This article in a Swedish newspaper today caught my attention:
http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/kultur/story/0,2789,927914,00.html
For those of you who come from a lesser existence, and therefore
haven't been taught the Swedish language*, I'll try to give you the gist
of the article.
Terry's comparing Bush to Caesar, with the end conclusion that they're
not at all the same. For one thing, while Bush appear quite modest in his
quest, Caesar proclaimed loud and clear that he was the protector of
Galilean (or however it's written in this inferior language*). Bush
considers himself the rescuer of the Iraqi people, so they're somewhat
equal in that sense. But while Caesar ended up with over 200,000
thousand dead civilians that he gladly proclaimed to be defeated,
blood-thirsty savages, Bush isn't really counting at all. He sticks to the
figure of 30,000 even though a report published in The Lancet
recently estimated up to 650,000 (!) dead Iraqis. The final conclusion, by
the end of the article (I'm skipping a big part here), is: "Julius Caesar
was an ambitious and conceited tyrant in the making. George Bush is a
modest and humble tyrant."
Well, I could translate the whole article for you, but I won't bother. I
think you got the gist of it. 😀
* Comments like this are meant for humorous effect only. If you feel
offended in any way, or make the assumption that I must be one of
those nationalistic idiots that roam our desecrated globe, I won't be held
responsible for anything you might say and do in your anger.