Iraqi Journalist Throws Shoes At Bush..Misses

[Tin Foil Timothy]

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.

I almost spat my coffee over my keyboard when I read that. In amongst the fabricators of straw man arguments and gross untruths there's some real entertainment value in this forum.

Priceless!!! We should frame it and hang it on the wall!!

 

[gtc]

You and Cicero are quite the pair here.

Saying that just makes you look even sillier.

I post evidence of worldwide support of the sentiment against Bush

No you didn't.

This is what you posted:

Thousands protest for release of Iraqi journalist

Iraq rally for Bush shoe attacker

In Iraqi’s Shoe-Hurling Protest, Arabs Find a Hero. (It’s Not Bush.)

Thousands of Iraqis protest arrest of shoe-throwing journalist

Montrealers are being invited to hurl their footwear at the U.S. Consulate on Saturday in solidarity with an Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at President George W. Bush this week.

These are articles in support of the man who threw his shoes at Bush.

Then you ended the post with this:

Not trying to cherry pick, mind you, but I couldn't find more than a blog comment or reply supporting Bush.

and you make this straw man style excuse for why there is no equivalent of Bush supporters making their views publicly known.

What were you expecting? People know that throwing shoes at someone is not polite, its why the man did it. There is no need to point out that it is impolite to do so.

As an aside, what is a straw man style excuse? Either something is a straw man argument or it isn't.

 

[gtc]

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.

You've tried posting Naomi Wolf's 12 signs of fascism before and it was debunked.

If you want us to accept your conspiracy theory then you really need to supply some evidence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

If you want us to accept your conspiracy theory then you really need to supply some evidence.

Conspiracy theory?

 

[gtc]

Yes.

It is a conspiracy theory.

You are alleging that there is a conspiracy to undermine or even overthrow democracy that encompasses the GOP and the MSM amongst others. Its almost all you ever post about.

 

[Skeptic]

Bush is only pro-democracy when it is convenient.

Perhaps; but so was Clinton, so was every American president -- the USA always had to deal with dictatorial jerks, and not all of them could, nor perhaps should, be removed. National interest figures in which, if any, of them should. But the "Bush Derangement" folks ignore the rather obvious point that even if Bush is only "pro-democracy when it is convenient" (all which that is left, incidentally, of the "Bush started Iraq war for oil", "Bush started Afghanistan war for a pipeline", "Bush stole the elections", "Bush will declare martial law", etc., etc. conspiracy theories that were oh-so-popular around here a while ago), he nevertheless IS pro-Iraqi democracy, and very obviously so.

And yet, you and others here lionize the shoe-thrower -- a man who openly supports one of the most bloody tyrants in the world, Saddam Hussein, and who yearns for the good ol' days when he was in power, with his murderous serial-raping sons as well. (Speaking of mass rape: ever noticed how little women's rights count for, in the eyes of the "feminist" Bush haters, as long they're gruesomely violated by someone who hates Bush?)

This is the kind of company the Bush haters have no problem keeping, as long as they dislike Bush, too. And a man is judged by the company they keep.

 

[JihadJane]

he nevertheless IS pro-Iraqi democracy, and very obviously so.

Hee hee.

And yet, you and others here lionize the shoe-thrower -- a man who openly supports one of the most bloody tyrants in the world, Saddam Hussein, and who yearns for the good ol' days when he was in power, with his murderous serial-raping sons as well. (Speaking of mass rape: ever noticed how little women's rights count for, in the eyes of the "feminist" Bush haters, as long they're gruesomely violated by someone who hates Bush?)

Life for women in US Iraq is much worse than it was under the murderous Saddam Hussein.

Iraqi's yearn for "the good ol' days" because they were better for most than the New American Century days.

 

[Dr Adequate]

And yet, you and others here lionize the shoe-thrower -- a man who openly supports one of the most bloody tyrants in the world, Saddam Hussein, and who yearns for the good ol' days when he was in power, with his murderous serial-raping sons as well. (Speaking of mass rape: ever noticed how little women's rights count for, in the eyes of the "feminist" Bush haters, as long they're gruesomely violated by someone who hates Bush?)

I'm glad I don't live in your imagination: it is dark, fetid and unpleasant.

 

[Pardalis]

I'm glad I don't live in your imagination: it is dark, fetid and unpleasant.

Reality's a bitch ain't it?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Reality's a bitch ain't it?

And yet I still prefer it to the alternative.

 

[Cicero]

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.

I knew the libs would throw Woodward under the Greyhound when he wouldn't tow the company line about the lame Plame affair. What will it take to get the famous investigative journalist, who took on the Nixon Administration, to get back into the good graces of the far left? You fell in love with David Brock only after he repudiated his former boss, The American Spectator, retracted his comments about Anita Hill, and posted his prejudices against FOX News in his Media Matters website. What sort of contortions will Woodward have to submit to before he can worm his way back into the good graces of far left moonbats?

 

[Klimax]

What happened to skeptics here???
Those who are trashing woo in other section,who are promoting critical thinking... here they absolutely HATE Bush NO MATTER what he did/does/will do.
They embrace CT,they trash/insult president only because his administartion had different take on issues.Two wars - not good;one would be enough at a time to complete all objectives.That was his and of administartion error.Getting rid of Sadam,good;going into Afhanistan good.
But I have to wonder why politics will bring out of people the worst is in them... Sceptigirl,Upchurch,godless dave,JoeTheJuggler you should think how is this debate painting you in what light.(bad light)You were not right nearly every time you posted in this thread supporting in fact Sadam and one of his supporters.After things will settle Iraq is going to be far better place then it was(during Sadam reign).About WMDs simply inteligence errors and under/oversimating and since they were once used who could guarantee they wouldn't be used again?(And who could guarantee that he won't attack again)

(this was to left-wing)

And then similar does/will apply to right-wing(See elections and campaing against Obama),but Bush was not worst president (from MY POV,this is from CR)simply had major attack,one bad war and one after long time ending and some strange law passed.I think average performance...

So question stands how does it come that politics will make from skeptics oneside-arguers?

P.S.lease ignore truthers as they are even more disconected from reality then any of Bush-haters.(See 9/11 CT forum) Or do you want to prove me wrong?

 

[JihadJane]

After things will settle Iraq is going to be far better place then it was(during Sadam reign).

On what do you base this assertion? The country's infrastruture is in ruins.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I knew the libs would throw Woodward under the Greyhound when he wouldn't tow the company line about the lame Plame affair. What will it take to get the famous investigative journalist, who took on the Nixon Administration, to get back into the good graces of the far left? You fell in love with David Brock only after he repudiated his former boss, The American Spectator, retracted his comments about Anita Hill, and posted his prejudices against FOX News in his Media Matters website. What sort of contortions will Woodward have to submit to before he can worm his way back into the good graces of far left moonbats?

Maybe you should have read skeptigirl's post before replying to it.

 

[Dr Adequate]

What happened to skeptics here???
Those who are trashing woo in other section,who are promoting critical thinking... here they absolutely HATE Bush NO MATTER what he did/does/will do.

Why are you shouting at that silly straw doll? It can't hear you, you know.

 

[Cicero]

Maybe you should have read skeptigirl's post before replying to it.

Read it? I could have predicted it. She believes Woodward is a Bush 43 supporter. When Woodward didn't line up with the pro Val & Joe contingency, that must have cemented it.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Perhaps; but so was Clinton, so was every American president -- the USA always had to deal with dictatorial jerks, and not all of them could, nor perhaps should, be removed. National interest figures in which, if any, of them should. But the "Bush Derangement" folks ignore the rather obvious point that even if Bush is only "pro-democracy when it is convenient" (all which that is left, incidentally, of the "Bush started Iraq war for oil", "Bush started Afghanistan war for a pipeline", "Bush stole the elections", "Bush will declare martial law", etc., etc. conspiracy theories that were oh-so-popular around here a while ago), he nevertheless IS pro-Iraqi democracy, and very obviously so.

And yet, you and others here lionize the shoe-thrower -- a man who openly supports one of the most bloody tyrants in the world, Saddam Hussein, and who yearns for the good ol' days when he was in power, with his murderous serial-raping sons as well. (Speaking of mass rape: ever noticed how little women's rights count for, in the eyes of the "feminist" Bush haters, as long they're gruesomely violated by someone who hates Bush?)

This is the kind of company the Bush haters have no problem keeping, as long as they dislike Bush, too. And a man is judged by the company they keep.

Ahh the tired old 1 bit thinking of "if you hate bush, you must support his enemies" crap again.

I think the guy who through the shoe was great. I am sorry that Bush was able to duck in time causing him to miss.

But do I support Saddam Hussein? Hell no. Hussein was one nasty mofo.




"pro-Democracy Bush!" I'mi still laughing at that one. Pure classic humor!!!

Bush isn't pro-democracy in Iraq. He's pro Capitalist "Profit before people" where all his buddies can leech all the wealth from the country.

What was the first thing the CPA did after invading the place and setting up the green zone? No it wasn't to help the Iraqi people. It was to ilegally change Iraq's laws to privatize the place, so that unlimited wealth could be withdrawn from the country.

After Iraq was shock and awed to shreds, who got the contracts for reconstruction? The Iraqis didn't they? Nope. Even though it cost up to 20 times as much the reconstruction was given to, guess, the western corporates who flew in services and supplies, instead of sourcing them locally and helping the Iraq economy.

Anyone who thinks that those who invaded Iraq did it for democracy there are fooling themselves. Or being fooled by the western spin.

 

[gtc]

Bush isn't pro-democracy in Iraq. He's pro Capitalist "Profit before people" where all his buddies can leech all the wealth from the country.

You claim not to be anti-semitic, yet you use their terminology.

 

[Klimax]

On what do you base this assertion? The country's infrastruture is in ruins.

War uinfortunately brings that but we have already examples like German or Japan.(They were however easier as there was no insurgency).I view "graph of state" as the one produced by function x^x - first some decreas,then fast improvement.It is difficult to rebuilt and improve when you have terrorist and insurgency.And then they have already freedom which was not there during Sadam.(Sadly I cannot relate from personal experience, but there are good reporters like Michael Yon and Michael Totten
(Both cover as Iraq so Afghanistan,good articles there))

Why are you shouting at that silly straw doll? It can't hear you, you know.

There is no silly straw doll... This entire thread shows unhealthy BDS. (there is most possibly thread with ODS)
I read carefully and it's clear that some skeptics forgets critical thinking.

 

[Skeptic]

About WMDs simply inteligence errors and under/oversimating and since they were once used who could guarantee they wouldn't be used again?

That the Bush administration was wrong about the WMD is certain (well, ALMOST certain -- there's always the possibility Saddam did in fact hide them well). But, two completely obvious points the Bush haters keep ignoring:

1). It was NOT the main reason for going to war, but at most one of the reasons given to Congress. Most of the other reasons were correct.

2). It was NOT a deliberate lie, but simply a mistake. Why would anybody claim Saddam had WMDs when they knew they didn't, when it is obvious that in that case they'd be greatly embarrased by not finding them later on?

Or take the "mission accomplished" sign:

1). It wasn't put up by Bush or his people, but by the carrier's crew, to emphasize THEIR SPECIFIC MISSION was accomplished (as they came back to port after making it).

2). Bush's own speech on that very same carrier empasized the Iraq mission was NOT accomplished yet.

These are obvious facts. These facts do not mean the war in Iraq was a good idea. But it certainly, and obviously, was NOT "a war based on the WMD lie", and it is certainly, and obviously, NOT the case that the "idiot Bush believe the mission was accomplished".

And yet these two claims are not merely rants on the fringes of the left -- of the "Obama is a Muslim" or "Obama not American" sort rants on the fringers of the right. These are practically dogma with half of the democrats.

I, too, wonder why critical thinking goes straight out the window when Bush is involved, in favor of silly conspiracy theories.