foster non-scandals.)
Throughout the debate, John Kerry, for his part, looks and sounds a bit like a haunted tree. But at least he's not a lying, sniggering, drink-driving, selfish, reckless, ignorant, dangerous, backward, drooling, twitching, blinking, mouse-faced little cheat. And besides, in a fight between a tree and a bush, I know who I'd favour.
On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columnists/story/0,,1333748,00.html
I think the glib assassination comments at the end are a shame, although I see why they were made.
The USA has 270 million citizens as I understand it. Is George Bush really the best they can do?
Shame on all those who vote for Bush.
"Heady times. The US election draws ever nearer, and while the rest of the world bangs its head against the floorboards screaming "Please God, not Bush!", the candidates clash head to head in a series of live televised debates. It's a bit like American Idol, but with terrifying global ramifications. You've got to laugh.
Or have you? Have you seen the debates? I urge you to do so. The exemplary BBC News website (www.bbc.co.uk/news) hosts unexpurgated streaming footage of all the recent debates, plus clips from previous encounters, through Reagan and Carter, all the way back to Nixon versus JFK.
Watching Bush v Kerry, two things immediately strike you. First, the opening explanation of the rules makes the whole thing feel like a Radio 4 parlour game. And second, George W Bush is... well, he's... Jesus, where do you start?
The internet's a-buzz with speculation that Bush has been wearing a wire, receiving help from some off-stage lackey. Screen grabs appearing to show a mysterious bulge in the centre of his back are being traded like Top Trumps. Prior to seeing the debate footage, I regarded this with healthy scepticism: the whole "wire" scandal was just wishful thinking on behalf of some amateur Michael Moores, I figured. And then I watched the footage.
Quite frankly, the man's either wired or mad. If it's the former, he should be flung out of office: tarred, feathered and kicked in the nuts. And if it's the latter, his behaviour goes beyond strange, and heads toward terrifying. He looks like he's listening to something we can't hear. He blinks, he mumbles, he lets a sentence trail off, starts a new one, then reverts back to whatever he was saying in the first place. Each time he recalls a statistic (either from memory or the voice in his head), he flashes us a dumb little smile, like a toddler proudly showing off its first bowel movement. Forgive me for employing the language of the playground, but the man's a tool.
So I sit there and I watch this and I start scratching my head, because I'm trying to work out why Bush is afforded any kind of credence or respect whatsoever in his native country. His performance is so transparently bizarre, so feeble and stumbling, it's a miracle he wasn't laughed off the stage. And then I start hunting around the internet, looking to see what the US media made of the whole "wire" debate. And they just let it die. They mentioned it in passing, called it a wacko conspiracy theory and moved on.
Yet whether it turns out to be true or not, right now it's certainly plausible - even if you discount the bulge photos and simply watch the president's ridiculous smirking face. Perhaps he isn't wired. Perhaps he's just gone gaga. If you don't ask the questions, you'll never know the truth.
The silence is all the more troubling since in the past the US news media has had no problem at all covering other wacko conspiracy theories, ones with far less evidence to support them. (For infuriating confirmation of this, watch the second part of the must-see documentary series The Power Of Nightmares (Wed, 9pm, BBC2) and witness the absurd hounding of Bill Clinton over the Whitewater and Vince Foster non-scandals.)
Throughout the debate, John Kerry, for his part, looks and sounds a bit like a haunted tree. But at least he's not a lying, sniggering, drink-driving, selfish, reckless, ignorant, dangerous, backward, drooling, twitching, blinking, mouse-faced little cheat. And besides, in a fight between a tree and a bush, I know who I'd favour.
On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columnists/story/0,,1333748,00.html
I think the glib assassination comments at the end are a shame, although I see why they were made.
The USA has 270 million citizens as I understand it. Is George Bush really the best they can do?
Shame on all those who vote for Bush.
Posted on: 24 October 2004 by Bhoyo
Rod:
I understand, and sympathize with, your conclusion. Millions of Americans outside the Bible Belt are at least as confused as to why anyone would vote for the Chimp. BTW, American newspapers DO cover every bleep and fart of the campaign; there is isn't a conspiracy of silence. There is a HUGE variety of views in print and online on all aspects of the presidential race. But speaking as a journalist, yes, we could do better.
Did you read the NY Times piece at the top of this thread? It addresses many of the things that trouble you. And me.
Regards,
Davie
I understand, and sympathize with, your conclusion. Millions of Americans outside the Bible Belt are at least as confused as to why anyone would vote for the Chimp. BTW, American newspapers DO cover every bleep and fart of the campaign; there is isn't a conspiracy of silence. There is a HUGE variety of views in print and online on all aspects of the presidential race. But speaking as a journalist, yes, we could do better.
Did you read the NY Times piece at the top of this thread? It addresses many of the things that trouble you. And me.
Regards,
Davie
Posted on: 24 October 2004 by JonR
Davie,
It's a mistake I know, but I couldn't resist a titter when you said:-
Sorry - with the prevailing gloom at the likely result in November, one has to derive amusement somewhere!
jon
It's a mistake I know, but I couldn't resist a titter when you said:-
quote:
Originally posted by Bhoyo:
[..]there is isn't a conspiracy of silence.
Sorry - with the prevailing gloom at the likely result in November, one has to derive amusement somewhere!
jon
Posted on: 24 October 2004 by Bhoyo
The Guardian really should know better. Even in jest, advocating assassination is idiotic. This is now running in various places:
<<Washington D.C.'s Secret Service is investigating Charlie Brooker of the UK Guardian. The entertainment writer's weekend, anti-Bush tantrum, ending with the words, "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr.--where are you now that we need you," was picked up by the Drudge Report,--using Brooker's provocative last words as the main headline.
<<Citing federal statute 18 USC 879, Florida attorney John B. Thompson, called in the Secret Service Protective Intelligence Unit. "Please do whatever is necessary to punish the UK Guardian and to educate Matt Drudge on the meaning and scope of statute 18," Thompson wrote in a letter faxed to the SS on Saturday.
<<Thompson's letter indicates that not only was his complaint being taken seriously by the SS, but that it had already been tipped off about the Guardian story before receipt of his letter.
<<"I am relieved to find out that you were alerted to this danger last evening and are working on it.">>
[This message was edited by Bhoyo on Mon 25 October 2004 at 0:59.]
<<Washington D.C.'s Secret Service is investigating Charlie Brooker of the UK Guardian. The entertainment writer's weekend, anti-Bush tantrum, ending with the words, "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr.--where are you now that we need you," was picked up by the Drudge Report,--using Brooker's provocative last words as the main headline.
<<Citing federal statute 18 USC 879, Florida attorney John B. Thompson, called in the Secret Service Protective Intelligence Unit. "Please do whatever is necessary to punish the UK Guardian and to educate Matt Drudge on the meaning and scope of statute 18," Thompson wrote in a letter faxed to the SS on Saturday.
<<Thompson's letter indicates that not only was his complaint being taken seriously by the SS, but that it had already been tipped off about the Guardian story before receipt of his letter.
<<"I am relieved to find out that you were alerted to this danger last evening and are working on it.">>
[This message was edited by Bhoyo on Mon 25 October 2004 at 0:59.]
Posted on: 24 October 2004 by Bhoyo
Jon:
Woops! There go my journo credentials. Anyway it was wasn't a mistake.
Regards,
Davie
Woops! There go my journo credentials. Anyway it was wasn't a mistake.
Regards,
Davie
Posted on: 24 October 2004 by Steve Toy
Assassinating Bush (and Blair) is obviously an extremely bad idea, but it is also an extremely seductive bad idea.
Regards,
Steve.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 25 October 2004 by rodwsmith
Davie, thanks for the comments, and the link.
Incredibly, Brooker's piece was actually in the TV Review spot in the Guardian's Saturday entertainment guide. He normally has a rant about the dreadful plotlines in a Soap or bad acting in low-end TV output. The column is read and anticipated because he is normally very amusing.
That the throw-away assassination "joke" has been picked up by the American media is both amusing and symptomatic I think. Perhaps it was even a very clever method of getting the thing more widely read on the part of the Editor.
Personally I thought it undermined his otherwise well made points, but perhaps there was clever subterfuge at work.
Certainly it only reflects the kinds of comments that are being made in smoky bars* across the world.
All the best
Rod
*Except presumably the US. And Ireland where the bars aren't smoky anymore.
Incredibly, Brooker's piece was actually in the TV Review spot in the Guardian's Saturday entertainment guide. He normally has a rant about the dreadful plotlines in a Soap or bad acting in low-end TV output. The column is read and anticipated because he is normally very amusing.
That the throw-away assassination "joke" has been picked up by the American media is both amusing and symptomatic I think. Perhaps it was even a very clever method of getting the thing more widely read on the part of the Editor.
Personally I thought it undermined his otherwise well made points, but perhaps there was clever subterfuge at work.
Certainly it only reflects the kinds of comments that are being made in smoky bars* across the world.
All the best
Rod
*Except presumably the US. And Ireland where the bars aren't smoky anymore.