Free speech is grand – Roger L. Simon
makes a salient point: "
That buffoon-like shoe chucker - his name is Muntazer al-Zaidi from Al-Baghdadia channel which broadcasts from Cairo - proved it. No matter what happens to al-Zaidi now (and it won't be much if anything), it will be nothing like what would have happened to him if he had hurled a shoe at the president during the previous Iraqi administration of Saddam Hussein."
13 comments:
And what a point. So salient. "Saddam would've cut his scrotum off, so that proves I'm good and my side wins." It's like philosophy for 3-year-olds.
Roger Simon also writes saliently that he woulda beaten the mug up, that Bush has done nothing "provably wrong," that he never got blown by a mistress, and that we'll never ever ever ever really know about those WMDs so that's like what Criswell says in "Plan Nine from Outer Space": "Can you prove it DIDN'T happen?"
Simon finishes with the current favorite bedtime story of the 23% hardcores: that history will vindicate George W., and all the sloganeering liberals down in Who-ville will all cry "Boooo-hooooo."
On second thought, granting Simon the credit that a 3-year-old deserves may have been a bit generous.
The useful idiots are always out there, waiting to defend Saddam and other mass murdering dictators, all in the name of hating that "evil" Bush.
This guy would already be dead if he did that to Saddam. However, under the evil Bush, this guy will be on the U.S. talk show circuit before you know it and will get permanent residency here int eh enxt few months.
There's no bigger idiot than an idiot who still uses the phrase "useful idiot."
Especially one who doesn't understand that the first post in no way "defends" Saddam Hussein, no matter how much Brian needs it to.
It's a funny thing. If I lived in a world populated entirely by stupid, one-dimensional cartoons of my own creation, I'd rig it so that I could beat them.
So what you're saying is "Screw lauding freedom of the press, Bush must be denieed any kind of victory or accolade"?
As apologists like RealClearPlaydate acknowledge, they'd much prefer presidents who unload their essence in the mouths of interns to presidents who actually take tyrants to task. But he'll be a big fan of the military again when BO flexes military muscle to defend the oppressed.
Ignore genuine evil while denoucing your protectors from the safety of a tenured desk at the community college. Nice.
Go dig up Saddam Hussein, and hang him again. Take his DNA, clone him, and kill a hundred Saddams. You'll still be just as permanently disgraced.
You lost. Suck it up, tough guys.
Even Fonzie eventually admitted he was wr-- wr-- wr--. Admitted he was wr-- wr-- wrrrrr---
You lost. Suck it up, tough guys.
Lost what? An election or two? Shame that this is all this is about to you, bashing Bush and making sure Dems are the ones giving away our taxpayer dollars.
I'll admit my blogging has gotten lazy (slow news week or low interest?) but is it really so wrong to note that the shoe-thrower was enjoying a freedom that was impossible for the past couple decades?
The Shiites and Al-Sadr loyalists who are cheering the shoe guy were banned from practicing their religion during Hussein's rule. You know, we didn't ask for a "thank you" but maybe "don't throw shoes" would be a start.
Eric,
Funny how Bush reacted with jokes while the BDS people ran all over it to bash Bush and make the moral equivalence between Bush and Saddam.
By the way, the dude is now cliaming he was abused in custody. Sure he was. Guess the prayer rug had some dust on it.
but is it really so wrong to note that the shoe-thrower was enjoying a freedom that was impossible for the past couple decades?
It's not WRONG, but it's pretty meaningless. The 35,000 U.S. dead and wounded, that was to transform the Middle East into a haven for shoe tossing? Is that where the goalposts are this week?
It's the kind of point someone emphasizes when they have no better ones to make. So yeah, in the context of a terrible, laughable column, "Bush will let Shoe Man keep his scrotum" is by far Roger L. Simon's least bad point.
35,000 US dead and wounded to give the Iraqi people freedom to practice their previously oppressed religion and state their opposing opinions is no good trade for the free education and health care that the Iraqis got from Saddam's iron fist that snatched people from their homes and put them into torture chambers and rape rooms. And 250,000 dead Americans was too high a price to pay for the abolition of slavery too.
Are you really arguing this?
Ooooh! "Rape rooms"! Debate over!
And besides, the math's not that harsh. Because if you divide by the seven or eight different official, retroactive rationales for the war (so far), it's really just 5,000 casualties per premise.
Speaking of rape rooms, watching Radical Conservatism drop trou, assume the position, and take it hard from the American public is a pleasure that does not fade.
But watching diehard neocon doofuses quack for the next 30 years about how they were really right all along is a lifelong pleasure that's only just begun.
Post a Comment