UK Guardian insinuates Bush should be assassinated!

This is some irresponsible journalism if I ever saw it:

Guardian
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 fear this is the type of thing that leads people to form opinions about the US. In this article, the author, Charlie Brooker, goes on about how Bush wore a wire at the debates, something even Paul Begala wrote off as a left-wing conspiracy on the infamous John Stewart Crossfire. Then Brooker went on to say that the Bill Clinton conspiracy's like Vince Foster and Whitewater were non-issues. I think the world likes Clinton more than Americans do.

The foreign press is a beacon of light, huh. Please someone from the UK tell me that this Brooker guy is nothing but a hack!

[edit on (10/23/0404 by PistolPete]

Well thats the beauty of democracy and having a free press.

Well if he gets killed in office would'nt that fufull that 0 year president prophecy?

Granted if he's elected then it would still give another 4 years for it to come true but some people just hate waiting.

I dunno, I read it as humour. But that's just me. I guess that's why the US runs canned laughter/laugh tracks over British sitcoms.

(typo)

[edit on 23-10-2004 by cargo]

I suppose it could have been an attempt at humor, I myself didn't see it that way and I usually think dry British humor is funny. If it were it was an attempt at humor in the poorest taste!

A guy using the names of three men that shot Presidents, and wishing they were around "when we need them" is hardly the "beauty of democracy and free press". People tend to invoke freedom of speech and press when someone says something irresponsible that has no rational defending. He has every right to say that, but that doesn't make it right.

That's pretty funny!

Stop over-reacting, the guy just wanted a funny way to finish his article and to express his extreme disenchantment with the current US administration.

And, yes, he has every right to say it, so why shouldn't he? He's only expressing an opinion.

I'll admit it's in bad taste to make jokes about assasination, but I'm sure you can scan the US papers and find similar statements made in op/ed pieces about, say, wishing Chirac gets killed by terrorists to "serve him right", for example.

I do agree 100% with the main point he's making, though:

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.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I know Bush has his supporters, but I can't for the life of me figure out why he does, especially now, given his performance during the debates. I've said in another thread that if we had something like "Prime Minister's Question Time" in the US, for Presidents, Bush would be eviscerated (metaphorically). Anyway, I'll shut up now, since this is kind of OT.

-koji K.




[edit on 23-10-2004 by koji_K]

[edit on 23-10-2004 by koji_K]

While I don't like Bush, I think the article was in poor taste. Then again, he's a tv critic writing for "The Guide", and entertainment section (movies, books, tv, etc) for the newspaper, so I'm not going to get too upset over it.

Originally posted by cargo
I dunno, I read it as humour.
[edit on 23-10-2004 by cargo]

I did too.

The true question is, where are the CIA when they are needed?

Never mind the patsies, we're the dum dums.

I found this to be a hilarious article and only wish more journalists would be as blunt.

Forget Oswald and the rest id happily put a bullet through the skull of that poor excuse for a human being, iv seen more appropriate candidates for the presidency of the US playing on the swings down the park.

lol i had to log in just to pray u wasnt from the states.... i had images of the secret service knocking at ur door. lol

I don't find it funny at all, and while I don't like Bush, I don't see the humor in this article.

It's amazing in what poor taste that article was spreading the rumors on the internet, absoloutely going way overboard on the namecalling, and ending off with a request for a presidential assassination. Honestly I think film/theatre critics are the slime of the earth always trying to find some obscure masterpiece that everybody should just love and if not they are just too ignorant. In the final conclusion though I do think that the rather bitchy journalist should have saved his vitriol for his Prime Minister, alas its funnier being nasty about other countries.

Really really bad taste.

Well, whether you find it funny or not, we have something called freedom of speech here. This is a total non-story, man writes humourous ending to column, big deal.

I do agree 100% with the main point he's making, though:

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.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I know Bush has his supporters, but I can't for the life of me figure out why he does, especially now, given his performance during the debates. I've said in another thread that if we had something like "Prime Minister's Question Time" in the US, for Presidents, Bush would be eviscerated (metaphorically). Anyway, I'll shut up now, since this is kind of OT.

I agree with the first assertion of that selection - however the second assertion I put in bold about the wire is the authors not fully truthful attempt to discredit Bush. Considering a Democratic insider "hack" like Begala can write it off, I don't put much creedence in to it, and it has been discussed in the media. He then goes on to write off Whitewater and Vince Foster, I see the context he's using them in, but most people still can't explain away Foster's "suicide".

So effectively this author:

1. Called for the assassination of our President. Even in a jocular sense that's not something a journalist should do.

2. Used something about Bush that's been debunked and discredited by Democrats for his argument, then discredited something that many people that aren't "wacko's" still hold an open mind on about a President Europe liked. Seemingly displaying how the American's are always lied to and deceived, when in fact he's being deceptive in his agenda.

If this is how European journalists write things about the US the opinions expressed by many Europeans on here don't suprise me at all.

[edit on (10/23/0404 by PistolPete]

He didn't call for the assassination of Bush. If you can't see the satirical side of his last comment then I truly pity you. Try to take things in context, an article criticising coke-boy with a rhetorical question at the end designed to evoke in the reader the intense disaffection the author feels with the current administration.

I am totally baffled by the brilliance of this ranconteur's delusions of self importance. A british journalist slaying himself with his own mediocre writing skills and attacking another country to the point of suggesting an assassination attempt on the President. Mostly I am baffled by his need to aim at America, I would have thought that he would have more than enough opportunity to attack the monarchy of his country who are intellectually challenged inbreds who own most of the country. By comparison Bush is a genius.

UK Guardian insinuates Bush should be assassinated!

...and the problem is?

Well it was an satirical attempt at humour to reflect that no one really likes him that much, I don't think it's calling out to all whackos (or heroes) to do the deed, or as MA beautifully put it the CIA.

I agree with Koji_K, although it's shocking for Americans - which I understand - the same has been said for other world leaders like Chirac, without the least consideration for the French people's feelings in this. The French may not like Chirac - he's the lesser of two evils - but he's still their President.

I'm a liberal, I disapprove of Bush as a leader, but I don't advocate his assassination. Political assassination is not the tool of democracy.

Besides... if that were to happen, Darth Vador would become President. I still prefer Bush.