No, just like I don't approve of the congress man yelling 'liar' at Obama. It doesn't matter how much you like or dislike the president, he's still the commander in chief. Treat him with respect or get the hell out.
I approve of the journalist's action, Bush deserved to get hit, I'm just mad the guy missed. Pr0metheus, it doesn't matter if Bush was President/'Commander-In-Chief', that doesn't automatically grant him 'respect'. Respect is EARNED - not given simply because of a title someone holds. Bush did nothing respectable in 8yrs but be relieved of duty as President of the United States
Because your question takes for granted that the policies of Bush and Obama are comparable. I believe Bush's actions in this situation were wrong, and I believe that Obama's in this situation are not wrong. So given Obama's current actions, I would feel it unjustified to throw a shoe at him. In Bush's situation, while I would not personally do it or recommend it, I can sympathize more with the man who threw it than with the person it was thrown at.
" . . . a three-part examination of a newly-released document captured in Iraq, Robison offers further evidence that in 1999 the Taliban welcomed "Islamic relations with Iraq" to mediate among the Taliban, the Northern Alliance and Russia, and that the Taliban reciprocated with an invitation to Iraqi officials to visit Afghanistan."
But the taliban is in Iraq - you know, those guys who claimed responsibility for running planes into the WTC?
And who are YOU to decide who is a "higher sort of human being??" You just prove the stereotype of Americans who think they are better than the rest of the world. I never said I have something against democracy; I have something against invading countries for false reasons.
No I do not approve, especially for a trained Journalist, no. Write the facts as you find them. Like the sign says in the Student Newspaper office at Auburn University; "if your mama says she loves you...check it out!" In Other words verify the sources, ask your questions and keep the personal emotions out of it.
one side of me says 'hells yeah!' and the other side says 'no of course not no one should throw their shoe at an ex-President no matter how revolting'. i guess since it was probably a shoe thrown against America then, no.
plus it was highly unprofessional of that so-called journalist.
You are trying to take the moral high ground where it simply is not there. If you argue that Iraq was in the United States' long-term interests, you might have something, but you are saying that we are morally better than them. Does 655,000 people mean anything? That's over 102,000 DOCUMENTED CIVILIAN DEATHS. Note that 3,500 died in 9/11. How can you possibly argue that we are morally better than "them"?
I can argue because our general rules in wartime are better. We're not the ones intentionally hiding among civilians. Do you think the insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan care about civilian deaths besides using them as an excuse to bash the US? If they did, they'd come out and fight like real men instead of deliberately hiding out where the battle is likely to rack up the most civilian casualties.
I agree that hiding among civilians is immoral and it is not right that terrorist groups do it. Our soldiers were thrown into a ridiculous situation; they should not have been there. The war was unjustified, so the deaths are our fault. Who is worse, al-Qaeda for doing these horrible things, or us for being there and killing everyone when we should not be there?
The British said the same thing -- "come out and fight like real men" -- to Americans in the revolutionary war. WWII doesn't have anything to do with it because it was a just cause.
You were there? Regardless of what you think about warfare, the first rule is to survive to fight another day. Are you saying our soldiers should stand still and throw rocks at an approching tank? There's a real man for ya!
No What is cowardly is taken somebody's words and twisting them around and leaving important sentences out so that coward can reply to his own made up statement. somebody feel like raising their hand or paw?
You are acting as if the war in Afghanistan was completely unprovoked. I suppose you think we should have never gotten involved in WW2, and the attack on Pearl Harbor as well as an attempted invasion should have gone completely unanswered.
I regret that the US was the first to use atomic weapons. I hope it won't happen again. But it's the US's business to protect US citizens first and foremost. It's not the US' fault if another country fails to do the same for their citizens.
As for Iraq, the conflict there began after Saddam Hussein had spent 12 years thumbing his nose at the UN weapons inspectors. If he really had no WMD's- other than what he dumped on the Kurds- he made no effort to prove it.
How nice that we have YOU to tell us what is 'a just cause' and what is not. Since you don't find democracy all that important I guess you'd like to see an enlightened dictator control the world and do everyone's thinking for them.
no . attacks on my president are direct attempts to topple my nation in my view. like him or not i wont have it.on a side note did anyone see that a Saudi offered a million dollars for the shoe? how crazy is that.
Someone knows which were the last numbers of <new Iraqis orphans/ per hours> of Bush government during war? Don't you think those orphan deserve to throw at least a shoe to the face of the president bush?
We're still talking about that pea-brain? His behavior was bizarre, offensive, and worthy of prosecution - no matter which President or leader of any other nation was involved. What an infantile and moronic way to "show disapproval".
Something that really bothers me is when people don't have respect for the Office of the President of the United States.It doesn't matter if you disagree with or hate the occupant of the Office, you still need to show...
I'm aware that this is an election year. I know that everyone is entitled to their opinions. But over the last year and a half, I've noticed some blatant forms of disrespect being directed at President Obama. Why? Is it...
Would the same outrage still exist? Or did Obama's presidency ignite the flame?I tend to think that Obama being elected certainly was fuel on the fire -- that is to say, the Tea Party would not be as big or popular if...