This past weekend, the President of the United States visited Iraq to mark a recent agreement for the United States military to begin pulling out of Iraq beginning next year.
The United States has worked hard, spilled blood, and lost lives all for the cause of liberating Iraq from a despicable dictatorship rule. It matters not why we went there initially, those are the marching orders now...to help a nation live free and under democracy, if that is their wish.
It's a noble cause, as we are a noble country.
Yet somehow, when the leader of this noble and great country, the President of the United States of America, comes under attack in foreign lands, all some people can do is laugh and praise the dissenter.
Why? Because the President of the United States happens to be President George W. Bush, and many Americans' hatred of President Bush and self-importance run much deeper than the respect of their own country and demand that honor be shown for the office of President.
Many have already forgotten September 11, 2001...for an attack on the President of this country is the same as an attack on this country. It's quite sad that this country has run amuck, and that many take their freedoms that this great country provides for granted.
Trivialize it as merely a shoe if you want, but know this truth: Conservatives would have been outraged if anyone would have attacked President Clinton in a similar manner. Likewise, conservatives will be outraged if anyone attacks President Obama in a similar manner. There has already been outrage over Al Queda's comments regarding President-elect Obama...from conservatives and liberals alike.
It's a shame that liberals are blinded by hate, so much so that they can't even put the Office of President into proper perspective.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I'm sure there are a number of people who do feel hate towards 43, but most have just had it with him.
There's something to be said about how all those who are President should be accorded respect, but his actions over the years have added to so much needless suffering.
9/11 killed 3,000, a small percentage of the total amount of people who have been killed in Iraq. Killing others to justify ourselves is unconscionable and so 20th Century.
I don't condone what the man did, but if my country had been invaded and thousands were carpet bombed through no fault of their own, well, I can certainly understand the venom.
The reasons one goes to war and how it is fought is viewed by different parties is certainly varied. I'm more miffed at the reaction of some Americans of not even merely indifference to the actions, but basking in and enjoying the attack.
If a President's actions are so egregious, then it is the responsibility of the Senate and the House of Representatives to oust the President from office. Until such time happens, the office of President of the United States demands respect.
“…comes under attack in foreign lands, all some people can do is laugh and praise the dissenter.”
-- I think that those that laugh and praise the dissenter are laughing at the “harmless” shoe throw (and it is a bit funny as I’ve never seen anything like that) and showing disdain for a President who made a horrible decision to invade Iraq, not at the US trying to rebuild Iraq.
Some would argue that due to the horrible job he has done, he no longer deserves respect, but he does of course deserve safety and protection from violence. I think if it was a true violent attack that put his life in danger, folks wouldn’t react with laughter but they see it as a statement being made more than a violent attack.
“Conservatives would have been outraged if anyone would have attacked President Clinton in a similar manner.”
-- I totally disagree, I think the same lame partisanship is on both sides of the aisle. Republicans made a big stink out of the President getting oral sex. They say it was that he lied, that is b.s., it was about oral sex a total b.s. issue. Both sides are horrible that way.
“It's a shame that liberals are blinded by hate, so much so that they can't even put the Office of President into proper perspective.”
-- The Dem’s blinded by hate….. uh, those (not you) in glass houses should not throw stones.
Politics on both sides of the aisle are horrible, you could make a case for either side being worse than the other based on one’s preference, but in the end, they are all assholes.
I agree with you to some extent and I personally felt that the shoe throwing was uncalled for and out of bounds but I also understand Iraqies frustrations with the US and see this as a “harmless” show of protest and would react the same way if it was Obama.
It was an act of aggression, and therefore way out of bounds. There are many ways to peacefully protest a person's actions without resorting to hostility.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to the United States without being attacked. If he were attacked in the same manner, there would have been outrage, both foreign and domestic. And rightfully so. As despicable as the man is, he's the Head of State of Iran and therefore deserves at least a modicum of respect.
Additionally, just because someone disagrees with another person, or because someone does a less than stellar job, those are NOT valid reasons to render respect no longer valid. Now make that other person the leader of the free world, and I'm pretty certain that bad decisions or disagreeable stances doesn't validate disrespect.
While partisianship on both sides of the aisle are certainly bad, making a stink about a President lying under oath about sexual favors performed in the White House is quite different than an act of aggression by someone on our President.
While we have no way of knowing for sure, since the advance of the internet has given the fringes a much louder voice, the "fringe" of the left today is much more prominent than the "fringe" of the right. I still stand by the stance that conservatives would abhor any attack/act of aggression on any President.
" If he were attacked in the same manner, "
-- But Iran didn't invade the U.S.,
"does a less than stellar job, those are NOT valid reasons to render respect no longer valid."
--- I think that losing respect for someone based on thier actions is 100% valid. Isn't our respect or disrespect for someone based on thier behavior?
Just because you are a President, doesn't mean that you should be given any more respect than any other person soley because they are a head of state.
All people should be judged on their actions. I may be missing your point though...
"While partisianship on both sides of the aisle are certainly bad, making a stink about a President lying under oath about sexual favors performed in the White House is quite different than an act of aggression by someone on our President."
-- I would actually say that they are both agression, one a shoe and one a political dagger. It was oral sex, a personal matter. He should not have had to lie in the first place.
"...of the left today is much more prominent than the "fringe" of the right."
--- It's so funny how we are just at opposite ends of some stuff, both jaded by our environments. It's a great question that may be imposible to really know. I would tend to agree that they may have numbers, but not power.
Sure, one's actions do matter, and perhaps more specifically the manner in which one conducts one's actions.
It is most certainly possible for someone to completely disagree with someone else and have complete respect for them. I don't think that is what is going on here. There's no evidence that says Bush has acted with malice, intentional misrepresentation, or disregard for our country. His point of view is vastly different from others, and that point alone, plus the fact that he happens to make up words along the way, is what is driving the hate against him.
The far left definitely have more power than the far right. They are who got Obama a victory in the primary. Moveon.org, The Daily Kos, and George Soros were largey responsible for the money and power behind his "grass roots" movement that won him the primary. If that's not the case, he'll have no problem proving it to the finance committee...of course they have said they have no intention of requesting an account of his fundraising...imagine that.
But I digress...I'm not bashing Obama here....just pointing out that the far left has lots more power than the far right. Perhaps not the right...but the far right, yes.
And are you saying that Iran's president isn't a despicable person??? He kills thousands of people, many just because of their sexual orientation (but let's let him visit without protest...instead invading churches who supported Prop 8. That makes sense). He wants to, and if he had the means he absolutely would, wipe Israel off the face of the planet. Compare that to Bush, who is freeing a nation...there is no comparison.
But back to the overall point. Making a stink in the manner that the Republicans did over Clinton could just as easily be argued that was the checks and balances over the Office of the President, which is certainly the right to do so.
But this is all coming within our own country. We have a right and responsibility to keep checks and balances on all public offices. I would submit to you, those same Republicans would be outraged if Clinton would have visited Kosovo and had someone from another nation throw something at him during a press conference. Even if those Republicans wouldn't have been outraged...the country at large would have been. That clearly isn't the case for this President of the United States.
Ahmadinejad is a wacko and not a good human being.
"did over Clinton could just as easily be argued that was the checks and balances over the Office of the President,"
-- Checks and balances are meant to control each branch of government to ensure a balance of power doesn't get out of whack, not to politicaly try to assassinate a president over getting oral sex in the white house.
I didn't read all of the comments. But, I tend to agree with you on the reactions of our countrymen. However, I think that GWB did react well.
But, back to the reactions, this is the way it is (republican vs. democrat). It's been a rough eight years for GWB. I can only hope and pray that Obama will do well with what this country and this world are facing. These men are just men and its a tough job to have to save the world and save face all at the same time. Since that is what so many people expect of the office.
Have a great day.
"Checks and balances are meant to control each branch of government to ensure a balance of power doesn't get out of whack, not to politicaly try to assassinate a president over getting oral sex in the white house."
--Or to character assissinate a vice-president nominee, wouldn't you agree?
I'm not saying it's the best argument, but one that could be made. Of course, an argument could also be made that the public has the right to know when adultery is happening in taxpayer funded buildings.
Look, I wish the big deal wouldn't have been made in the first place, but once the man began lying about it, that's where I take issue.
I think you're right Marel...Bush did react well, not only at the time but in his statements following the incident. Yet another thing not enough will give him credit for.
I also think you're touching on something with saving the world and saving face. We're held to the higher standard of saving the world, yet somehow we never do it the right way for some.
"--Or to character assissinate a vice-president nominee, wouldn't you agree?"
--- I don't think this was a balance of power issue, it was no the Dem's lamblasting Palin, it was the media. I think the Dem's politicians stayed out of it. It was the Rep politicians that attcked Clinton with impeachment over oral sex in HIS home. While Pres, the White House is his home.
The White House belongs to the taxpayers, plain and simple. And Clinton WASN'T going to impeached over adultery...he was going to be impeached over lying under oath and obstruction of justice.
In related news more on the topic of the post subject...the man that threw his shoes has asked for forgiveness and to be pardoned.
We'll see how this young democracy handles itself here. A pardon is too much, as it expunges the record. The incident certainly occured, and should always be refelcted in offical record as so, but given the fact that it was shoes he threw, lengthy jailtime shouldn't be considered. He should, however, feel some uncomfort for attacking a Head of State. Actions have consequences....and this is the perfect place to show that fact, but also show fairness that a democracy affords.
Post a Comment