Throwing Shoes at President Bush

@okie,

If only it were!

Vibrant, intellectually curious, multi-cultured, complex, iconoclastic.

Of course, that is anathema to okie.

0 Replies

@parados,

I cant answer that question, because the dems dont have enough of a history in my lifetime holding the WH.

There have only been 4 dem presidents since 1961
Kennedy
Johnson
Carter
Clinton

Kennedy and Johnson got us into Vietnam
Carter allowed the US embassy in Tehran to be taken
Clinton used force in Somalia and Bosnia

So there really isnt a history of dem presidents in my lifetime to base an opinion on, but what little there is isnt encouraging.

BUT, I am willing to base my support or not on what the facts are, not on anything else.
Many of you seemed to base your opposition to Iraq solely on your hatred of Bush, nothing more.

1 Reply

Quote:

Many of you seemed to base your opposition to Iraq solely on your hatred of Bush, nothing more.

Bull

Most of us were/are in favor of the war in Afghanistan but not Iraq because Bush rushed to war on flimsy evidence which turned out to be trumped up and bloated to fit their agenda. There was simply no urgent need to rush to invade Iraq at the time of the invasion and that is why most of us were against it.

Furthermore, opposition to the war has always led to accusations of being unpatriotic and terrorist sympathizers which only served to strengthen the divide between those who opposed the war and those who supported it.

Saddam Hussein at the time of the invasion was in a weak position after years of sanctions; leaving his oil and the strategic position of his country ripe for the taking of whoever wanted it.

PNAC

Before dismissing this as leftist hype, note that all those men who were in that group soon carried out all those plans being in positions to carry them out and the will to do it.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

spendius wrote:
One might imagine New York as typical of America if one only saw the programmes made there.

Thank goodness it isn't typical!

That's quite a bit funny, coming from someone who has argued in the past that he could never live in Europe because he's been to London once, and it was just too crowded...

0 Replies

At least the Turkish shoe industry is very pleased: the 'Bush Shoe' sells pretty good.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Quote:

So there really isnt a history of dem presidents in my lifetime to base an opinion on, but what little there is isnt encouraging.

I see, so you are basing your opinion solely on your hatred of democrats. Turn about is fair play MM. Your lack of support must be because of hatred, don't you think?

But like it or not MM. Your statement about hating Bush is the cause of disliking the war isn't supported. Most people supported Bush until after he invaded Iraq. It wasn't until the invasion turned into a boondoggle that public opinion turned away from the war. People certainly didn't hate the Vietnam war because they hated Nixon. While there may be some that hated Bush prior to the war, they weren't that many so opposition to the war is the more likely cause for what you perceive to be hatred of Bush not the other way around.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

I see, so you are basing your opinion solely on your hatred of democrats. Turn about is fair play MM. Your lack of support must be because of hatred, don't you think?

I cant support a person or party that hasnt been in power in the WH enough to have a record to judge.
Like I said, 4 presidents in 47 years isnt really good enough to base a judgement on.

BUT, it was the dems that lied us into Vietnam.
That cant be denied.

It was a dem president that allowed the US embassy to be taken over and the embassy staff to be held hostage for 444 days, against all international law.
Again, that cannot be denied.

I dont hate any dems, even though I disagree with some of their policies and plans.
Also, I havent expressed any hatred for any dems, and you will find noplace where I have.
And, I didnt say that everyone that opposed the war did so because they hated Bush, but if you are honest you will admit that everyone that seems to hate Bush also opposes the war, and did so BEFORE we went into Iraq.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

So, it isn't hate when you fudge the facts to make the democrats guilty?

Eisenhower sent the first troops to Vietnam. While it is true that the democrats were in the WH when the Tonkin resolution that escalated the war was passed based on faulty if not downright lies, it is also true that Bush was in the WH when the resolution was passed on Iraq based on faulty if not downright lies about the situation.

The dems lied us into Vietnam isn't proof of hate of dems but Bush lied us into Iraq is your proof of hate of Bush? Your standard seems to be not much of one, MM.

Quote:

if you are honest you will admit that everyone that seems to hate Bush also opposes the war, and did so BEFORE we went into Iraq.

That would be easy to check. Just look at Bush's favorability ratings prior to the invasion and today.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm
In 2003 at the time of the invasion, Bush's unfavorable rating was 29%. Today it is 63%.

There is no polling of the war from 2003 but the numbers today are 63% oppose it.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Your argument about hating Bush before he went into Iraq are not supported by the polling. Maybe you need to be honest MM. I think the polling numbers speak for themselves. Dislike of Bush is tied closely to the war and the dislike didn't exist prior to the war. It has more than doubled since then.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

So, it isn't hate when you fudge the facts to make the democrats guilty?

What facts did I fudge?
The dems under Kennedy and Johnson DID lie to get us involved in Vietnam.
That is a historical fact.

Quote:

is also true that Bush was in the WH when the resolution was passed on Iraq based on faulty if not downright lies about the situation.

And where have I ever claimed otherwise?
I have maintained that while we did the right thing to go into Iraq, IMO, as more evidence came out I have also admitted that the WH didnt tell the truth.
You wont find a single post from me saying otherwise.

Quote:

The dems lied us into Vietnam isn't proof of hate of dems but Bush lied us into Iraq is your proof of hate of Bush? Your standard seems to be not much of one, MM.

Have you EVER heard anyone say that they hated the dems for lying about Vietnam?

No, my proof of the hatred the left had for Bush can be traced to the election of 2000, when the dems accused Bush of "stealing" the election.
They complained that Gore should have won, that Bush wasnt the legitimate POTUS, and that he was an illegal President.
Many on the left seemed to vow then that no matter what Bush did, they would oppose him.

1 Reply

Iraqi judge: Shoe-tossing reporter was beaten

Quote:

BAGHDAD - The Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at President George W. Bush was beaten after the incident and had bruises on his face and around his eyes, a judge said Friday....

Request for a pardon

Al-Kinani also confirmed that the journalist had written a letter of apology to al-Maliki. Under the Iraqi constitution, the president can grant pardons that are requested by the prime minister.

A spokesman for al-Maliki said Thursday that the letter contained a specific pardon request. But al-Zeidi's brother Dhargham told The AP that he suspected the letter was a forgery....

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Many on the right hated Clinton and still hate him. Many on the right hate Obama and will always hate him.

The simple fact that people oppose the war doesn't mean they do it simply because they hate Bush and have always hated him. It is reasonable to oppose the war because Bush mishandled it.

You are doing nothing more than taking a significant minority and trying to make it seem bigger by using the term "many".

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Quote:

I cant support a person or party that hasnt been in power in the WH enough to have a record to judge.
Like I said, 4 presidents in 47 years isnt really good enough to base a judgement on.

I still don't understand this statement from you MM. If you can't judge a party based on 20 years in power out of 47, how can you judge with only 27 years? How many years do you need before you can make a judgment?

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Many on the right hated Clinton and still hate him. Many on the right hate Obama and will always hate him.

I dont know anyone that actually hated Clinton, but I do know many that hated his policies.
There is a difference.
However, on many of the more radical left leaning websites, the vitriol and hatred for Bush is astounding.
There are calls for his murder, calls for his arrest, claims that he is an illegal President, attacks on his family, and some of the most vicious attacks I have ever seen.
IMHO, that is pure hatred for him as a person.

Quote:

The simple fact that people oppose the war doesn't mean they do it simply because they hate Bush and have always hated him. It is reasonable to oppose the war because Bush mishandled it.

I 100% agree.
The war has been mishandled.
I say that as someone that was there.
And I have never opposed anyones right to be in opposition to the war.
However, it is possible to oppose the war without having to personal attacks on the President, or on the generals leading the war, or on the troops themselves.
When someone resorts to those kind of attacks, they have lost their objectivity and are just expressing hatred.

Quote:

You are doing nothing more than taking a significant minority and trying to make it seem bigger by using the term "many".

So then what number can we consider "many"?
I have never said "all", nor have I ever said it was a majority.
I have said "many" on the left have acted out of personal hatred.
If you have a "significant minority", how many is that?
Is 30 out of 100 "many"?
Is 40 out of 100 "many"?

Or must it be a majority to qualify as "many"?

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

Iraqi judge: Shoe-tossing reporter was beaten

GOOD!

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

I predict if the ultimate outcome in Iraq is a clear victory, the Dems will credit Obama, and still blame Bush.

2 Replies

@okie,

They might, but I doubt it.
There is to much evidence, in the dems own words, in the media, and in Obama's own words, that proves the dems were saying the US couldnt win, that the US was going to lose, that the US would fail, for them to now try and take the credit for a victory.

Yes, some of the dems would be stupid enough to try, but the majority will be smart enough to give Bush the credit.

OF course, I could be overestimating the intelligence of the dems in power.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I predict if the ultimate outcome in Iraq is a clear victory, the Dems will credit Obama, and still blame Bush.

There is no longer a chance of a 'clear victory.' That's what 5 years of mismanagement will do for you.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Victory is within reach, but all hopes of victory will be quashed because
of Obama's first few weeks of mismanaging the office of the president.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

Victory is within reach

Sheesh... You don't even know what "victory" is supposed to look like...

1 Reply

@old europe,

Sure we do and we also know what an Obama lead defeat will look like.

What do you know about victory?

2 Replies

Throwing Shoes at President Bush

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know