Perhaps the next assault in this war on terror should be against a hateful group of Brit journalists working at The Guardian Unlimited. On Saturday, October 23, one of their so-called “journalists” [url=http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:oIwGEmKpC6YJ:www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columnists/story/0,,1333748,00.html+%22John+Wilkes+Booth,+Lee+Harvey+Oswald,+John+Hinckley+Jr%22&hl=en&start=1]wrote this[/url] after bemoaning the fact that it was likely that George W. Bush would be reelected on November 2nd:

“John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?” Charlie Brooker, Saturday October 23, 2004 - The Guardian Unlimited

Perhaps my reply to “The Guardian” should be something like, “George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin - where are you now that we need you?” But I don’t want to go there, first of all because any good historian knows that the American Revolution occurred through a long list of misunderstandings on both sides of “the pond.” Despite that bump in our history, and a few others, the US and Great Britain have been long-standing allies and, together, a positive influence in this world.

Furthermore, I think British Citizens have the right to question actions that may effect them, just as we would have the right to question them under similar circumstances. The Guardian’s sponsorship of a [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1332041,00.html]letter-writing program to undecided voters[/url] in Clark County, Ohio, though tacky, is an example of that, though, it’s very likely a campaign which will help the President, not hurt him, come November 2nd.

With all that said, what in the hell is Charlie Booker thinking?! The Guardian did pull the article and printed a [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0,,1335201,00.html]retraction[/url], but the article itself is still viewable through Google and it’s one of the most blatantly hateful screeds I’ve read this year.

In the text of the retraction and brief apology, Guardian editors mention that, “[a]lthough flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action ” An “ironic joke”… Personally, I have a hard time believing this.

Let’s examine some additional comments from the article, then you can judge for yourself:

• the rest of the world bangs its head against the floorboards screaming “Please God, not Bush!”

• The internet’s a-buzz with speculation that Bush has been wearing a wire, receiving help from some off-stage lackey… 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.
  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.

• 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.

I wonder, is this the typical British definition of “humor”? I sincerely hope not!

Truth be told, I’ve heard far less extreme things from terrorists like Zarqawi and bin Laden in public statements calling for the deaths of all Americans. Does this kind of “humor” really make people laugh? If so, then you may want to avoid these kinds of people while walking through dark alleys at night.

They call our President extreme, label him as “mad,” joke about the need for former presidential assassins, should the President win reelection, and we should just laugh? I don’t think so!

Remember this; Brooker’s hate-speech is the exact same kind of thoughtless, arrogant, and self-important rhetoric that helped foment the American Revolution in the first place. I certainly don’t think that Brooker’s words reflect everyone in the UK, at the same time, I’m not going to forget them.

And neither should you. This insane rhetoric, which no doubt gives great comfort to terrorists everywhere, should motivate you to get to the polls on November 2nd to make sure the President wins his second term.

I guess I should thank Charlie Brooker for the fact that he has shown us, once again, exactly how important it is to get out and vote.

Who knows, when Bush wins, perhaps Brooker will be so upset and distraught that he’ll bang his head “against the floorboards,” suffer a massive stroke, and wind up in a permanent vegetative state…

I’m just kidding! Can’t you see the ironic humor here?

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com