General discussion


Did you hear about the guy who threw a shoe at President Bush?

By maxwell edison ·
Really? He threw a shoe at the President? What a heel.

The shoe flew through the air on its wing-tip.

I wonder if it was the guy's sole decision to throw the shoe.

Maybe size DOES matter - a size 13 would have nailed President Bush.

I trust the guy got the boot from the press conference.

He was probably nothing but a loafer.

Maybe the guy was mad because of a presidential flip-flop.

I wonder if the guy sneakered in there?

Or maybe he was able to slipper by security?

Could the thrower be charged with assault with a deadly shoe?

These boots are made for throwing, and that's just what he did........

I guess he thought, If the shoe fits, throw it.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

52 total posts (Page 3 of 6)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Where was the Secret Service Agent (like in the movies)

by DadsPad In reply to Did you hear about the gu ...

taking a shoe for the president? Should have been two agents flying sideways through the air, one for each shoe. The President had to duck.

Collapse -

Secret Service

by jck In reply to Where was the Secret Serv ...

if you watch the video, they come out of the door behind him and on the right.

Evidently, the Iraqi security people didn't grab the guy immediately. It almost looked like a reporter or something did from behind, then Iraqi security did.

And, it looked like the US Secret Service was kept in the back. I saw ( I think) 4 or 5 come out 5 seconds after the first shoe was thrown.

Scary though...they actually trusted Iraqi security to handle everything in front of the cameras.

Collapse -

Lets just...

by Jellimonsta In reply to Secret Service

see how quick Obama wants to withdraw US security/ armed forces from Iraq when it's his head with a target on it. ;\

Collapse -

see how quick Obama wants to withdraw US security/ armed forces

by maxwell edison In reply to Lets just... will be the mother of all flip-flops. (Keeping in-line with the puns of the discussion, of course.)

I stand by that prediction.

Collapse -

From what I saw on the news

by JamesRL In reply to [i]see how quick Obama wa ...

Bush, when he was in Baghdad signed and angreement that had forces totally withdrawn by the "end of 2011".

Thats 3 years away, but these things take time logistically. Look how long it took the British to leave Basra once they committed to it.

Frankly, even if he wanted to pull the troops out sooner, it might not be possible to do it much sooner, if its done in an orderly, phased manner.

BTW, in Canada, our conservative PM committed to pull out of Afghanistan by 2011, at least out of the combat role. Training and reconstruction roles (and the security for them) would likely continue after that.


Collapse -

It will be impossible now

by jck In reply to From what I saw on the ne ...

We can't pull out. Bush's people signed an agreement to go pull out over 3 years. I'm sure part of the agreement is training and (probably to-be-botched) construction deals.

Obama's hands are tied now, because Bush's administration negotiated a deal.

Collapse -

Do you really think

by jdclyde In reply to It will be impossible now

that just because they are ALLOWED to say, that Obama HAS to stay??????

Collapse -

To answer JD's question....

by JamesRL In reply to It will be impossible now

Sure JCK, training and construction will continue past the three years, thats generally how these things work (see Yugoslavia, and even Vietnam).

Obama's hands aren't tied by what Bush has signed, he can do he chooses, when he is president. But tearing up agreements isn't seen as a good thing to do in general, so he would have to have a valid reason to do so, from a political perspective.

Any withdrawl, now or 3 years from now, needs to be co-ordinated with the Iraqi government if they want to avoid chaos. So figure 3 months to plan it, and it can't be all in one go. It might take 6 months to move all the troops out without straining the logistics of the air transport. Its not so much the people as the vehicles and materiel.


Collapse -

What we see here, James

by jdclyde In reply to It will be impossible now

Is jck trying to setup an ready-made excuse for why Obama will not stick to his campaign promises, and continue to try to find a way to blame everything on Bush.

Somehow, someway, it HAS to be Bush's fault, right?

I would bet we don't hear Democrats screaming about the "Illegal and immoral war" anymore.

Collapse -

What we see here?

by jck In reply to It will be impossible now

What we see is what I stated, jd; The Bush Administration signed an agreement with the Iraqi government that will commit the United States to a timeline of 3 years to pull out. It is FACT, not partisan speel. So, stop with your fanatical spin and attempts at trying to stir things.

It really is simple: it is a political catch-22 that the Bush administration has set for Obama to take ownership of in January.

If Obama's administration does not choose to stay in Iraq the 3 years that Bush has committed the United States to being there and the Iraqi government does not agree to an early exit, the United States is then seen as liars and untrustworthy by governments and will probably be spun by the radical elements in the Middle East as an even bigger "devil".

If Obama's administration does stay the 3 years, then sensationalist right-wingers like you will start with the "What happened to 16 months? See, he's a liar."

So, it's really a no-win now. The Obama administration was not given the choice to set their own terms with the Iraqis. Bush's administration took the liberty to decide what Obama's administration would be committed to for about 35 months of their tenure.

Kind of ironic, since the Bush administration did not move quickly to set this timeline until the end of his tenure as President. Don't you think?

And JamesRL, you're right. Obama could very well go "We're leaving early.", but that would (without Iraqi government agreement) cause even more political and social angst than what has been bred in that region by the Bush administration's operation of things in Iraq. Do you not agree that this wouldn't be a prudent move?

Needless to say, it's not going to make anything any easier for Obama's administration. But, that's pretty much what I would expect from any politicians.

Back to Security Forum
52 total posts (Page 3 of 6)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums