New Book Talks of Assassinating Bush

[jamie]

Glassman: New Book Talks of Assassinating Bush: July 20, 2004

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/20/134619.shtml

Just how far will the Left go with its "Hate Bush" campaign?

Syndicated columnist James Glassman says way, way too far.

Noting that first there was Michael Moore's movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11," a crude quasi-Marxist fantasy about the war in Iraq filled with distortions.

Then there was the July 8 fund-raiser for John Kerry in New York, at which Whoopi Goldberg "fired off a stream of vulgar sexual wordplays on Bush's name in a riff about female genitalia," as one newspaper put it. Paul Newman said that Bush's tax cuts were "borderline criminal."

Now there is a book by a major publisher about two men having a conversation regarding killing George W. Bush.

One passage reads:

"He is beyond the beyond. What he's done with this war," rants a character named Jay. "The murder of the innocent. And now the prisons. It's too much. It makes me angry. ... I'm going to kill the [expletive] ... I'm going to assassinate the president."

The book is by Nicholson Baker, winner of the 2002 National Book Critics Circle Award and, writes columnist James Glassman in the Naples News, "a darling of the New York intelligentsia. Baker's bestseller, 'Vox,' which Monica Lewinsky gave Bill Clinton as a gift in 1998, (Edited):

Baker's new book, "Checkpoint," is about political murder, Glassman explains, calling Checkpoint "a long conversation between two men about assassinating President Bush. Yes, killing the sitting president of the United States."

One character, Jay, calls Bush "an unelected [expletive] drunken oilman" who is "squatting" in the White House and "muttering over his prayer book each morning."

He says Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have "fought their way back up out of the peat bogs where they've been lying, and they're stumbling around with grubs scurrying out of their noses."

Jay goes on to describe methods of murdering the president, including radio-controlled flying saws that are "ultra-sharp and they're totally deadly, really nasty." Other methods: a gun and a remote-controlled boulder.

Glassman then quotes this shocking statement from publisher Knopf proclaiming, "Baker wrote 'Checkpoint' in response to the powerless seething fury many Americans felt when President Bush decided to take the nation to war."

He adds, "(Never mind that the October 2002 votes on authorizing the president to use force in Iraq were 77-23 in the Senate and 296-133 in the House.)"

"I wanted to capture the specificity of that rage," said Baker. "How do you react to something that you think is hideously wrong? How do you keep it from driving you nuts?"

Simple. Get your hands on radio-controlled flying saws that are "ultra-sharp or a gun and kill the president because you don't like him. Shades of John Wilkes Booth."

Knopf, Glassman writes, expects a big initial sale, but "is clearly defensive. Says Knopf weakly, "Baker's book does not suggest violence is ever an appropriate response."

Oh?

Glassman concludes with this piece of advice for John Kerry. While "he may not be responsible for the rantings of the likes of Moore, Goldberg and Baker," he could at least "strike a blow for decency in America

[BobTriez]

Is this for real ? I mean....it's a Federal offence to threaten the President....even if you don't mean it. This is hard to believe....gonna have to do some further investigating me thinks.....Wow.....

Thanks for the article....

God bless,

Bob

[Trinity]

Well they went to far... and we don't have books talking about Assassinating Clinton...

[Leonard]

There are two (and only two) Lefts in the U.S.: The Evil Left (who know exactly what they are doing to destroy America), and The Duped Left.

[WayneB]

There are two (and only two) Lefts in the U.S.: The Evil Left (who know exactly what they are doing to destroy America), and The Duped Left.

I agree Leonard.

[whatsitmean]

There are two (and only two) Lefts in the U.S.:  The Evil Left (who know exactly what they are doing to destroy America), and The Duped Left.

Are there two RIGHTS also? Or maybe there are three rights. The two you mention and the rest of us who are well aware of the other four groups and know enough to not follow, trust, or expect anything good to come from them but are still 'right' or would be if there was a right right to follow and support.

[Leonard]

Whatsitmean: I can see why you chose that name!

[Guest LadyC]

Is this for real ? I mean....it's a Federal offence to threaten the President....even if you don't mean it. This is hard to believe....gonna have to do some further investigating me thinks.....Wow.....

Thanks for the article....

God bless,

Bob

without having read the article, my guess is that all the characters were given ficticious names, and categorized the book under the genre of fiction... which could prevent any legal consequences for the author. BUT... if the events leading up to the character's 'squatting' reflect the actual events of bush winning the election, or the characters truly resembled any of our current political leaders, a case could possibly be made... not that a case could be won, of course, since i'm sure the attorneys hired for the author would shop around for one of those left-winged-activist judges.

[amor]

It's an extract from a novel (a work of fiction), if you don't like the contents you might be better of not buying or reading it, rather than trying to ban it. Getting worked up in this way only makes you look silly. American history has shown that there are always plenty of folk out there who, if given the opportunity, are willing to bump of the president -you've lost four already. To an outsider it seems that taking shots at the commander in chief is almost a national sport; and the risk of an early visit to Arlington is probably the only major downside of the job. I'm sure any future or current enthusiasts of this activity are not going to be influenced by the contents of this book. There was a "Naked Gun" film a few years ago about a fictional plot to nobble or own great monarch. Nnobody here, not even Queenie herself, got terribly upset about it.

Edited July 25, 2004 by amor

[Leonard]

Oh, another rule for 'real men'.

Real men are not ruled by queens.