literally with blood on his hands
September 25th, 2007 by Fitz
Ahmadinejad questions 9/11, Holocaust
President Bush said Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Columbia “speaks volumes about, really, the greatness of America.”
He told Fox News Channel that if Bollinger considered Ahmadinejad’s visit an educational experience for Columbia students, “I guess it’s OK with me.”
But conservatives on Capitol Hill were critical. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, said he thought the invitation to Ahmadinejad was a mistake “because he comes literally with blood on his hands.”
He really should wash his hands before visiting another country.
(Thanks, Jeff, Matt from Texas, Shannon Briese Aissen, and Frank Ciavarella)
September 25th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
LOL, I had just seen this on MSNBC too and had come over to email you the link. I immediately thought of this site when I read that last line.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
The audience must have been horrified when he got off the plane!
September 25th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
I hope someone pointed out the stupid comment to Lieberman himself. Uh, sir, what you said was, uh, literally wrong, cause um, literally he didn’t have blood…
September 27th, 2007 at 10:58 am
I found it especially amusing because the version I read Monday night included three pictures of Ahmadinejad gesturing with his hands, visible from different angles: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070925/D8RS6TN80.html
September 28th, 2007 at 12:06 am
This example is interesting, because there are actually three ways that “blood on his hands” could be used.
It could be used to mean that a person indirectly caused the death of others–”You have blood on your hands, because you didn’t didn’t fix the brakes on that car properly.”
It could mean that a person directly caused the death of others–”He could not get over his fits of jealous rage, and now he has blood on his hands.”
Or it could, of course, be used literally–”That butcher has blood on his hands every day.”