You gave us Bush
A good response to the Guardian's recent editorial was given by
Sir Banagor.
The link to the Guardian editorial now returns their retraction and apology, here is the most offending paragraph:
bq. 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?
I put the entire editorial at the bottom of this link -- click on the Continue reading "You gave us Bush" link to view it in it's entirety.
Sir Banagor points to the
Editorial link (now returning the retraction) and says:
bq. I imagine that, within a few days, there might be retractions after a firestorm, all making their way around the Internet blogs and, later, news shows on TV.
bq. But that isn’t what I will write about on this particular subject. The fact that somebody at The Guardian wants Bush dead is of absolutely no surprise; that it was put in print is perhaps a little more surprising, but not entirely shocking.
bq. What I’m going to write about, briefly, is how the Eurabians gave us Bush and Sharon.
bq. I don’t really have to explain it much at all to those who are already voting for Bush. But maybe some people on the other side might take note of their own little lectures about root causes.
Heh... He continues with:
bq. Just like the Left argues that terrorism doesn’t come out of a vacuum, neither do Bush and Sharon. They exist and have power for a reason: to kill terrorists.
bq. If somebody were to argue that this is a simplistic reason, I should remind them that it is no less simplistic than saying poverty and ignorance cause terrorism. The only difference is that my simple argument is true, and theirs is not; else we would be subject to half a billion terrorists coming from central Africa, and such is obviously not the case.
bq. No, terrorism is caused by hatred which can have absolutely nothing to do with ignorance and poverty. Many of the 19 hijackers from 9/11 were fairly well-to-do, and they had lived in Europe and the States (so you can’t say that they weren’t exposed to Western culture). Obviously they were never so poor as to need to beg on the street for their daily bread.
bq. Just as their terrorism comes out of a deep hatred for our world, Bush and Sharon come out of a deep response to that hatred.
There's a good bit more - click on the link to read the entire thing.
Sir Banagor is a good writer.
Charlie Brooker
Saturday October 23, 2004
The Guardian
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? (empasis mine)
Posted by DaveH at October 24, 2004 5:20 PM