Iraqi Journalist Throws Shoes At Bush..Misses

Cicero said:
What did Bush do during the press conference that would require a solicitation of support? All he did was easily maneuver out of the way of two shoes thrown from 10 feet away by a Saddam supporter. You can find Saddam supporters in the U.S. and even in the JREFer forums.
Click to expand...


Two major problems there!

ONE: The guy didn't throw his shoes at bush for what he did or said during the press conference. The guy through his shoes at Bush in disgust at the murder of hundreds of thousands and te wrecking of his country


TWO: Saddam Supporter? :confused: There's nothing to suggest he was a support of Saddam. I do appreciate however that some people don't have the intelligence or sense to realize that the world isn't split into two camps and thus think that anyone criticizing one side must by defulat support his enemy.

This very low intelligent proposition was made popular by Bush when he said "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists!" Most decent people are with neither.

OK, there's another thing. Saddam supporters in the JREF forums? I've never come across any. Even the US Establishment stopped supporting Saddam when he decided to invade Kuwait and launched some missiles at Israel.
 
Cicero said:
Obviously, Saddam could not be removed using clandestine methods, or he would not still be in power a dozen years after Gulf War I.

Errors in intel are not lies. After seven years, nobody has produced proof that Bush knowingly, intentionally, or with premeditation, lied about what he thought to be true about WOMD's.

But not to worry. The same lawyer that defended Saddam is defending your buddy, Muntazer al-Zaidi. That should be of some comfort to Munt.
Click to expand...

The Australian intelligence office who resigned over the invasion told everyone how it works, he's seen it happen. Taken some piece of intelligence, remove the qualifications, instant fact. Afterwards, blame the intelligence officers because the politicians removed the qualifications.
 
http://www.theage.com.au/world/turkish-company-sees-boom-in-sales-of-bush-shoes-20081220-72j3.html

Sales in "Bush" shoe are booming.

The Turkish shoe company making the brand of footware used by an Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at US President George W Bush has seen a surge in orders.
Ramazan Baydan, owner of the shoe factory in Istanbul of the same name, told DPA that he had received orders in the past week for some 300,000 pairs of the model that was thrown at the US president.
Click to expand...
 
a_unique_person said:
The Australian intelligence office who resigned over the invasion told everyone how it works, he's seen it happen. Taken some piece of intelligence, remove the qualifications, instant fact. Afterwards, blame the intelligence officers because the politicians removed the qualifications.
Click to expand...

It's nearly 2009!! I can't believe people are still indoctrinated by this 'intel incomptence' BS. Iraq and it's citizens were sanctioned, invaded and murdered on the back of lies.

The Neocon plan to remove saddam was already under way in 1996

The 1996 report called a "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" was the first Neocon report calling for Iraq invasion. Was written by the Neocons Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser
 
Tin Foil Timothy said:
Two major problems there!

ONE: The guy didn't throw his shoes at bush for what he did or said during the press conference. The guy through his shoes at Bush in disgust at the murder of hundreds of thousands and te wrecking of his country


TWO: Saddam Supporter? :confused: There's nothing to suggest he was a support of Saddam. I do appreciate however that some people don't have the intelligence or sense to realize that the world isn't split into two camps and thus think that anyone criticizing one side must by defulat support his enemy.

This very low intelligent proposition was made popular by Bush when he said "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists!" Most decent people are with neither.

OK, there's another thing. Saddam supporters in the JREF forums? I've never come across any. Even the US Establishment stopped supporting Saddam when he decided to invade Kuwait and launched some missiles at Israel.
Click to expand...

1) The elected Iraqi parliament overwhelmingly passed the Bush-backed security plan that the he went to Iraq to sign.

2) The only countries in the Middle East where a journalist could survive after pelting a visiting dignitary with their shoes is Iraq and Israel.

3) Al-Baghdadia TV , where Munt works,

"has backed the Sunni terrorist insurgents, who were trying to restore the Saddam regime."

and

Al-Zeidi is a correspondent for al-Baghdadia, a pro-Baathist television station based in Cairo, Egypt, that some suspect is funded by Raghad.

http://middle-east-analysis.blogspot.com/

4) The fact that Arabs consider dogs “kelb” (scavengers) only enhances their image as noisome mendicants.
 
2) The only countries in the Middle East where a journalist could survive after pelting a visiting dignitary with their shoes is Iraq and Israel.
Click to expand...

Well, Jordan too, probably... though nowhere else, for sure.
 
Al-Zeidi is a correspondent for al-Baghdadia, a pro-Baathist television station based in Cairo, Egypt, that some suspect is funded by Raghad.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. The usual brand of pro-terrorist, I mean pro-insurgent, I mean pro-freedom fighters, guy.

All he cares about, surely, is how undermocratic and human rights abusing Bush is, and what suffering he caused to the Iraqis-- unlike that Ba'athist Saddam Hussein -- the flower of Iraq, the Lion of Jerusalem, the Tiger of Damascus, the Cheetah of Hamburg.

No wonder the usual gang of idiots supports him as a "freedom fighter" on this forum. He hates Bush, so he must be a good guy, right?
 
We have here a case of a pro-Saddam journalist throwing shoes at a pro-Democracy Bush. Suppose that the case was the opposite: suppose the pro-democracy man was the shoe throwing journalist, who protested Bush's decision to reinstall Saddam Hussein in power after a democratic coup.

Since the usual gang is falling over itself to congratulate the pro-Ba'athist journalist for his atack on the pro-democracy Bush, if the opposite were the case it would condemn the pro-democracy journalist and rally to support the pro-Ba'athist Bush, right?

Oh wait.

This is why I cannot take the anti-Bush ranters seriously: for all their talk about "human rights violations" and "opposing dictatorship", they automatically support and lionize ANYBODY -- from disgruntled journalists up to (and including) genocidal dictators -- who oppose Bush, no matter how fascistic or violent or thuggish they are.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
We have here a case of a pro-Saddam journalist throwing shoes at a pro-Democracy Bush. Suppose that the case was the opposite: suppose the pro-democracy man was the shoe throwing journalist, who protested Bush's decision to reinstall Saddam Hussein in power after a democratic coup.

Since the usual gang is falling over itself to congratulate the pro-Ba'athist journalist for his atack on the pro-democracy Bush, if the opposite were the case it would condemn the pro-democracy journalist and rally to support the pro-Ba'athist Bush, right?
Click to expand...
No. Since the removal of Saddam Hussein was the one good thing about an otherwise dumb and dishonest war, people would like Bush even less under the circumstances you postulate.

No, the only thing that would have made Bush acceptable to the "usual crowd" would have been if his Presidency hadn't been crap, an option which he does not appear to have considered.
 
Last edited:
No. Since the removal of Saddam Hussein was the one good thing about an otherwise dumb and dishonest war
Click to expand...

Really? I could've sworn the same folks who now support the pro-Saddam shoe-thrower are also the same people who explained to us how removing Saddam "violated Iraq's sovereignity", how Saddam was really the "glue holding Iraq together", how life in Iraq under Saddam wasn't that bad, how removing him "destabalized" the region, etc., etc., etc. -- you know, the usual.

So my conclusion is that whatever their theoretical justifications, the usual gang on this forum are de facto pro-Saddam, since they strongly believe that he should have been left in power and that it was, as you say, "dumb and dishonest" to go to war to remove him.

people would like Bush even less under the circumstances you postulate.
Click to expand...

Of course that you'd be in favor of the shoe-thrower and against Bush in the circumstances I describe, as well. That's just my point: you'd be in favor of the shoe-thrower and against Bush under any and all circumstances -- even if he were a KKK member who had thrown his shoes at Bush while Bush was singing "we shall overcome".

Let's imagine the posts on this forum by the usual gang of idiots in that case, shall we?

---"Bush is so unpopular even the KKK hates him, ha ha."
---"The shoe thrower exposed the hypocracy of Bush's singing of such a song when in reality he's a racist"
---"The real reason for the shoe throwing is that the KKK member is probably poor and is expressing the anger of working class America at the lies of the rich corporations that control Bush"...

Etc., etc., etc.

It's not even hard to know in advance what the forum anti-Bush gang's reaction will be, since it never varies. They'd support the KKK just like they support Saddam and Iran: it is enough to hate Bush in order to be on the side of the angels, no matter what sort of evil thug you are.
 
Skeptic said:
Really? I could've sworn the same folks who now support the pro-Saddam shoe-thrower are also the same people who explained to us how removing Saddam "violated Iraq's sovereignity", how Saddam was really the "glue holding Iraq together", how life in Iraq under Saddam wasn't that bad, how removing him "destabalized" the region, etc., etc., etc. -- you know, the usual.
Click to expand...
And, as I have explained, the same sort of criticisms could be leveled against an equally dumb war that installed a dictator rather than deposing one --- plus, in your hypothetical scenario, Bush would have installed a dictator rather than deposing one. This would make a bad move worse.

So my conclusion is that whatever their theoretical justifications, the usual gang on this forum are de facto pro-Saddam, since they strongly believe that he should have been left in power and that it was, as you say, "dumb and dishonest" to go to war to remove him.
Click to expand...
What a bizarre, other-worldly conclusion.

Which countries do you think the US should invade right now? Do you "conclude" that you are "de facto" in favor of the ruling regimes of any countries not on your list? Or does this sort of zany fantasy only apply to people whom you disagree with?

Of course that you'd be in favor of the shoe-thrower and against Bush in the circumstances I describe, as well. That's just my point: you'd be in favor of the shoe-thrower and against Bush under any and all circumstances ...
Click to expand...
No. As I pointed out, if he hadn't made a total pig's breakfast of everything, that would have earned my approval.

Let's imagine the posts on this forum by the usual gang of idiots in that case, shall we?

---"Bush is so unpopular even the KKK hates him, ha ha."
---"The shoe thrower exposed the hypocracy of Bush's singing of such a song when in reality he's a racist"
---"The real reason for the shoe throwing is that the KKK member is probably poor and is expressing the anger of working class America at the lies of the rich corporations that control Bush"...

Etc., etc., etc.

It's not even hard to know in advance what the forum anti-Bush gang's reaction will be, since it never varies. They'd support the KKK just like they support Saddam and Iran: it is enough to hate Bush in order to be on the side of the angels, no matter what sort of evil thug you are.
Click to expand...
You can, of course, "imagine" what you like. But railing against other people on the basis of your fantasies about them makes you look a little odd. Perhaps you should stick to criticizing people for what they actually do, rather than on the basis of your daydreams about them.
 
skeptigirl said:
Not trying to cherry pick, mind you, but I couldn't find more than a blog comment or reply supporting Bush.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense.

Bush broke no law during the conference. He doesn't need, nor could it benefit him, to have support.
 
Yes, the way you can tell that I am a Bush supporter is by pointing out why I would expect no one to support him over the shoe throwing incident.

Good work there.
 
Tin Foil Timothy said:
It's nearly 2009!! I can't believe people are still indoctrinated by this 'intel incomptence' BS. ...
Click to expand...
Given all the evidence (Plame affair; Downing St memo; books by Bush supporter, Bob Woodward and the counter-intelligence head, Richard Clarke; PBS Moyers special, The Selling of the War, to name a few sources), it does boggle the mind the denial people cling to. It goes to show you the marketing adage, just repeating something often enough and people begin to believe it, works quite well. Bush and Cheney actively repeat the "intelligence failure" mantra and sadly, it is successful. But it will only be temporarily IMO. History will not be kind.
 
Last edited:
gtc said:
This makes no sense.

Bush broke no law during the conference. He doesn't need, nor could it benefit him, to have support.
Click to expand...
You and Cicero are quite the pair here. I post evidence of worldwide support of the sentiment against Bush and you make this straw man style excuse for why there is no equivalent of Bush supporters making their views publicly known.
 
Skeptic said:
... a pro-Democracy Bush. ....
Click to expand...
And you call yourself a skeptic!

Bush is only pro-democracy when it is convenient. And in his case, it's mostly only convenient to claim to be for democracy and freedom. I think if you took a few minutes to look past the rhetoric at the actual things Bush has done in the last 8 years, it might be more apparent to you what a silly statement you've made here.
 
Skeptic said:
We have here a case of a pro-Saddam journalist throwing shoes at a pro-Democracy Bush. Suppose that the case was the opposite: suppose the pro-democracy man was the shoe throwing journalist, who protested Bush's decision to reinstall Saddam Hussein in power after a democratic coup.

Since the usual gang is falling over itself to congratulate the pro-Ba'athist journalist for his atack on the pro-democracy Bush, if the opposite were the case it would condemn the pro-democracy journalist and rally to support the pro-Ba'athist Bush, right?

Oh wait.

This is why I cannot take the anti-Bush ranters seriously: for all their talk about "human rights violations" and "opposing dictatorship", they automatically support and lionize ANYBODY -- from disgruntled journalists up to (and including) genocidal dictators -- who oppose Bush, no matter how fascistic or violent or thuggish they are.
Click to expand...


"Pro-Democracy Bush" :jaw-dropp


I almost 'did a gtc' then and posted a whole chorus line of Laughing Dogs.

You are also showing what I'm calling 1 bit computational limits. There's only 2 possible states.

"you're either with us or you're with the terrorists"

"You're either with us or you're with the twoofers"


Can't some of you people understand that just because someone criticizes one side it doesn't mean they support their enemy?

This ideology of "Good versus Evil" without room for any other facet really has indoctrinated some. The old school lessons on 'Duck and Cover' had a long lasting effect on some I think :)


"Pro-Democracy Bush" <shakes head>

Now that's today's killer. It's a pity the stundie awards are limited to CTs :D :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom