70 years ago Churchill couldn't be published for fear of offending Hitler. Now the assassination of the US President is openly called for. The world is insane. Is it any wonder we're naturally isolationist?

This will go over big in Clark County.

Hello, I am sending you this comment from England, UK. I am disgusted with the appalling piece in the Guardian. Please understand, the Guardian newspaper has heavy political leanings to the far left and does not reflect the views of British people. The far left are obsessed with Iraq and want to see both Blair and Bush out of office. Even the BBC are still up to their old left ways and are anti Bush and trying to engineer Blair out and Gordon Brown in. The old lefties are creating a furore over the UK agreeing to a recent US request for British troops to take over from the US marines (see my recent post) they believe this is a ploy on Bush's part to boost his image with American voters to prove that the US has the support of the UK in Iraq. The far left are like rottweilers trying to hound Blair out of office and get Gordon Brown in. Please understand, Blair is having just as hard a time over here as Bush is having in the US when it comes to Iraq.

My guess is that the "assassins" bit was intended as a semi satirical piece - written with wry humour and tongue-in-cheek. But even I can see it is horribly wrong to write such a thing about anybody and for sure it'll get lost in the translation by readers from overseas. (I am not making excuses, it's the only reason I can think of.) I have never bought the Guardian newspaper, I often get mad at it for its way out far left views. If it's any consolation, you should see what they write about their own party and Tony Blair they treat like the biggest villain in this country - and Saddam Hussein as a poor victim.

"a might short" or "a mite short"?

Am I nitpicking (picking a mite)?

If so, I'm contrite.

Ingrid, bless you for your posting.

The insanity is transnationalist. Plenty of Americans would say the same words exctly about Oswald and Hinckley, et al, and mean them.

Has it even occurred to such people that if Kerry were to win (unlikely), those same words might be written, a year from now, by someone far more adept at using a deer rifle and scope?

Ah, but THEN such words would be an outrage.

Got it.

Combining this with The Guardian's letter writing effort to influence the U.S. election, if Kerry still loses on Nov. 2, the paper may be running an "Assassinate President Bush" contest by sometime in the middle of next month.

This just serves to underscore OJ's point about how ridiculously low our casualties have been in this war. I crunched some numbers and it turns out that, if troops in Iraq were killed at the rate presidents are, we'd have over 33,000 dead. Bush's job is much more dangerous than that of the troops he sends out.

I will laugh when the Guardian editors come over here for some conference and get arrested.

Thank you for your note here Andrew X. My post on this issue has been picked up in New Zealand news report that has linked to my blog - and is generating a lot of visitors.

Churchill couldn't get published in 1934?

Maybe so, Ingrid, but saying what Brooker did in the USA would be a felony and get him a pretty long prison sentence

Harry,

Good luck arresting, trying and incarcerating 100,000 denizens of Indymedia, Democratic Underground and Daily Kos.

Yes, cheers for that comment, OJ.

It's ok, we get a bit of a kick out of being hated. In fact, we've been feeling rather jealous now that everyone hates you even more.

I note that the Guardian has replaced the 'offending' article with a wimp-out apology, once again confirming the spineless feebleness of that dismal rag.