Tim Blair

Working for The Guardian, indeed.

As editors, no doubt.

SMG

The entire civilized world praying for his defeat, huh? Well, Im civilized and am praying for GWB reelection. Of course, I actually BELIEVE in the God to whom I pray, so I'm too unsophisticated for the Guardian crowd to consider credible.

And what, pray tell,is Sods law?

That guy's harsh. Wonder why he doesn't just take on the roll he's wishing for.

oh, and Brooker should be expecting a visit from the Secret Service soon............

dedbbie- It appears to be Murphy's Law.
BBC on Sod's Law
Marky's Guide to Sod's Law

I'm not exactly sure why it would be that Murphy's Law would disprove the existence of God. Wouldn't it be more likely to prove the existence of a higher power that either:
1. Had a great sense of humor, or
2. Hates us all very, very deeply?

I'm thinking 2, with "us" being replaced by "the Left." *cue evil laughter*

I see you can type a wee bit faster than I can, as I was just about to send you an e-mail on this very subject.

This is totally outrageous. If The Guardian thought Operation clark County garnered "eye-wateringly unpleasant" reaction, they ain't seen nothing yet!

John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

Lemme guess, his next column laments the downfall of Adolph Hitler?

John Hinckley is prime Guardian columnist material, if only the editors can get him sprung from the calabozo and stop his thorazine. Not sure about the other two. Historical accounts paint them as ideological crusaders, but not as mumbling psychotics. You need both qualities to really thrive at the Guardian.

Flakbait — I think it's more #1, but in line with Robin William's claim that the Almighty does weed. I mean, the platypus? "Hey, Darwin, fuck you!"

I sent this despicable article in the Guardian to a friend of mine who is undecided.

This is part of the reply he sent me this afternoon:

"That's it. I am voting Bush."

The pathetic Guardian proves yet again to be a good vote-getter for the Republicans....

The SwiftVets have picked this up as well. We will barrage them with E-Mails as we did the last time. But it would perhaps be better if some of our Vets paid them a little visit. These people are idiots.

Here's what The Guardian should do: get a database together of the president's itinerary and give out one by one the locations, dates, and times where Bush is supposed to be to people who sign up with their email addresses. Each person is to attempt to assassinate the president at the location and time assigned to them. It's the power of the web! Call it Operation Texas Book Depository.

That writing letters to Ohio voters thing was for suckers anyway.

Sainted blair!
this low life is advocatimg the murder of the american president!that's it !i'm not even givng tge guardian the privilage of being ysed in my tiolet any more , its back to the SMH.

Vote for kerry Vote for defeat and humiliation of the American people.
Vote for the self made "millionaires" kerry heinz combo and their nostalgia for humiliation and the hands of "cultured europe:"
oh deary deary! watch thoe eurowhips come out and see them squirm with pleasure if bush loses.
and co back to the policies of the pasty, pockmarked Jimmy Carter, the man who put the "R" into iran and brought you modern terrorism.
Ah the life of the rich and famous!
except these two never had to work for a single cent.
kerry is nothing but an ageing "courreur de dote"
they know the price of everything and the value of nothing and that includes freedom

soon you[ll all be learning french at school whils the french will be learning arabic

Well, it's that time again... don't hurt me, Andrea:

Here is a mailing list to express your appreciation to the Guardian for its journalistic excellence. Just cut and paste into the address box of your e-mail

O, Jill Dando's anoymous assassin, where are you now that we need you and do you do hack comedian columnists, too?

mailing list

John Hinckley, was tied to both neo-nazi's and an
Iranian splinter group. Oswald was a marxist, who
hung around Czarist and anti-castro exiles, for cover; and one does recall he first planned to hit
Nixon

un
fucking
believeable

Is this guy a closet Klan-lover or is he just pro-slavery? John Wilkes Booth shot the man who brought us the Emancipation Proclamation, much as Bush has brought freedom to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Their thanks is for this British wanker to wish them assassinated.

Does BDS know no limits?

my emails have been sent already, asking if Charlie Brooker was indeed advocating the assassination of a US president, and if so, had The Guardian no decency at all? I know the answer to the question, but I thought I'd be polite and give them a chance to respond. No doubt it'll be some leftoid weaselspeak trying to get out from under this fresh internet hell about to descend on them.

Ha ha ha ha ha. This is one of the best columns I've read for weeks.

Of course, you forgot the best part:

(on Bush) "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."

Fucking briliant.

Oh, I get it -- it's funny to joke about killing your political opponents! Gosh, next time I see some protestors, I'll make jokes about not having a PLA T-62 main battle tank around when you need it. Accuse us of crushing dissent! I'll show you crushing of dissent. Get it, CRUSHing!

HAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHA! HAHAHA!

What a shithead.

(snicker)

Oh Andrea, I can see you're hurt...

Bush is just a political opponent, he's a fundementalist killer, kinda like Bin Laden. And if he wasn't killing, but just saying stupid shit on TV, it would be funny.

Everytime Justin Eagle posts I feel the polls swing towards Bush. Ahhhh...

"Fucking Briliant" (sic)--Justin the goof.

[Comment deleted by the Management.]

Anyone else unable to access the Guardian website?

As I just commented to Scott Burgess, someone should send a copy of this column to everyone in Clark County.

PS Same here Julie - I can't access the Guardian at the moment either.

He's still smarting from Charles I, probably. Americans traditionally vote on their leaders.

Natalie: I think the Guardian has been Freeped! Maybe, this is what they need. Calling for assassins is not protected speech. If the Guardian is going to continue acting irresponsibly, if not criminally, they shd be shut down.

Who's this guy?
Writing for the which?
What's this all about?
Is this something we're supposed to be interested in?
Has anybody been interested in whatever it is before this?
I'm missing something.

If it is acceptable for the Guardian to call for the assassination of the US head of state, is it acceptable to call for the assassination of Guardian editors.

You reap what you sow. The Guardian is sowing the wind.

They really dont understand what they are doing.

Sometime a long, long ago in Britain, maybe after the war, someone remarked that only a British government, on an island surrounded by fish and made almost entirely of coal, could contrive to produce a shortage of both.

This had to be the time that the Guardian reached its zenith. With little need for paper to ignite a coal fire and few fish to be wrapped, this piece of crap got a foothold and has been with us ever since. The only other use was prohibited by the difficulty of getting ink stains out of your underwear.

So, how will this end? By some dumb lukewarm apology hissed from behind clinched green teeth.

Bush has nothing to worry about. The Guardian is a piss-ant Quicki-Shopper rag for Lefties in serious need of a free idea and a word with more than one syllable.

The day that an epicene Guardian columnist, or friendly reader, develops the balls to fight anything more aggressive than head lice will never come.

Julie:

C'mon. The NHS Dental Police prohibit the clenching of dentures made of plaster and Chicklets.

"So, how will this end? By some dumb lukewarm apology hissed from behind clinched green teeth."

Ewww. Probably right, though.

This is very serious and i fear a precedence may now be set with someone calling for the assasination of Guardian Editors. Please help stamp out this incitement to murder.

Forward your complaints regarding the Guardian to the Press Complaints Commission

1 Salisbury Square
London
EC4Y 8JB

Help Line: +44 20 7353 3732
Switchboard: +44 20 7353 1248
Facsimile: +44 20 7353 8355
Textphone: +44 20 7583 2264
E-mail: complaints@pcc.org.uk
Scottish Help Line: +44 131 220 6652
Welsh Help Line: +44 29 2039 5570
24 hour Press Office line: +44 7669 195539

Since the Guardian's Charlie Brooker seems to be appealing for the murder of the leader of major British ally, perhaps the MI5 should be made aware of it. They have a handy online form for reporting possible threats.

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/Page133.html

I still can't access the Guardian article, but I did get through to their blog page where one can leave a comment(s). Go for it.
Guardian

"Oh Andrea, I can see you're hurt..."

This was posted after a comment from a completely different person named Andrew. Justin Eagle is not only a shithead, he's a stupid shithead. And he is also banned again.

Who wants to join in my petition to have "Justin Eagle" assassinated?

I think the world, and certainly this blog, would be much better off.

By the way, didn't the Guardian already propose this?

Ah yes, here:

Gee, they must be low on ideas to rehash this little piece of stupidity.

actually, as my bride pointed out to me this is somewhat of a backhanded compliment: in this fellow's view bush is the equal of lincoln, kennedy, and reagan. not bad company, really.

By the way, "Justin Eagle's" IP address (162.84.231.59) resolved to Brooklyn, NY. I went ahead and not only banned that IP, but the entire range of IPs above that. Thus it is possible someone else using Verizon's internet service from the Brooklyn area will not be able to post a comment here. Well, they can blame a troll for that.

Egads, Quentin! You're right! The article has been removed as no doubt the Brooker one will be. But one week later do pull the same dumbass stunt. Let's see. In approx one week 2 Kill Bush and 1 interference with our election process.

Mr. Bingley: I have also come to that conclusion about the Bush-haters.

Hm. The Guardian's site does seem to be down. Well fortunately I saved the article with the, er, compliments to Spleenville. I didn't have time to save this one though.

Make that: But one week later they pull the same dumbass stunt

well, now i know why i've always been kind of sweet on you, andrea ;)

Is there a cached copy of the article anywhere? Thanks.

Y'know Mr. Bingley and Andrea,

The Lincoln/JFK/Reagan link also occured to me.

So too did the nexus of morally bankrupt thespians (Booth), frustrated loner Leftists (Oswald), and mentally deranged solipsists (Hinckley).

Who today are Bush, Blair, and Howard's main domestic opposition?

And let's not forget the devout Palestinian Muslim Sirhan Sirhan, outraged by RFK's support of Israel.

The FBI and Secret Service had better be on the ball.

Maybe we should let Hinckley out of jail, give 'im a free plane ticket to London, and tell 'im the Guardian's executive editor is making it big time with Jodie Foster.

Hey, the Guardian's back up.

Someone commenting at The Daily Ablution helpfully linked to this Charlie Brooker fact sheet. And Susan, I hear he's dating Jodie Foster.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columnists/story/0,,1333748,00.html

This link worked to bring up the whole article at the time when I posted it. Somebody copy it or mirror it before they take it down. Don't let the Guardian get away with hiding this thing.

One would think that a Kerry supporter like our dear Guardian writer would think twice before bringing Lee Havrey Oswald into the conversation. Don't want start a JFK assassination jinx...

Gosh Andrea, you're right -- I am a turd-sucker to the nth degree.

[Comment altered to a more pleasing form by the Management. Keep posting, loser, and find your comments turned into something "different."]

I heard that the Guardian people like to send and receive email. So, here is a list for sending.

[This list has been posted here at least twenty times so I am removing it. The Management.]

One of the contributors at Littlegreenfootballs posted a copy of the column just in case...

Whoa, somebody disagreed, and so you banned his whole IP range.

This is the free speech that Bush '04 supporters are aiming for?

Makes me glad I don't live in the US.

- A very scared foreigner.

NB: The Guardian article is by a weekly writer in their TV Guide pullout, not the main newspaper - nor is it editorial comment. Merely the opinions of one guy.

"- A very scared foreigner."

Good. Stay that way.

The events in the US elections have global repercussions, especially with UK foreign policy tracking the US so closely.

This works both ways - I'm sure my Conservative friends here are hoping against a Kerry victory just as you are.

The only reason I posted was to point out a discrepancy in the logic you appear to have used, and to tidy up the facts surrounding the Guardian article.

Tom:

Don't pull that "oooh, what about free speech?" crap on this one. If that person wants to post nasty comments, he/she/it is free to get his own site and do so. This site is privately owned and run, so the owners can do whatever they damn well please with it.

And FYI, if the column appeared in any part of The Guardian, it is The Guardian that should get hammered. Trying to play it off as some lonester ain't cutting it.

Glad you don't live here too, if you don't like it.

Ya know, if ever there was an obnoxious asshole whose posts should be disappeared completely (not just replaced with a removal notice), it's that sociopath Justin. Don't even give that little leech the satisfaction of seeing his name on the screen.

Plenty of folks have disagreed on this list, Tom. It's been my observation that they only get banned when they're abusive about it. Some people don't know the difference. I'm glad Andrea does.

And I don't give a shit where the article was in The Smarmian. SOMEBODY approved it.

Come on Tim, this is just some of the nuanced British irony that us Yanks and you Aussies are too simplistic to appreciate.

When Charlie Booker says, "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?", he's making a sly reference to Republican attempts to suppress the black vote by keeping them away from the voting booths as John Wilkes wanted to do; his support for John Kerry, as Oswald killed another former senator from Massachusetts who had been elected president; and, um, I guess Hinckley must be rhyming slang for something related to a respectful approach to democratic elections and the will of the people. I mean, if he was talking about murdering US presidents, why is John Hinckley Jr in this list instead of Leon Czolgosz?

Either that or Mr. Parker is a tendentious, mayhem-seeking lowlife who wishes the US to imitate the good old days of 18th century British elections like those depicted in William Hogarth's prints.

I'm curious, Justin Eagle ( very clever)... as I live in Queens, I know it's 8 PM on a Saturday night as you post your vitriol. I'm wondering why you're sitting home, posting foul mouthed rants you KNOW no one on this site agrees with, instead of particpating in conversations with people who share your views. How about a girlfriend, or boyfriend ( I'm open minded) Don't you have any friends to go out with? I'm a middle aged woman, but if I was young like you, I'd be out. Maybe that's why you are so angry, go out and have some FUN! This is silly, and sad, for you.

Whoa, somebody disagreed, and so you banned his whole IP range.

He's been banned repeatedly before, and been told about that. Incidentally, I believe in several European countries Justin would have exposed himself to the possibility of criminal investigations by now, since Andrea has taken reasonable steps to prevent his access to Spleenville, which he intentionally keeps circumventing. I wonder what U.S. law has to say about that...

And as Glen said, don't even try to peddle that "attack on free speech" nonsense. I'm not American, but even I know that doesn't apply to speech on private property. Perhaps you'd enjoy a little informative reading about the U.S. Constitution?

So Tom, being in the TV section excuses incitment to murder? I thought that was a crime in Britain, where I am guessing you live, although I remember reading that when Muslims were rioting and calling for the death of Salman Rushdie the police stood by and did nothing about such incitments. Too much trouble, or possibly too dangerous, to interfere.

Andrea is a private citizen who owns spleenville. If she wants to ban somebody she can. It's no more interference with free speech than banning a burglar from entering your home is interfering with said burglar's freedom of movement. The First Amendment applies to governments, not individuals.

What are you scared about? That under Bush the US will destroy the jihadi terrorists before they can blow up the Houses of Parliament?

Pam - I personally find talking to people who don't share my views exponentially more satisfying.

The point isn't to try and beat them into submission, or call them idiots, or flame them - it's to understand their opinions and state of mind and adjust your opinion depending on what you glean from that.

If someone here gives me compelling reason to support another Bush term, i'll jump right onto the boat, but as it is, all I see is cliquey, close-minded garbage.

The article was written in the vein of Roman satire, and whilst not approaching the quality of Roman classics, it remains satire rather than a direct threat on behalf of a whole media bloc. So calm down, to most people reading it I can see it not being that big a deal - whether they agree or disagree.

I have sent emails, and now I'm looking up any advertisers with the Guardian as well. I would love to see a concerted effort made to put these pricks out of business.

I'm really looking forward to watching the reaction of the American and European left after Bush is re-elected. For some reason I keep visualizing the skin-melting, skull exploding climax of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

"Andrea is a private citizen who owns spleenville. If she wants to ban somebody she can. It's no more interference with free speech than banning a burglar from entering your home is interfering with said burglar's freedom of movement. The First Amendment applies to governments, not individuals."

I'm well aware of that, having run US hosted web forums for a long while now. But on personal principle I allow free expression of political views on them, even though I'm paying the hosting bill and thus the server is mine. I don't want to be the "baddie" censor, though, so I allowed political "flamebait" as much as it may have annoyed me inside.

"What are you scared about? That under Bush the US will destroy the jihadi terrorists before they can blow up the Houses of Parliament?"

Nope, I grew up in London at the height of the IRA's bomb threats, so I'm quite used to threats of a building being blown up.

I'm more worried that Bush's actions will cause tension in the world on a far greater scale, and not just between groups of nutjobs and "us", but rather disagreements on a far greater, far more formal, international stage.

The point isn't to try and beat them into submission, or call them idiots, or flame them - it's to understand their opinions and state of mind and adjust your opinion depending on what you glean from that.

Justin Eagle has spoken thusly (the only post I can readily find that Andrea didn't take down...I've seen some of those, and they were worse):

"You guys are a bunch of fucking monkeys that deserve everything the Bushies are going to do to you. (...) You are bloodthirsty fucks and I'd almost feel sorry for you if this war could be brought to an end sometime soon. (...) This isn't a war on terrorism, or to find weapons of mass destruction. It's a racist bid to start World War III. (...) freepers and FOX viewers think we were attacked by Saddam, as do all the happy monkeys jumping into the insult game here. All Arabs and Muslims are all the same, right. Racist and/or ignorant shitheads all of you. (...) This page is easily one of the most disgusting ones I've ever scene. You freeper types make me wanna move to another planet. Just knowing we breath the same air makes me wanna vomit. I hate all of you more than words can ever explain."

Now tell us again how we should try and "understand [his] opinions and state of mind and adjust [our] opinion depending on what [we] glean from that."

What almost everybody here gleaned from that is that Justin is a raving nutcase who shouldn't be allowed to wipe his ass himself, let alone be allowed to post here. YMMV, of course. Since Justin left his (presumably correct) email address, how about you enter into some email correspondence with him and report back to us how that went?

The article was written in the vein of Roman satire

The Secret Service generally loses their sense of satire when a threat against a sitting President's life is made. Interesting to know that you found it entertaining, though.

I'm more worried that Bush's actions will cause tension in the world on a far greater scale, and not just between groups of nutjobs and "us", but rather disagreements on a far greater, far more formal, international stage.

gosh, i don't know. i think all of this may serve as a wake up call to folks, to get them to think where they stand.

Ahh
"Just groups of nutjobs"
No problem then. What have we been worried about?

i get tired of these assholes who try to excuse their immature, peevish outbursts as 'satire'.

Gee, Tom. I was under the impression that it's been Islamic terrorists' actions that have done that. Over about the past 30 years, I think.

We all know that most Americans have been notoriously uninterested in foreign policy for years and cannot find major world sites on a map. They don't like to read either - it would be interesting ask what are your three favorite books on the Middle East? Do you know any Arabs?

This is getting ridiculous, does Karl Rove have secret agents everywhere? The Guardian must be nest of them.

I wasn't downplaying the threats that nutjobs can make - from Al Qaeda to the Unabomber, weirdos are DANGEROUS. Simply postulating that by launching a broadshot war on any country remotely related to them (Axis of Evil), might push more moderate foreigners towards the extremist ends of the spectrum.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/glennreynolds/story/0,15140,1332330,00.html

The Guardian also hire Mr. IP himself to write one of their US election columns. Hardly the sign of an entirely biased newspaper - whilst I do agree that the editorial line is very left-wing.

Anyway, I'm not going to loose sleep arguing about stuff. Just thought I'd show up and perhaps at least confirm that some left-wingers can express themselves without bowing to the more rabid desires of human natures.

Best wishes
Tom

3 favorite books on the middle east?

hmmmm

job, first kings, and luke.

"unwarranted bloodshed" ...I wonder if he was upset about the bloodshed under Saddam...somehow, I think not.

Before I am collared by the inevitable spelling fairy, I'd like to apologise for the myriad of errors in my responses. I'm tired, and I haven't been proof reading. Please excuse that oversite ;)

"The article was written in the vein of Roman satire"

Oh give me a fucking break Tom. Not only did the article not "approach the quality of Roman classics", it didn't even approach the quality of Roman graffiti. So please, spare us more of your patronizing lectures.

By the way, if you disapprove of the way I run the sites I manage, please feel free to go elsewhere. It's a big internet.

"I wonder if he was upset about the bloodshed under Saddam...somehow, I think not."

Indeed, just as i am worried about the mass genocide in Turkey around the same time as Saddam, and the famines (due to the Government's fault) in North Korea, that left thousands upon thousands dead.

The difference is that I don't advocate war (or "regime change") as a method to solve such crises.

Typical of the deep thinking and foresight of Guardian writing. If Brooker gets his wish:

President Cheney.

We all know that most Americans have been notoriously uninterested in foreign policy for years and cannot find major world sites on a map.

Phillip Adams is that you?

They don't like to read either - it would be interesting ask what are your three favorite books on the Middle East?

Please tell us, oh widely read-one, what yours are?

Do you know any Arabs?

Do you know any Americans?

Andrea,
I hate to leave now, but I must.

I didn't find the article particularly funny, but it's certainly not a serious statement on the part of the author - by likening it to satire i'm not using condescention to make it better, just pointing the fact that it's nowhere near a death threat.

Now, as for Operation Clark County, that, I will agree with you, was a fucking bad idea.

Sleep Well.

From Tom,
"The difference is that I don't advocate war (or "regime change") as a method to solve such crises."
So what do you advocate,Tom? A lot of people seem to think that standing around talking for several years while folks are slaughtered is a good tactic. From your comments it seems that you do too.
I like Bush and Co's idea of doing something a bit more positive.

As it's only 8:36pm Saturday night, I think I'll stay up a while.

"John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?"

Those who seek nuance and subtlety will be upset by Mr.Brooker's hectoring tone. The only way to stop those people at the Guardian, who have no racial or social value is by legislation. Something along the lines of a "Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Progeny". Where are the guys from 'Aktion 14f13' when we need you?

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Brice_Lalonde
Interesting reading when doing Google search Of Lee Harvey Oswald Forbes Kerry
Forbes made fortune in Opium Trade and family searchs show strong lionks to communist party
the above link to Kery's first cousin and good friend make the French Connection understandable

I am a Norwegian, and I am OUTRAGED by this article in the Guardian.

Don't buy pathetic excuses of "it was just a joke" or "satire". These spineless cowards will not even admit to their own bile of hate.

These people (The Guardian, The Euro Left, MANY of Kerry's base) are a group of despicable characters, filled with hatred for everything America stand for, hatred for freedom and justice.

As an European, I want to express my sadness and outrage over this.

The Guardian proves once again that it and its readers live in bizarro world.

These current bizarro-worlders are about the most dangerous fifth-coloumnists which have ever been seen in the West.

We conservatives accept that ultimately we have to live with these bizarro-worlders, while they would rather exterminate us, and would make alliances with our mutual enemies to that purpose, thinking the crocodile will eat them last...

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.

So what?
Besides, smooth talkers make the best liars.

Having endured four years of Jesse Ventura (who recently endorsed Kerry) as my governor, I think I must have been innoculated to bieng annoyed by mangled syntax.

Maybe this Justin Eaglet is too young to remember George the elder, but he was damn near as bad as W. off the cuff.

Get over it, leadership comes from many places, a capacity glibness is near the bottom of the list.

At least most of those in the USA seem to have the sense to dismiss the wild incoherent ramblings of the Guardian elite who are so stuffed into the intellectual self-panegyric mode that they fail even to faintly perceive reality in any form whatsoever.

The Guardian's elitist mentality seems to be entrenched in an Elizabethen (#1) perception of British superiority. In fact, it harks back to when William the Conqueror overtook England and replaced all British rulers with French Aristocracy. The British aristocracy still speak French and look down on the normal population of England who are not nearly as stupid as they like to think.

The democrats are proving their madness daily, Kerry even intends to crown himself King of the Known and Unknown universe midday on 2nd november, minutes prior to sending 6,000 lawyers headed by John 'pretty boy' Edwards into action in an attempt to discredit President Bushs second term.

No doubt we all find it hard to miss the democrats lurking ambitions to assassinate.

Meanwhile I am searching for barf bags after watching ninemsn trot out a film by George Butler on Kerry in Vietnam showing him in a favourable light and completely neglecting facts. Such as the fact only one Swiftvet out of hundreds seemed to be on the film saying anything good about Kerry, and the rest I assume do not exist?

And ignoring those who claim they were tortured as a result of Kerrys testimony, and his 20 year non record as a Senator.

I can understand why when Kerry sees this spin hes deluding himself into thinking it means he can lead the USA.

I hope no one else is deluded by it as I would like a better world without tyrants like Saddam torturing his own people. They is no logical reason to find justication to keep the worlds wrongs rolling along, and applaud President Bushs Presidency wholeheartedly, and our PM's support of it.

They don't like to read either - it would be interesting ask what are your three favorite books on the Middle East?

Counter-question, Fu: What are your three favorite books written in the Middle East? Or any three books written there that achieved world-wide popular appeal?

(And no, Israeli authors don't count, since most Arabs won't consider Israel a legitimate part of the Middle East anyway. Further deductions for mentioning the Quran as one of your three books.)

Can any commentators on this blog tell me why the meaningless "free speech" strawman is brought up when disruptive trolls are banned from this blog?

I'm more worried that Bush's actions will cause tension in the world on a far greater scale, and not just between groups of nutjobs and "us", but rather disagreements on a far greater, far more formal, international stage.

A strong case you've made for the U.N. style of conflict management Tom? Which works terrifically well if you happen to be a comfortable, western, middle class twat.Not so good if you live in places like the Sudan and are the wrong type of Muslim. Never mind ,I'm sure a resolution is only a decade away.But please lets not offend anyone,eh?

We all know that most Americans have been notoriously uninterested in foreign policy for years and cannot find major world sites on a map. They don't like to read either - it would be interesting ask what are your three favorite books on the Middle East? Do you know any Arabs?

As an American, I have been vastly interested in other parts of the world, and have managed to visit a few of them. I can read a map, although I'm not good at figuring out the mileage thingy. I've even been known to read a book or two, and one of them was the Koran. As for knowing Arabs --- I worked at a university for a number of years, so I did meet quite a few of them. Frankly, I didn't like any of them, but that was my own personal bias against being treated like a dog.

It's amazing how many people have not yet understood the reasons for the Iraq campaign. There were many, but I will just describe one, one that I think is the most important.

The terrorism that hit us on 9/11 grows out of the dysfunctional political culture of the Arab world. To put down the terrorism and the jihadis before they are able to turn to nuclear terrorism, and to prevent this scourge from becoming the standard warmaking method of the 21st century, this political culture must be reformed. Specialists on the subject of Middle Eastern affairs have long thought, since the 1920s, that Iraq is the best place to start such reform. So overthrowing the tyranny of Saddam and his Ba'athists and trying to implant halfway decent government there is the start of the longer effort to reform the Arab and Muslim political culture. Unless you take the view that Arabs are just a buch of Wogs who like being tyrannized and deserve nothing better, it's hard to see why one would object to this attempt to get at the root causes of terrorism.

Now for Tom's attempts at ad hominem diversions from actual reasoning.

Do I know any Arabs? Yes.

My favorite books on the Middle East?

What Went Wrong by Bernard Lewis.
The Crisis of Islam by Bernard Lewis.
The Closed Circle by David Pryce-Jones (a very enlightening book).
The Hidden Hand by Daniel Pipes.

I could cite others, Tom, but you only asked for three and I gave you four.

While I've looked at this blog off and on for a while, I came to post here because I was so disgusted that everybody here was having a field day making fun of photos of people who oppose this obscene war in Iraq.

However, I've lingered and continued to post because my comments have been wiped and I've been repeatedly banned because I've stated on this right-wing blog that I HATE immoral war and all those who think it's just wonderful to attack weak countries, kill thousands and take over their government. And it's so much fun to make fun of people who aren't in favor of mass death isn't it.

All this banning, just like the Bush-Cheney rallies where you can't attend unless you sign a loyalty oath, tells me one thing. You Bush lovers know, deep deep down, that you are DEATHLY wrong. You're just too deep into the bloodthirsty to stop now. And reading, or hearing, any opinion that varies from your hatred of Muslims, or your love of a Christian extremist American President is just TOO much to take.

Okay Andrea, I'll just sit here in the corner and suck on this turd while you delete my dissent. After all, freedom is on the march....

Can any commentators on this blog tell me why the meaningless "free speech" strawman is brought up when disruptive trolls are banned from this blog?

I can't, but it's a sufficiently longstanding strawman concept that it used to be derided as "free speach" (misspelling intentional) on Usenet as far back as the early 1980s. Primarily applied to spamming back then, but the shoe fits trolls perfectly well, too.

Actually it wasn't Tom, it was "Fu"--or maybe better "Fou" :-) his e-mail address indicated the French persuasion.

My favorite book about the Middle East is Bernard Lewis' ``What Went Wrong?'' It's about the decline of Muslim culture from its apogee in the early Middle Ages to its present squalor. Highly recommended.

My apologies, that was Fu's ad hominem response.

John Gibson of Foxnews was fined by the Brits for saying the BBC lied on his show (an opinion show).

Surely since you can't "lie" on the tube, you can't lie in print. Is there some place we can complain to other than the Guardian?

"A strong case you've made for the U.N. style of conflict management Tom? Which works terrifically well if you happen to be a comfortable, western, middle class twat."

Margaret Thatcher seems an excellent source to draw on in this situation.

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left. "

You Bush lovers know, deep deep down, that you are DEATHLY wrong. You're just too deep into the bloodthirsty to stop now.

Pure fantasy. You dont know what "I know". Get help.

Fu: I live in the American heartland (Wisconsin). Here's some news for you: I have co-workers from Muslim countries, as well as from Mexico, Korea, and even Italy and England. I can buy sushi and tabbouli and balsamic vinegar at the grocery store 2 blocks away. And I've probably read more books on the ME than you have - Bernard Lewis is the best of the bunch, IMHO.

Here's my question: why do you insist on stereotyping Americans? When I traveled around the UK and Europe, I had a hard time not laughing in a lot of supposedly sophisticated Euro faces when they spoke of what they thought America was. They clearly had gotten their ridiculous ideas from TV, movies, and their own leftist media. I met someone in Oxford who seemed to think "Dallas" was a true-to-life picture of Life in Texas, instead of an entertainingly trashy soap. That's like believing that everyone in Australia is decked out like Paul Horgan, just tearing around in the Outback 24/7 and saying "fair dinkum!" 400 times a day.

Interesting that the people who profess to believe in "understanding other cultures" have next to no understanding of or sympathy for ( or even curiousity about) the culture of flyover America, even though the opinions and choices of middle Americans ultimately effects their lives and the world much more than the lifestyle of the Zimmi-Zammi tribe of outer Patagonia does.

I HATE immoral war and all those who think it's just wonderful to attack weak countries, kill thousands and take over their government.

Nah, you only hate wars started by the U.S., kiddo. Otherwise you'd be equally pissed off by things like the French and Chinese protecting their oil interests by interfering in U.S. and UN attempts to end the slaughter in Sudan. Plenty more people have died there in the last few months than under U.S. occupation in Iraq, but since the U.S. can't be painted as the bad guy in Sudan, I guess it's not interesting to you and the "peace" movement.

Or maybe it's simply that you don't wish to really inform yourself about what the world is like, and "speaking out" against something tangible like a war is so much easier than speaking out against all the other, less obvious ways in which people are killed worldwide by entities not named "United States of America"? The ones that don't make headlines in the daily press and on TV?

I found Tom's comments mostly pretty reasonable, though I disagree with his politics. But this I cannot understand:

"The article was written in the vein of Roman satire, and whilst not approaching the quality of Roman classics, it remains satire rather than a direct threat on behalf of a whole media bloc. So calm down, to most people reading it I can see it not being that big a deal - whether they agree or disagree."

Hmmm. Well, maybe it's not a big deal, and maybe we should all "calm down". But let's be clear: no reasonable person could mistake that column for anything other than an explosion of rabid anger. The real question isn't whether Brooker (or some other idiot at the Guardian) is a threat to President Bush; it's whether Brooker's column will inspire some nutcase in one of the so-called "anti-war" groups to make an attempt on Bush's life. Of course there's a not insignificant chance of that. If the column was written for any purpose other than to act as a vehicle for Brooker's spleen, it was written to enrage Brooker's readership. And it includes what can only be described as an implied wish that someone would assassinate a foreign head of state. For that reason, the column really crosses the river into a country that newspapers shouldn't visit.

Err, darn editing mistakes...first sentence should read "...only hate the war because it was started by..."

for the record, tim only says 'fair dinkum!' 286 times per day..

Donna

They clearly had gotten their ridiculous ideas from TV, movies, and their own leftist media. I met someone in Oxford who seemed to think "Dallas" was a true-to-life picture of Life in Texas, instead of an entertainingly trashy soap.

LOL, I feel that way every time I hear the old 'cowboy' reference to W., or who-ever. These folks (my Euro-superiors), have seen way too many movies.

cya neighbor, Thomas in Minnesota

Justim says,
"..wonderful to attack weak countries, kill thousands and take over their government."
Thats just the point Justin, it wasn't their government, it was Saddam's. Now, soon, when they vote it will be their government, for good or ill it will at least be the choice of the Iraqi people. Don't you want to see that?

Lefties are creepy thugs. They can't get their awful candidates elected, so they line up 16,000 lawyers who threaten endless lawsuits. They bully television stations who air unflattering information about their candidates.

And now they feel free to threaten a sitting US President in wartime with assasination, openly and without shame.

To paraphrase Mr. Bingley:

Un
Be
Fucking
Lievable

I don't know where all these readers are, but I don't take kindly to calls for assassination.

I was a first grader in Dallas when John Kennedy was assassinated, about 10 when Robert Kennedy was assassinated, and in fifth grade in a majority black school when Martin Luther King was assassinated. I was studying for a spelling bee with Mrs. Waterhouse, a fine and lovely black teacher, when MLK's death was announced over a loudspeaker.

Mr. Brooker needs better training.

My favorite ME book, Con Caughlin's, "Saddam, King of Terror".

A superb read.

I hear you Janis. I figure I'm about a year older than you, and can remember those times too. I was at summer camp when RFK was assassinated, and can still recall a counselor washing her face in the communal shower room that morning and telling me the news over her shoulder. I remember thinking bewilderedly "when does this stop? who's gonna get assassinated next?" It isn't funny at all--satire, my ass.

What else can be said... calling for the assassination of a US President is not only crass and stupid and downright dangerous, it also brings us back to the same morass of moral disequivalence that the left like to wallow in.

Just one example; in the investigation of mass graves of children (and their parents) in Iraq we canNOT have any Euroexperts to help because the dead toddlers' bodies may be used as evidence to persuade a judge to award Hussein the death penalty. But to call for the assassination of the US President who put the same baby-killing, woman-raping family-gassing Hussein behind bars is just. free. speech.

I really do not understand where this type of thought process comes from. I don't wish to stoop to personal invective - actually, oh yes I do. The people who make these assertions are thinking with 2 neurones linked only by a spirochaete (no it's not original but it's applicable I think).

Fu,

We all know that most Americans have been notoriously uninterested in foreign policy for years and cannot find major world sites on a map.

Oh, "we" know that, do "we"? Send me a map, please; I want to know which are these "major world sites" of whose location I'm entirely unaware.

They don't like to read either

Um, yeah, if I hadn't just been moving and had to deal with my eleven friggin' bookcases and their contents in the last week, that'd be more, y'know, persuasive.

- it would be interesting [TO] ask what are your three favorite books on the Middle East? Do you know any Arabs?

I know some residents of the Middle East, but as they are Jews I don't suppose they count. By the way, what are your three favorite books about America?

Mr. Bingley — But what about "good on yer" and "no worries, mate?"

And a clarification of terms here: "Entire civilized workd" = "Anyone who gives a rat's when the Beaujolais Nouveau is coming out..."

for the record, tim only says 'fair dinkum!' 286 times per day.

Well, I confess, I honestly do believe Tim (when he is not entertaining us online) runs around the Outback 24/7 in a big ass jeep chopping up crocodiles and bad guys with a machete. I'll be sorely disappointed if anyone tells me otherwise.

Fu —Do you know any Arabs? I've served with or worked for Saudis, Kuwaitis, Egyptians, Iranians (no, not technically Arabs, but Middle East), Syrians and Iranian Jews? Is that enough or should I go find someone from the UAE? Do I need a Bahraini to complete the set?

Johan, thank you.

Tom wrote: "The Guardian also hire Mr. IP himself to write one of their US election columns. Hardly the sign of an entirely biased newspaper - whilst I do agree that the editorial line is very left-wing."

One token column does not even put a dent in their usual line. Don't insult our intelligence.

Tom wrote: "The article was written in the vein of Roman satire"

Okay, then how would a Roman leader have reacted to something like this "satire" directed at him?

I bet it would hurt. A lot. And death (eventually) would come as a mercy.

Works for me.

Thomas: howdy neighbor:-D I hope Bush wins both our states!

Michelle Dulak Thomson: A fine post. And I can relate - I may never leave the appartment I live in now, because I cannot bear the thought of packing up and moving all my books.

The same people who would bend over backwards to avoid stereotyping, say, Middle Easterners, (or should I say, they would bend over forwards?) have no problem labeling a nation of 280 million people whose ancestors come from all over the world.

As for Justin Eagle's silly rants, well, there's the best argument for home schooling I've seen in a while,...,

I think Tom was referring to the Roman satire when Caesar was stabbed to death.

You know, "satire".

On the subject of Europeans not knowing anything about the U.S., I used to work in the Internal Training dept of a big US corporation.

We'd regularly get European employees coming into the country for the first time, and it was amazing the things they would believe.

The biggest thing was distances. People would come into Atlanta, and ask "How long does it take to drive to Washington DC"? We'd respond that it took a full day. "A full day? But it's just a few states away!" The funniest case was the guy who asked if a 2-day weekend was long enough for him to drive to Yosemite (in California).

The other vivid memory I have is of the English guy who wandered into an Atlanta sandwich shop. "All of a sudden, they started asking me all sorts of questions - what type of bread, what type of meat, what type of cheese. I was overwhelmed. I didn't know what to do".

He later emailed us how glad he was to get back to England where a sandwich was a sandwich and he didn't have to make decisions.

Jay

Is it possible for an entire newspaper to be a troll?

When the good guy won the election in Australia, I got a bottle of Aussie wine to pop when the good guy wins here.
Books on the Middle East? We write books AFTER the war. Easier to do the research if Uncle Sammy is paying for the travel.
You really don't want to be in a country which has lots of books written about it by Americans.
In fact, it would be better if you never come to our attention. Except, of course, as a friend.

Once in a pub in Feltham I asked for a ham and cheese sandwich. The person behind the bar said, "Together?"

I love England and Great Britain, but the idea that your average Brit knows all that much about the US is a fallacy. What they know is what they see on TV and read in the papers. Imagine that was all you knew about the US. Would you want to live there?

And since they speak English, I trust they have a much better feel for the US than the rest of Europe has. I'm really not trying to run Europe down. They have the lives to live with all the opportunities and challenges that presents for them, but so do we. I just find the idea that Europeans are naturally more sophisticated amusing.

> Is it possible for an entire newspaper
> to be a troll?

My sister had one of those dolls many years ago. So to the extent that it can be preternaturally ugly, diminished in stature, and the an appealing plaything for undercooked personalities, yes.

The Molotov Cocktail by Brooker in El Guardian he makes reference to a Beeb documentary "The power of nightmares".

If one were to wonder over to Belmont Club you will find a complete debunking of the it.

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/10/from-whose-bourne-no-traveler-returns.html

> Is it possible for an entire newspaper to be a
> troll?

I see the debate is going well here.

Yes, the Guardian was created to upset the thoughtful Bush lovers who visit Tim Blair's blog. I can't believe it took you so long to figure it out.

Perhaps y'all should go covort with your hero the Rev. Moon over at the Washington Times.

God talks to him too, just like the chimp.

RJ

I don't understand the thinking either. Its complete and utter madness.

heres a quote someone sent me:

"When you look out at the world from Vienna or Stockholm or Manchester and search for something to deplore, what do you see? You see Russia spiraling down into dictatorship after a brief interlude of struggling democracy. You see North Korea, arms salesman to the world's criminals, boasting of nuclear capability. You see genocide in Darfur. And of course, you see the ghastly face of terrorism in Madrid, Bali, New York, Washington, Tel Aviv and most especially Baghdad, where terrorists grab and behead innocent Americans and Europeans, and proudly videotape their savagery. But where do many Europeans focus their wrath? On the United States. ... There is something sickly about the European approach to the world." --Mona Charen

richard, i believe tim's most-used line is "now that's a knife"

Siure, complain to the Press Complaints commission. But also complain to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Incitement to murder is a criminal offence.

Although only twelve, J Eagle has assumed a position on the NYT editorial board. Fair Dinkum!

This is the kind of jerk who regularly lectures the rest of us for our lack of compassion and civility. So much for his credibility.

I'd vote for Bush just to drive guys like Brooker nuts. He's a ranting cockalorum, a mooncalf, a Hitler wannabe. As far as I'm concerned, a Bush win will disprove the existence of The Guardian and Charlie Brooker.

"and invective came directed in a writing unexpected
(And I think the same was written with a thumb-nail dipped in tar)

...........

"and invective came directed in a writing unexpected
(And I think the same was written with a thumb-nail dipped in tar)

...........

"But at least [Kerry'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."

Aw, come one, Charlie, nobody's perfect. There's no need to get so personal.

Oh, there's one more thing, Charlie: In a fight between Bush and Kerry, I'd bet on Bush any old day. He has that look, hard to put your finger on but unmistakable, of a man who would fight. Kerry? He'd take a poll.

I lived in Europe for four years. My experience with European ignorance of America is somewhat similar to Jay's above. Many Europeans do not comprehend the physical size and population of America. When talking to a European, inevitably, they would say something like: “I have a cousin in Chicago name Charles. Do you know him?” Or, “My sister Ann moved to California, have you ever met her?” They always seemed puzzled when I said no.

, or your love of a Christian extremist American President is just TOO much to take.

Mr Bush is a Methodist. There is no single Protestant religion that is less extreme apart from, possible, the Quakers.

'Twas that Brooker bloke who wrote it
and verbatim I will quote it
"John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?"

Dunno, mate. You tell me.

Wouldn't it be ironic if John Hinckley Jnr assassinated Brooker to try and win the love of Hillary Clinton?

"I see the debate is going well here."

It was just a question, friend J Eagle. Relax.

There is no single Protestant religion that is less extreme apart from, possible, the Quakers.

The thing is, for guys like Justin Eagle, "Christian extremist" is tautological.

After
1 THE INTIMIDATION OF american voters
2 tHE CALL FOR THE AASISNATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE us
3 AND NOW SHAKESPEARE WAS MUSLIM!
All is revealed at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1334860,00.html

perfectsense,

most Americans are pretty ignorant of Europe; Europeans opposed the attack on Iraq because their parents and grandparents know what it's like to bombed. We didn't need to attack and bomb the entire country of Iraq to take out Saddam, if that is all Bush wanted, but what he did want, among other things, was to occupy the country and build his fourteen bases there, or rather, have Halliburton build them. I've been in touch with a couple of the Iraqis I knew in college. They hate Saddam but didn't want to bombed and invaded.

I made it a point to get to know international students when I was in college - they'd ask me why our government supported this dictator or that one (the Shah, Pinochet, Saddam, Sukarno, etc). Henry Kissinger used to call this "realpolitik".

"Statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain

I,m just surprised that some rednecks can write,thank christ most of them are too dumb to vote.

I,m just surprised that some rednecks can write,thank christ most of them are too dumb to vote.

Anyone see the irony in a sentiment like this expressed by someone with a punctuation problem?

"I,m just surprised that some rednecks can write,thank christ most of them are too dumb to vote."

Some rednecks even know the difference between an apostrophe and a comma.

Good thing most of us rednecks were too dumb to vote in Oz. Just imagine what the result might have been!

"Europeans opposed the attack on Iraq because their parents and grandparents know what it's like to bombed."

It's funny then, that they finance the PLO, isn't it? Perhaps they also remember the stories their grandparents proudly tell of the rewards they got for collaborating with the Nazis. Funny they didn't scream so loudly when Saddam Hussein was bombing the Kurds or the Iranians, or when Sudanese arabs were carrying out their genocide against Sudanese Christians and Animists.

Maybe there's another explanation. Maybe the Europeans elites are terrified of the large, violent, hostile and parasitic muslim fifth column their leftist traitorous elites infiltrated into their countries. Maybe they are terrified that civil war will break out in Europe before thay can collect on their unfunded and unaffordable pension schemes. Maybe the Euro elites are terrified that the flow of bribes from arab oil tyrants will stop. But I suspect the real reason is that America's military, economic, scientific and cultural dominance reminds Europeans (and leftists generally) of their own worthlessness, weakness and failure.

"I made it a point to get to know international students when I was in college - they'd ask me why our government supported this dictator or that one (the Shah, Pinochet, Saddam, Sukarno, etc)."

Simple. To stop Communist imperialism. Did they complain about the WWII alliance with the Soviet Union to stop the Nazis? Actually, scratch that, arabs would complain, since the arabs were Axis allies. But would leftists?

However, I've lingered and continued to post because my comments have been wiped and I've been repeatedly banned because I've stated on this right-wing blog that I HATE immoral war and all those who think it's just wonderful to attack weak countries, kill thousands and take over their government.

Actually, it's because you're being an asshole, but I guess you need something to feed your "wah, I'm being martyred" fantasy.

HTH, HAND.

I realize that I am already in a bad mood tonight so I cannot take the call for the assassination of my president in a humorous vein. That a major paper would knowingly print and disseminate this call is horrendous. I had thought the Guardian was arrogant but never thought they thought they could go so far as to call for the assassination of a head of state with impunity. Another reason to vote for Bush: Kerry would actually give that rag a voice in his deliberations instead of repulsing them for their uncivilized act.

The difference is that I don't advocate war (or "regime change") as a method to solve such crises.
Yes, you advocate doing nothing because better that you sit around looking concerned and caring, yet keep your hands clean, than actually, you know, fix the problem and look insensitive towards the needs of Islamofascists. You're more ready for the US than you think, Tom. You demonstrate classic American leftist attitudes: all symbolism, no substance.

Boy, Charlie sure managed to raise temperatures didn't he? Personally, I believe that Charlie's comments are nothing less than incitement to murder and that by publishing his column the Guardian, ipso facto, becomes a party to conspiracy to murder. Not that anyone important is going to take the Guardian on because, even though the writing is on the wall for the big media, the perception that is still all powerful is very real among the movers and the shakers. Of course, if (God forbid) George W. got wacked in the next few weeks, circumstances would change and the Guardian would find itself in a very precarious position indeed.
All that aside, it bothers me that several posters here equate the Guardian with the voice of the British people. That's a nonsense, the Guardian (with supreme complacency) has long seen itself as the vox populi of Britain but, in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. For many years the Guardian has made a handsome profit by catering to the ignorance of the urban poor, the prejudice of the loony left and the populist trends of the chattering classes - the views of the vast majority of the British public are of no real interest to the Guardian and they are, generally, treated with contempt. Suffice to say that Great Britain is a major player in the Coalition of the Willing and that British soldiers were among the first ashore in the invasion of Iraq and continue to play an important role in the pacification - I doubt that many British squaddies are Guardian readers.

Fu...

Europeans opposed the attack on Iraq because their parents and grandparents know what it's like to bombed.

Ah yes, seeing as how they bombed the people of England, Poland, Russia, France, oh yes, and lets not forget those lovely human incinerators.

Keep lecturing us. Remember, it has only been 60 years.

One of the things that strikes me about the Left's positiion on the war in the wake of the campaign in Iraq is its utter lack of seriousness.

Understand that real, mature individuals are reduced to scathing ad hominem attacks against the President (chimp, Bushhitler, etc....). They do this because in their blessed heart of hearts, they are profoundly afraid of the world that bin Laden has bequeathed to us, be he alive or dead.

The Left got very comfortable in the Nineties. Economic growth was coupled with a centrist Democratic Administration to produced a phenomenon not seen since the boom days of the 1920's. September 11th ripped all of that away.

Conservatives have no trouble adjusting to the world as it is. We always understood (yes, even Buchanan and the Paleocons...) that man is a risen devil, not a fallen angel. Thus he is neither perfectable nor capable of a greater good in the absence of the restraints of natural and State law. Bin Laden's very existence threatens that order, as the Sheikh (if still alive) is the ultimate tactical anarchist. His strategic objective, of course, remains the conquest of the Christian West and the extermination of the Jews of Israel. But along the way, this "socialist in a hurry" has no problem with the Guevarist tactic of mass murder on a biblical scale.

The idea that much of southern Manhattan could be vaporized into nothingness in a single mi