Not that I was ever a fan, but at least it was somewhat respectable.

Until, of course, today’s op-ed entitled — I’m not making this up — What Bush and Batman Have in Common

Apparently, this is what Bush and Batman (at least, the latest incarnation of Batman) have in common:

1)  They are both "vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand".

I haven’t seen the new Batman movie, so I can’t speak to that.  However, of the many reasons I villify and despise Bush, one of them is not because he confronts terrorists on terms they understand.

First of all, I don’t what that means – "only terms they understand".  Sounds machismo bullshit.

But more importantly, he doesn’t confront terrorists.  He left the pursuit for bin Laden to go into Iraq, where there weren’t terrorists to begin with!!!

2)  They both hav to "push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past".

Well, that’s a wishy-washy sentence if I ever heard one.  How does one define "emergency"?  What does "pushing the boundaries" actually mean?

***

In any event, Bush is not Batman.  Not even close.  For starters, when his nation calls, Batman shows up.  He didn’t pull daddy’s strings and spend four year avoiding service by (barely) attending the National Air Guard to avoid combat.

Need I say more?

UPDATE:  The rightwing blogosphere is all over the WSJ op-ed, praising it to high heaven, accompanied by the digital equivalent of fist-pounding-the-air. 

These are the very serious people who take the GWOT very seriously.  By comparing it to comic books and their cinematic offspring.