OPINION

Flying Shoe-cers

December 17, 2008
Kavita Chhibber

And the look on the face of George Bush as America hit (!)a new low in more ways than one-was priceless

What’s been even more interesting is the comments of most people of a diverse mix, who’ve seen the video and have spoken to me.. Its mostly “ Too bad the reporter guy missed!’

While my bleary eyes(working on interviews related to the Mumbai attacks) took in the video and my lips had their moment of mirth, many more comments and phrases and posts flew across the internet and hit their mark.

I hope I don’t tread on too many toes-after all it’s the President of the United States. But here goes

“It gives fresh meaning to the phrase shooed away.

"Bush's Ducker T-shirt" puts his head on a tee ducking a barrage of shoes

It would have been even more funny, had President GWB asked that man for his socks!!!

The jokes and the shoes were flying on the late night talk shows Monday night. The comedians couldn't get enough of that shoe-throwing incident in Iraq.
President Bush was shown over-and-over ducking the shoes thrown by an Iraqi reporter during a Baghdad news conference.

Jay Leno wants to know where was the Secret Service. He asks shouldn't they have "at least jumped in front of the second shoe?"

David Letterman was impressed by the president's quick reactions. Letterman says Bush "hasn't dodged anything like that since, well, the Vietnam War."
Conan O'Brien says the shoe-thrower is being hailed as a hero by some in Iraq. O'Brien adds when the man dies, "he'll be greeted in heaven by 72 podiatrists."

Newspapers across the U.S. had headlines saying shoe-icide attack, shoe-nabomber and even

Meanwhile Americans are having their say on what should be done with the shoes.

Some tell CNN they should be put in the Smithsonian, be impeached along with Bush, or should be auctioned off with the proceeds going to the auto industry.
Seriously. Say what you will about Dubya, he’s in his 60s and has the reflexes of a cat.

Who woulda thunk that ducking a shoe would actually help the public’s perception of W?!

Bush Iraqi shoe attack: Why didn't the Secret Service take a loafer for the president?

George Bush does a shoe dance.

And this from Chris Bucholz-

So Someone threw their shoes at the President this weekend. Shoes. The President. I know. We wouldn’t really be a comedy site if we didn’t discuss this at least a little bit, would we?

Anyways, here’s the facts: During a press conference, an Iraqi reporter carefully removed both his shoes, stood up and proceeded to throw them, one after the other, at President Bush. The President responded, sensibly, by ducking twice. His attacker, now out of ammunition, then responded by being tackled to the floor by a team of Secret Service Agents. And aside from some glib shoe puns, that was the end of it.

Right off the bat, my first reaction was to be marginally impressed at the President’s reflexes. Bush has taken a lot of stick for being a terrible president, which is probably fair, given his generally high levels of terribleness. But did you see the speed of that duck? That was Mortal Kombat fast. I half expected to see a harpoon come flying out of his coat sleeve after the first shoe sailed past
.
Second reaction: Where was the Secret Service? I gather they’ve taken some flak already about this, although mainly from pencil-necked pundits and bloggers like myself, nattering away safe in our beds. Just milling around the Internet, I’ve seen lots of sweaty outrage about “the second shoe” today. It does seem a little surprising that a guy could fire two whole shoes at the President of the United States before someone stopped him. What if they were one of those knife boots the kids are into these days? That could have done some damage.

But upon further reflection, the Secret Service agents probably handled this as effectively as possible. The guy was throwing shoes - although they probably could have shot him before he got that second shoe off, what do you have then? A dead guy with no shoes on, that’s what, and then you’re asked to leave the country and never come back. Considering how widely loved Bush is in Iraq (check back this time next year for the Iraqi’s first National “Fuck Bush Day”) it’s probably a minor miracle that he’s able to go there at all and come home alive, much less with a tread mark on his skull.

Third reaction: Oh, good work Bundy. The Iraq war has kind of fallen out of the American public’s consciousness the last year or so, mainly because it just leaves everyone feeling kind of bummed I guess. So this little stunt has, on the surface, brought it back to the forefront. But in a completely trivial way. Like every other type of protest, the only thing people talk about is the protest itself, not the message being raised. There are a lot of things about the Iraq war that deserve to be treated with a certain level of seriousness (all the dead people for one.) But instead of talking about that we’ve now got newsrooms across the country racking their brains looking for shoe puns.”

And shoe - eh so it goes.

KAVITA CHHIBBER is an accomplished freelance writer and media personality. She is well-known for her in-depth interviews of celebrities, authors and public officials. She also writes hard-hitting news articles and cover stories for publications. You can get a full range of her work and her interests (including astrology!) at KavitaChhibber.com.
eXTReMe Tracker
Keep reading for comments on this article and add some feedback of your own!

Comments! Feedback! Speak and be heard!

Comment on this article or leave feedback for the author

#1
Guido
December 18, 2008
03:22 PM

Humor aside; imagine the outcome had Saddam Hussein been his target. Mr. Shoe-slinger would have his cranium on a pole...literally.

Ciao, Guido

#2
commonsense
December 18, 2008
05:10 PM

Guido,

how are you taking obama's spectacular win? is civilization, as you know it, now with one leg in the grave? Can you determine which leg it might be? the left one or the right one?

#3
Kerty
December 18, 2008
11:21 PM

Lame ducks are easy butt of jokes. Once mighty and powerful are reduced to a rubble and ridicule. It gives some a sense of power, retribution, victory, karmic justice. Media thrives on it. It loves to raise the presidents to the level of worship and than bring them down to the earthly levels.

Yet. This is not a moment to break out in laughter and humor. This is a personal attack on the president of the most powerful nation. It emboldens wrong types of people. It sends wrong message to those who would want to hurl more than shoes at USA. It belittles presidency of USA. One may disagree with Bush's policies. But to bring the discourse to physical attacks on president and presidency of USA should be cause of alarm.

#4
kavita chhibber
URL
December 19, 2008
01:42 AM

Hi Guido,
I think the world is on a honeymoon with Obama but he still has to prove himself. It was interesting though that while working on a story on the Mumbai attack, for the next issue of my emagazine, I heard only positive things about Obama from pakistanis and Indians alike-and even some comments like we wish we had an Obama as our leader. He seems to be doing everything right in his selection of office bearers, but i guess today even he felt the stress of the burden Bush has left behind as he lashed out at the President.
Kerty, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. Respect has to be earned and Bush hardly perceives himself as a lame duck, even today-its the economy and so much more that is limping. The office of the President is enhanced or diminished by the man who graces it and no matter who is shooting the gun from his shoulder ultimately the President is accountable.

#5
Kerty
December 19, 2008
03:03 AM

Kavita

May be they should start executing every outgoing ruler as has been the unwritten tradition among Islamic rulers.

The position of presidency should be accorded highest honor and respect that does not have to be earned but is intrinsic to the position. The requirement should be that the position be earned by ballots. That should be the only valid criteria and mechanism of earning respect and holding the the president accountable. Everything else can be highly subjective and partisan - you don't want every outgoing president to be humiliated and kicked around by partisans for whatever partisan reasons they may drum up. Let outgoing presidents leave the office gracefully. If Bush has fallen short in the eyes of people, his party has already been held accountable and punished at the ballot box. We don't need public flogging of outgoing presidents.

#6
Guido
December 19, 2008
05:58 AM

Kavita

The shoe-scapade is laughable and serious. Kerty makes valid points; it is no small matter when a head of state is physically assaulted. And the office warrants respect even if you disagree with the occupant. On the other hand, the moronic assailer and situation are ironically humorous in light of my first post. On the positive side, the fact this gentleman was able to literally throw his opinion and still keep his head speaks volumes for how far freedom of expression has advanced in this new democracy.

"I think the world is on a honeymoon with Obama but he still has to prove himself."

Good point. One should ask the question why is Obama so popular with nothing to show for it but rhetoric? The world and much of America has been spoon fed a bill of goods by the president elect himself and the overwhelming pro-Obama press. So we'll wait and see if he can deliver. Fortunately for him, he'll have most of the media facilitating perceptions.

As for President Bush, fringe idealogs will either blame every ill on him, or absolve him from all responsibility. Neither extreme is true.

On the economy, Bush and the GOP share culpability with the democrats for the current financial crisis. Bush for allowing the deficit to grow out of control, and the dems for the failed housing disaster via GSEs that facilitated the collapse and subsequent recession. There are certainly more factors, but the failing of government at many levels is now apparent.

The Iraq war will be Bush's legacy. IMHO he acted in what he considered to be in the best interest of America during the post 9/11 environment. Bush's intentions were security driven and all credible evidence supports this.

Most folks can rationally debate whether or not the Iraq war is justifiable...was/is it worth the lives and money spent by Iraqis and Americans. Only time and developments in Iraq and elsewhere can conclusively answer that question. There is no doubt that the modus operandi was initially flawed. But anyone with the slightest inkling of military history knows that even the best laid plans never survive first contact with the enemy. Not an excuse, just a fact. To Bush's credit, he had the resolve and foresight to make adjustments and support the surge while the political opposition was claiming defeat and jumping overboard. And let's not forget the MSM propagating military missteps and perpetuating the defeatist angle at every opportunity to promote their political agenda.

As stated, only time and future events will provide the backdrop needed to accurately judge the war. Unfortunately for some, they will cling tightly to their media generated hatred of President Bush to the very end.

Ciao, Guido

#7
commonsense
December 19, 2008
09:16 AM

Guido:

""The Iraq war will be Bush's legacy. IMHO he acted in what he considered to be in the best interest of America during the post 9/11 environment. Bush's intentions were security driven and all credible evidence supports this.""

"credible evidence""?? not even straining credibility here guido, and not for the first time. how far are you willing to be mired in pure ideology and rejecting the real world? Yes indeed there is credible evidence that the evidence was doctored and spun. even the spinners don't deny it.

this in from yesterday's news, albeit not from your favourite, Faux News, but from AP, not the loony left either, át least for most people except you:

""Report raps ex-White House pair on Iraq claims

By PAMELA HESS
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales misled Congress when he claimed the CIA in 2002 approved information that ended up in the 2003 State of the Union speech about Iraq's alleged effort to buy uranium for its nuclear weapons program, a House Democrat said Thursday.

Former CIA Director George Tenet wrote at length in his memoir about three memos the CIA had sent to the White House explaining why it doubted the claim and believed it should not be included in the speeches.

In July 2003, Rice acknowledged that the claim should not have made it into the speech based on what she had learned in the months since the State of the Union"





#8
Guido
December 19, 2008
02:45 PM

CS,

Please save the personal juvenile attacks for your likeminded friends at the Daily Kos.

As for the AP reports, let's forget for the moment the facts you and the media conveniently chose to ignore.

Let's forget that nearly every intelligence agency in the western world believed Saddam Hussein had WMD and constituted an immediate threat.

Let's forget Saddam killed millions and terrorized his own people, including using mustard gas.

Let's forget that he invaded and brutalized the Kuwaitis.

Let's forget that ninety-eight percent of the US congress...both sides of the house and senate supported the Iraq invasion.

Lets' forget that he ignored and deified every UN resolution for more than 10 years.

Let's forget that Hans Blix said before the invasion that, according to Iraq's own paperwork, the Hussein regime was in violation of the ceasefire terms in over a dozen different ways.

Let's forget that since all the ceasefire terms held equal weight and validity under UNSCR 687, with no single category being listed as having priority, it does not ultimately matter which term he broke.

Let's forget UNSCOM was not under the Bush Administration, it was the inheritor of UNMOVIC's mission and as such was a United Nations operation. Iraq was prohibited not only from having WMDs but also from having any programs, parts, equipment or materials for making them. Having the capacity to churn out lethal biological agents, whether they kill one person at a time or a thousand, means a simple retooling gets you WMDs. Iraq wasn't even allowed to have this kind of dual-use equipment in the manufacture of NORMAL things. But Saddam had them.

Let's forget that Saddam had ample and multiple opportunities to avoid war. The simple fact is that one cannot read UNSCR 1441 and come away with the conclusion that "last chance to comply" means anything more or less than what it says. It is the commanding language, and personal opinions, either for or against, do not trump it.

Let's forget that The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report identified numerous failures in the intelligence-gathering and-analysis process. The report found that these failures led to the creation of inaccurate materials that misled both government policy makers and the American public. AND the Committee's Republican majority and Democratic minority agreed on the report's major conclusions and unanimously endorsed its findings.

Let's forget that high ranking members of Hussein's former Baath party gave detailed interviews confirming transportation of WMD to Syria.

Let's forget the fact that Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti, a southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen militia said this: "Iraqi scientists were turned over to Libya along with many documents and research from Iraq on nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that Saddam was attempting to use Libya as a laboratory to further his nuclear development just like he was attempting to do by sending his weapons to Syria. Saddam knew after the Gulf War he needed to start shipping his weapons and programs outside of his borders to avoid detection which is exactly why Saddam became so emboldened and laughed at the West everytime he stood in front of the camera. If you were to compare him in the 80's and 90's you would see a much more confident and defiant Saddam in the latter due to the fact he knew there was nothing to materially pin him on within the borders of Iraq."

Let's forget that forty nine countries were initially involved in the Iraqi war.

Let's forget the majority of Democrats who supported the invasion...most privy to the same Intel:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Yes, let's forget that the main stream media is in large part liberally biased and would stop at nothing to discredit Bush or any sitting republican

Let's forget the fact that the MSM all but ignores the independent embedded journalist reporting daily on progress, yet clamors to shove a microphone in the face of any disgruntled vet.

Credible sources? Only to the true believers.

Let's forget ALL this just for the sake of argument. Let's ignore the facts and assume Bush singlehandedly duped the world and beefed up the Intel reports to go to war. The same Intel the Security Council received...but let's forget that for the moment.

Why would Bush distort the information? What was his motive? Bloodthirsty reckless cowboy? The liberal press would have you believe so; and sadly many do. Oil? Nope! The US has not received any marked increase in Iraqi oil.

So why would he lie? Why would he put America's sons and daughters at risk? There is only one rational explanation. He was unequivocally one hundred percent convinced that Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat and that invasion was in the best interest of the US.

I would rather have a president who bases his judgment and decisions on conviction, rather than one that might hesitate for the sake of political expediency. What would the consequences have been had the threat been immediate as evident by the countless indicators, but then nothing done? Where would the WMD be now? How close would Saddam be to nukes? Does anyone have any doubt that he would have continued to defy the UNSC and try to develop WMD? How many more Iraqis would have been imprisoned, tortured, and murdered for nothing more than disagreement? How many more mass graves would there be?

Why doesn't the mainstream media ask these questions? Anyone with half a brain knows the answer.

Ciao, Guido

#9
commonsense
December 19, 2008
05:46 PM

Guido:

""CS,

Please save the personal juvenile attacks for your likeminded friends at the Daily Kos.""

I did, but I am so juvenile that there was an enormous surplus leftover, so i directed it at you in the hope that it would provoke you publish a longer hysterical post - and my gambit worked! You, together with the 22% of george's last supporters deserved some medal of honour for stretching the meaning of the term - credibility. One day I am sure you will win that medal.

#10
commonsense
December 19, 2008
05:49 PM

Guido:

""Why doesn't the mainstream media ask these questions? Anyone with half a brain knows the answer.""

why don't you empathise with the likes of me who have only quarter of a brain (an overestimate by a wide margin!) and provide an answer to your own question? Or must we subscribe to the Faux News Channel?

#11
commonsense
December 19, 2008
05:53 PM

Hey Guido,

All those quotes you have already reproduced a few times in the past! Do you have a "macro" for them that allows you to reproduce them at a moments notice whenever your faux-patriotism is under stress by reality?

Or are you simply following the kerty model by blaming everything on planet earth on "maoists, mullahs, jihadis, queers, pseculars, lefties (loonies and non-loonies)?

#12
commonsense
December 19, 2008
05:58 PM

Guido:

""What would the consequences have been had the threat been immediate as evident by the countless indicators, but then nothing done? Where would the WMD be now?"'

great question indeed! where would the non-existent "WMD's be now"? A prize for logic in the offing for you. A tentative answer to your question is provided by Rumsfeld. But this is just a tentative answer and I am sure, given your acute skills in logic and deduction, you can better it! The quote from your hero "explaining" the missing WMD's:

"The message is that there are known knowns - there are things that we know that we know. There are known unknowns - that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns ... things we do not know we don't know. And each year we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns."

#13
commonsense
December 19, 2008
06:19 PM

guido,

don't take anything i say too seriously! even i don't! if i had anything better to do i would not bother engaging with your delusions...although i have nothing against delusions...the real world is too complex and hard to fathom.

Add your comment

(Or ping: http://desicritics.org/tb/8579)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.






Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!