Video: The obligatory “Iraqi journalist throws shoes at Bush” clip
posted at 2:35 pm on December 14, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Christmas comes early for the left. As one of our commenters snarked in Headlines, between this and the fact that the guy’s in media, he’s now qualified for his own show on MSNBC.
Maliki, to his credit, went for the block.
Update: The reporter is Muntazer al-Zaidi of Al-Baghdadia, which is based on Cairo. AFP says other journalists there apologized to Bush.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
Because he’s a cowardly copperhead.
docob on December 14, 2008 at 10:03 PM
They weren’t failing if he didn’t have any WMDs. All you’re doing is making a claim that has no basis in fact whatsoever.
starfleet_dude on December 14, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Even though all the world’s major intelligence agencies believed he had them.
Even though Clinton, Gore, and even Edwards are on record having stated they believed that he had them and that something must be done.
docob on December 14, 2008 at 10:05 PM
No, you’re just another dittohead who really has nothing much to say.
starfleet_dude on December 14, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Oh crap,I forgot a tid bit,
Leftsphere Trolls: When losing said argument,they want a
Do-Over,and they’ll re-attack same ar
gument but from a different angle!
Which will amount to going in circles,
like dog chases tail,thinking their win
ning said argument,and unbeknownist to
them,their repeating exactly what they
have said the first time,only to hear
their own voices echoing!(Sarc!).
canopfor on December 14, 2008 at 10:06 PM
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
MB4 on December 14, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Star ,,, when you can’t answer the questions please don’t resort to names please but I know thats typical when you don’t have any facts. Not answering is not really being engaging either. I ask again would you prefer that Saddam be reinstated or someone like him or what???
garydt on December 14, 2008 at 10:06 PM
The intelligence on WMD was not just from the U.S. and the U.N. and the press where demanding that the sanctions be dropped because of the children. All the while there is a huge under the table deal going on between Saddam and members for the U.N. with Saddam making money hand over fist while starving his people. If people don’t think there is a lot of scary stuff going on everyday that we are unaware of then explain why Mr. Obama is back pedaling on all the promises he made to the left? I guarantee you that his first real National Security meeting as the future POTUS was a come to Jesus moment. But if blaming W for all the ills of the world makes you happy, knock yourself out.
Cindy Munford on December 14, 2008 at 10:07 PM
That statement reveals your ignorance, but thankfully it’s not my job to educate you.
docob on December 14, 2008 at 10:07 PM
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
MB4 on December 14, 2008 at 10:09 PM
That word you keep using. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
docob on December 14, 2008 at 10:09 PM
You are absolutely right and you are just another arrogant a$$hole who know everything.
Cindy Munford on December 14, 2008 at 10:09 PM
After the deliberate false intel about the Niger “yellowcake” was planted by some Italian stooge and the revelation by a higher-up in Britain’s MI-5 that “the intelligence was fixed” around President Bush’s intent to go to war in Iraq, let’s just say the intelligence was rigged in favor of war. There was also plenty of intelligence to the contrary, that Iraq no longer had WMDs but had merely failed to completely account for their complete destruction. Of course the U.N. inspectors under Hans Blix were in the process of finding all this out when Bush decided to go to war instead. Oh well.
starfleet_dude on December 14, 2008 at 10:11 PM
We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.
- Madeline Albright
He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
- Sandy Berger
MB4 on December 14, 2008 at 10:15 PM
Please, if you want to make a contribution to the discussion you’re more than welcome to. Compared to many other right-wing blogs this is at least open to opinions that aren’t necessarily popular with the majority of posters.
starfleet_dude on December 14, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Oh yeah, the dogged Inspector Blix was ALL OVER that one!!
If that’s the best you got, than your shit is even weaker than I thought.
docob on December 14, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Bush will be traveling the globe after his last term in office. He wants to raise money to inject into the failing US economy. After all his legacy is at stake. Here is a preview. He figures to save the global economy by touring the middle east.
sonnyspats1 on December 14, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Yep, all the deliberate false intel has Mr. Obama embracing a lot of stuff he promised to get rid of the minute he got into office. Who’s feeling lucky now? Is it you?
Cindy Munford on December 14, 2008 at 10:18 PM
BTW, these statements by were made by Madeline Albright and Sandy
BurglerBurger before any “yellowcake” “issues”.MB4 on December 14, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Bottom line!
Saddam Insane did not honour the UN resolutions,therefore
force was the penality!
The Northern and Southern N0-fly zones were to protect
the Kurds from being slaughtered!
Saddam regularly played games in the zones,like turning the radars on and off,forcing the US and Brits to scramble,and
its good to see Bush had the balls to finally do something!
This sh#t by Saddam went on for over 10 years!
Liberals might think screwing the UN over is comical,
but Kurds are human beings as well,who should have
human rights,and be protected!
And a Republican President,did just that,protected the
little guy,the Kurds!!!!
canopfor on December 14, 2008 at 10:19 PM
MB4 on December 14, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Saddam built four new palaces during the sanctions. Really really nice ones. And how come it is okay with the liberals that the U.N. is more corrupt than a Chicago politician. No offense.
Cindy Munford on December 14, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Transporter room, one to beam up. Take starfleet-dude directly to Dr. Crusher for observation. He is obviously not himself.
portlandon on December 14, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Still Star does not answer the question,,, please please I am almost begging you, now even if there were no WMDS can you go from there? What would you do now and back in 04? Would you want Saddam back? Are these questions too difficult for you?
garydt on December 14, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Hey star gazer? MB4 has been lining the thread with numerous quotes from prominant dems about WMD. You’re ignoring them. What you say?
katy on December 14, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Blix was curious when all the claims the U.S. was making about hidden WMDs was never backed by any evidence, and he was more than willing to act on anything the U.S. could give him about any possible WMDs. Of course Bush never had any evidence to give Blix, despite his repeated claim that he KNEW there were WMDs in Iraq.
starfleet_dude on December 14, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Starfleet Dude would have us leave our national security in the hands of the likes of Hans Blix and Mohammed ElBaredai.
Enough said.
docob on December 14, 2008 at 10:26 PM
I suppose this was already covered, but what the heck:
I find it just a bit disconcerting that a man was allowed to throw anything at the POTUS – let alone being able to throw SOMETHING ELSE at the POTUS – before anyone came out and fricking responded!
The POTUS, in the Middle East, not liked by a bunch of those who reside in that part of the world, and someone is allowed to chuck not once – but TWICE – before being put down.
BTW, Bush has got some HELLA reflexes, huh?
Oh, and to you trolls…jog on, why doncha!
catmman on December 14, 2008 at 10:27 PM
He won’t be able to explain himself, I’m afraid, because he’s not himself you see.
Cheshire Cat on December 14, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Thanks to the Liberal Party and MSM,
the “Blagojevich Syndrome” now makes it
possible for all Liberal Moonbats that
have crazy theories to be scooped up off
the streets,deemed ‘Certifiable’and are
swiftly dealt with and are held,without
a lawyer,and are called ‘Mental’!(Snark).
He he.
canopfor on December 14, 2008 at 10:29 PM
garydt, I’ve already answered you by saying that containing Saddam Hussein was a viable and successful strategy as far as protecting the U.S. from his ambitions. And as I’ve also said before, going to war in Iraq wasn’t necessary to deal with al-Qaeda. If anything, the war in Iraq has made it more difficult for us to deal with the sort of terror that such groups pose.
starfleet_dude on December 14, 2008 at 10:30 PM
If everybody minded their own business, the world would go around a great deal faster than it does.
Cheshire Cat on December 14, 2008 at 10:30 PM
I feel sorry for Star,, he is like Kerry unable to figure out what to do now!!! All he can do is fault the past. Thank God FDR, Winston, Truman never did that. I can see them blaming all the mistakes of WW2 on Hoover.
garydt on December 14, 2008 at 10:32 PM
That Democrats can be wrong too, especially when they’re given misleading intelligence by a President who wants to go to war. FYI, Sandy Berger is right about Saddam using WMDs against Iran up to 1988, but he failed to mention that the U.S. had no problem with that as long as it was Iranians that Saddam was killing with them. That was a disgrace.
starfleet_dude on December 14, 2008 at 10:33 PM
garydt, I’ve answered your questions. If you wish to ignore them, that’s your call not mine.
starfleet_dude on December 14, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Also by the American people. Why do people keep on forgetting the American people once supported the war? Heck we even elected President Bush after the Iraq war started.
terryannonline on December 14, 2008 at 10:39 PM
I’ll post here what I posted on LGF:
I’d just like to point out a few discrepancies in the MSNBC film.
You’ll notice that The President’s head goes slightly back and to the left – twice. You’ll also notice that the Shoeman is seen standing slightly off center from the President only after the first shoe sails overhead.
Then you notice that the President’s head, after the first shoe, goes back up, and then back down, and then back up again. The second shoe is launched within two seconds of the first – before the rest of the press has ample time to react. Yet the President reacts before the first shoe arrives even halfway.
The President must have seen a second Shoeman on the Camera Bank towards the back. There cannot have been only one Shoeman. No Shoeman, no matter his skill at flinging shoes, is able to concurrently fling two shoes within two seconds, fast enough to hit the President should he not have ducked – slightly back and to the left – whilst shouting at the same time. Moreover, it is obvious that these are the heavy caliber types of shoes which require shoehorns with which to assist in the initial mounting stage. How did that single Shoeman accomplish the removal so fast in front of everyone else within mere seconds?
The answer is clear, my friends. There was a second Shoeman on the Camera Bank, behind the first shooter, slightly off center and to the left of the President of the United States!
Summer on December 14, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Do you mean misleading information by President Clinton, and his people, who wanted to go to war?
Note the dates.
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
Clearly there was such a drum beat for war by warmongering Democrats that Bush just couldn’t resist them.
MB4 on December 14, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Round and round and round we go and where Star gazer stops nobody knows.
The intelligence came from the Brits as well as the US intel sources. It wasn’t gathered single handedly by the evil Boooosh. There were several countrues involved in intel gathering and distibution. You know this. Why do you still use this ridiculously old talking point. Snooze…
katy on December 14, 2008 at 10:43 PM
MB4, the WMDs weren’t there in 2003 when the decision to go to war was made, contrary to Bush’s assertion that he KNEW they were there. I don’t know about you, but the work KNOW means you KNOW they’re there. Not that you
they’re there. Then again, I have a high level of proof when it comes to starting wars.
starfleet_dude on December 14, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Well, I see I mess up my formatting too. Oh well…
starfleet_dude on December 14, 2008 at 10:45 PM
katy, the key to good intelligence is not just stovepiping up intel that favors one side of the argument. That’s precisely what the Bush administration was doing with regard to intelligence about Iraq’s WMDs. For example, the claim that the aluminum tubes that Iraq was trying to import were for uranium centrifuges, when there was evidence that the specs for said tubes were for making small rockets. Such objective weighing of the evidence was lacking because, as we found after the war the “intelligence was fixed” to favor Bush’s decision to go to war.
starfleet_dude on December 14, 2008 at 10:49 PM
You let yourself get too exited.
Beautiful!
MB4 on December 14, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Clearly there was such a drum beat for war by warmongering Democrats that Bush just couldn’t resist them.
MB4 on December 14, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Star you missed the point ,, whats your plan for now???????????????????????????????? Please answer and I even looked back at thte posts and you still have not addressed this one. Plus you and kerry are the same in no addressing this.
garydt on December 14, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Bush could not have done it without the democrat precedence. Carter made it the official policy to use military force if “the free movement of Middle East oil” is threatened. Clinton not only bombed Iraq, he made it the official policy of the United States to remove Saddam.
Kmarion on December 14, 2008 at 11:03 PM
starfleet_dude on December 14, 2008 at 10:49 PM
No WMDs huh, and just what about that yellowcake you’ve been yammering about?
http://www.newsmax.com/international/yellowcake_uranium_iraq/2008/07/07/110709.html
From the article:
” At Iraq’s request, the US military recently transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday.
The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad’s “Green Zone,” then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman.”
Probably just an honest mistake. Saddam the Merciful was probably just trying to buy 550 metric tons of rice, medicine and baby formula, but the order must have gotten mixed up somehow.
celtnik on December 14, 2008 at 11:09 PM
celtnik, Saddam Hussein already had that yellowcake uranium ore back from the time it was working on the reactor at Osirik. The ore itself is not a threat. If it had been, the U.S. Army wouldn’t have ignored it during its invasion of Iraq back in 2003. The inspectors under Blix were also well aware of it, and in fact the yellowcake ore was under seal and had been monitored since the Gulf War.
starfleet_dude on December 14, 2008 at 11:27 PM
Still waiting starfleet, I will try and make it simpler,, What was Kerrys plan back in 04 on what to do with Iraq?
garydt on December 14, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Whether we should have or shouldn’t have gone to war in Iraq it is what it is and the results are pretty good. I’m sure Bush more than anyone else is sorry for the loss of life mainly that of our fellow countrymen that lost their lives for this cause. The fact is that we have won the war in Iraq, its perhaps the biggest news story ever ignored. Its unbelievable- a few years ago all was supposed to be lost then with the surge the place is turning out to be good. Sure it isn’t completely peaceful but Baghdad is no more dangerous than Chicago is. A very dangerous man and threat has been eliminated and millions of people have had their votes count for the first time of their lives. This clown wouldn’t have the ability to throw his shoe when Saddam was in charge. Iraq is becoming a success and the media’s bias and hatred toward Bush has blinded them from the truth. Its not only bad for Bush but insulting for the soldiers who have faught in the war and for the family of those soldiers who have lost their lives fighting for victory and freedom for Iraqis.
lavell12 on December 14, 2008 at 11:54 PM
garydt, I answered your question by saying it wasn’t necessary to go to war in 2003. Kerry’s and 2004 are beside the point, because by then the war already happened. At that point, both Kerry and Bush were bound by the U.S. being responsible for the war, and while both said they’d deal with it in different ways, the key was that they still had to deal with it. Me, I’d have never started the war in the first place.
starfleet_dude on December 14, 2008 at 11:58 PM
lavell12, no one misses Saddam Hussein. But the question remains, was the war really worth it in terms of the security of the U.S.?
starfleet_dude on December 14, 2008 at 11:59 PM
I’m wondering if you think the Korean war was worth in terms of the security of the U.S.?
terryannonline on December 15, 2008 at 12:03 AM
Ok I guess starfleet won’t answer my question. Alright.
terryannonline on December 15, 2008 at 12:17 AM
As a war of choice no. It would have been foolish for the U.S. to back an invasion of North Korea by South Korea. But as a war forced on the U.S., yes, since Soviet ambitions had to be contained and letting them triumph by force would have sent them the sort of signal that Stalin would have taken as an invitation to be more aggressive in Europe.
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 12:17 AM
Geeze terryannonline, have a little patience will ya?
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 12:18 AM
Can you even imagine what would happen if some reporter threw a shoe at Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
*Stomp* *Squish* *Blood* *Wipe-Wipe-Wipe*
TMK on December 15, 2008 at 12:32 AM
Wait how can a war be “forced” but also be a war of choice?
terryannonline on December 15, 2008 at 12:42 AM
Hey if it had been present-elect Urkle, the guy couldn’t have missed especially with that jug head and big floppy ears of his.
Bald Igle on December 15, 2008 at 12:44 AM
I’m pretty sure that if you listen closely to the guy’s shreiking at the end of the clip you’ll realize that he’s actually saying something in arabic.
Translation?
Don’t tase me bro!
dead-duck on December 15, 2008 at 1:28 AM
Imagine if Kerry was President, there is no way he could misss that giant head.
lavell12 on December 15, 2008 at 1:28 AM
If Kerry didn’t want to deal with Iraq,,,, Star why did he run for president if he didn’t have a plan. If he had a plan he must have been embarassed by it. One curious note,, When would you have gone to war during WW2 after Hawaii had been taken by the Japanese, or maybe after Wa, Ore Ca, had been taken? I don’t understand where you think appeasement works,and when did it work in history last?
garydt on December 15, 2008 at 2:24 AM
Muntazer Al Zaidi Is a low life punk.That Scum of the earth dog better be on the run. The Iraqs better hang that SOB.If
Muntazer was at a concert and Muntazer dident like the music
then you take off your shoe and let them fly.You dont do that to the POTUS. I hope they take that scum sucking jack
A$$ out.
Denniscat on December 15, 2008 at 7:00 AM
MB4 – I would like to frame your post. President Bush will be blamed for the Iraq war, the mortgage meltdown and the next two items that go haywire under The One.
IlikedAUH2O on December 15, 2008 at 8:01 AM
The still photo is misleading. It shows Bush ducking while Maliki stands tall. It doesn’t show that the shoe flew over Dubya’s head as he ducked.
Put up a video of the tremendous reception the troops gave Bush.
Basilsbest on December 15, 2008 at 8:02 AM
Am I the only who thinks GWB’s physical reaction was priceless?
After deftly dodging the first shoe, Bush pops right back up with a half-smile on his face, eyes focused, as if to acknowledge that more shoes were on their way and that he was still game for it. Bugs Bunny couldn’t have done it better. “…Size 10…” Good for you, George.
History will be kinder to President Bush than any of his detractors are. At the very least, the man can dodge a couple of shoes thrown by a mental rental.
Thanks to the blogger who posted the link to the Yankee Stadium first-throw back in 2001, right after the attack. It was a perfect strike. The post was very appropriate and very much appreciated.
LibertyBoyNYC on December 15, 2008 at 8:15 AM
BUT…
AND THEN…
So Sending a Sort of Signal is like a High Level of Proof.
Jump around!
Jump around!
Jump up, jump up and get down!
SlimyBill on December 15, 2008 at 8:18 AM
Shucks. He’s been doing that for eight years.
SlimyBill on December 15, 2008 at 8:19 AM
Right? I mean, honestly, who throws a shoe?
LibertyBoyNYC on December 15, 2008 at 8:23 AM
Protests being conducted as we speak in Sadr City due to the detention of the reporter who threw the shoe. Fox Radio reporting an overwhelming support for the reporter in Iraq.
At the risk of being banned from Hot Air…
Fuck that backwards country and every single friggin coward who lives there. Where were these protests when Saddam was calling the shots? The tortures and the bio-warfare? Nowhere to be found. In stead of tossing shoes you all should have been on your knees kissing GW’s ass. A ton of foreign blood in the sand for a Goddamned country that only going to fall back into chaos as soon as we leave. What a waste of space.
wcrego on December 15, 2008 at 9:11 AM
And when did you find that out genius?
After every countries leader in the world, stated he had WMD’s, after every intelligence agency in the world reported he had WMD’s…you come along and tell us he didn’t have WMD’s.
You should have told; France, Germany, India, Russia, Israel, Spain, Italy, Denmark, Australia, China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, then after the countries you could have told;Edwards, Kerry, Clinton’s, Pelosi, etc.
The were all under the impression he had them, if only you would have spoken up…it’s all your fault, they were waiting for your command.
Idiot…
right2bright on December 15, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Well, there you are again, the little Google expert…easy to Google several years after, and come up with all the answers…
Leaders don’t Google after the fact, they take what they have an make the tough decisions.
Time to whip out a quote you would take well to heed, read it, then set it aside, then read it again, and ponder what it really means to be a leader…this will be one of your most valuable lessons in life: Theodore Roosevelt wrote this just for people like you:
and a little one for the Obama supporters:
“This country has nothing to fear from the crooked man who fails. We put him in jail. It is the crooked man who succeeds who is a threat to this country.”
right2bright on December 15, 2008 at 9:27 AM
Traslated from Arabic:
“Don’t taze me, Bro.”
W ought to have look at the second shoe and comment something in the vein of: “Nice Italian shoe, can I have the name of the maker?”
El Coqui on December 15, 2008 at 9:28 AM
right2bright, I don’t know about you but I require a very high level of proof before starting a war. Unfortunately, President Bush wasn’t so concerned about proof as he was about creating all the fear, uncertainty and doubt he could about the question of WMDs to better persuade Americans to go to war in Iraq.
Also, the yellowcake ore that Iraq already had which was under seal and monitored was common knowlege at the time, and had been for years.
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 9:30 AM
the main reason Saddam was taking out was because he was a Terror Sponsor State in the heart of the middle east who had violated the Cease Fire Agreement he had signed repeatedly for over a decade.
its all in the Iraq war resolution that Congress passed, not to mention “Regime Change in IRaq” as official US Policy passed by the Senate and Clinton in 1998(referenced in the War Resolution).
http://husseinandterror.com
thats why Saddam was taken out mainly, that factored with the intelligence that he had WMD and clearly willing to work with terror groups in the open and shadows meant they wanted to “Pre-Empt” that scenario from playing out. Taken out the Regime itself was a RETRIBUTIVE action, not Pre-emptive…..the PR aspect of this has clouded and confused the actual facts of the matter. The MSM/Dems are scumbags in short.
jp on December 15, 2008 at 9:31 AM
All investigations into the Bush administration and pre-war intel have shown that he did not lie or manipulate evidence:
9/11 commission
2003 senate intelligence report
Butler report
Duelfer report
and the 2008 senate intelligence report chaired by a majority of democrats found:
‘Bush Lied’? If Only It Were That Simple.
By Fred Hiatt
Monday, June 9, 2008; A17
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687_pf.html
Bush never lied to us about Iraq
The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.
By James Kirchick
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,4808346.story
June 16, 2008
Even the liberal press knows this now starr-fleet.
your whining about yellowcake intelligence can go straight back to your buddy Wilson who admitted and the report was signed off by democrats and Republicans that he thought that the Iraqi delegation that went to Niger was in search of yellowcake.Only to change his story when Kerry wanted to bring him along.
MB4 showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that democrats were on the same page with Bush and saw the same intelligence.
Every investigation has come back the same way.
BUSH DID NOT LIE.
Baxter Greene on December 15, 2008 at 9:34 AM
I did speak up, but unfortunately few cared enough to listen since they were afraid of possibly being wrong. It’s easy to be a sunshine patriot, wave the flag and not ask tough questions and want real answers instead of nodding along with the crowd of dittoheads at the canine and equine show that Colin Powell put on at the U.N. to justify a U.S. invasion of Iraq.
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 9:34 AM
Unfortunately, our enemies don’t. That’s why charmingly naive liberal presidencies always come with a body count.
I wonder if you might entertain a few sincere questions, starfleet_dude:
1. Do you also comdemn Bill Clinton for his unnecessary war of choice in the Balkans, which was also based on intelligence about ethnic cleansing that turned out to be less than fully accurate? I assume that, if so, you voted Dole in 1996, if you were old enough to vote then.
2. Exactly how many United Nations resolutions and cease-fire terms should a country be able to violate before the use of force is appropriate? Is the number different for the United States than for other countries?
3. Which branch of Starfleet are you enlisted in? I’d figure communications or engineering. Uhura and Scotty were the only people in red shirts who never had to beam down with Kirk on those away missions.
Doctor Zero on December 15, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Hussein and his psychotic sons WERE weapons of mass destruction.
And they are dead now. Thank You Mr President!
bridgetown on December 15, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Saddam’s outlaw regime should’ve been removed before 9/11, whether he had WMD or not. Its a side issue, if you read “War and Decision” which the MSM ignored and NYT refused to even review you will find that WMD was about #4 down the list of reasons for taking out Saddam.
read the freaking War Resoltuion and the 1998 Regime Change in Iraq policy.
If you are into Googling, google the 1993 WTC attack by Al-Qaeda and its connections to Saddam. Yassin has a $2 Million bounty on his head to this day if you are looking for a Get rich quick scheme…he was also on Saddams payroll. AQ #2 Zawahari worked closely with Saddam in the 90’s and was given financing and safe harbor by Saddam. Of many things that were in total violation of the Cease Fire Agreement that Saddam signed and then violated over and over for a decade, each time a case for war and each time evidence to our enemies around the world we are a bunch of girls and a paper tiger…..which made some think they could get away with something like 9/11
jp on December 15, 2008 at 9:37 AM
Sorry Baxter Green, but others in Bush’s White House did admit after the war that the whole WMD issue was always iffy proof-wise, but it was decided to play it up anyway in an effort to persuade Americans to go to war in Iraq. We were deliberately misled by President Bush about WMDs, no doubt about it whatsoever. Hiatt’s just playing a mug’s game by going along with all the misleading intelligence that was deliberately stovepiped up as part of the strategery of “fixing the intelligence” around the decision by Bush to go to war in Iraq that was already made.
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 9:38 AM
No one laments the passing of Saddam Hussein, but the fact remains that he did not pose the level of threat to the U.S. that demanded we go to war as President Bush claimed. We could have continued to contain Iraq at a far lower cost that the war has been, and not set a terrible precedent of bringing back pre-emptive war as a tool of our foreign policy. One of the reasons why Putin could thumb his nose at the U.S. over his attack in Georgia was that he could say we did it too.
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 9:42 AM
The 9/11 Commission found no connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq that were linked to the 1993 WTC bombing either.
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 9:44 AM
Like who? Incompetent and disgraced turncoat Press Secretary Scott McLellan? Captain lets-go-into-Iraq Colin Powell?
BKennedy on December 15, 2008 at 9:52 AM
CNN in 1999, when Clinton was POTUS and bombing Iraq the year before:
for some reason hotair will not post the CNN link, easy to find though
jp on December 15, 2008 at 9:56 AM
Then why didn’t Clinton go to war? Because the “drum beats” you’re quoting were to justify continued sanctions against the Saddam regime and were about ensuring that, economically, he could not pursue a weapons program. Note that those quotes don’t claim Hussein HAS WMDs, they claim that he has sought/pursued WMDs and made a mockery of he UN(which is true, but we do that on a regular basis as well, maybe someone should invade us).
I agree, Democrats were spineless whiney losers and laid down for Bush in 2002-3 authorizing the war and then eventually cheerleading it. They made a political calculation and I wish more of them had paid a heavy price for it. But just because Democrats are idiotic political hacks doesn’t justify what’s happened in Iraq and by proxy to the national debt, to U.S. taxpayers, to those who’ve been psychologically scarred, wounded, displaced and killed in 5 years of conflict and occupation. Yes, the conflict is coming to a close, but as we know from FEDERAL DOCUMENTS, we wasted nearly 100 billion dollars in taxpayer money and foreign loaned money on a reconstruction project that ONLY brought the country back to where it was before the invasion.
I don’t know how that doesn’t enrage you if you’re an American citizen. But Americans forgot their rights this past decade. They forgot that their tax dollars are THEIRS, not for war profiteers who engaged in massive fraud. It’s ironic that conservatives who claim to be about “liberty” find it treasonous when people approach these issues with facts rather than jingoistic nationalism.
DeathToMediaHacks on December 15, 2008 at 9:57 AM
oh really, post page and paragraph for that. Does it mention Yassin, who we still have a bounty on his head and know for a fact he was on Saddam’s Payroll after he fled the 1993 WTC and went to Iraq for SAFE HARBOR.
Or the American Citizens Saddam financed the Death’s of when he was funding Hamas suicide bombers on International TV by paying their parents $20k for their martyrdom?
Why is it all the Dems in the late 1990’s(and MSM) were freely talking up Saddam’s WMD and Terrorist Sponsorship activities? All of them, in fact Al Gore criticized Bush 41 in 1992 for allowing Saddam to stay in power….because of his Terrorist ties.
jp on December 15, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Ugh, why do people like this get to be in the same room as him instead of me? I’d love to meet him someday. Great reflexes; he shares the same diligence and swift reaction time as his country.
YoungAmerican on December 15, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Imagine if this had happened to Obama! National outrage! But Bush? No…only a passing headline…
Aronne on December 15, 2008 at 10:05 AM
You do, your spending all your time here wishing the US had allowed him to stay in power as an Outlaw Regime funding Suicide bombers and working with guys like Al-Zawahari(AQ #2) in Islamic Jihad like he did in the 90’s. To you, Saddam should be alive and in power regardless of what he was doing against the USA.
,
actually this is a Lie(shocker), the Univeristy of Chicago Economics Dept. did multiple studies and scenarios before and since the war and found that the Cost of Containment economically was just as high and higher under many scenarios than the War cost.
Pre-emption has always been part of our FP, ever heard of the Cuban Missle Crisis? common sense really, and all Bush meant by it was to keep WMD’s out of the hands of Al-Qaeda. It was not the main reason for removing Saddam’s outlaw regime
Read the Iraq War Resolution and the Cease Fire Agreement referenced(that Saddam violated) AND “REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ” passed by the Senate and Clinton Unamiously in 1998. Its all part of the War Resolution.
This is brain dead stupid, lay off the bong pipe if that is the extent of your gullibility.
jp on December 15, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Here’s a report on what the 9/11 Commission found:
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »