April 9, 2007
A LITTLE HELP:
Bushism of the Day (Jacob Weisberg, April 9, 2007, Slate)
"Suiciders are willing to kill innocent life in order to send the projection that this is an impossible mission."
I don't get it. How did he misspeak here? Posted by Orrin Judd at April 9, 2007 2:34 PM
They don't need a reason to spout hatred of the President.
Posted by: obc at April 9, 2007 2:55 PMMy guess is that Weisberg, or the typical SLATE reader, sees Iraq AS an impossible missions, so the aim of the suicide bombers is not a projection.
Either that or they're getting picky over the word "suiciders". Perhaps not a real word, but effective in getting its point across.
Posted by: John Barrett Jr. at April 9, 2007 3:12 PMIs a Suicider the same as a Suicidee.
Posted by: h-man at April 9, 2007 3:12 PMSuiciders? perhaps
Posted by: AWW at April 9, 2007 3:13 PMBush mispoke because he didn't confess that he lied and people died.
Posted by: erp![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 9, 2007 3:19 PM
They are not suciders, they are martyrs.
The dead are not innocent victims, they are all complicit in the Bushitlerism.
The mission was doomed before The earth cooled.
Can't you see that it is just rife with misspeak?
Posted by: Mikey at April 9, 2007 3:31 PM
They are not suciders, they are martyrs.
The dead are not innocent victims, they are all complicit in the Bushitlerism.
The mission was doomed before The earth cooled.
Can't you see that it is just rife with misspeak?
Posted by: Mikey at April 9, 2007 3:33 PM
They are not suciders, they are martyrs.
The dead are not innocent victims, they are all complicit in the Bushitlerism.
The mission was doomed before The earth cooled.
Can't you see that it is just rife with misspeak?
Posted by: Mikey at April 9, 2007 3:34 PM
They are not suciders, they are martyrs.
The dead are not innocent victims, they are all complicit in the Bushitlerism.
The mission was doomed before The earth cooled.
Can't you see that it is just rife with misspeak?
Posted by: Mikey at April 9, 2007 3:35 PM
They are not suciders, they are martyrs.
The dead are not innocent victims, they are all complicit in the Bushitlerism.
The mission was doomed before The earth cooled.
Can't you see that it is just rife with misspeak?
Posted by: Mikey at April 9, 2007 3:37 PM
They are not suciders, they are martyrs.
The dead are not innocent victims, they are all complicit in the Bushitlerism.
The mission was doomed before The earth cooled.
Can't you see that it is just rife with misspeak?
Posted by: Mikey at April 9, 2007 3:37 PM
They are not suciders, they are martyrs.
The dead are not innocent victims, they are all complicit in the Bushitlerism.
The mission was doomed before The earth cooled.
Can't you see that it is just rife with misspeak?
Posted by: Mikey at April 9, 2007 3:37 PM
They are not suciders, they are martyrs.
The dead are not innocent victims, they are all complicit in the Bushitlerism.
The mission was doomed before The earth cooled.
Can't you see that it is just rife with misspeak?
Posted by: Mikey at April 9, 2007 3:37 PM
They are not suciders, they are martyrs.
The dead are not innocent victims, they are all complicit in the Bushitlerism.
The mission was doomed before The earth cooled.
Can't you see that it is just rife with misspeak?
Posted by: Mikey at April 9, 2007 3:37 PM
They are not suciders, they are martyrs.
The dead are not innocent victims, they are all complicit in the Bushitlerism.
The mission was doomed before The earth cooled.
Can't you see that it is just rife with misspeak?
Posted by: Mikey at April 9, 2007 3:37 PM
They are not suciders, they are martyrs.
The dead are not innocent victims, they are all complicit in the Bushitlerism.
The mission was doomed before The earth cooled.
Can't you see that it is just rife with misspeak?
Posted by: Mikey at April 9, 2007 3:37 PM
I think I understand, Mikey.
Posted by: S at April 9, 2007 3:39 PMGot it.
Posted by: erp at April 9, 2007 3:43 PM
Mikey sounds like Al Gore at a GloBull Warming revival meeting.
Posted by: obc at April 9, 2007 3:51 PMWell, I had to read it over three times just to be sure I understood what he meant. It's not a malapropism, just poorly worded.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at April 9, 2007 6:22 PMI'd also like to know the context of those remarks, something Mr. Weisberg rarely gives. Was it in prepared comments, or an arranged appearance (press conferences) or off-the-cuff, on the fly statement? 'Cause if Mr. Weisberg's every utterences was microscopically examined with similar detail, he could be made to sound just as foolish and stupid andi ncoherent. (Then again, maybe it's jeaolosy on Mr.Weisberg's part, that no one really pays any attention to anything original he says, so he gets his attention by using the words of someone else.)
Sorry guys, but the screen kept coming up with an error message, so I hit post again.
And again.
Until I said - "bleep it" and quit.
Then I found out all these posts actually got in.
I only meant to post once.
Bloody technology.
at April 10, 2007 10:07 AM