media correspondent throws shoes at President Bush

[aethelbert]

Do people seriously have to stoop so low to make their point when in the presence of someone who disagrees? With him being so close to leaving office, what's the point?
President Bush ducked out of harm's way when a reporter threw his shoes at him during his farewell trip to Iraq.

The man, later identified as Muntadar al-Zeidi, a correspondent for Iraqi-owned Al-Baghdadiya television based in Egypt, shouted "this is the end" as he hurled them at the American leader.

The moment was captured from different camera angles and shows the president's reaction afterwards.

Arcitle with action-packed video footage (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7782774.stm)

[.Andy]

That's terrible. That Muntadar al-Zeidi must have no sole to do something like that. I hope they booted him out :mad:.


edit:Do people seriously have to stoop so low to make their point when in the presence of someone who disagrees?
By disagrees here you're referring to starting a war that killed conservatively a hundred thousand of this man's family, friends, and fellow countrymen, displaced millions from their homes, and plunged a country into ruin (no electricity, no water, no hospitals, no food etc). Yes?

[Queso]

Shame they didn't hit him slap bang in the middle of his idiot-grinning face. He's responsible for tearing that country to pieces. If all he faces is a flying shoe he's far luckier than the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who didn't live to see his final days in office.

It's a shame the guy called him a dog though. That's highly insulting to man's best friend.

[EricNau]

That's terrible. That Muntadar al-Zeidi must have no sole to do something like that. I hope they booted him out :mad:.
They guy's a real heel.


And am I the only one a little disappointed with the secret service? I realize shoes aren't exactly WMDs, but they could have at least stopped the second assault.

[.Andy]

And am I the only one a little disappointed with the secret service? I realize shoes aren't exactly WMDs, but they could have at least stopped the second assault.
I've got images of a secret service agent* diving through the air and taking the shoe shot himself. All the time yelling "Nooooooooooo"...




*On his last day of work before retiring and spending time with his family on their new boat called True Love.

[Queso]

BTW, I'm very much reminded of this (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5D5oKEVqQJg) :D :D

[aethelbert]

By disagrees here you're referring to starting a war that killed conservatively a hundred thousand of this man's family, friends, and fellow countrymen, displaced millions from their homes, and plunged a country into ruin (no electricity, no water, no hospitals, no food etc). Yes?
I couldn't care any less about your views on the war. If one wants to make a point, trying to hit someone in the face with a shoe isn't the way to do that...

[skunk]

Do people seriously have to stoop so low to make their point when in the presence of someone who disagrees? With him being so close to leaving office, what's the point?Perhaps he wanted to express his disgust in a manner akin to the beating with shoes of Saddam Hussein's statue in that famously stage-managed show in Baghdad in 2003. And why not?

[paddy]

Delighted. Shame it wasn't something harder.

[.Andy]

I couldn't care any less about your views on the war.
I didn't post about my views on the war :confused:? That is what has actually happened. It's worth reading up on.

[skunk]

I didn't post about my views on the war :confused:? That is what has actually happened.No, no, no, they were greeted with flowers. All the rest is liberal propaganda.

[aethelbert]

I didn't post about my views on the war :confused:? That is what has actually happened. It's worth reading up on.
Sure all of that happened, but positive outcomes came from it as well. You're obviously making some sort of statement of negativity towards the invasion by selectively choosing what to type. Yet I don't find that throwing a shoe really solves any problems... Feel free to place any sort of emphasis on whichever events you please, but if throwing shoes is your style of expressing discontent, I'd better stay away.

Whether you want to turn this into a debate about how you hate the war or not, I'm trying to point out the stupidity of throwing shoes in attempt to convey a message. The situation's extremity is irrelevant; dumb things like this only make one lose credibility.

[és:]

I didn't post about my views on the war? That is what has actually happened.

The best, most cutting remark I've read on this site for quite sometime. You don't come back from a line like that, Andy.

It reminds me of a line from 'The West Wing' where Jed Bartlett is in a presidential debate:

Governor Robert Ritchie: Now, he's going to throw a big word at you - "unfunded mandate." He's going to say if Washington lets the states do it, it's an unfunded mandate. But what he doesn't like is the federal government losing power. But I call it the ingenuity of the American people.

Moderator: President Bartlet, you have 60 seconds for a question and an answer.

President Josiah "Jed" Bartlet: Well, first of all, let's clear up a couple of things. "Unfunded mandate" is two words, not one big word.

[NT1440]

President bush responded with "Looks like the shoes on the other hand now isnt it!?"

Honestly if it were me I would have gone with the austin powers line *fake british accent* " Honestly! Who throws a shoe!?"

[.Andy]

Sure all of that happened, but positive outcomes came from it as well.
What positives should every day Iraqi citizens focus on to take their mind off everything that has happened?

I'm trying to point out the stupidity of throwing shoes in attempt to convey a message. The situation's extremity is irrelevant; dumb things like this only make one lose credibility.
I think you're over analysing things a bit. I don't think this guy had a message to convey besides profanity and complete disrespect. He certainly wasn't thinking of advancing his credibility. There's a context to this you are trying to ignore.

[it5five]

It's a shame he missed.

[apsterling]

I wonder if he got his shoes back.
Otherwise it seems like it would be a waste.

[iJohnHenry]

I believe the reporter got a good tongue-lashing.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

His motives were laced with anger!

[Prof.]

Can you blame the guy? President Bush is (probably) the most hated man in all the world. Kudos to the shoe thrower.

[iJohnHenry]

Well, thankfully, or otherwise (depending if your nuts or other wise) at least he didn't take any lessons from Richard Colvin Reid (a.k.a Abdul Raheem). :eek:

[Dont Hurt Me]

Where are those WMD's? Mr President, Mr Vice President, Karl Rove and most of the Republican party? Trillion dollars pissed away, 4,000 dead Americans, many more missing limbs, over 100,000 dead Iraqi's, a destroyed country all for one man named Saddam.

Bush calls himself a Christian. I wish the reporter had a better throw.

[Ja Di ksw]

For those of you who were unaware, the showing of the soles of your shoes, or the throwing / hitting with shoes, is a very, very high insult in that culture. Depending on who you ask, some say the highest insult, though I have a little trouble believing that. In any case, to us it was, "wha-, a shoe? Really?" whereas over there it is a large statement and insult.

[rdowns]

Bush had some pretty good reflexes there. :D

[Dont Hurt Me]

Bush had some pretty good reflexes there. :D
He did do a good job ducking those shoes, come to think of it its the only thing he has done right in 8 years.

[és:]

Bush had some pretty good reflexes there. :D

He noticed a peanut on the floor.

[iJohnHenry]

Bush had some pretty good reflexes there. :D

FINALLY, something to put in the Bush Presidential Library. :rolleyes:

[Schtumple]

He did do a good job ducking those shoes, come to think of it its the only thing he has done right in 8 years.

Shame intelligence and reflexes aren't one and the same eh...

[Trip.Tucker]

What positives should every day Iraqi citizens focus on to take their mind off everything that has happened?


I think you're over analysing things a bit. I don't think this guy had a message to convey besides profanity and complete disrespect. He certainly wasn't thinking of advancing his credibility. There's a context to this you are trying to ignore.

Is this where you start jamming your views/opinions down peoples throats?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Bush had the nerve to say the agreement puts Iraq on a solid footing between our two countrys.

One can only wonder how long it will take the 1,000 yr war between sunni and shia to begin again.

Al-queda wasnt in Iraq until Bush destroyed it, I wonder if anyone has told him this?
edit :Bush had said this before the reporter's wardrobe malfunction.

[.Andy]

For those of you who were unaware, the showing of the soles of your shoes, or the throwing / hitting with shoes, is a very, very high insult in that culture. Depending on who you ask, some say the highest insult, though I have a little trouble believing that. In any case, to us it was, "wha-, a shoe? Really?" whereas over there it is a large statement and insult.
Ah that puts things into perspective a little Ja Di ksw :). There's a wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe_tossing) page on shoe tossing including a section on it's arabic connotations (updated for this incident already!):

In the Arab world: a gesture of contempt

In the Arab world, shoe flinging is a gesture of extreme disrespect. A notable occurrence of this gesture happened in Baghdad, Iraq in 2003. When U.S. forces pulled down a giant statue of Saddam Hussein during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, many Iraqi detractors of Hussein threw their shoes at the fallen statue.
This may be an ancient gesture from the Middle East; Psalms 60:8, speaking of some of the traditional enemies of Judah, says that "Moab is my washpot; over Edom will I cast out my shoe...." (KJV)
The shoe represents the lowest part of the body (the foot) and displaying or throwing a shoe at someone or something in Arab cultures denotes that the person or thing is "beneath them." Showing the bottom of one's feet or shoes (for example, putting one's feet up on a table or desk) in Arab cultures is considered an extreme insult. Examples include Iraqi citizens smacking torn-down posters of Saddam Hussein with their shoes, and the depiction of President of the United States George H. W. Bush on a tile mosaic of the floor of the Al-Rashid Hotel's lobby, forcing all visitors entering the hotel to walk on Bush's face to enter the hotel.
During President George W. Bush's surprise visit to Iraq in December 2008, an Iraqi man threw shoes at him during a press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Kamel al-Maliki.
I wonder how good the hotel lobby idea is for encouraging through pedestrian traffic.....

[skunk]

I did actually point out this salient fact about shoes in the Arab world in Post #8. Wake up, people. ;)

[.Andy]

I did actually point this salient fact out about shoes in Post #8. Wake up, people. ;)
:p

*Points soles of feet in Skunk's direction* ;)

[iJohnHenry]

Fortunately, the soles of .Andy's shoes are not as filthy as those of journalists in Iraq.

[mgguy]

Where are those WMD's? Mr President, Mr Vice President, Karl Rove and most of the Republican party? Trillion dollars pissed away, 4,000 dead Americans, many more missing limbs, over 100,000 dead Iraqi's, a destroyed country all for one man named Saddam.

Bush calls himself a Christian. I wish the reporter had a better throw.

Yes, where are those WMD's Mrs. Clinton and most of the Democrat party, who were equally concerned at the available intelligence and the fact that Hussein had already had and used WMD against his own people? Your view of this being only about Hussein and even WMDs is very simplistic.

[M. Malone]

Sure all of that happened, but positive outcomes came from it as well. You're obviously making some sort of statement of negativity towards the invasion by selectively choosing what to type. Yet I don't find that throwing a shoe really solves any problems... Feel free to place any sort of emphasis on whichever events you please, but if throwing shoes is your style of expressing discontent, I'd better stay away.

Whether you want to turn this into a debate about how you hate the war or not, I'm trying to point out the stupidity of throwing shoes in attempt to convey a message. The situation's extremity is irrelevant; dumb things like this only make one lose credibility.

I'm really curious as to know what positive outcome you think came from the war. I understand Saddam was a terrible man, but things are far worse now than under his regime. I personally know many Iraqis that have told me exactly this. "at least under Saddam if I kept my head low and went about my business I was sure no harm would come my way"

This guy's way of expressing discontent with the shoe. You say it like he had other choices. Had he spoke, he wouldn't have been heard. This action got him on the front page of every news site.

Also, hitting Bush with the shoe wasn't the goal. In the Arab world, throwing a shoe is very very disrespectful, I'm sure that was this guy's intention.

[Queso]

Fortunately, the soles of .Andy's shoes are not as filthy as those of journalists in Iraq.
By the time they go through the puppet government's investigations I'm sure those shoes will be infected with anthrax :rolleyes:
Yes, where are those WMD's Mrs. Clinton and most of the Democrat party, who were equally concerned at the available intelligence and the fact that Hussein had already had and used WMD against his own people? Your view of this being only about Hussein and even WMDs is very simplistic.
This isn't about Republican vs. Democrat. This is about two NATO countries leading an illegal invasion and subsequent disintegration of a country, all in the name of a crusade against evil. If it were any other country than the USA (and its pet lapdog Blair's UK) that had done this you'd be labelling the leaders war criminals. That principle is far more important than inter-party sniping.

[duncyboy]

It's a shame he missed.

It's a shame he wasn't wearing them at the time.

[iMpathetic]

I wish you guys would lay off him, he just got two ******** SHOES THROWN AT HIM. I don't agree with what he's doing either, but if you disagree with someone, do you hurl ***** at him? no.

I'll be glad when he's out of office so everyone stops b*tching whenever he's mentioned.

[iJohnHenry]

I'll be glad when he's out of office so everyone stops b*tching whenever he's mentioned.

Au contrair, it will not stop then, nor should it. :mad:

[Queso]

I'll be glad when he's out of office so everyone stops b*tching whenever he's mentioned.
Considering he's up there with Radovan Karadzic and Jean Kambanda in many people's eyes he deserves to be criticised every second of every day until they stick him in the ground. Merely stepping down from office does not absolve him of his actions.

[Dejavu]

That gives new meaning to booting a President out of office. :D

[iMpathetic]

Au contrair, it will not stop then, nor should it. :mad:

Fine, after January, the first of my friends to do it gets a sucker punch to the gut.

I know that sounds really extreme, but I'm just tired of how a somewhat dim president can inspire thousands of people to think it's cool or hip to hate him.

Basically, you guys are trying to cash in on the Bush-sucks craze by making catty comments after breaking news that someone tried to peg him in the head with a shoe.

Like I said, I'm not Bush supporter, but all this anti-bush stuff is getting old.

[NT1440]

Au contrair, it will not stop then, nor should it. :mad:

I think it will actually get worse, all his staff wont be obliged to keep tight lipped and ooh the stories will be juicy/sickening.

[Lord Blackadder]

I did actually point out this salient fact about shoes in the Arab world in Post #8. Wake up, people. ;)

I remember the images of "Baghdad residents" (later proven to have been bussed in from elsewhere) smacking the statue of Saddam with their shoes during the initial invasion back in '03. Full circle.

All I have to say is, Bush made a solid duck and that guy had excellent aim with his first shoe, just a tad high with the second.

I'm sure that all remaining news conferences at the White House will now require reporters to leave their shoes at the door.

[NT1440]

Fine, after January, the first of my friends to do it gets a sucker punch to the gut.

I know that sounds really extreme, but I'm just tired of how a somewhat dim president can inspire thousands of people to think it's cool or hip to hate him.

Basically, you guys are trying to cash in on the Bush-sucks craze by making catty comments after breaking news that someone tried to peg him in the head with a shoe.

Like I said, I'm not Bush supporter, but all this anti-bush stuff is getting old.

What a fitting name.

There is a reason people hate him, and its 100% deserved. The man is DIRECTLY responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, what else do you need?

[iMpathetic]

Considering he's up there with Radovan Karadzic and Jean Kambanda in many people's eyes he deserves to be criticised every second of every day until they stick him in the ground. Merely stepping down from office does not absolve him of his actions.

Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

[iJohnHenry]

Like I said, I'm not Bush supporter, but all this anti-bush stuff is getting old.

The man has killed untold thousands.

How in the Hell can you defend him in this manner???

[Queso]

Like I said, I'm not Bush supporter, but all this anti-bush stuff is getting old.
Unlike the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. They won't get a day older.

BTW, don't think we're criticising this sad excuse for a leader because it's fashionable. He's been a disaster, quite literally, and his personal crusades have costs a lot of lives as well as put the country he was supposed to lead into long-term debt.
Talk about missing the forest for the trees.
There's someone missing something round here. I suspect it isn't me.

[iMpathetic]

What a fitting name.

There is a reason people hate him, and its 100% deserved. The man is DIRECTLY responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, what else do you need?

Wow, so you're both a Mac user and a Bush hater?

Fanboy levels are off the charts.

BTW, if he's "DIRECTLY" responsible, how come I never heard about him going to Iraq and Afghanistan and capping people in the head?

[.Andy]

Wow, so you're both a Mac user and a Bush hater?

Fanboy levels are off the charts.
I also own a fixed gear bicycle.

[iMpathetic]

Unlike the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. They won't get a day older.

BTW, don't think we're criticising this sad excuse for a leader because it's fashionable. He's been a disaster, quite literally, and his personal crusades have costs a lot of lives as well as put the country he was supposed to lead into long-term debt.

All right, perhaps I over-reacted. Y'all do know what you're talking about, I'm just pissed because where I live is populated with mindless hipsters who haven't a clue about anything.

Sorry for taking it out on you guys. I know he's a suck-ass leader.

[NT1440]

Wow, so you're both a Mac user and a Bush hater?

Fanboy levels are off the charts.

BTW, if he's "DIRECTLY" responsible, how come I never heard about him going to Iraq and Afghanistan and capping people in the head?

wow.

First off, i dont even own a mac, i dont have the luxury as of yet, im saving up.

The rest of your post, wow is the only way i can think to describe it.

Sometime i feel bad for him, then I remember what hes done.

[iMpathetic]

I also own a fixed gear bicycle.

Oh snap :eek:

Flat bars with Oury grips?

[mgguy]

By the time they go through the puppet government's investigations I'm sure those shoes will be infected with anthrax :rolleyes:

This isn't about Republican vs. Democrat. This is about two NATO countries leading an illegal invasion and subsequent disintegration of a country, all in the name of a crusade against evil. If it were any other country than the USA (and its pet lapdog Blair's UK) that had done this you'd be labelling the leaders war criminals. That principle is far more important than inter-party sniping.

I accept that you believe that what you are saying is true, thought I disagree with it and think it is overly simplistic and possibly driven by partisan emotions. The war was not just a crusade against evil but about oil and other geopolitical and economic factors. Remember that Hillary was a strong backer of the invasion and supported it long after it happened. That would make her a war criminal, and therefore unfit to be appointed by Obama to Secretary of State.

[.Andy]

Oh snap :eek:

Flat bars with Oury grips?
For sure :D!

[iMpathetic]

Uncanny.

Well, I think I'm just about done in this thread. By my count, I've pissed off about 5 people.

I'm out, you can go lube your fixies now.

[skunk]

I wish you guys would lay off him, he just got two ******** SHOES THROWN AT HIM. I don't agree with what he's doing either, but if you disagree with someone, do you hurl ***** at him? no.He is lucky he isn't being hung by the neck, which is what he deserves. Being shown the ultimate symbolic disrespect by one of those whose country he has shattered and hundreds of thousands of whose compatriots he has condemned to death is getting off far too lightly. But it's more effective opposition than he's faced from the media or politicians elsewhere, so I'm all for it.

[Lord Blackadder]

Basically, you guys are trying to cash in on the Bush-sucks craze by making catty comments after breaking news that someone tried to peg him in the head with a shoe.

Like I said, I'm not Bush supporter, but all this anti-bush stuff is getting old.

Based on the facts of his record, he is likely to go down as our worst president ever, or at least one of the bottom three. People are criticiszing him for what he has done, not any petty reason.

[leekohler]

If this is the worst thing that ever happens to Bush, I'd say he's incredibly lucky.

[NT1440]

All right, perhaps I over-reacted. Y'all do know what you're talking about, I'm just pissed because where I live is populated with mindless hipsters who haven't a clue about anything.

Sorry for taking it out on you guys. I know he's a suck-ass leader.

We forgive you *hug*.

You should note that the majority of RRSI posters are somewhat above your average mindless hipster. We know of his atrocities.

[iMpathetic]

Based on the facts of his record, he is likely to go down as our worst president ever, or at least one of the bottom three. People are criticiszing him for what he has done, not any petty reason.

And one minute later, I'm back! :D

No endless debate over this, please:

Still no reason to throw a shoe at him. Or maybe.

He missed though.

Bet it scared the living ***** out of him.

[Queso]

I accept that you believe that what you are saying is true, thought I disagree with it and think it is overly simplistic and possibly driven by partisan emotions. The war was not just a crusade against evil but about oil and other geopolitical and economic factors. Remember that Hillary was a strong backer of the invasion and supported it long after it happened. That would make her a war criminal, and therefore unfit to be appointed by Obama to Secretary of State.
I'm not going to defend Hillary's stance. She was wrong in supporting the invasion. However, there is a big difference between believing an invasion is the right thing to do and actually having knowledge of the Al-Ghraib or Fallujah abuses and still supporting those actions.

[és:]

He is lucky he isn't being hung by the neck, which is what he deserves. Being shown the ultimate symbolic disrespect by one of those whose country he has shattered and hundreds of thousands of whose compatriots he has condemned to death is getting off far too lightly. But it's more effective opposition than he's faced from the media or politicians elsewhere, so I'm all for it.

Yeah, but it was a shoe. A SHOE GOD DAMN IT! A SHOE!!

[Lord Blackadder]

Still no reason to throw a shoe at him.

In strict terms of protocol, yes, he should not have thrown a shoe.

On the other hand, Bush is responsible for the actions of his administration and this demonstration should be seen as an act of protest rather than an act of violence.

Blackwater mercenaries killing innocent Iraqis is an act of violence. Islamic extremists blowing themselves up in crowded restaurants is an act of violence.

Publicly insulting the President is a hot-headed act of protest, but NOT an act of violence, despite the physical nature of the protest. Heck, Bush sustained much more of an injury choking on a pretzel. :rolleyes:

[.Andy]

Yeah, but it was a shoe. A SHOE GOD DAMN IT! A SHOE!!
Perhaps it would be more acceptable if bush was hit as collateral damage.

[és:]

I accept that you believe that what you are saying is true, thought I disagree with it and think it is overly simplistic and possibly driven by partisan emotions.

The war was illegal (it was based on a lie, the invasion and occupation was illegal and it was fought illegally). The war has killed over a million people. The war has reduced an already crumbling country to dust. The war has destabilised the region. The war has taken the standing of the United States to an all time low. Your country and president are hated around the globe, even amongst your friends.

This isn't a matter of opinion.

[iMpathetic]

In strict terms of protocol, yes, he should not have thrown a shoe.

On the other hand, Bush is responsible for the actions of his administration and this demonstration should be seen as an act of protest rather than an act of violence.


That's what I meant.

Now don't even get me started on protests, that's another thing there's too much of in Chapel Hill, NC. :D

[skunk]

Now don't even get me started on protests, that's another thing there's too much of in Chapel Hill, NC. :DMaybe you should start throwing shoes. It's obviously more effective than effete liberal pantywaist protest.

[Lord Blackadder]

Maybe you should start throwing shoes. It's obviously more effective than effete liberal pantywaist protest.

Only if you have sniper accuracy like the Iraqi correspondent. Something tells me he's no stranger to the odd shoe-hucking. :D

[CalBoy]

He is lucky he isn't being hung by the neck, which is what he deserves.

And here I thought you were against capital punishment in ALL cases? ;)
Maybe you should start throwing shoes. It's obviously more effective than effete liberal pantywaist protest.

Should he do it from a glass house?


I must say, Bush's reflexes were quite good!

Not that we should be applauding this, but the guy's aim was pretty good.

[skunk]

And here I thought you were against capital punishment in ALL cases? ;)I am. I didn't say "until he was dead". I think he should be imprisoned for the rest of his life and taken out once a day to be hung by the neck. :cool:

[Dont Hurt Me]

The reporter should have been wearing boots! 1st to wade through all the crap that comes out of Bush's mouth plus it would provide a larger surface area perhaps making contact with the source of near endless spin.

[joepunk]

What does this mean for us and our shoes at the airport/TSA security check point?

[mgguy]

The war was illegal (it was based on a lie, the invasion and occupation was illegal and it was fought illegally). The war has killed over a million people. The war has reduced an already crumbling country to dust. The war has destabilised the region. The war has taken the standing of the United States to an all time low. Your country and president are hated around the globe, even amongst your friends.

This isn't a matter of opinion.

What specific law did he and Congress (which also supported the invasion) break?

It was not based on a lie but on the intelligence at hand. You can accuse someone of lying, but don't you need some evidence of that too?

People die in war, country's crumble temporarily as a result of war, and regions get destabilized temporarily as a result of war. However Iraq is on the rebound and will be rebuilt. Would you support an immediate withdrawal right now, which Obama doesn't support? If Obama stays the course, would he too be considered a war criminal and in violation of some law?

[Dont Hurt Me]

What does this mean for us and our shoes at the airport/TSA security check point?

More important what will this mean for reporters ? I wonder if Socks will be Ok'd? Flip Flops? Slippers? What about toenails? Ankle bracelets? all potential weapons of mass destruction.

[iJohnHenry]

Spittle. What about spittle???

[mgguy]

More important what will this mean for reporters ? I wonder if Socks will be Ok'd? Flip Flops? Slippers? What about toenails? Ankle bracelets? all potential weapons of mass destruction.

It could have been a shoe bomb. :D

Spittle. What about spittle???

Spittle may be laced with poison spitted by a suicide spitter. :D

[obeygiant]

Nice reflexes Mr. President.

Here is a gif animation of the incident.

http://i36.tinypic.com/2uyod3k.gif

kind of funny actually.

[NT1440]

he actually looks as if hes going to laugh right after the first one.

[iJohnHenry]

It could have been a shoe bomb. :D

Hence my reference to Richard Colvin Reid, the Shoe Bomber. ;)

[CalBoy]

I am. I didn't say "until he was dead". I think he should be imprisoned for the rest of his life and taken out once a day to be hung by the neck. :cool:

A bit cruel and unusual don't you think?

[spork183]

I know someone asked where the SS was already, but those looked like some hefty shoes. They didn't look like slip-on loafers. How did the guy get those suckers off in the middle of a press conference and no one noticed? I sense a conspiracy...

btw-some of the puns early on in this thread were top notch podiatry humor...

[Counterfit]

Bush had some pretty good reflexes there. :D
All those years of blow made him jumpy.
Only if you have sniper accuracy like the Iraqi correspondent. Something tells me he's no stranger to the odd shoe-hucking. :D
He wears balanced throwing shoes.
The reporter should have been wearing boots! 1st to wade through all the crap that comes out of Bush's mouth plus it would provide a larger surface area perhaps making contact with the source of near endless spin.
Boots would throw off the aerodynamics,
It was not based on a lie but on the intelligence at hand. You can accuse someone of lying, but don't you need some evidence of that too?

Really, really, really, ****** intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)), which was based on many lies, so...

[JW8725]

I urge all of you Americans to peacefully protest against this tyrant by throwing shoes at him when he gets back to your country.

[joepunk]

I bet paper airplanes will be banned from news conferences due to paper cut threat levels

[Dont Hurt Me]

Since people are throwing shoes at this president it might as well be pointed out the Bush administration just took out the clause that would have prevented millions for bonus money to his wall street buddy's. This means big bonus money for the very ones that were giving out bad loans. (MSNBC))

The man is a disaster for the U.S. tax payer. We all should be throwing shoes.

[fivepoint]

Does anyone else find it to be a wee bit ironic that this individual (and his immediate family) probably would have been strung up and killed if they had thrown a shoe at a political leader in Iraq 8 or 9 years ago? Glad he got the opportunity to express the freedoms he and his fellow Iraqis have now. Hopefully his own daughter will learn about his stupidity in a public school, which she couldn't have attended 8-9 years ago either.

Anyway, sorry for offering up a different opinion. I know you guys don't like that very much. :p

[Queso]

Hopefully his own daughter will learn about his stupidity in a public school, which she couldn't have attended 8-9 years ago either.
There were no restrictions on the education of women in Saddam's Iraq. You also have no idea as yet what will happen to this man. He may indeed yet be strung up.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Does anyone else find it to be a wee bit ironic that this individual (and his immediate family) probably would have been strung up and killed if they had thrown a shoe at a political leader in Iraq 8 or 9 years ago?

I wasn't aware that Bush was his current political leader.

[fivepoint]

There were no restrictions on the education of women in Saddam's Iraq.

:rolleyes: OMG.

[Queso]

:rolleyes: OMG.
OMg? Are you by any chance once again confusing Iraq with Afghanistan?

[geese]

:rolleyes: OMG.

Actually, he's fairly correct. Women were not legally restricted from having an education back then, and because Saddams rather nasty police kept the peace rather viciously, you didnt get horrid religious fundamentalist groups stoning women who didnt wear a burkah.

[és:]

Does anyone else find it to be a wee bit ironic that this individual (and his immediate family) probably would have been strung up and killed if they had thrown a shoe at a political leader in Iraq 8 or 9 years ago?

Yeah, 'probably'. :rolleyes:

Firstly, he isn't a political leader in his country. Secondly, he's the man responsible for the death of over a million of his countrymen, woman and children.

Hopefully his own daughter will learn about his stupidity in a public school, which she couldn't have attended 8-9 years ago either.

More revisionist nonsense.

Do you even have any idea at how much destruction has been caused to the education system in this war that you glory and the previous decimation and embargo? Under Saddam Hussein literacy went from 40% to 90% just before the US bombed Iraq back to the stone age and then placed an embargo on it. Iraq had the best education system in the entire developing world and its level was unheard of in the Arab world. The government paid for thousands upon thousands of students to educate themselves in the US and UK - mainly as doctors to improve their own healthcare.

Here is Saddam Hussein at a Girl's school in the 1970s

http://www.uruknet.info/pic.php?f=ina140.jpeg



According to reports and statistics made by the "Iraqi Reconstruction Bureau" and the ministries involved in reconstruction, prior to the 2003 war/occupation, the following damage was done through 42 days of continuous bombing, and various acts of vandalism:

Schools and scholastic facilities – 3960
Universities, labs, dormitories – 40
Health facilities (including hospitals, clinics, medical warehouses) – 421
Telephone operators, communication towers, etc. – 475
Bridges, buildings, housing complexes – 260
Warehouses, shopping centers, grain silos – 251
Churches and mosques – 159
Dams, water pumping stations, agricultural facilities – 200
Petroleum facilities (including refineries) – 145
General services (shelters, sewage treatment plants, municipalities) - 830

The destruction of the Iraqi education system was devastating and the number one reason why Iraq was kept in a "pre-industrial" mode for years after the U.S. assault in 1991. However, few people in the U.S. have a clue to the former crown jewel of the country. Today, there is a tremendous amount of revisionist history that is effective propaganda for the U.S. public. The new version could not be further from the truth.

In 1973, Iraq began an all-out assault on illiteracy. Thousands of Iraqis were sent overseas to obtain advanced degrees. They, in turn, came back to Iraq to educate the next generation of educators.

In the 1980s, the Iraqi education system was universally acknowledged by the U.N. and many international education organizations as the best in the world for developing countries. Officials from many nations visited Iraq and took notes at how the system worked. These facts have simply been ignored in the past few years in re-writing the history of Iraq.

An interesting part of the Ba’ath education system was its secular approach. Students received a first-class education regardless of their religious affiliation. Females attended school regularly and did not have to wear a veil if they did not choose.


Look, I'm no fan of Saddam Hussein. I 'probably' spoke out against him before you'd even heard of him. However, to pain an untrue picture just will not carry around here, the posters are too smart and too well informed to fall for it.

Anyway, sorry for offering up a different opinion. I know you guys don't like that very much. :p

There you go again.

DIFFERENT OPINIONS ARE FINE. DIFFERENT OPINIONS ARE ENCOURAGED. PROPAGANDA, HOWEVER, ISN'T ENCOURAGED, NOR IS IT ACCEPTED.

Stop with the 'world is against me' routine that you try to pull in every post on PRSI. Now, if you have an opinion to share, please share it with us. However, if you are going to continue to post baseless, fox-news style revisionist propaganda, for the good of the forum, take it elsewhere.

[freeny]

Awesome aim for the thrower, and high marks for Bush's duck. I call it a draw.

[fivepoint]

There you go again.

DIFFERENT OPINIONS ARE FINE. DIFFERENT OPINIONS ARE ENCOURAGED. PROPAGANDA, HOWEVER, ISN'T ENCOURAGED, NOR IS IT ACCEPTED.

Stop with the 'world is against me' routine that you try to pull in every post on PRSI. Now, if you have an opinion to share, please share it with us. However, if you are going to continue to post baseless, fox-news style revisionist propaganda, for the good of the forum, take it elsewhere.

Wow. What a perfect example of why I am forced to be defensive.You couldn't just deal with the issue, but had to attack me and my 'world is against me' routine. You had to attack my 'fox-news style revisionist propaganda', which apparently stating the FACT that women were not treated well under Saddam's regime.

You call my position revisionist, but I say yours is. I say your position is based off of the bias liberal blogosphere trying to claim that things were perfect in Iraq before the war, and that things are far worse off now. It's amazing to me that the reality hasn't sunk in to you yet, 'es. you don't attack me because I'm not making good arguments (even if this was true, and I was making horrible arguments, look at the hundreds of others on here doing the same thing... but you don't say anything against them because their worldview fits your own) you're doing it because my views don't match your own. You are being hypocritical every time you attack my 'propoganda' but don't attack anyone else's.

I'm not a defensive person, 'es. As much as you'd like to peg me for one. Anyone who has followed my posts on this forum could tell you exactly that... I've recently been forced and pushed into defending myself from people like you who'd rather win an argument by tearing down other people. You try and justify your attacks at all costs, but in the end the truth is that you simply like to dumb down the conversation and take the easiest way out possible.

I'm trying to talk about the issues, and you keep attacking me personally. If you stop doing it, I'll stop expecting it.

[kavika411]

Nice reflexes Mr. President.

Here is a gif animation of the incident.

http://i36.tinypic.com/2uyod3k.gif

kind of funny actually.

If you look closely, I swear Bush starts grinning right after the first shoe. It's like he can hear Trinity whispering, "I've never seen anyone move that fast. You move like the Agents."

[obeygiant]

More revisionist nonsense.
Indeed.

Do you even have any idea at how much destruction has been caused to the education system in this war that you glory and the previous decimation and embargo? Under Saddam Hussein literacy went from 40% to 90% just before the US bombed Iraq back to the stone age and then placed an embargo on it. Iraq had the best education system in the entire developing world and its level was unheard of in the Arab world. The government paid for thousands upon thousands of students to educate themselves in the US and UK - mainly as doctors to improve their own healthcare.

Fivepoint, what és isn't telling you or doesn't know is what the students are learning in class is different now from what they were learning during the Saddam era. For example Israel is now on the world map and there has been a de-Baathication of every textbook, from first-grade readers to high-school physics texts. link (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F07E0D91F3DF932A35753C1A9659C8B63) In music classes, they learned new lyrics for traditional melodies. The beginning of one popular children's song was changed from ''The daughter of the merchant has almond eyes'' to ''We are the Baathists. We have heavy weapons.''


Look, I'm no fan of Saddam Hussein. I 'probably' spoke out against him before you'd even heard of him.

That's good to hear, but "probably" doesn't inspire confidence.

Encouraging to some is the increase in educational opportunities for Iraqis. Amal Shlash, director of the Bayt al-Hikma Research Centre in Baghdad, described higher education as the “only achieving activity in the country.” In 2002-3, the academic year of the United States invasion of Iraq, there were 19 public universities and three private universities in major towns throughout the country — four of which were in Baghdad. Now, the country hosts 23 public universities and 23 private universities. The country went from educating 322,000 students in 2002-03 to educating around 370,000 students this year.

Shlash said, during the Saddam era, universities were only allowed to be built in cities with populations greater than one million. Now, she said, universities can be built anywhere in the country. This has resulted in a higher number of female enrollees than ever before because many young women now no longer have to leave home to attend a university. At Baghdad University, the enrollment is 57 percent female. Even more striking, in the southern city of Nasiriyah, the university’s enrollment is 71 percent female.link (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/11/25/iraq)


PROPAGANDA, HOWEVER, ISN'T ENCOURAGED, NOR IS IT ACCEPTED.

I agree. :)

The Kurds are now invited to study at a university that was formally a prison.
Kurdish students are flocking to enrol at universities in Northern Iraq, where the autonomous provincial government has made higher education a priority.

In Saddam's time, a solitary university in Sulaimaniya served the region's 4 million people. Even that was closed by the Baathist regime and its students barred from studying elsewhere in Iraq.

Now Dohuk University is one of four higher education institutions in the region, literally built on the infrastructure formerly used against Kurds.link (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=200997&sectioncode=26)

[Queso]

Fivepoint, what és isn't telling you or doesn't know is what the students are learning in class is different now from what they were learning during the Saddam era. For example Israel is now on the world map and there has been a de-Baathication of every textbook, from first-grade readers to high-school physics texts. link (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F07E0D91F3DF932A35753C1A9659C8B63) In music classes, they learned new lyrics for traditional melodies. The beginning of one popular children's song was changed from ''The daughter of the merchant has almond eyes'' to ''We are the Baathists. We have heavy weapons.''
Exactly why Saddam's regime did not restrict education in any way. It was an extremely useful way to indoctrinate the next generation whilst keeping an eye on families. Hence every child could attend state funded schools and was actively encouraged to do so, whatever fivepoint now believes.

Girls being kept in the home was a Taliban thing, and as we all should know by now, there is no link blah blah blah...

[és:]

Wow. What a perfect example of why I am forced to be defensive.You couldn't just deal with the issue, but had to attack me and my 'world is against me' routine.

Where did I attack you, rather than your propaganda? I'm against this silly little 'oh look everybody, the big bad person doesn't just take my word for it' card you have to play EVERY SINGLE TIME you get made to look like you don't know the facts.

This is what you do:

1: Come into a thread and post something that isn't true but aligns with your bias. You normally end this post with a defensive statement or paranoia.

2: Somebody counters your claim, proves it to be wrong and then picks up on your paranoia

3: You claim everybody is picking on you because your 'opinion' is different to theirs

4: People are clearly not against you, just the ******** you try to pull. You get offended and run away with your tail between your legs and wait for a week before posting something equally baseless - then the whole cycle starts again.

You call my position revisionist, but I say yours is.

Well, that's good to know. The difference between me and you is that I provide proof, you provide propaganda.

I say your position is based off of the bias liberal blogosphere trying to claim that things were perfect in Iraq before the war, and that things are far worse off now.

Where have I ever claimed (or tried to claim) that 'things were perfect in Iraq before the war' ? Show me one right now. Show me just one occasion where I've claimed that things were perfect in Iraq. ****** it, show me one occasion where I've said any country is perfect and I'll concede this argument right now.

As for things being far worse now... for over 1 million dead, millions of disabled and millions of homeless people it's worse. The country is worse for the thousands of schools, roads, hospitals, bridges, communications etc that have been destroyed.

It's amazing to me that the reality hasn't sunk in to you yet, 'es.

What reality? I know far more about that region, through research and through knowing Iraqis and their experiences, than you can find out from fox news.

you don't attack me because I'm not making good arguments

I think it is clear to pretty much everybody on this forum that it is the exact reason why you get pounced on.

you're doing it because my views don't match your own.

That's a vicious lie. I have no problem with other people's views, as I told you in the previous post and as I've told you many times before. What I have a problem with is your misrepresentation of the facts, your lies and your propaganda.

You are being hypocritical every time you attack my 'propoganda' but don't attack anyone else's.

I, more than anybody, pick up on other people's inaccuracy on this forum. I can pick many examples where I've done this. You're no different, when you spread lies or inaccuracies that you hear from your beloved Bill O'Reilly, you'll get picked up on it too.

I'm not a defensive person, 'es. As much as you'd like to peg me for one.

Yes, you are. Every time you post on this PRSI forum you make 'here they come to attack me' posts. You can't hack it in a world where people are smart enough to refute your bias and propaganda.

I've recently been forced and pushed into defending myself from people like you who'd rather win an argument by tearing down other people. You try and justify your attacks at all costs, but in the end the truth is that you simply like to dumb down the conversation and take the easiest way out possible.

Of the many things I've been accused of 'dumbing down the conversation' isn't one of them. I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking the lies, the propaganda and the twisted logic that you recant - if you can't separate the two then that's your problem.

For the millionth time, I'm the one that is sticking to the issues, you're the one that has to try to turn it into 'why is everybody picking on me'. You're like a kid that's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

I'm trying to talk about the issues, and you keep attacking me personally.

Look back through this thread. You post something incorrect about the 'issues'. I pick up on it and refute them. You then ignore what I've just said about the issues and scream 'miss, miss the bullies are picking on me'. Ironic.

[Blue Velvet]

Let's try to chill and stop winding people up with personal comments, thanks.

[mgguy]

The reporter would have been beheaded had he thrown a shoe at Hussein. Good riddance Saddam.

[Queso]

The reporter would have been beheaded had he thrown a shoe at Hussein. Good riddance Saddam.
If the only good thing you can say about Bush is that he's a better person than Saddam Hussein I suggest he doesn't have much going for him.

Still at least half a million extra dead though, isn't there?

[Blue Velvet]

Glad he got the opportunity to express the freedoms he and his fellow Iraqis have now.

Yay for freedom. (http://images.google.com/images?source=ig&rlz=&q=abu%20ghraib&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi)

[leekohler]

Yay for freedom. (http://images.google.com/images?source=ig&rlz=&q=abu%20ghraib&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi)

Umm...could you please label things like that as NSFW? I came very close to getting busted just now. ;)

[és:]

The reporter would have been beheaded had he thrown a shoe at Hussein. Good riddance Saddam.

The irony is that George Bush is guilty of killing more Iraqis than Saddam ever was.

[leekohler]

The irony is that George Bush is guilty of killing more Iraqis than Saddam ever was.

But they have freedom now! Sounds like a great place to vacation! Such freedom!

http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/iraq

There are pages and pages to get through on that site.

[Blue Velvet]

Umm...could you please label things like that as NSFW? I came very close to getting busted just now. ;)


Awfully sorry to intrude on your cozy bubble.


The bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee report issued on Thursday -- which documents that "former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior U.S. officials share much of the blame for detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba" and "that Rumsfeld's actions were 'a direct cause of detainee abuse' at Guantanamo and 'influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques ... in Afghanistan and Iraq'" -- raises an obvious and glaring question: how can it possibly be justified that the low-level Army personnel carrying out these policies at Abu Ghraib have been charged, convicted and imprisoned, while the high-level political officials and lawyers who directed and authorized these same policies remain free of any risk of prosecution?

The culpability which the Report assigns for these war crimes is vast in scope and unambiguous:
The executive summary also traces the erosion of detainee treatment standards to a Feb,. 7, 2002, memorandum signed by President George W. Bush stating that the Geneva Convention did not apply to the U.S. war with al Qaeda and that Taliban detainees were not entitled to prisoner of war status or legal protections.

"The president's order closed off application of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for humane treatment," the summary said.

Members of Bush's Cabinet and other senior officials participated in meetings inside the White House in 2002 and 2003 where specific interrogation techniques were discussed, according to the report.
The policies which the Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously concludes were authorized by Bush, Rumsfeld and several other top Bush officials did not merely lead to "abuse" and humiliating treatment, but are directly -- and unquestionably -- responsible for numerous detainee murders. Many of those deaths caused by abusive treatment have been formally characterized as "homicides" by autopsies performed in Iraq and Afghanistan (see these chilling compilations of autopsy findings on detainees in U.S. custody, obtained by the ACLU, which reads like a classic and compelling exhibit in a war crimes trial).

While the bulk of the attention over detainee abuse has been directed to Guantanamo, the U.S., to this day, continues to imprison -- with no charges -- thousands of Iraqi citizens

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/15/rumsfeld/index.html

And yet some here want to dismiss as this as the work of 'biased liberal blogs', as if wanting to wish it all away.

What does America stand for again?

[leekohler]

Awfully sorry to intrude on your cozy bubble.



No biggie. I just need to keep my job til the economy gets better. :D

That link was quite scary, though.

[Blue Velvet]

That link was quite scary, though.


Explicitly ordered and signed by the president. And a deafening silence from many Christians here. And many of them also have the sheer nerve to condemn atheists and others as being without morals...

So, when people here wonder why a shoe would be thrown at George Bush, perhaps, for just a moment, they can try to imagine what pictures like that look like to the citizens of Cairo, Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran.

[leekohler]

Explicitly ordered and signed by the president. And a deafening silence from many Christians here. And many of them also have the sheer nerve to condemn atheists and others as being without morals...

So, when people here wonder why a shoe would be thrown at George Bush, perhaps, for just a moment, they can try to imagine what pictures like that look like to the citizens of Cairo, Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran.

Good luck trying to make certain people understand. The won't. They think that no matter what, they're right. The ends justify the means and such.

[Dont Hurt Me]

One has to ask is the president above any law? with a congress ran by your own party the answer seems to be yes.

[skunk]

One has to ask is the president above any law?Probably in his home country, in effect, but he will have to choose his tourist destinations with some care after he retires.

I really don't think he or anyone else deserves to die for their actions, but this choice of insult was wonderfully appropriate.

[hulugu]

The reporter would have been beheaded had he thrown a shoe at Hussein. Good riddance Saddam.

Actually, he would have been tortured and eventually executed, and his family would have met a similar horrible fate.

But, we all know that Saddam Hussein was a bastard, and he was our bastard up until he invaded Kuwait.

What's important to recognize is that while Iraqis may have the freedom to hurl shoes at Bush, this momentary freedom comes with a price that some feel wasn't worth it. Thousands have died, the infrastructure is hanging by a thread even after five years, meanwhile we have rogue mercenaries shooting at civilians and soldiers who have tortured Iraqis in the same prisons at the previous regime. Ultimately, we have to recognize that we may have done nearly as much harm as good in this situation and that our leaders are directly responsible for this reality. We should also recognize that none of them will ever have to face the consequences of their actions.

We should stop applauding ourselves for the freedoms of Iraqis and look around the corner at what they lost.

[geese]

I like B3ta's take in this: http://www.b3ta.com/board/9026004

http://vash.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Anims/bushoes.gif

[bradl]

Now the fallout begins.

Apparently, the journalist has been arrested (http://www.npr.org/templates/topics/topic.php?topicId=1001) with charges pending, and protests have began in Iraq. I wouldn't be surprised if riots break out, and obviously, more resentment of the US being there.

Additionally, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino got socked in the eye by a microphone during the shoe throwing.

BL.

[skunk]

There is no shoe.

[mgguy]

Still at least half a million extra dead though, isn't there?

People die in war. Many of these people were killed by insurgents not US forces, or were insurgents themselves. I don't have much concern that someone who sawed off the head of an innocent reporter on camera was killed. People like that I would deduct from your .5M count, wherever that figure came from.

The irony is that George Bush is guilty of killing more Iraqis than Saddam ever was.

George Bush didn't kill anyone. He was acting as head of state with the full backing of Congress. If you are going to hold Bush responsible for those killed in a military operation, then you have to do the same for Clinton and other presidents whose actions led to the loss of lives.


Thousands have died, the infrastructure is hanging by a thread even after five years, meanwhile we have rogue mercenaries shooting at civilians and soldiers who have tortured Iraqis in the same prisons at the previous regime. Ultimately, we have to recognize that we may have done nearly as much harm as good in this situation and that our leaders are directly responsible for this reality. We should also recognize that none of them will ever have to face the consequences of their actions.

People die and infrastructures get disrupted in all wars. Iraq will be better off in the long run. Certainly Hussein won't be around to use mustard gas and other WMDs to continue to kill his own people.

[hulugu]

...People die and infrastructures get disrupted in all wars. Iraq will be better off in the long run. Certainly Hussein won't be around to use mustard gas and other WMDs to continue to kill his own people.

Yes, and he also won't be around to use those same weapons against the Iranians, a maneuver that didn't affect our support of the monster a bit.

But, more importantly, I don't accept the hand-waving gesture that "people die...in all wars." This was a war of choice at a time of our choosing against an enemy whose ability to attack us was diminished to the point of nigh impossibility. We had every logistical and political advantage and yet we created a situation that killed people. We weren't in sharp combat where ammunition flies and mistakes are made.

Instead, we allowed people to die by stark incompetence, fermenting an nascent insurgency into a near-Civil War (frankly, we should count our stars it didn't get worse because it could have), and damaging the infrastructure so badly that billions of dollars has barely made the system adequate. That we destroyed this infrastructure while playing pin-the-tail on Saddam Hussein with 2,000-lbs bombs is equally asinine.

We saved the Iraqi people from one kind of tyranny and gave them another.

[mgguy]

Yes, and he also won't be around to use those same weapons against the Iranians

I would think you would think that was a good thing, since you are against killing.

This was a war of choice at a time of our choosing against an enemy whose ability to attack us was diminished to the point of nigh impossibility. We had every logistical and political advantage and yet we created a situation that killed people. We weren't in sharp combat where ammunition flies and mistakes are made.

We did choose to go to war, and it was good that we could do so at a time of our choosing. It was a virtually unanimous decision that for many months people congratulated each other for making. The intent was just; it was not done solely to murder people.

Instead, we allowed people to die by stark incompetence, fermenting an nascent insurgency into a near-Civil War (frankly, we should count our stars it didn't get worse because it could have), and damaging the infrastructure so badly that billions of dollars has barely made the system adequate. That we destroyed this infrastructure while playing pin-the-tail on Saddam Hussein with 2,000-lbs bombs is equally asinine.

We didn't "allow" people to die, we killed them on purpose. That's what the heavy early bombing was for. And yes, when you bomb that heavily, infrastructure gets destroyed. After weeks of this, even Hillary was cheering the war on. Had the war not dragged on, everyone would be giving high-fives to each other.

[NT1440]

I would think you would think that was a good thing, since you are against killing.



We did choose to go to war, and it was good that we could do so at a time of our choosing. It was a virtually unanimous decision that for many months people congratulated each other for making. The intent was just; it was not done solely to murder people.



We didn't "allow" people to die, we killed them on purpose. That's what the heavy early bombing was for. And yes, when you bomb that heavily, infrastructure gets destroyed. After weeks of this, even Hillary was cheering the war on. Had the war not dragged on, everyone would be giving high-fives to each other.
Beleive it or not, some of us are against war all together, regardless of deathtoll and time span.

I dont give a damn about hillary cheering, why even bring it up?

And how was the intent just when it was based on lies?

[CalBoy]

It was a virtually unanimous decision that for many months people congratulated each other for making.

The vote to invade Iraq was not unanimous; you're thinking of Afghanistan, where only Barbara Lee dissented.

Some of us had objected to the invasion in Iraq from the very beginning because we saw it for what it was. It's only now that we are vindicated; quite the empty victory.

[mgguy]

Beleive it or not, some of us are against war all together, regardless of deathtoll and time span.

I dont give a damn about hillary cheering, why even bring it up?

And how was the intent just when it was based on lies?

It is very easy to believe that some posters in this forum are against war altogether. Few people are for war for its own sake. Some things are worth, and necessary, to fight for. You can argue that Iraq was not, but many people believe it was, including top democrats. My point in bringing up Hillary's support of the war is to show that it was not just Bush-driven. If he is a killer, then so is she and others who supported it. it was not based on "lies" in the sense that the decision was based on not only the intelligence that was available at the time about WMD but other considerations deemed to be in the interest of national security.

[Blue Velvet]

While Tweety (Chris Matthews) fussed about the propriety of Al Zaida’s shoe throw just now, very credible reports started to come in from Arabic sources that Muntader Al Zaida is in very bad shape:

Raed in the Middle (http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/2008/12/montathers-hand-broken-in-jail.html) reports:

Albaghdadia, the TV channel where the Iraqi Journalist Montather Al-Zeidi works, reports that an Iraqi MP (Ms. Zainab Al-Kanani) informed them that Montather’s hand was broken in jail.

This confirms a lot of reports and rumors about Montather being subject to torture while the Iraqi authorities are interrogating and detaining him in some unspecified location.

From Roads to Iraq (http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2008/12/16/urgent-just-reported-al-zaidi-in-us-run-camp-cropper-prison/):

Iraqi TV al-Sharqiya just reported on the news that AL-Zaidi is transferred to Camp Cropper prison [the Airport prison, managed by the American forces].

The TV Channel announced that Al-Zaidi is in a difficult condition, with broken ribs and signs of tortures on his thighs. Also he can not move his right arm.

I've checked the translation of this account with markfromireland of GorillasGuides (http://gorillasguides.com/) who says this report sounds "about right" and is very credible. He also notes the reported injuries would be consistent with repeated severe kicking of Al Zaida.

Al Sharqiya is a major news outlet with a good reputation for credible reporting.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/15/shoe-thrower-being-tortured/

[bradl]

It is very easy to believe that some posters in this forum are against war altogether. Few people are for war for its own sake. Some things are worth, and necessary, to fight for. You can argue that Iraq was not, but many people believe it was, including top democrats. My point in bringing up Hillary's support of the war is to show that it was not just Bush-driven. If he is a killer, then so is she and others who supported it. it was not based on "lies" in the sense that the decision was based on not only the intelligence that was available at the time about WMD but other considerations deemed to be in the interest of national security.

But you are completely ignoring the fact that Hillary's support of the war and every other Senator's support of the war was based on false information that Bush had supplied to the Senate and to the United Nations. It's kind of idiotic to blame someone else for the fault of this 'war' when they were deceived by their own commander-in-chief, and President of the country.

Hillary and others supported the war because of information given to them that was proven to be false. Our idiot of a President lied to Congress, the U.N., and the world to get his way with going back to Cheney's and Daddy's little war.

And worst of all, he used others to lie to his own people.

BL.

[djellison]

That's terrible.

I know. He missed. Twice. :confused:

[és:]

P
George Bush didn't kill anyone.

He was directly responsible. I doubt Saddam killed many people, by that rationale.

He was acting as head of state with the full backing of Congress. If you are going to hold Bush responsible for those killed in a military operation, then you have to do the same for Clinton and other presidents whose actions led to the loss of lives.

I was against the Gulf war, too. However, that had some logic behind it at least.

[és:]

But you are completely ignoring the fact that Hillary's support of the war and every other Senator's support of the war was based on false information that Bush had supplied to the Senate and to the United Nations. It's kind of idiotic to blame someone else for the fault of this 'war' when they were deceived by their own commander-in-chief, and President of the country.

Hillary and others supported the war because of information given to them that was proven to be false. Our idiot of a President lied to Congress, the U.N., and the world to get his way with going back to Cheney's and Daddy's little war.

And worst of all, he used others to lie to his own people.

BL.

I'm not letting her off that easily. The anti war movement in Britain told the world that it was a pack of lies. Millions of us marched in protest. The same happened in the US.

Nobody listened.

[djellison]

Nobody listened.

Odd really, because only 17 people complained about an Apple advert ( I was one ) and it had to be modified.

A million people protest, in person, about something - and nothing happens.

It's a screwed up world.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Our screwed up govt is ran 100% by special interest with a thin facade of being for the people only during a election period. Our Govt has been hijacked by corporations and the military industrial complex.

Bush & his gang of draft dodgers had the facts and they spun and lied us into Iraq. They twisted truths, told outright lies and even spun yellow cake .

911 was done by Saudi's for the most part not Iraqi's.

Who cares about truth when you can buy off the media hence both partys who spent a billion dollars this past campain.

[leekohler]

I'm not letting her off that easily. The anti war movement in Britain told the world that it was a pack of lies. Millions of us marched in protest. The same happened in the US.

Nobody listened.

Yeah, I'm a little sick of this, "but Congress voted for it too!" thing. They were fed a pack of lies presented to them by the administration. And yes, Bush is fully responsible! He's the Commander in Chief for god's sake! Funny how conservatives like to bring that up when it's convenient, but when it's time to take responsibility, they shy away from it and deflect responsibility. And here I thought they were the party of responsibility. Guess that only happens when that's convenient too.

[drichards]

Its a shame the shoe thrower did what he did. I'm glad George dodged those shoes and kept good spirits. Its really a shame how many people don't appreciate what our president does...

[leekohler]

Its a shame the shoe thrower did what he did. I'm glad George dodged those shoes and kept good spirits. Its really a shame how many people don't appreciate what our president does...

You mean like sending my family and friends to fight a war that was based on lies? Yeah, great guy, that Bush.

[skunk]

Its a shame the shoe thrower did what he did. I'm glad George dodged those shoes and kept good spirits. Its really a shame how many people don't appreciate what our president does...Oh, I think a lot of people appreciate exactly what he has done: devastated two countries, mismanaged the US economy to such an extent that we will all be shafted for the foreseeable future, waged an illegal war of choice predicated on a pack of lies which has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, destabilised a whole region of the world, ridden roughshod over human rights in the name of democracy, contravened the Geneva Conventions, brought your nation into international disrepute and enriched himself and his friends and supporters in the process. Have I missed anything?

[drichards]

You mean like sending my family and friends to fight a war that was based on lies? Yeah, great guy, that Bush.

My family and friends too, and some of them don't come back. Bush has done alot of good things and he's been blamed for alot of bad. Some is legitimately his fault, some is out of his hands. Most people who blame George for everything don't know what he does.

[skunk]

Bush has done alot of good things and he's been blamed for alot of bad.We've been here before. NAME ONE GOOD THING.

[és:]

Bush has done alot of good things

Can you name them. What is a lot? 10? 50? 100?

[drichards]

We've been here before. NAME ONE GOOD THING.

Have I missed anything?

You've missed alot, but that's okay. You've got your left bias right in front. And good things? He showed strong leadership in a very tough time for America and for New York especially after 9-11-01; he quickly removed the Taliban from their stronghold over Afghanistan and we continue to fight them today; he's showed more dignity than Clinton and upheld strong family values throughout his Presidency; and the efforts made by his White House administration have resulted in no further terrorist attacks on US soil. He's also supported clean energy, fuel efficiency, carbon emissions reduction, home economic stimulus, small business growth, extraterrestrial research, clean air, and lots of other things. But hey, obviously not one good thing.

[Dont Hurt Me]

So many lies, you need to dig deeper. Bush for example gave huge tax breaks to the rich if they bought gigantic SUVs. You have to dig a little instead of taking party propaganda as holy truth. :rolleyes:

[drichards]

So many lies, you need to dig deeper. Bush for example gave tax breaks to the rich if they bought gigantic SUVs. You have to dig a little instead of taking party propaganda as holy truth. :rolleyes:

There was a tax benefit to businesses for the lease or purchase of commercial vehicles, including Hummers and fullsize trucks. This helped thousands of small businesses at the time, including mine. At the time, the Ford F150 was still the most popular vehicle in North America. Could I have gotten a Mercedes-Dodge Sprinter and had better fuel efficiency under the same program? Yes. But it didn't suit my needs.

Ever think you might be the one feeding on leftist propaganda?

[Dont Hurt Me]

There was a tax benefit to businesses for the lease or purchase of commercial vehicles, including Hummers and fullsize trucks. This helped thousands of small businesses at the time, including mine. At the time, the Ford F150 was still the most popular vehicle in North America. Could I have gotten a Mercedes-Dodge Sprinter and had better fuel efficiency under the same program? Yes. But it didn't suit my needs.Well I guess that went a long ways to improving this nations fuel economy.

[sushi]

Bush for example gave huge tax breaks to the rich if they bought gigantic SUVs.
Please show the specific reference for this drivel.

By specific, I mean the actual tax code that specifies this specific tax break.

Awaiting your reply...

[drichards]

Well I guess that went a long ways to improving this nations fuel economy.

Fuel cost the same then as it does right now, and not all of us have needs that can be addressed by a Honda Fit/Jazz or a Toyota Matrix.

[drichards]

@sushi: It was just an extension of the same small business equipment accelerated depreciation benefit that was made available by Clinton in 1996, and increased year to year due to rising cost of goods in an effort to stimulate small business owners' ability to maintain a fleet of vehicles in good working order. Leftists often claim that Bush invented the benefit, and that it was a waste. They feel that high profile vehicles, like Hummers and Escalades, shouldn't be eligible for the benefit. How they make that argument, I don't know. An outfitted Sprinter or Express van costs just the same as an Escalade or Hummer.

[Blue Velvet]

Don't talk about bias, talk of the facts.

He showed strong leadership in a very tough time for America and for New York especially after 9-11-01

He ignored intelligence briefings saying that an attack was imminent. (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/)

In August 2001, the CIA was in a panic about an upcoming terrorist attack and drafted a report with the title, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” When a CIA staffer summed up the memo’s contents in a face-to-face meeting with Bush, the president found the briefer insufficiently confident and dismissed him by saying, “All right, you’ve covered your ass, now,” according to Suskind. That turned out to be a fairly disastrous judgment.

Bush loyalists like to dismiss Suskind’s reporting, but it jibes with the picture that has emerged from other sources. L. Paul Bremer III’s account of his tenure as head of Iraq’s Coalition Provisional Authority depicts Bush as uninterested in the central questions of rebuilding and occupying the country.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/16/opinion/oe-chait16


He quickly removed the Taliban from their stronghold over Afghanistan and we continue to fight them today.

He helped establish a corrupt puppet regime in Afghanistan to do so. And how's that war going?

With more than 270 foreign soldiers -- most of them American -- killed already this year, 2008 has been the deadliest since the fall of the hardline Taliban regime in 2001 for the 70,000 international troops deployed here.

General David Petraeus, who now commands US forces in the Middle East and Central Asia, admitted that "in certain areas of Afghanistan clearly there has been a spiral downward that all involved... want to arrest".

This month, the International Council on Security and Development went as far as to say that Taliban insurgents had established a "permanent presence" in roughly three-quarters of the country -- a claim denied by Kabul.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gUH_RX5md-5Ml2LE4gnz3ocwgUVA

He's showed more dignity than Clinton and upheld strong family values throughout his Presidency.

Do those family values include approving the use of torture contrary to American's international agreements and the Geneva Convention?


and the efforts made by his White House administration have resulted in no further terrorist attacks on US soil.

He was on watch when the first one happened. He ignored intelligence briefings... this is part of the public record.

He's also supported clean energy, fuel efficiency, carbon emissions reduction, home economic stimulus, small business growth, extraterrestrial research, clean air, and lots of other things.

By refusing to agree to mandatory greenhouse gas emission reductions, the Bush administration gave major developing nations, such as China and India, carte blanche to do the same.

Bush's vows to veto legislation that would limit greenhouse gases have consistently undermined Congress' feeble attempts to do anything serious about global warming, such as capping emissions.

Bush's Environmental Protection Agency refused to regulate the greenhouse gas CO2 as a pollutant, even after the Supreme Court ruled that CO2 is a pollutant and the EPA can regulate it. So while California has passed a law regulating tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases, the state still needs a waiver under the EPA to put those regulations in place. It hasn't gotten it.

Remember when Bush promoted the idea that we'd all be driving around in hydrogen-fuel-cell-powered cars by 2020? Fat chance.

Bush has paid lip service to futuristic fuels like hydrogen and cellulosic ethanol, and to renewable sources of energy like solar, wind and geothermal, but his administration has failed to push those products to market. Meanwhile, he's lent regulatory support to old-school polluting industries, such as coal and oil and gas. With no federal mandate to reduce greenhouse gases, the country has largely been content to burn up the atmosphere with those dirtier, cheaper sources of energy.

Not once during the Bush administration has the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service voluntarily sought to list a species as endangered or threatened, offering it more protections. All the high-profile listings, such as polar bears, have come about after the government has been sued or petitioned by environmental groups and citizens.

"They've destroyed the capacity of government biologists to do their jobs," says Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. "There has been a huge assault. They've monkeyed with the science, forced many scientists out, starved budgets, prevented research findings from being shared, and prevented scientists from commenting to the media."

The administration also tried to force through regulations that would allow government agencies to build roads or start new mining projects without consulting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service about whether it would harm endangered species, a process known as "self-consultation."

The administration also tried to force through regulations that would allow government agencies to build roads or start new mining projects without consulting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service about whether it would harm endangered species, a process known as "self-consultation."

In the name of industry, the Bush administration has spent the past eight years trying to weaken clean-air standards, including attempting to water down "new source review" regulations on coal-fired power plants. "They've tried to do this in a dozen different ways, and the courts have fought them down, time and time again," says Pope of the Sierra Club.

And they're still at it. Even now, the administration has proposed two rules that would weaken clean-air standards by allowing power plants to increase emissions without adding pollution controls, and by permitting more pollution near national parks, which it's racing to finalize before Jan. 20, 2009.

http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2008/11/08/bush_environmental_sins/index.html

[és:]

0wned.

[drichards]

Read The War on Freedom by NM Ahmed if you have the time to stop letting salon.com and the AP form your opinions for you. The world isn't perfect, and no decision is.

[és:]

Read The War on Freedom by NM Ahmed if you have the time to stop letting salon.com and the AP form your opinions for you. The world isn't perfect, and no decision is.

It always cracks me up when people try to turn a source of information into something that 'forms your opinions' for you. The implication is that, despite being an intelligent adult, you can't think for yourself. It's degrading at best.

[Blue Velvet]

...if you have the time to stop letting salon.com and the AP form your opinions for you. The world isn't perfect, and no decision is.

Salon and AP are pretty respected sources. Don't throw a book title back at anyone here in response to your incorrect and poorly-researched claims.

II. Be willing to engage in fact-based debate

Provide links or other form of citation to corroborate claims; uncited claims will be considered opinion/hearsay

Repetition of opinion/hearsay as the factual basis for an argument will fall under the heading of "trolling"

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=77413

[fivepoint]

It's hilarious how different everyone's ideas of 'reputable sources' is. We all know there are plenty of outliers and ones that are blatantly obvious... but it's funny how conservatives think that Fox is a reputable source and liberals think that nytimes, salon, NPR are. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Fox is obviously biased, but so are the others. The people that claim otherwise are blinded by their own bias.

Funny thing here is that it's ok to post info from salon and the nytimes as truth, fact, and unbiased source... but anything posted from Fox (even if it's straight-up statistics) is ridiculed and dismissed as udder trash. It would be better if people would judge articles based on their unique merit, instead of their source.

[drichards]

The author suggested is a very well respected political scientist and professor from the UK. The AP and Salon are in the business of getting their news and opinion printed as quickly as possible, and not much more than that. Accuracy doesn't sell newspapers and unless you're looking at an article analyzing a law, you won't often get a full perspective.

[Blue Velvet]

It's hilarious how different everyone's ideas of 'reputable sources' is. We all know there are plenty of outliers and ones that are blatantly obvious... but it's funny how conservatives think that Fox is a reputable source and liberals think that nytimes, salon, NPR are. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

Absolute crap and you should know it. All of these sources are accountable and assiduously fact-check. They're run by journalists. Fox News is little more than a propaganda arm for the Republican Party, so biased that even Rupert Murdoch is now ashamed of it.

You obviously have no idea of what journalism is, and how the the left blogosphere, for instance, prides itself on being reality-based. Virtually everything they've claimed about this administration for year is true... and you've got the cheek, the nerve, to come here and make sweeping absurd statements about media sources without providing one single sourced rebuttal?

[és:]

It's hilarious how different everyone's ideas of 'reputable sources' is. We all know there are plenty of outliers and ones that are blatantly obvious... but it's funny how conservatives think that Fox is a reputable source and liberals think that nytimes, salon, NPR are. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Fox is obviously biased, but so are the others. The people that claim otherwise are blinded by their own bias.

Funny thing here is that it's ok to post info from salon and the nytimes as truth, fact, and unbiased source... but anything posted from Fox (even if it's straight-up statistics) is ridiculed and dismissed as udder trash. It would be better if people would judge articles based on their unique merit, instead of their source.

You're twisting things. Fox news are proven liars. They are well known to be unreliable. The only thing that you can trust them to do is push right wing propaganda.

I don't use NYT, salon or NPR as sources, but they at least carry some gravitas amongst the intellectual community. Fox, however, are laughed out of town.

[fivepoint]

You're twisting things. Fox news are proven liars. They are well known to be unreliable. The only thing that you can trust them to do is push right wing propaganda.

That's just the thing though... so is the NYT, etc. Hardly a scientific result... but if you Google "new york times lies" you get over 12 million results. If you search for "fox news lies" you get less than 4 million. I'm not saying that Fox is unbiased... I don't think anyone is... In fact, I completely agree with you that they are generally reprehensable. But to say that NYT, salon, etc. are is equally laughable. The only reason I bring this up, is because no one else will... and its unfair for some of these sources to be labeled as unbiased when they couldn't be further from it.



Absolute crap and you should know it. All of these sources are accountable and assiduously fact-check. They're run by journalists.

You obviously have no idea of what journalism is, and how the the left blogosphere, for instance, prides itself on being reality-based. Virtually everything they've claimed about this administration for year is true... and you've got the cheek, the nerve, to come here and make sweeping absurd statements about media sources without providing one single sourced rebuttal?

Are you kidding me? Are you denying that salon and NYT have a liberal skew? Like I said before... 12 million results. If I actually cared much about this stuff, I could probably link you to site after site with documented NYT errors, lies, bias, etc.
Here's just one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair

[Blue Velvet]

That's just the thing though... so is the NYT, etc. Hardly a scientific result... but if you Google "new york times lies" you get over 12 million results.

Because that's such an accurate account of journalistic output. :rolleyes:


but to say that NYT, salon, etc. are is equally laughable.

Look, why don't you show us how Salon is biased? Show us the way in which they distort and make up facts. Provide a sourced rebuttal to the articles presented from them, and demonstrate their bias. You mistake an interest in types of coverage for certain stories over accuracy. There's a huge difference.

The only reason I bring this up, is because no one else will...

Wonder why that is? And any more of this constantly-running meta-comment about this forum can only end up one way.

[fivepoint]

Look, why don't you show us how Salon is biased? Show us the way in which they distort and make up facts. Provide a sourced rebuttal to the articles presented from them, and demonstrate their bias. You mistake an interest in types of coverage for certain stories over accuracy. There's a huge difference.

Like I said, far from scientific. Also, like I said, I don't really follow this stuff... but the fact that there is entire websites devoted to exposing the NYT's bias (similar to the ones regarding Fox News) leads me to believe that there is something going on here: http://www.timeswatch.org/

Why are you getting so bent out of shape simply because I'm saying that I don't think the NYT is unbiased? I've read it often for myself. In my opinion, it has a very strong liberal skew...

[és:]

That's just the thing though... so is the NYT, etc. Hardly a scientific result... but if you Google "new york times lies" you get over 12 million results. If you search for "fox news lies" you get less than 4 million.

Of all the completely [removed] things I've heard on this forum, this is right up there with the worst offenders. The term 'superman is strong' returns 42m less results than 'bush is strong'. Did you give any thought to the fact that New York is one of the most popular cities in the world?

You'll forgive me for not using this technique in any academic writings. You call it unscientific, I call it [removed].

[fivepoint]

Of all the completely [removed] things I've heard on this forum, this is right up there with the worst offenders. The term 'superman is strong' returns 42m less results than 'bush is strong'. Did you give any thought to the fact that New York is one of the most popular cities in the world?

You'll forgive me for not using this technique in any academic writings. You call it unscientific, I call it [removed].

Like I said... unscientific... and you're right... it's not very useful. Basically, I'm trying to make a point. For every person who thinks one source is biased, there are others who think their source is biased! To claim that the NYT is unbiased is humorous in my eyes, and most conservatives' eyes.

It's as simple as that. Judge the article based on its content, and not on the source.

[leekohler]

It's hilarious how different everyone's ideas of 'reputable sources' is. We all know there are plenty of outliers and ones that are blatantly obvious... but it's funny how conservatives think that Fox is a reputable source and liberals think that nytimes, salon, NPR are. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Fox is obviously biased, but so are the others. The people that claim otherwise are blinded by their own bias.

Funny thing here is that it's ok to post info from salon and the nytimes as truth, fact, and unbiased source... but anything posted from Fox (even if it's straight-up statistics) is ridiculed and dismissed as udder trash. It would be better if people would judge articles based on their unique merit, instead of their source.

The Associated Press is obviously biased? REALLY? And Fox News is "utter" (fixed that spelling for you) trash. It's blatantly biased, there's absolutely no doubt about that. Fox News doesn't give one rat's a** about telling the truth. They NEVER have. If you think they do, I've got some fantastic property in Florida you may find extremely appealing.

[Blue Velvet]

but the fact that there is entire websites devoted to exposing the NYT's bias (similar to the ones regarding Fox News) leads me to believe that there is something going on here: http://www.timeswatch.org/

TimesWatch is a project of the Media Research Center (http://www.mrc.org/). Who are the Media Research Center and what are they interested in?

the MRC has produced a number of their own analyses and has offerred as evidence the claims that news reporters use the "conservative" or "Republican" label to describe conservatives more often than they label liberals or Democrats,[18] that the media is sympathetic to Communism or "dictators",[19] that media coverage of global warming is biased in favor of environmentalism,[20], and that the media focuses on covering the negative side of the Iraq war.

Another media watch group Media Matters for America has also repeatedly criticized the MRC, charging they view the media "through a funhouse mirror that renders everything--even the facts themselves--as manifestations of insidious bias." [18

MRC president L. Brent Bozell III branched the Parents Television Council from the Center in 1995 after he felt that decency on prime-time television was decreasing. The PTC monitors prime-time television for what it believes to be indecent content and publishes content-based reviews of television shows and oversees campaigns to make advertisers withdraw from programs that they believe to be morally offensive.[10] In July 2002, MRC and affiliate Parents Television Council (PTC) paid an out-of-court settlement ending a lawsuit which had been launched by World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) in November 2000. WWE alleged 13 instances of defamation, copyright infringement and interference with prospective business relations after PTC produced a fundraising video using unauthorized WWE footage, falsely claimed WWE was responsible for the murders of four children, and falsely claimed advertisers had pulled their commercials from the show. MRC paid US$3.5 million.[11] MRC and PTC President Brent Bozell wrote in a lengthy public statement "it was wrong to have stated or implied that WWE or any of its programs caused these tragic deaths."

Bozell founded the Conservative News Service (now Cybercast News Service [CNSNews.com]) in 1998 to cover stories he believes are ignored by mainstream news organizations.[14] CNSNews.com provides news articles for Townhall.com and other websites for a subscription fee. Its leadership consists of president Brent Bozell and editor Terry Jeffrey. Under editor David Thibault, CNSNews.com questioned the validity of the circumstances in which Democratic Rep. John Murtha received his purple hearts as a response to Murtha's criticisms of the U.S. War in Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Research_Center#Reports_on_the_media


And you believe this crap has credence?

[fivepoint]

The Associated Press is obviously biased? REALLY? And Fox News is "utter" (fixed that spelling for you) trash. It's blatantly biased, there's absolutely no doubt about that. Fox News doesn't give one rat's a** about telling the truth. They NEVER have. If you think they do, I've got some fantastic property in Florida you may find extremely appealing.

Thanks for the spelling help, Lee. I appreciate it. Also, how did you read my "cow's udder" statement, and then determine that I "think Fox gives a rat's ass about telling the truth."

[és:]

Like I said... unscientific... and you're right... it's not very useful.

Thanks. I just can't understand why you have to stoop to that level. You're smart enough to see how pathetic that comparison is, so why post it? Who are you trying to influence with that?

For every person who thinks one source is biased, there are others who think their source is biased! To claim that the NYT is unbiased is humorous in my eyes, and most conservatives' eyes.

That is the undeniable truth. That is why you have to deal with facts. It's when the facts are dismissed as partizan bias that a problem arises. Saying something is biased doesn't make it so, it is the misrepresentation of the facts that people have a problem with. It is the half truths and untruths that people object to - Fox news are the worst for that. Salon (again, a source that I don't use) are not even close.

[fivepoint]

Of course there is. That is the undeniable truth. That is why you have to deal with facts. It's when the facts are dismissed as partizan bias that a problem arises. Saying something is biased doesn't make it so, it is the misrepresentation of the facts that people have a problem with. It is the half truths and untruths that people object to - Fox news are the worst for that. Salon (again, a source that I don't use) are not even close.

If you ask me... "half truths" like you mentioned is one of the worst kinds of bias. They tell you things, maybe all of it is true, and factual, but they're only giving you half of the story... and this is the certainly a problem with organizations like the one's we've been mentioning here. They may give facts, but they only give the facts that support their worldview. Fox does this, NYT does this...

So, people who read from these sources read everything, know it's accurate, and consider the story for 'truth.' When in all practical application, its nothing but selective facts, nearly propaganda in many people's eyes. Sad really.

That being said, I don't share any disdain for op-eds at all. I think taking the facts to their logical end makes sense a lot of time. And it is helpful to people who don't have the time to dissect all of the details for themselves. Case by case basis.

[leekohler]

Thanks for the spelling help, Lee. I appreciate it. Also, how did you read my "cow's udder" statement, and then determine that I "think Fox gives a rat's ass about telling the truth."

Because making a comparison between the Associated Press and Fox News is absolute garbage.

[és:]

If you ask me... "half truths" like you mentioned is one of the worst kinds of bias. They tell you things, maybe all of it is true, and factual, but they're only giving you half of the story... and this is the certainly a problem with organizations like the one's we've been mentioning here. They may give facts, but they only give the facts that support their worldview. Fox does this, NYT does this...

So, people who read from these sources read everything, know it's accurate, and consider the story for 'truth.' When in all practical application, its nothing but selective facts, nearly propaganda in many people's eyes. Sad really.

It's not nearly propaganda, it is propaganda. I don't believe any of the sources used by BV are guilty of this, although Fox certainly are.

Lumping together the AP, NYT and Salon with something like Fox is like comparing Mary Poppins to Hitler.

[sushi]

Don't throw a book title back at anyone here in response
You mean that you don't consider books a reliable type of source? :eek:

[és:]

You mean that you don't consider books a reliable type of source? :eek:

Read Chomsky's 'manufacturing consent' for my answer.

Not much of an argument, is it. A book title in a thread on the internet isn't quite the same thing as a book not being a reliable source. Although, you knew that when you posted your comment.

[Queso]

Coming back on topic, it appears Muntadar al-Zaidi is paying a price for embarrassing his betters

BBC News (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7785338.stm)

Remind me again how much better off the Iraqis are now Saddam has gone.

Rather telling, at the bottom of that article, is this bit...

Mr Zaidi, who lives in Baghdad, has worked for al-Baghdadia for three years.

Muzhir al-Khafaji, programming director for the channel, described him as a "proud Arab and an open-minded man".

He said that Mr Zaidi was a graduate of communications from Baghdad University.

"He has no ties with the former regime. His family was arrested under Saddam's regime," he said.

Mr Zaidi has previously been abducted by insurgents and held twice for questioning by US forces in Iraq.

In November 2007 he was kidnapped by a gang on his way to work in central Baghdad and released three days later without a ransom.

He said at the time that the kidnappers had beaten him until he lost consciousness, and used his necktie to blindfold him.

Mr Zaidi never learned the identity of his kidnappers, who questioned him about his work before letting him go.

[leekohler]

Coming back on topic, it appears Muntadar al-Zaidi is paying a price for embarrassing his betters

BBC News (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7785338.stm)

Remind me again how much better off the Iraqis are now Saddam has gone.

Rather telling, at the bottom of that article, is this bit...

That Iraqi freedom sure is sweet! :rolleyes:

[Cromulent]

Wow, so you're both a Mac user and a Bush hater?

Fanboy levels are off the charts.

BTW, if he's "DIRECTLY" responsible, how come I never heard about him going to Iraq and Afghanistan and capping people in the head?

Eh? What the hell does being a fanboy have to do with anything. Your opinion is just plain weak willed. If you like him publicly support him, if you dislike him offer criticism. Sounds like you want to spend your life sitting on the fence humming tunes and never having the guts to have a real opinion yourself.

[hulugu]

Read The War on Freedom by NM Ahmed if you have the time to stop letting salon.com and the AP form your opinions for you. The world isn't perfect, and no decision is.

Sure, I'll read it. If you'll read The Dark Side by Jane Meyer and/or The Way of the World by Ronald Suskind.

It's hilarious how different everyone's ideas of 'reputable sources' is. We all know there are plenty of outliers and ones that are blatantly obvious... but it's funny how conservatives think that Fox is a reputable source and liberals think that nytimes, salon, NPR are. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Fox is obviously biased, but so are the others. The people that claim otherwise are blinded by their own bias.

Funny thing here is that it's ok to post info from salon and the nytimes as truth, fact, and unbiased source... but anything posted from Fox (even if it's straight-up statistics) is ridiculed and dismissed as udder trash. It would be better if people would judge articles based on their unique merit, instead of their source.


That's just the thing though... so is the NYT, etc. Hardly a scientific result... but if you Google "new york times lies" you get over 12 million results. If you search for "fox news lies" you get less than 4 million. I'm not saying that Fox is unbiased... I don't think anyone is... In fact, I completely agree with you that they are generally reprehensable. But to say that NYT, salon, etc. are is equally laughable. The only reason I bring this up, is because no one else will... and its unfair for some of these sources to be labeled as unbiased when they couldn't be further from it.

Are you kidding me? Are you denying that salon and NYT have a liberal skew? Like I said before... 12 million results. If I actually cared much about this stuff, I could probably link you to site after site with documented NYT errors, lies, bias, etc.
Here's just one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair

If you ask me... "half truths" like you mentioned is one of the worst kinds of bias. They tell you things, maybe all of it is true, and factual, but they're only giving you half of the story... and this is the certainly a problem with organizations like the one's we've been mentioning here. They may give facts, but they only give the facts that support their worldview. Fox does this, NYT does this...

So, people who read from these sources read everything, know it's accurate, and consider the story for 'truth.' When in all practical application, its nothing but selective facts, nearly propaganda in many people's eyes. Sad really.

That being said, I don't share any disdain for op-eds at all. I think taking the facts to their logical end makes sense a lot of time. And it is helpful to people who don't have the time to dissect all of the details for themselves. Case by case basis.

I've written about this issue ad absurdum and ad naseum (frankly, I'm getting sick of my own argument at this point), but I think it's important nonetheless.

The problem with Fox News isn't just their reporting, it's the constant conflation of news and opinion. All news sources, especially post-Fox, have gotten into this business to some degree, but Fox is the worst and continues to promulgate the idea that all news is biased and therefore their bias is somehow a moral act. Of course, grade-schoolers are able to pick apart the inherent logic of telling a lie because others are, and that two wrongs don't make a right, but nonetheless this is what Fox is selling. It's selling out the credibility of *every* news source in order to assure their own particular failings.

Now, all of us have bias, but a journalists' job is to try to extricate themselves from their bias and tell the story. If it's an op-ed, you tell the story as your own and hope that by reflection it has greater meaning and also helps to tell the story. It's difficult, complex work and most days the reporter gets it wrong. But, the point is not to try to tell a good lie, but to tell the bad truth.

I don't think NPR deserves to be lumped in with Fox because NPR tries to report the news, but I'll grudgingly put the NY Times in there along with the NY Post and a few others.

[Blue Velvet]

You mean that you don't consider books a reliable type of source? :eek:


What do you take me for with this utterly cretinous and condescending remark? :rolleyes:

If you're going to make an assertion here and present it as fact, be prepared to back it up straight away. Not tell others to go and read a book in response, without presenting some excerpts and at least a sentence on the background why someone should take the time to read it.

And yeah, you knew that.

[drichards]

Sure, I'll read it. If you'll read The Dark Side by Jane Meyer and/or The Way of the World by Ronald Suskind.

I read Suskind's book in the fall. Portions of it were very dramatic.

[.Andy]

The truth is somewhere in the middle.
This is the absolute worst place to look for the truth if you're wishing to find it. The only thing that exists somewhere in the middle is compromise.

[leekohler]

This is the absolute worst place to look for the truth if you're wishing to find it. The only thing that exists somewhere in the middle is compromise.

Exactly. The truth doesn't compromise and is rarely in the middle. The only issue is whether or not we wish to accept the truth.

[hulugu]

I read Suskind's book in the fall. Portions of it were very dramatic.

Deal. I'll order your suggestion in a few minutes.

[mactastic]

The reporter would have been beheaded had he thrown a shoe at Hussein. Good riddance Saddam.
Saddam was hanged for trying to kill Bush's daddy.

It's hilarious how different everyone's ideas of 'reputable sources' is. We all know there are plenty of outliers and ones that are blatantly obvious... but it's funny how conservatives think that Fox is a reputable source and liberals think that nytimes, salon, NPR are. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Fox is obviously biased, but so are the others. The people that claim otherwise are blinded by their own bias.

Funny thing here is that it's ok to post info from salon and the nytimes as truth, fact, and unbiased source... but anything posted from Fox (even if it's straight-up statistics) is ridiculed and dismissed as udder trash. It would be better if people would judge articles based on their unique merit, instead of their source.
Please, enlighten us. What are some, in your opinion, unbiased news sources?

[drichards]

Deal. I'll order your suggestion in a few minutes.You can download the ebook free from scribd (http://www.scribd.com/doc/143988/Nafeez-Ahmed-The-War-On-Freedom-How-and-Why-America-was-Attacked-September-11th-2001) if you like.

[iJohnHenry]

Please, enlighten us. What are some, in your opinion, unbiased news sources?

Why, because he agrees with them.

Was there another choice I missed???

[joepunk]

Via 236.com (http://www.236.com/blog/w/jon_friedman/questions_that_i_have_for_the_10713.php), by Jon Friedman.

Questions That I Have for the Secret Service

1. Shouldn't you have jumped in front of that shoe?
2. Shouldn't you have jumped in front of that second shoe?
3. Second shoe = the one thrown after being removed from foot after first shoe was thrown.
4. Let's say people had three feet. Would you have allowed a third shoe to fly unimpeded?
5. While the shoe was in the air, were you like, "Oh, its just a shoe."
6. Same question about the second shoe.
7. Do you think this is funny, "Throw a shoe at me once, shame on—you. Throw a shoe—you throw a shoe, you can't throw a shoe again."
8. Is there not "protection training" for lunatics launching objects?
9. Let's say there isn't training for that—but do they tell you that if someone does throw (or shoot) something to be on the alert in case they want to repeat this behavior?
10. Where were you?

BONUS QUESTION: Do you think the Iraqis want us there? (Hint: their journalists are throwing their shoes at Bush)

[obeygiant]

Via 236.com (http://www.236.com/blog/w/jon_friedman/questions_that_i_have_for_the_10713.php), by Jon Friedman.

Thats hilarious and right on.

Only in the bonus question I like how one journalist from the Cairo News throwing a shoe has become "journalists" and how they represent the entirety of Iraqi opinion.

Edit: Shoe Thrower's name is Muntadhar al Zaidi.

Zaidi is 29 years old and is unmarried.[9] He graduated with a degree in Communication from Baghdad University.[10] He is a Shi'a-Muslim[11] Iraqi television journalist, working as a correspondent for Al-Baghdadia TV since 2005. He first became internationally known for having been detained by "gangs" in Baghdad[12] in 2007 and was also arrested twice by United States armed forces.[6] He lives within central Baghdad[13] in a furnished two room apartment.[14] The home is decorated with a poster of Che Guevara, who according to The Associated Press "is widely lionized in the Middle East."[15]wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muntadhar_al_Zaidi)

[és:]

Via 236.com (http://www.236.com/blog/w/jon_friedman/questions_that_i_have_for_the_10713.php), by Jon Friedman.

I'd image that question three will be fairly hard to answer when you consider it's not even a question. The answer to question 6 is an emphatic 'yes'.

[mactastic]

Obviously a plot by the liberal-leaning Secret Service to relax security coverage long enough for two shoes to be hurled...

I mean, if this had happened to President Obama, everyone in this forum would be screaming that it was a hate crime. ;)

[mgguy]

Saddam was hanged for trying to kill Bush's daddy.

Cute, but you're wrong. He was hanged after being found guilty and convicted of crimes against humanity by the Iraqi Special Tribunal for the murder of 148 Iraqi Shi'ites in the town of Dujail in 1982, in retaliation for an assassination attempt against him.

[hulugu]

You can download the ebook free from scribd (http://www.scribd.com/doc/143988/Nafeez-Ahmed-The-War-On-Freedom-How-and-Why-America-was-Attacked-September-11th-2001) if you like.

Oh, cool. Thanks.

[Dont Hurt Me]

In response to why the SS didnt stop this guy? They probably hate this guy as much as anyone else hence here throw another shoe maybe this time you will hit this spinning bastard.
Lets face it America hates what this president has done to our country, our liberty and our reputation. As a President he simply sucks. Ashamed that I voted for this scoundrel as are many millions all across the U.S.

He had the facts and knew he was stretching the truth as far as possible to get us into Iraq.

[mactastic]

Cute, but you're wrong. He was hanged after being found guilty and convicted of crimes against humanity by the Iraqi Special Tribunal for the murder of 148 Iraqi Shi'ites in the town of Dujail in 1982, in retaliation for an assassination attempt against him.
Now, now... did Saddam personally kill those people?

Because, as you argue so eloquently earlier in this thread, if Saddam was acting as a head of state with the full backing of the legislature he didn't kill anyone and your argument (and the reason you assert that he was executed) fall apart.

If, however; you actually believe that ordering military actions that result in deaths of innocents *IS* a criminal act, then you should retract your earlier statement:
George Bush didn't kill anyone. He was acting as head of state with the full backing of Congress. If you are going to hold Bush responsible for those killed in a military operation, then you have to do the same for Clinton and other presidents whose actions led to the loss of lives.
So which is it? Is it a crime for a head of state, with the full backing of their legislature, to order actions that they reasonably should know will cause innocent deaths?

[mgguy]

Now, now... did Saddam personally kill those people?

Because, as you argue so eloquently earlier in this thread, if Saddam was acting as a head of state with the full backing of the legislature he didn't kill anyone and your argument (and the reason you assert that he was executed) fall apart.

If, however; you actually believe that ordering military actions that result in deaths of innocents *IS* a criminal act, then you should retract your earlier statement:

So which is it? Is it a crime for a head of state, with the full backing of their legislature, to order actions that they reasonably should know will cause innocent deaths?

Actually, Hussain didn't personally kill the 148 people he was convicted of killing, although he allegedly did personally kill several others. Nonetheless, he was found guilty by an Iraqi court and punished for that, not for trying to kill Bush's father as you had erroneously claimed. Bush did not personally kill anyone and, unlike Hussain, has not been convicted of doing so. Those are the facts. Whether or not you think he is a murderer and that he should be convicted and punished is irrelevant. But if you somehow you could find a way to have Bush convicted and punished for approving the invasion, you would then have to decide what to do with the majority of Congressmen and Senators who went along with it, including Hillary Clinton. Well, maybe not Clinton--we need her to be Secretary of State (strange as that is).

[leekohler]

Actually, Hussain didn't personally kill the 148 people he was convicted of killing, although he allegedly did personally kill several others. Nonetheless, he was found guilty by an Iraqi court and punished for that, not for trying to kill Bush's father as you had erroneously claimed. Bush did not personally kill anyone and, unlike Hussain, has not been convicted of doing so. Those are the facts. Whether or not you think he is a murderer and that he should be convicted and punished is irrelevant. But if you somehow you could find a way to have Bush convicted and punished for approving the invasion, you would then have to decide what to do with the majority of Congressmen and Senators who went along with it, including Hillary Clinton. Well, maybe not Clinton--we need her to be Secretary of State (strange as that is).

You still fail to to see the point. Was Hussein guilty of murder, even though he personally didn't kill anyone? If you say yes, Bush is absolutely guilty of the same. And we already know that the administration fed congress a bunch of lies. Not one claim they made was true, NOT ONE.

[mgguy]

You still fail to to see the point. Was Hussein guilty of murder, even though he personally didn't kill anyone? If you say yes, Bush is absolutely guilty of the same. And we already know that the administration fed congress a bunch of lies. Not one claim they made was true, NOT ONE.

Guilt has to be defined. If you are speaking in terms of having been found guilty in a courtroom or trial setting, then by that definition Hussein is guilty and Bush isn't. To date, no one has brought charges against Bush and presented charges and evidence against him in a deliberate fashion in a controlled setting. Mostly there have been allegations that have been made by his political opponents and are not well presented. For example, your allegation that the Bush administration lied to Congress. Where is your proof of that? Bush shared with Congress information about WMD that later turned out to be largely discredited, but that doesn't mean that Bush intentionally lied and knowingly provided false intelligence. If there were hard evidence of that, I'm sure the Dems in Congress who hate Bush would have already used it against him. Whether any claim "they" made turned out to be true or not is not determinant of whether he "lied." I know it makes the Bush haters feel good to say it, but it is still unproven.

[Anuba]

Seriously, this is the only brief instant in 8 years with Bush that I actually thought he handled something well, with a hint of cool thrown in. For a guy who's quite slow in the head he reacted surprisingly swiftly, and it was hysterical how he popped back up looking like a dog who's eager to fetch the stick one more time, with a delighted "hit me again!" look on his face. He looked a bit disappointed when it was over, and probably made a mental note to write a decree dictating that all Iraqis must have at least two extra feet.

[Anuba]

Only if you have sniper accuracy like the Iraqi correspondent. Something tells me he's no stranger to the odd shoe-hucking. :D
Yeah, his precision was a little too good. This was not the work of an ordinary foot soldier, you don't learn that kind of stuff at boot camp, and he got off two shots with world class precision with a bolt action elbow in less than 3 seconds. I think it's possible that the second shoe came from the grassy knoll.

[obeygiant]

We've been here before. NAME ONE GOOD THING.

From the beginning of his administration, President Bush has pushed for more aid to Africa. Motivated perhaps by his deeply felt Christian faith (relieving poverty in Africa has become a major charitable push among evangelicals), the president has pressed for greater aid to Africa across the board. The original PEPFAR legislation (President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief), which passed in 2003, was the largest single health investment by any government ever ($15 billion). At the time the initiative was launched, only about 50,000 sub-Saharan Africans were receiving antiretroviral treatment for AIDS. Today, 1.7 million people in the region, as well as tens of thousands more around the globe, are receiving such treatment. PEPFAR has also funded efforts to prevent mother-to-child transmission of the AIDS virus, provided compassionate care to the sick and dying, and cared for 5 million orphans. One aspect of the program has been to reduce the stigma of the AIDS diagnosis in Africa.

In July of this year, the president requested that funding for PEPFAR be doubled to $30 billion. The new funding will be used to train 140,000 new health-care workers. It would also address other illnesses, like tuberculosis, that often complicate AIDS.

The president also backed a malaria initiative that has provided an estimated 25 million Africans with nets, spraying, and other prevention and treatment options. Separate from the AIDS funds, the president has tripled development assistance and humanitarian aid to Africa since taking office.Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/09/bush-wont-get-credit/)

[és:]

Guilt has to be defined. If you are speaking in terms of having been found guilty in a courtroom or trial setting, then by that definition Hussein is guilty and Bush isn't. To date, no one has brought charges against Bush and presented charges and evidence against him in a deliberate fashion in a controlled setting. Mostly there have been allegations that have been made by his political opponents and are not well presented. For example, your allegation that the Bush administration lied to Congress. Where is your proof of that? Bush shared with Congress information about WMD that later turned out to be largely discredited, but that doesn't mean that Bush intentionally lied and knowingly provided false intelligence. If there were hard evidence of that, I'm sure the Dems in Congress who hate Bush would have already used it against him. Whether any claim "they" made turned out to be true or not is not determinant of whether he "lied." I know it makes the Bush haters feel good to say it, but it is still unproven.

Hussein was found guilty by a kangaroo court. I found it hard to have any sympathy with him, but that doesn't mean his 'trial' wasn't a big load of crap.

Bush, as head of state, is immune from any legal proceedings at the moment, so your point really isn't very strong.

[és:]

Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/09/bush-wont-get-credit/)

Great. He's still the biggest c**t that has been President of the United States. He's the worst president ever.

[skunk]

Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/09/bush-wont-get-credit/)Despite all the high-flown rhetoric, however:


148969
http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/us-and-foreign-aid-assistance

[Blue Velvet]

Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/09/bush-wont-get-credit/)


Heh. Shows how far one has to go to find good news for Mr. Bush... Washington Times. Moonie rag that makes no money.

By 2002, the Unification Church had spent about $1.7 billion in subsidies for the Times. The paper has lost money every year that it has been in business.

According to the Columbia Journalism Review, "Because of its history of a seemingly ideological approach to the news, the paper has always faced questions about its credibility."

:D

[skunk]

More data for the unaware:

148970
http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/us-and-foreign-aid-assistance

[mactastic]

Actually, Hussain didn't personally kill the 148 people he was convicted of killing, although he allegedly did personally kill several others. Nonetheless, he was found guilty by an Iraqi court and punished for that, not for trying to kill Bush's father as you had erroneously claimed. Bush did not personally kill anyone and, unlike Hussain, has not been convicted of doing so. Those are the facts. Whether or not you think he is a murderer and that he should be convicted and punished is irrelevant. But if you somehow you could find a way to have Bush convicted and punished for approving the invasion, you would then have to decide what to do with the majority of Congressmen and Senators who went along with it, including Hillary Clinton. Well, maybe not Clinton--we need her to be Secretary of State (strange as that is).
Your contortions in your effort to show that Bush ordering actions that result in the deaths of innocents is legal, but Saddam ordering actions that result in the deaths of innocents is not, are quite amusing, although ultimately unconvincing.

I assume you'll be telling us what the meaning of "is" is next?

[obeygiant]

Despite all the high-flown rhetoric, however:


148969
http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/us-and-foreign-aid-assistance

From the same chart:

http://i40.tinypic.com/732uxi.jpg

But I understand your point which is, I think, that the US should give more. Even though the US gives the most (21 Billion according to the chart), it falls short on the percentage because the US is the "richest".


More data for the unaware:

148970
http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/us-and-foreign-aid-assistance

The US has a high amount of "phantom aid", which is aid that gets wasted according to the article.

yet...


The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is the largest commitment by any nation to combat a single disease in human history. When the President launched this initiative in 2003, approximately 50,000 people in all of sub-Saharan Africa were receiving anti-retroviral treatment.

Ahead of schedule, the United States has fulfilled the President's commitment to support treatment for two million people. As of September 30, 2008, PEPFAR supported life-saving antiretroviral treatment for more than 2.1 million men, women, and children living with HIV/AIDS around the world, including more than 2 million people in sub-Saharan Africa.
As of September 30, 2008, nearly 9.7 million people affected by HIV/AIDS in PEPFAR's focus countries had received compassionate care, including nearly 4 million orphans and vulnerable children. Globally, the United States is supporting care for more than 10.1 million people, including more than 4 million orphans and vulnerable children.
Nearly 240,000 babies have been born HIV-free due to the support of the American people for programs to prevent mothers from passing the virus on to their children.
In July, President Bush signed into law H.R. 5501, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act. This legislation will expand access to lifesaving antiretroviral drugs, prevent millions of new HIV infections, and provide compassionate care to millions of people affected by HIV/AIDS. Under this legislation, the next phase of the American people's generous commitment to those suffering from HIV/AIDS will support:
Treatment for at least 3 million people;
Prevention of 12 million new infections; and
Care for 12 million people, including 5 million orphans and vulnerable children.
Faith-based and community organizations are important partners in the implementation of PEPFAR, the President's Malaria Initiative, and other U.S.-funded efforts. President Bush's Faith-based and Community Initiative empowers these organizations so that they can help create an effective, multi-sectoral response to need. Faith-based and community organizations are uniquely positioned to promote HIV/AIDS stigma-reduction and prevention messages and provide counseling and testing, home care, clinical services, and antiretroviral treatment, particularly in some of the hardest-to-reach communities. Last year, 87 percent of PEPFAR partners were indigenous organizations, and nearly a quarter were faith-based. whitehouse.gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/hivaids/)

Whatever amount is given it may never be enough.

[és:]

Aid in dollars really does disguise it (which is probably why skunk decided to use the much more reliable figure). Add up all the European countries and we've got a fairer picture.

[mgguy]

Your contortions in your effort to show that Bush ordering actions that result in the deaths of innocents is legal, but Saddam ordering actions that result in the deaths of innocents is not, are quite amusing, although ultimately unconvincing.

It doesn't matter whether or not I think Bush's or Saddam's orders that lead to the death of others were "legal" or not. Whether or not a specific action is illegal is dependent upon a judgement being made by a court or some other judicial body. It doesn't exist in an absolute sense. The actions by both men can be abhorred by others, but they are not technically "illegal" until they have been judged to be so by a body appointed to make that judgement. Of course, you can reject the very notion of a judicial body having the power to make this determination, but then you have no benchmark for determining legal status. If Bush were tried and acquitted by a recognized court, say the Supreme Court, would you still say that his order was illegal?

QUOTE=mactastic;6782623]
I assume you'll be telling us what the meaning of "is" is next?[/QUOTE]

Touche.

[és:]

Whether or not a specific action is illegal is dependent upon a judgement being made by a court or some other judicial body.

That's not true at all.

[skunk]

That's not true at all.Absolutely. People break the law all the time without being prosecuted.

[és:]

Absolutely. People break the law all the time without being prosecuted.

According to this (http://www.rainn.org/statistics) only 6% of rapists ever spend a day in jail - I'm sure you've all heard similar statistics - this is mainly due to lack of factual evidence, the victim not reporting it etc. Does this mean the rapists did nothing illegal?

The more you think about what he's saying, the more ridiculous it becomes.

[mgguy]

Absolutely. People break the law all the time without being prosecuted.

So much for the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Usually when we say that someone is guilty of a crime, they are tried and found guilty or not guilty. Anyone can say that someone broke the law, but from a legal standpoint they didn't until they have been found guilty of doing so. Allegations require proof to be presented with the opportunity of rebuttal in a controlled legal setting to fairly convict someone. As far as I know, this has not been done vis a vis Bush.

[skunk]

So much for the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.What rubbish! I have have smoked many joints, I have often exceeded the speed limit, I have neither been caught nor prosecuted, but I have broken the law. Bush and Blair acted illegally according to the UN Charter by invading a sovereign UN member state, destroying its infrastructure, massacring its citizens and soldiers and hunting down its head of state without due cause. There are very limited pretexts for a preemptive attack under agreed UN procedures, and Iraq presented none of these.

[leekohler]

What rubbish! I have have smoked many joints, I have often exceeded the speed limit, I have neither been caught nor prosecuted, but I have broken the law. Bush and Blair acted illegally according to the UN Charter by invading a sovereign UN member state, destroying its infrastructure, massacring its citizens and soldiers and hunting down its head of state without due cause. There are very limited pretexts for a preemptive attack under agreed UN procedures, and Iraq presented none of these.

Very well said, skunk.

[mgguy]

What rubbish! I have have smoked many joints, I have often exceeded the speed limit, I have neither been caught nor prosecuted, but I have broken the law. Bush and Blair acted illegally according to the UN Charter by invading a sovereign UN member state, destroying its infrastructure, massacring its citizens and soldiers and hunting down its head of state without due cause. There are very limited pretexts for a preemptive attack under agreed UN procedures, and Iraq presented none of these.

Actually, no, you didn't break the law when you smoked that joint. You merely smoked a joint. The behavior can be established, but it technically isn't a law vilation until you have been convicted. You can present you facts about what Bush may have done, but that doesn't establish that he broke the law. You perhaps need to better distinguish the difference between the allegation of guilt and proven guild by a recognized judicial body. Trials are meant to establish guilt in a way that when someone says that someone broke the law, others would know that the person had been given an opportunity to rebut the charges and had been fairly judged in a legal, controlled setting, not just by hearsay such as is often provided in forums such as this.

[leekohler]

Actually, no, you didn't break the law when you smoked that joint. You merely smoked a joint. The behavior can be established, but it technically isn't a law vilation until you have been convicted. You can present you facts about what Bush may have done, but that doesn't establish that he broke the law. You perhaps need to better distinguish the difference between the allegation of guilt and proven guild by a recognized judicial body. Trials are meant to establish guilt in a way that when someone says that someone broke the law, others would know that the person had been given an opportunity to rebut the charges and had been fairly judged in a legal, controlled setting, not just by hearsay such as is often provided in forums such as this.

What? So the only time anyone breaks the law is when they're caught? Are you serious?

[Compile 'em all]

That's just the thing though... so is the NYT, etc. Hardly a scientific result... but if you Google "new york times lies" you get over 12 million results. If you search for "fox news lies" you get less than 4 million.

ahahaha..hats off to you good sir. That's some pretty solid evidence you got there :p

[mgguy]

What? So the only time anyone breaks the law is when they're caught? Are you serious?

I think the problem here is that I want to distinguish between someone's behavior, allegations of that behavior, and a legal determination that someone is guilty of breaking the law. I agree with you that if you steal a car, for example, you stole the car and there are laws against stealing cars. And in that since your behavior was not what the law would allow. But that doesn't mean that you are legally guilty of breaking the law from a legal standpoint. The person who stole the car knows that they stole the car, and the person who saw them steel the car knows that they stole the car, but those of us who weren't there need to have it proven that they stole the car. With regard to Bush, it is not disputed that he gave the order to invade Iraq. What is disputed is whether or not that violated some law. You and others can say it did all you want, but it has little meaning unless you can prove it in a legal or some other official setting that most people would accept as being fair.

[leekohler]

I think the problem here is that I want to distinguish between someone's behavior, allegations of that behavior, and a legal determination that someone is guilty of breaking the law. I agree with you that if you steal a car, for example, you stole the car and there are laws against stealing cars. And in that since your behavior was not what the law would allow. But that doesn't mean that you are legally guilty of breaking the law from a legal standpoint. The person who stole the car knows that they stole the car, and the person who saw them steel the car knows that they stole the car, but those of us who weren't there need to have it proven that they stole the car. With regard to Bush, it is not disputed that he gave the order to invade Iraq. What is disputed is whether or not that violated some law. You and others can say it did all you want, but it has little meaning unless you can prove it in a legal or some other official setting that most people would accept as being fair.

I think skunk outlined the case quite nicely. The problem is- no one's doing anything about it.

[és:]

Actually, no, you didn't break the law when you smoked that joint. You merely smoked a joint.

As somebody that has just provided academic writing on this subject, I feel fairly confident when I say; you're talking out of your ring.

[skunk]

Actually, no, you didn't break the law when you smoked that joint. You merely smoked a joint. The behavior can be established, but it technically isn't a law vilation until you have been convicted.What kind of a parallel universe do you live in? I broke the law, violated it, acted illegally. If the law says I must not smoke a joint and I do so, I am acting illegally. If I choose to contest that, it may be difficult to prove I did it, but it does not change the fact that I did. Similarly Bush and Blair lied to their respective houses about the intelligence and the considered interpretation thereof, aided and abetted by Cheney, Powell, Hoon and others. They may contest this, and with the help of sympathetic courts and weasel words they may escape prosecution, but enough of the truth has emerged since 2003 to show any fair-minded person of good faith that the invasion of Iraq was not in accord with the UN Charter (as Secretary-General Kofi Annan himself pointed out), nor was it carried out for the multiplicity of bogus reasons stated. It is also beyond doubt that the aggressors flagrantly violated the Geneva Conventions in many respects, violated the Rules of War and therefore committed War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity on a massive scale. Whether or not they ever have to stand trial, let alone are convicted of such egregious abuses, is really beside the point.

[Shotglass]

Do I smell the birth of an internet meme? Perhaps it will replace the Zidane headbutt thing?

[Queso]

Actually, no, you didn't break the law when you smoked that joint. You merely smoked a joint. The behavior can be established, but it technically isn't a law vilation until you have been convicted. You can present you facts about what Bush may have done, but that doesn't establish that he broke the law. You perhaps need to better distinguish the difference between the allegation of guilt and proven guild by a recognized judicial body. Trials are meant to establish guilt in a way that when someone says that someone broke the law, others would know that the person had been given an opportunity to rebut the charges and had been fairly judged in a legal, controlled setting, not just by hearsay such as is often provided in forums such as this.
According to your logic I am quite entitled to burgle your house, providing nobody catches me.

If that example doesn't expose your argument as nonsense I'm sure we can furnish you with many more.

[mgguy]

According to your logic I am quite entitled to burgle your house, providing nobody catches me.

If that example doesn't expose your argument as nonsense I'm sure we can furnish you with many more.

You are not entitled to burgle my house, and I in turn are not entitled to put you in jail for doing so until I convict you of the crime. I can make all the allegations I want that you burgled my house, but without any supporting evidence that is properly vetted, why should anyone believe me? And why should you accept the mantle of guilt without being properly accused and convicted of your crime?

Similarly Bush and Blair lied to their respective houses about the intelligence and the considered interpretation thereof, aided and abetted by Cheney, Powell, Hoon and others. They may contest this, and with the help of sympathetic courts and weasel words they may escape prosecution, but enough of the truth has emerged since 2003 to show any fair-minded person of good faith that the invasion of Iraq was not in accord with the UN Charter (as Secretary-General Kofi Annan himself pointed out), nor was it carried out for the multiplicity of bogus reasons stated. It is also beyond doubt that the aggressors flagrantly violated the Geneva Conventions in many respects, violated the Rules of War and therefore committed War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity on a massive scale. Whether or not they ever have to stand trial, let alone are convicted of such egregious abuses, is really beside the point.

By your standards, we shouldn't have impeached Clinton and had the Senate trial that acquitted him because "any fair minded person of good faith" knew that he lied under oath in his deposition testimony in the Jones trial and broke all sorts of laws in his Whitewater dealings. Without the investigation and trial, he would not have been judged to be not guilty of the crimes. Interestingly, many posters in this forum have proclaimed Clinton innocent of any wrongdoing because he was never convicted of the charges against him. Can't we say the same about Bush?

Your hysteria over the alleged lying and breaking of laws by Bush sounds a lot like the vociferous attacks made by a lot of people against Clinton. My guess is that you would not have been willing to accept those allegations alone as proof of Clinton's guilt, and Bush deserves to be held to the same standard of judgement. Keep in mind that a lot of people don't agree with you that the things you claim Bush did were against the law. Your screaming about it won't make a difference. But what would make a difference is for you to present your facts logically in the proper judicial setting and get a conviction if you have a strong enough case. Put up or shut up, as the saying goes.

[skunk]

Your hysteria over the alleged lying and breaking of laws by Bush sounds a lot like the vociferous attacks made by a lot of people against Clinton.My points are made calmly and rationally. Do not accuse me of hysteriaYour screaming about it won't make a difference. ... Put up or shut up, as the saying goes.Neither am I "screaming" about anything, and I would appreciate it if you would desist from your wild characterisations. I simply pointed out the obvious fallacy in your post.

[mgguy]

My points are made calmly and rationally. Do not accuse me of hysteriaNeither am I "screaming" about anything, and I would appreciate it if you would desist from your wild characterisations. I simply pointed out the obvious fallacy in your post.

Your statement that I am living in a parallel universe isn't exactly a compliment.

But I agree with you, I shouldn't have characterized your remarks in a disparaging way and I apologize. Thanks for calling me out on it.

[és:]

You are not entitled to burgle my house, and I in turn are not entitled to put you in jail for doing so until I convict you of the crime. I can make all the allegations I want that you burgled my house, but without any supporting evidence that is properly vetted, why should anyone believe me? And why should you accept the mantle of guilt without being properly accused and convicted of your crime?





You are mixing up conviction with doing something illegal. You're obviously not an authority on this, but you're way off the mark.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Meanwhile back in the real world the reporter took a beating and the judge now wants to know what happened and who beat this guy after his arrest.

[Queso]

You are mixing up conviction with doing something illegal.
Worse. He's actually arguing that until someone is convicted there has been no crime. So if a woman is raped but nobody is caught she isn't a victim :rolleyes:

Meanwhile back in the real world the reporter took a beating and the judge now wants to know what happened and who beat this guy after his arrest.
Good. At least the judge is taking this seriously.

[leekohler]

Meanwhile back in the real world the reporter took a beating and the judge now wants to know what happened and who beat this guy after his arrest.

That's good to hear. Maybe they are actually making a slight bit of progress.

[mgguy]

You are mixing up conviction with doing something illegal. You're obviously not an authority on this, but you're way off the mark.

No, I am trying to separate these two concepts. One has to do with behavior and the other has to do with conviction, which legally links that behavior with a determination that the law was violated. The latter enables those who are not familiar with the facts to feel comforted that the person was given a fair trial and may indeed be guilty of the crime. Without conviction, those unfamiliar with the particulars of the case would have no basis on which to judge the likely guilt of the offender. I like the idea of considering someone innocent until proven guilty, but I appreciate that you may not agree on this.

Worse. He's actually arguing that until someone is convicted there has been no crime. So if a woman is raped but nobody is caught she isn't a victim :rolleyes:

No, I am arguing that until someone is convicted, there is merely behavior that may be a violation of law. Without the conviction, the legal status of the person is not guilty. A woman who is raped is certainly a victim, and there is a perpetrator. But without evidence and a conviction, how would someone who is not familiar with the specifics of the crime know who did it? Until that evidence is presented and considered credible, and the sexual assault is legally considered to be rape, we cannot assign guilt. Sorry, the law just doesn't work that way.

[leekohler]

No, I am trying to separate these two concepts. One has to do with behavior and the other has to do with conviction, which legally links that behavior with a determination that the law was violated. The latter enables those who are not familiar with the facts to feel comforted that the person was given a fair trial and may indeed be guilty of the crime. Without conviction, those unfamiliar with the particulars of the case would have no basis on which to judge the likely guilt of the offender. I like the idea of considering someone innocent until proven guilty, but I appreciate that you may not agree on this.



No, I am arguing that until someone is convicted, there is merely behavior that may be a violation of law. Without the conviction, the legal status of the person is not guilty. A woman who is raped is certainly a victim, and there is a perpetrator. But without evidence and a conviction, how would someone who is not familiar with the specifics of the crime know who did it? Until that evidence is presented and considered credible, and the sexual assault is legally considered to be rape, we cannot assign guilt. Sorry, the law just doesn't work that way.

How about this? How about we all quit arguing semantics and get back OT?

[mgguy]

How about this? How about we all quit arguing semantics and get back OT?

I'll go for that.

[és:]

No, I am trying to separate these two concepts.

You very clearly seem to be muddled.


without conviction, those unfamiliar with the particulars of the case would have no basis on which to judge the likely guilt of the offender.

You said "Whether or not a specific action is illegal is dependent upon a judgement being made by a court or some other judicial body" - this is false. An act is illegal if it breaks the law of the land. Whether somebody is convicted of that crime is completely different.

I like the idea of considering someone innocent until proven guilty, but I appreciate that you may not agree on this.

Don't give me that line of ****. Just because I know what an illegal action is it doesn't mean that I don't believe in innocent until proven guilty.

[mgguy]

You very clearly seem to be muddled.


It might be best at this point to follow Leekohler'sadvice and move on from this discussion. Thanks for your responses.

[és:]

It might be best at this point to follow Leekohler'sadvice and move on from this discussion. Thanks for your responses.

You're welcome to move on. I stand by my points and won't back down or compromise on the facts.

Thanks you for your responses.

[mactastic]

It doesn't matter whether or not I think Bush's or Saddam's orders that lead to the death of others were "legal" or not. Whether or not a specific action is illegal is dependent upon a judgement being made by a court or some other judicial body. It doesn't exist in an absolute sense.
Not true at all, as noted repeatedly already.

The actions by both men can be abhorred by others, but they are not technically "illegal" until they have been judged to be so by a body appointed to make that judgement.
So you're saying Bill Clinton never did anything illegal?

Of course, you can reject the very notion of a judicial body having the power to make this determination, but then you have no benchmark for determining legal status. If Bush were tried and acquitted by a recognized court, say the Supreme Court, would you still say that his order was illegal?
So if OJ were tried and acquitted of murder by a recognized court, would you agree that he was innocent?

Actually, no, you didn't break the law when you smoked that joint. You merely smoked a joint. The behavior can be established, but it technically isn't a law vilation until you have been convicted.
This is absolute rubbish. You truly have no idea what you're talking about here.

It might be best at this point to follow Leekohler'sadvice and move on from this discussion. Thanks for your responses.
LOL... I can see why you would be so eager to return to the topic...

[spork183]

[QUOTE=és:;6763300]Yeah, 'probably'. :rolleyes:



Here is Saddam Hussein at a Girl's school in the 1970s

http://www.uruknet.info/pic.php?f=ina140.jpeg


Is that him in the front row, in white? Or is he the one with the mustache? :D

[dukebound85]

his sentence has been reduced to one year fyi

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7988035.stm

[NT1440]

his sentence has been reduced to one year fyi

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7988035.stm

Thank god he received some sort of lesser punishment.

[Prof.]

Thank god he received some sort of lesser punishment.
They should have givin' him a medal.:D

[MacNut]

I still don't get why the sentence was reduced. If anyone in this country threw a shoe at the president they would be in jail and a stiff penalty enforced.

[yojitani]

I still don't get why the sentence was reduced. If anyone in this country threw a shoe at the president they would be in jail and a stiff penalty enforced.

1. Iraq is (not yet) 'this' country.

2. "The appeal court issued its decision today... taking into consideration that he [Zaidi] is still young and doesn't have any previous convictions," said Abdul Sattar al-Birqdar, the spokesman for the Iraqi judicial council.

Seems reasonable to me

3. What are the sentencing laws for throwing shoes at presidents?

4. Two criminals. One's actions lead the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, the other throws two shoes. One is on his ranch, the other is in prison. No imbalance?

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Two criminals. One's actions lead the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, the other throws two shoes. One is on his ranch, the other is in prison. No imbalance?

you really shouldn't think of these things logically in this illogical world.

[MacNut]

The fact is that like it or not he was still a sitting president, If you do that to any sitting president in the US the consequences would be harsh. It doesn't matter what the president did or didn't do you can't just start throwing things at him.

Would it be ok if that same reporter threw a shoe at Obama?

[hulugu]

The fact is that like it or not he was still a sitting president, If you do that to any sitting president in the US the consequences would be harsh.

Can I do it if he's standing?

It doesn't matter what the president did or didn't do you can't just start throwing things at him.

And, Bush is a former president, can I throw a shoe at him now?

Would it be ok if that same reporter threw a shoe at Obama?

Throwing a shoe is an act of civil disobedience, so there should be consequences, but those consequences should be mitigated by the fact that it's was a shoe. Or two actually.

Obviously, I don't want any random person to interrupt a president's speech so they can chuck their chukkas, but I also think we should be careful to place our president at such a pedestal that no one can say a rude word or otherwise announce their displeasure at his actions.

[MacNut]

I think the secret service would have a say in what you can do in front of a president.:p There are ways to protest that don't involve a jail sentence. I imagine throwing anything in his general direction is not a good idea.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

The fact is that like it or not he was still a sitting president, If you do that to any sitting president in the US the consequences would be harsh. It doesn't matter what the president did or didn't do you can't just start throwing things at him.

Would it be ok if that same reporter threw a shoe at Obama?

many US citizens have thrown things at the president without getting in any trouble. Remember that day after he won the presidency and everyone was throwing eggs at him?

[yojitani]

Would it be ok if that same reporter threw a shoe at Obama?

It wouldn't make much sense to throw a shoe at Obama now, would it? If he does something to deserve it, why not? It's not about Bush, it's about what Bush did and didn't do.

many US citizens have thrown things at the president without getting in any trouble. Remember that day after he won the presidency and everyone was throwing eggs at him?

When did this happen? When did he win the presidency?? 2004?

[MacNut]

It wouldn't make much sense to throw a shoe at Obama now, would it? If he does something to deserve it, why not? It's not about Bush, it's about what Bush did and didn't do.I don't think it matters, you should not be throwing anything at a president at anytime.
When did this happen? When did he win the presidency?? 2004?2000, and he would not have been president at the time.

[hulugu]

I don't think it matters, you should not be throwing anything at a president at anytime.
2000, and he would not have been president at the time.

If I remember correctly, the eggs were thrown after his inauguration and during what should have been his traditional walk to the White House.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I don't think it matters, you should not be throwing anything at a president at anytime.
2000, and he would not have been president at the time.

Yes he was, he was just inaugurated.

[mactastic]

As I suspected, the sentence everyone was decrying as overly harsh has now been reduced by 2/3s.

I wonder how likely it is that he actually spends 365 days in jail...

[dukebound85]

guy gets released next month for good behavior...not even a year in jail for threatening the President:cool:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32607001/ns/world_news-conflict_in_iraq/?GT1=43001

[skunk]

He should get a medal.

[NT1440]

guy gets released next month for good behavior...not even a year in jail for threatening the President:cool:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32607001/ns/world_news-conflict_in_iraq/?GT1=43001

Good to see he's going to get released.

Your usage of the word "threatening" is disingenuous at best.