Day By Day© by Chris Muir.

Wednesday, March 09, 2005

Steyn on the world's reluctant admission that Bush may have been right

As have others, Mark Steyn has noticed that the world is catching on to the fact that Bush might have been right. Here you can read his Irish Times article, which includes these incredibly funny gems of wisdom:

Come on, lads. You don’t want to be the last to leap aboard the bandwagon. The New York Times are running front page stories with headlines like “Unexpected Whiff Of Freedom Proves Bracing For The Middle East”. Daniel Schorr, the dean of conventional wisdom at National Public Radio, was for once almost ahead of the game, concluding his most recent editorial with a strange combination of words that had never before passed his lips in that particular order: “Bush may have had it right.” Did he simply muff the reading? Did he mean to say: “Bush may have had it - right?” But apparently not. Ever since, the same form of words has mysteriously flowered from Toronto to London to Sydney. It’s the catchphrase du jour - like “Show me the money” or “You are the weakest link. Goodbye.” Now it’s “Could Bush be right?” Even America’s media naysayers have suddenly noticed that they can hardly hear their own generic boilerplate about what a Vietnam quagmire the new Iraq is over the sound of raven-tressed Beirut hotties noisily demanding Lebanon’s freedom in the streets of Beirut. Over at Britain’s Guardian, meanwhile, the poor chaps are desperately trying to give credit to anyone but the reviled Bushitler. Here’s how Timothy Garton Ash opened his disquisition: “Has Osama bin Laden started a revolution in the Middle East?” Well, that’s one way to look at it. Maybe he could share the Nobel Peace Prize with Michael Moore and
The one that had me laughing out loud, though, was this riff about Qaddafi, who was the first to see which way the dominos (dominoes?) were falling:
Last week’s Arabic News reported that Colonel Gaddafy has “underscored the need to launch full freedom in Libya”. And to show he’s serious he’s introduced yet another spelling of his name: as the headline put it, “Qathafi Wants Freedom To Prosper In Libya”. Qathafi: that’s a new one on me. I’ve seen him spelled Khadafi, Qaddafi, Gadhafi, Qudhafi, Kadafi, Gheddafi, Kaddafi, Qadhdhafi and a couple dozen others, but clearly this latest one is an indication that, like Mubarak in Egypt, he’s under pressure to move to a multi-candidate electoral system and is planning to run as all of them: Gadafi (Sclerotic Dictatorship Party), Qadafi (Sword Of The Infidel Slayer-Liberal Democratic Alliance), Gaddhafi (New Sclerotic Dictatorship Party), Khaddaffy (Khonservative Phartty)…
I would give a lot to write as Mark Steyn does (and he makes it look so easy).