Dubya & the ShoeChucker

The still photos posted made it look like Bush was trying to hide from the deadly airborne size tens... the video shows much the contrary.

Dubya's still got pretty good reflexes, doesnt he?!! I'm impressed! Makes you wonder what goes on in some of those high level WH meetings!
:shock:

Meanwhile shoechucker's pro-Baathist network claims he was only expressing his 'freedom of speech' and wants him released.

Oh, yeah? Suppose Saddam was still in power and it was Jimmah Carter on that podium. He would already be dog food.

 

You've gotta love irony. I suspect he'd have gotten the Iraqi Nat'l Soccer team treatment under Saddam and his spawn.

I'll be curious to see what the world does when their whipping boy goes into exile in 6 weeks? Who'll be the new guy that it's cool to disrespect and hate?

 

Thought the soon to be ex-Pres took it in w/a sense of humor. Looked to me that he was good at dodge ball as a lad.

 

Hell... that's already started in some of the more disreputable circles.... 'Obama is disrespecting his heritage'.

On the not so pleasant side, there's already moaning about the performance of the Secret Service..

Get a Freakin' GRIP. It was done JUST RIGHT! We aint some tinpot dictatorship. And the overall effect is that we trust the Iraqi's and their government.

 

Like who? Chirac? Ummm..... disrespect, yeah. Hate...nah!

If you're talking about PRK's 'Il'-windbag. Same goes.. just not worthy of 'hate'.

 

That's what it reminded me of, Dodgeball the Movie...

Remember what Patches says "If you can dodge a "shoe" :wink:, you can dodge a ball".

 

But it does not mean you can dodge media criticism.

 

Don, you are correct. They all have been hated on by someone. Washington, Lincoln, and FDR were all hated by some part of the populace. Probably because of the media now, but REALLY, no President has been hated on as much as Bush since Nixon. It has been ridiculous.

Allow me to post this again.

The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace
What must our enemies be thinking?
By JEFFREY SCOTT SHAPIRO

Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.

According to recent Gallup polls, the president's average approval rating is below 30% -- down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.

This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, "Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust."

Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties. The president's original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.

It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.
Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country's current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.

Like the president said in his 2004 victory speech, "We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America."

Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office. Despite Mr. Truman's low numbers, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll found that he was ranked the seventh most popular president in history.

Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman's presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years -- and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this natfter Mr. Bush has left the White House.

Mr. Shapiro is an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry's legal team during the presidential election in 2004.

 

Don, this piece was in the OPINION section of the WSJ and if you read it regularly, as I do, you'll not that they REGULARLY have pieces written by liberals and democrats. They EDITORIALLY are to the right however what does that have to do with the price of tea in China if they give voice to differing opinions? For you it is to discredit the thoughts and ideas. Again in your little 'red' boxes. You just don't get it apparently. This writer, you know his credentials but will ignore, is suggesting that it is the intensity and the ferocity of the negativity that is at issue. Not the fact that it happens....did you get that part?

You are exactly the person this author, and myself for that matter, are referring to, so I am not surprised or shocked by your scripted rhetoric and reference to Fox News, Bush, Limbaugh etc.., that you blame everyoen's thinking and everything negative, even in the face of facts, on. I guess the rest of us can't think for ourselves, so we must be following these Oracles for our thoughts. You must think that those of us who prescribe to the conservative philosophy are sheep following blindly, with no reason of our own. How arrogant of you to think that.

Now, there are millions of us in CA who didn't vote for Obama, but we will give him more respect than you did Bush because we are Republicans and our proud of our country (we are critical as well but...give me break) and what it really stands for, unlike many of the flag burning left that were walking the streets of SF back in the 60's and their offspring.

Your Truman thing, was hard to follow but I guess you had to be there, which I know you were, but were a wee bit of lad so.....

And your BDS thing is just a symptom of what I call HDDS, which is HatterDon Derangement sydrome which is the need to put everything that you disagree with politically (and some not so political) into cute and neat little boxes, these boxes are labeled Fox News, I hate Bush, Limbaugh, Hannity, We were jobbed in Florida, etc..

If you can't admit he has been criticized mercilessly, then it must be ok to do so, so if Obama receives the same fate, you have no room to complain.

 

Historically speaking, no single President ever deserved impeachment consideration more than W. If the Democrats weren't so (rightfully) scared of the thought of Cheney as Commander in Chief, methinks W would have been at least been brought up on articles of impeachment. Disgraceful behavior, conduct, and performance dictate the treatment he has received.

My question is, will Bush apologists still be towing the line if/when he is tried for war crimes by an International Military Tribunal?

 

Wrong but of course your allowed your opinion, but apparently nobody has been able to make enough of an argument to do so or is inclined to do so because there is no 'there' there. Your comment about ending up with Cheney is just plain silly. Those that represent your party have nothing they can do to Bush because they agreed with what he was going to do in the first place, only until it became a political inconvenience did they pile on. Obama was one of the only ones that didn't. Let's see how much his policy ends up being different.

Remember, only Bubba and Andrew Johnson have been impeached by the House, and guess who's spouse is now Secretary of State? I smell more trouble for the Dems politically with those two gypsies back in Washington.

 

Naw, I'll pass on the cuppa and go for a ride.

 

Apparantly, you don't read too much history. His Presidency has been pretty poor, but we've had quite a few Presidents who have committed far greater transgressions against our Constitution.

HD - I assume your point was that historically (there's that word again) other Presidents have had it as bad or worse. I can only speak firsthand for my lifetime (37), but there has been a trend where each President has received more outlandish and disrespectful treatment since Reagan. I largely attribute this to our smaller world (internet, cable news ch's, etc) but it's still annoying. I'll leave the WSJ/BDS bs debate to you guys.

 

I think Bobby Z is so good at holding up the ball, he'll keep till AJ gets back. :wink:

 

Show some links stating that Bush is an int'l war criminal that are worth a warm bucket of spit and then we'll talk.