An Iraqi couple has named their child George Bush after the US President…
"He saved us from Saddam and that’s why we named our son after him," the baby’s mother, Nadia Jergis Mohammed, told the Associated Press Television News. "It was George Bush who liberated us; without him it wouldn’t have happened."
Baby Bush was born July 11 to Mohammed, 34, and her husband Abdul Kader Faris, 41. His full name is George Bush Abdul Kader Faris Abed El-Hussein.
If the couple had had twin boys, the father wanted to name the other baby Tony Blair, because he said both the U.S. and Britain liberated Iraq
—
The tiny boy’s mother told APTN that all Iraqis hated Saddam’s regime, and that President Bush freed them from his dictatorship.
"If he hadn’t done it the sons of Saddam would have ruled us for years," she said.
You have love the fact that things like this must tie liberals in knots…
Oh, it doesn’t tie me in knots, but the irony of a man named Mohammed naming his son George Bush is truly hilarious. 🙂 I hope that the lad grows up to have all the courage, intelligence, foresight, judgement, and grammatical ability of his namesake.
These parents should be jailed for child abuse….having subjected their young child to a lifetime of brutality at the hands of millions of his peers whose hatred for George Bush can only be expected to grow, particularly now that we’re losing interest in patching up the bullet holes we burdened their infrastructure with. By the time this kid gets to adolesence, George Bush will be a name that inspires more rage among Iraqis than Hussein’s does. In fact, we’re probably already at that stage.
Do you ever read the news? The President has repeatedly said that we’re not leaving Iraq until the job is done. If we were losing interest in this, why the holy hell would we still have over 100,000 American troops still in Iraq?
It’s not like the President just gave a major speech on the subject or anything…
Well, now that reminds me of that German couple back in Nazi Germany who requested permission to name their baby daughter “Hitlerine” in honor of the Führer.
Now, make no mistake. I do not want to equate Bush with Hitler. It is the spirit of sucking up to whoever is in power that strikes me here. You may think that George Bush Abdul Kader Faris Abed El-Hussein is the coolest baby. Well, I don’t know about that. He would have been a cool baby if he had survived a 12 meter drop off a building and then merely belched. Getting named (a wholely passive “activity”) is not something that would make the namee cool. His parents are, in my most humble opinion, suck ups.
Janek
I’m looking at the George Will headline in the newspaper in front of me that reads “Iraqis must take responsibility”. That headline gives me all the information I need to understand where this thing is going.
Imagine if you were a teenager whose parents left for the weekend, leaving you temporary caretaker of the homestead in their absence. A few rowdy strangers invited themselves over and threw a destructive party that left the interior of your parents’ home in a state of utter disarray. The strangers decide to help clean up the mess they made for an hour or so, but then decide they’re exhausted, leaving you to clean up the mess they made in your home. The strangers lecture you about the need to “take responsibility” for your home as they sip iced tea and count the dollars in your parents piggy banks. Do you think you’d find this to be an acceptable situation? I didn’t think so. Neither do the Iraqi people.
…having subjected their young child to a lifetime of brutality at the hands of millions of his peers whose hatred for George Bush can only be expected to grow…
Democrats? LOL!
A few rowdy strangers invited themselves over and threw a destructive party that left the interior of your parents’ home…
Bad analogy. How about:
A few rowdy strangers take over your house and hold you hostage. Cops come and save your ass, but in the process break the door down.
Who should clean up the mess and pay for the new door?
To see how dumb an argument Mark is making, all one has to do is examine the converse:
Either we have the Iraqis run their own country, or the US permanently occupy and run Iraq. If we go by Mark’s argument, the US would have to act as an imperial power.
Of course, if we were to do that, Mark and his ilk would be screaming about "empire" and comparing Bush to Caesar.
Which only goes to show that the only logic constant in the Democratic universe is that whatever a Republican does, it must be wrong, even if such an argument goes against logic and common sense.
You have love the fact that things like this must tie liberals in knots…
Eh? Why would it? You seem to forget that liberals are about a diversity of opinion. Why would Iraq be any more unified in opposition to occupation than our country is?
Ah, but of course, you were talking about your straw-man “liberals” who don’t exist anywhere but in your mind. Makes sense, now.
Oh, by the way: This
Either we have the Iraqis run their own country, or the US permanently occupy and run Iraq. If we go by Mark’s argument, the US would have to act as an imperial power.
is the fallacy of false alternatives.