Hey Jude, don’t make it bad

Posted on June 24th, 2004 by

Roger Ailes points out what a real Saddam-lover looks like. His name? Jude Wanniski. His article? Saddam Suddenly Looks Innocent:

I’m only suggesting you go back to your law books and, for your own good, get a good grip on why Saddam Hussein is behind bars when it now turns out he doesn’t seem to have done anything wrong. You might then be in a better position to advise the President on how to proceed in the best way to avoid further Bigtime Boo-Boos.

Now that is some seriously fucked up shit:

As an associate editor of The Wall Street Journal from 1972 to 1978, Jude Wanniski repopularized the classical theories of supply-side economics.

Come back next week, when Jude will write on the following topics:

  • George Bush suddenly looks like a distinguished scholar.
  • Bill Clinton suddenly looks like a model husband.
  • Fox News suddenly looks fair and balanced.

    Add your own suggestions in the comments for a Suddenly Jude? topic. Pete M. from The Dark Window will perform an exorcism free of charge for [though not necessarily on] the author of the funniest entry.

    [Fixed typo — thanks Blair! Fixed another typo — no thanks to Blair.]

     
    • Posted in Uncategorized

    Comments: 6

     
     
    Mike Jones
    June 24th, 2004 at 3:59 pm
     

    What the hell do they mean, “repopularized”? And since when does a theory invented on a cocktail napkin at a Manhattan bar by Arthur Laffer and Robert Bartley become “classical”? Jeeeeeebus, no matter how low you set the expectations for truth-telling, they continue to exceed.

     
    Frederick
    June 24th, 2004 at 4:33 pm
     

    Pete M. from The Dark Window will perform an exorcism free of charge for [though not necessarily on] the author funniest entry.

    Speaking of typos, shouldn’t “of the” be between “author” and “funniest” at the end?

     
    Frederick
    June 24th, 2004 at 5:16 pm
     

    [Fixed typo — thanks Blair! Fixed another typo — no thanks to Blair.]

    I guess I don’t get no thanks. 🙁

     
    Chris Vosburg
    June 24th, 2004 at 7:38 pm
     

    I read Jude’s article and agree with his central contention, which, unsurprisingly enough, seems to be that the case against Saddam is rather weak if the standards of evidence used to judge him are the same as those being afforded Bush.

    Maybe I’m reading it wrong. So, what’s the problem?

     
    j fyrste
    June 24th, 2004 at 9:51 pm
     

    Sadly, No suddenly looks like the news source of record.

    (believe me, i mean that kindly)

     
    serial-offender
    June 25th, 2004 at 11:13 am
     

    I gotta say, he does make a pretty convincing case.
    Really, what can the US prosecute Saddam for?
    (not to mention Tariq Aziz and the rest of the former govt.)
    Torturing and killing Iraqis?
    Invading another country?
    Pricing oil in Euros?
    Not attending the University of Chicago?

     
     

    (comments are closed)