Assassination Called For

Instapundit has linked to this Guardian post, so everyone knows about it already.

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

And I thought Operation Clark County was meddlesome.

Here's what The Guardian should do: get a database together of the president's itinerary and give out one by one the locations, dates, and times where Bush is supposed to be to people who sign up with their email addresses. Each person is to attempt to assassinate the president at the location and time assigned to them. It's the power of the web! Call it Operation Texas Book Depository.

That writing letters to Ohio voters thing was for suckers anyway. There was never any guarantee with the Clark County deal that the Guardian would affect the outcome of the election. With OTBD, all it would take is one success, and with maximum presidential coverage assured via the web, it would be very nearly certain. Screw Clark County! Dumb yokels.

Update: More from The Daily Ablution, Tim Blair, and normblog.

Update: How about assassinating Charlie Brooker, the author of the Guardian piece? That would probably be wrong. Anyway, here's his fact sheet. It'll probably self-destruct within 30 seconds, as the Guardian website did.

Update: In place of the original post at the Guardian is now this apology:

Charlie Brooker apologises for any offence caused by his comments relating to President Bush in his TV column, Screen Burn. The views expressed in this column are not those of the Guardian. Although flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action - an intention he believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand. He deplores violence of any kind.

As far as these types of apologies go, it's only middling weaselly. There's the apology for the offense rather than for writing it in the first place, and the excuse that his regular readers got that it was an ironic joke, unlike us daytripping yaboes. (Where exactly is the irony?) But I've seen worse apologies.