Not very nice of me, I know - but in this case, turnabout is fair play. Cohen, you may remember, is the guy who decided that since algebra was too hard for him, it ought not to be taught to anyone that doesn’t explicitly beg for it. This time, he commits the following lapse in good taste:
…[W]e know from various British accounts that close aides to Prime Minister Tony Blair recognized early on that Bush was going to go to war — and that Blair, his poodle at obedient heel, would follow along.
Oh, how original - Blair, as Bush’s poodle. Imagine that - who would have thought of such delightful imagery? What year is this, 2003? I’ll remind you at this point that Cohen is paid a tremendous amount of money to write for the Washington Post…and I’ll leave it to you to come up with a plausible reason why…
March 31st, 2006 at 11:32 am
I’ve never heard an explanation from anyone who uses that “Bush’s poodle” line exactly why Blair would choose to be his poodle. They come from opposing political philosophies, but they happen to agree on this one point. Bush doesn’t have much in the way of leverage to force Blair to do anything; indeed, Blair took a political hit at home to lend his support. Is it such a strain on the brains of kneejerk anti-Bush folks to acknowledge that someone whom they agree with 99 percent of the time could possibly think Bush was right without having some nefarious reason for doing so?
Well, I guess judging by the treatment of Joe Lieberman, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. Purity above all, I suppose.
May 6th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
but its not always that way