From here:
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?
It's one thing to call the President childish names, as the author does throughout this article. But to call for his assassination? That is beyond the pale.
The point is this: Some of the radical Left would be dancing in the streets if a crazed gunman took out the 43rd POTUS. That's how far their hatred towards our Commander-In-Chief extends.
Who here will condemn this vile rhetoric? And who will not?
Article comments
1 - Jason Koulouras
That is totally uncalled for - callous, rude and very very mean-spirited. That type of rhetoric does not belong in any paper of reputation
2 - RJ
Thanks, Jason. That's especially good to hear coming from a Canadian. Canada is hardly "Bush country," (except maybe Alberta...) as I'm sure you well know... ;-)
3 - boomcrashbaby
1) It is uncalled for, reads like a blog. There are hate speech laws in parts of Europe, I don't know about the UK, but it could very well have violated a law.
2) Bush has had more global protests against him than any leader anywhere in world history. When the American left says that Bush is an isolationist and has harbored more anti-American sentiment than before 9/11 because it's not confined to Islamic fundamentalists anymore, I believe the response of the Right, including the administration, has been "Who gives a f*ck what people over there think?"
4 - RJ
BTW, Jason, nice Blog. (You are, after all, BlogCritic of the Day!) :)
5 - RJ
Boom:
Thanks for opposing this horrid stuff. It is greatly to your credit that you did so, IMO.
As for the anti-Bush sentiment, I agree that much of the world hates him. But much of the world already hated America before he was even elected. In my opinion, he is simply the personification of that pre-existing hatred.
6 - RJ
This is not to say, of course, that his actions as President haven't exacerbated this hatred. They have. But to claim that the "global community" was pro-US before Bush was in office is not at all true.
7 - Hal Pawluk
Hate speech, RJ.
Aren't you embarrassed to write things like this?
8 - RJ
"Embarrassed"? Why would I be, Hal?
BTW, what side do you come down on, Hal? Is this a masterful piece of writing, or a vile quasi-death threat?
9 - boomcrashbaby
In my opinion, he is simply the personification of that pre-existing hatred.
This complete refusal to allow that Bush has any culpability in the anti-American sentiment is exactly what is exacerbating the problem, if one is to believe what foreigners tell us in blogs and um, newspapers and television. (The article wasn't critical of pre-existing foreign policy. It basically said Bush is a madman.) And it's odd that they (anti-Americanists worldwide) waited until he declared he would invade Iraq before they decided to act-upon & amplify-a-thousandfold, this pre-existing hatred.
10 - boomcrashbaby
oh, I was typing my response while you were writing your second response. I agree that there was pre-existing negative sentiment. But in many places now, it will take generations to fix. Something that wasn't there 4 years ago.
11 - Tim Hall
Not that I want to condone the stupid article, but it was supposed to have been a satirical piece. It appeared in the TV listings supplement.
It was not an editorial or op-ed piece in the main section of the paper.
Where is the outrage from you freepers when the likes of Ann Coulter says exactly the same sorts of things?
I think the hysterical outrage from the right wing of the blogosphere says more about the right wing of the blogosphere than it does about anything else.
12 - Hal Pawluk
Note this, RJ, from the Guardian piece:
Clearly the writer was trying to be funny. Although he did go over the line, any rational reader would realize it was not a call for an assassination, just a poor attempt at humor.Your comment, on the other hand:is just rabble-rousing right-wing hate speech.
13 - Tim Hall
The Freeposphere have been quoting that last line out of context; I bet most of the wingnuts who are frothing at the mouth haven't actually read the whole article (the fact that the whole Guardian site was down last night probably didn't help)
14 - urthshu
Wasn't funny in the least. Brooker should apologize.
15 - Shark
Hal has already pointed it out, but it's the ultimate IRONY when RJ posts something like this and then swings his broad brush with something like:
"...Some of the radical Left would be dancing in the streets if a crazed gunman took out the 43rd POTUS..."
BTW: I know it goes against your religion, RJ, but you should try reading some history: All the 'best' U.S. assassins were from the Right.
16 - Shark
I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that said:
"Saddam says Vote for Kerry!"
RJ (resident upholder of political morality and personal integrity): "Who here will condemn this vile rhetoric? And who will not?"
17 - Winston Smith
Yeah, it's a stupid comment, but it isn't supposed to be serious...he should take it back, but it's REALLY weird to treat it like a big deal.
Compare it, for example, to Jesse Helm's claim--while he was still a U.S. Senator--that Clinton shouldn't come to N.C. military bases or he might get shot.
Now, Helm's insanity (treason?) doesn't make the comments in question above o.k....but A U.S. Senator seriously suggesting a military coup aginst the president of the U.S. went uncondemned on the right... Is it really such a big deal that a questionable-at-most attempt to be humorous in a foreign newspaper isn't roiling liberals?
18 - Tim Hall
I find the hysterical reaction on the right wing of the Blogosphere completely over the top. Sure, it was a crass article. But it wasn't written for an international audience, but for a readership with a slightly more sophisticated sense of humour than the average freeper.
Just read the comment threads on A Small Victory or Tim Blair's sitr. Those people are scary.
Seeing as The Guardian is now suffering from DOS attacks and orchestrated mass email spamming campaigns, I don't believe they should apologise. To do so would be to give in to bullying.
19 - Jim Carruthers
Where is RJ's rightigenious outrageousity about the Evil Pretzels?
Oh, that's it, he only posts what he's told to.
While I don't condone assassination (unlike the US administration which which has made it policy along with torture), I think it's unnecessary for Shrub.
You know in your heart, his last words will be: "Hey, watch this!".
20 - curt
hey rj -
is mac diva's statement true, that you were once banned from blogging for abusing other posters?
hhmmmm, so my assessment that you're a phony hypocrite was correct. cool.
21 - boomcrashbaby
RJ was suspended for two weeks, but he continued to [make comments - edited] under the handle Anon. The only person I know who was banned, was a guy named Roger, and I'm not 100% sure he was formally banned. He's also back, but much more civil and posting under a new name. I don't know if others were aware of that. (at least it's from the same IP address).
22 - Stupid Jew
i will dance in the street when Bush is assassinated. i will dance long and hard.
23 - Gee Dubs
Hey there, poor sport. No need to break out the dancing shoes quite yet. I am not gonna make it easy for some goofball to toe-tag me. Learn to accept the democratic process and start grooming your candidate(s) for the next election instead of makeing a hate speech.
C'ya around.
G.W.