OF SHOES AND LEFTIST IDIOCY
You’ve probably heard by now that at a press conference with Prime Minister Maliki in Iraq yesterday, an Iraqi journalist reporting for an Iraqi TV station based in Egypt threw two shoes at George Bush, narrowly missing the president:
“This is a gift from the Iraqis. This is the farewell kiss, you dog,” the journalist shouted (in Arabic), Steven Lee Myers of The New York Times reported in a pool report to the White House press corps.
Myers reported that the man threw the second shoe and added: “This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq.”
The president showed a lot more class than liberal bloggers about the incident:
Welcome to Baghdad. An Iraqi reporter set off pandemonium Sunday by hurling two shoes at President Bush during a news conference that was the centerpiece of his secret goodbye visit.
Bush was cool under fire and prevented an even bigger incident by waving off his lead Secret Service agent, who was prepared to extract him from the room.
Video shows the president’s lead agent rushing to the podium, but the president immediately and subtly motions to him that it’s OK. The agent backs off.
The president successfully ducked both throws. Photos show him with his head down near the top of the podium. The embarrassing incident marred a visit meant to show off the improved conditions since the troop “surge” dramatically reduced casualties to U.S. troops.
Lefties are beside themselves, using the incident as an excuse to spout inanities about Bush, the war, and America. Matthew Yglesias’s response is fairly typical:
Some people got very upset when I said I thought throwing pie at Tom Friedman was funny, but I’m having trouble coming up with appropriately humorless language with which to express my fake outrage at this incident.
A website has been set up to allow patriotic lefties to sign a petition to free the journalist who tossed the shoes. Others are urging that liberals send their old shoes to the Bush Library.
Now tossing your shoe at someone is a very grave insult in the Arab world, akin to tossing rotten fruit at a politician here - perhaps even worse. But lefties who are chortling over the incident are typically missing the point - as is the Bush deranged Iraqi journalist.
The liberals who are taking such pleasure in seeing the president embarrassed are not realizing that this is an insult to the United States and her people. In other words, the jokes on you, dummies. When abroad, whether you like him or not, agree with him or not - even if you are still deranged enough not to accept him as “your” president - George Bush represents the government and hence, the people of the United States. Liberal views of him as a leader matter not in the slightest. The shoe toss was as much an insult directed at the left as it was Bush. The fact that they don’t realize this only makes their cluelessness all the more entertaining.
The rest of the Arab world sees the shoe toss as an insult to the US government with George Bush being its most visible manifestation. The government of the United States - last I looked - was a government of, by, and for the people. In other words, the government is us. And any insults directed at the government are insults hurled at each and every American regardless of party affiliation, ideology, or, in the case of liberals, intelligence or the lack thereof.
As for the Iraqi journalist, would he have been so brave if, instead of Prime Minister Maliki standing up there, horrified at the insult to his guest, it was Saddam Hussein? Somehow, I think the prospect of being taken out and shot would have stayed the journalist’s hand - or shoes as it were. The point being, Saddam has gone missing courtesy of the US Army and President George Bush. The journalist may face charges (try throwing a shoe at someone in America and you can be charged with assault) but will probably be released in the end so that he can practice his America hating craft safely and without fear of being arrested in the middle of the night and shot.
All of this has gone straight over the heads of our liberal friends who are chuckling over the insult they believe is Bush’s alone.
But hey! I won’t ever call them unpatriotic.
Mr. Moran,
I would put the Political Left in the same category as the shoe itself. It is an insult to the American People as a whole.
Comment by SeniorD — 12/15/2008 @ 9:52 am
Infantile behavior encouraged and applauded by even more infantile leftwing children in this country.
Does it not occur to them that the act of that idiotic and offensive jackass journalist would have been met with instantaneous death BEFORE we arrived in that godforsaken sinkhole? What a bunch of ignorant losers!
Comment by Gayle Miller — 12/15/2008 @ 10:20 am
Just remember, we must put away the hatred of the last 8 years and come together for the “One”. As the 52/48 have stated, the world will soon see the US in a different light after Obama has smoothed over relations to the Moslem world by renouncing the Evil Boosh and his neocon war with the religion of peace. We will all live together, happily as the earth heals.
Sarc/off
Comment by halfacarafe — 12/15/2008 @ 10:25 am
I agree. He’s still the President of the United States. Our president. If anyone’s going to throw a shoe at him it’ll be one of us.
It may surprise you but I agree. And throw a flip flop sandal for me while you’re at it.
ed.
Comment by michael reynolds — 12/15/2008 @ 10:33 am
It may surprise you to learn, but I think Bush handled it very well. Laughing it off was the right response. And he has damned good reflexes for an old guy.
Comment by michael reynolds — 12/15/2008 @ 11:33 am
“The shoe toss was as much an insult directed at the left as it was Bush.”
Rick, that is your opinion. It sure looked to me like it was personal for him. I understand that you want to view this through a prism of “leftist idiocy”, but give it up.
This story is about one guy, Zaidi, who was pissed off at another guy, George Bush.
Comment by Postagoras — 12/15/2008 @ 12:07 pm
@ Michael Reynolds:
You must have my office bugged — Or I’m channeling you. Probably the classiest public speaking W has done in years, a real deft touch . . . and I’ll admit at least that first shoe would have caught me napping if I were him. I didn’t notice the SS rush forward in the video I saw like Mr. M said, so I’ll watch it again . . . but I suspect there’s some very well-trained personnel that are going to be spending some very unpleasent time in purgatory for the near future.
I’m sure there are some idiots making jackholes out of themselves on the Left, but they certainly don’t represent everybody who isn’t Red. Personally, I’d like to clock W with a shoe, but he’s my Prez to abuse, not theirs. I think Maliki’s a crook and a spineless thug, but it’s not my place to slap him if he’s touring the country.
Comment by busboy33 — 12/15/2008 @ 12:50 pm
@ Rick M.:
Sadly, lots of us DO recognize that W represents internationaly the people of this country — one of the prime reasons he gets under so many people’s skin. Blood is blood, and if the neighbor gets into a fight with my Uncle Edgar then I’ve got Edgar’s back . . . but if the fight started because Edgar called his wife something that gets you punched I still have to back him up but he’s NOT invited over for the neighborhood picnic next year.
I know the Hardc0re commenters will probably call blasphemy when I say this, but although they are apparently checking this guy for drugs and/or mental issues . . . I haven’t heard anybody credible on either side of the fence make any claims about him being wacko, or a terrorist, or unbalanced. It’s going unspoken on the Right side of the discussion about this, but the gaining traction meme of “he should thank the US for getting rid of Hussein so he can throw shoes” implicitly distinguishes between insane timebombs (a potential issue in any society) and an otherwise respectable, legitimate citizen expressing their outrage at what they consider corrupt government (something unthinkable under Hussein but possible now). You likened it to tossing rotten tomatoes here, which was the traditional warning to retire (and move) early before the tar-and-feathers came out.
There’s a BIG gulf between “hey jackhole — try that cr@p again and you’ll be lucky to crawl out of here” and “you are completely wrong for being this upset.”
I haven’t heard anybody on either side even imply that this is the latter. Both side, explicitly or implicitly, seem to be conceeding he (and presumably other Iraqis) has legitimate grounds to be furious (NOT LEGIT TO ACT LIKE THAT)
“And any insults directed at the government are insults hurled at each and every American regardless of party affiliation, ideology, or, in the case of liberals, intelligence or the lack thereof.”
yep — and when the government does things to be insulted over, it projects blame at each and every one of those same Americans. I’ll say one thing for the Illinois machine — they cant line up quick enough to get rid of Blogo. If they don’t . . . well, somebody’s gonna start throwing tomatoes, and when they have the authorities take them away while they wipe the mess off their suits, if the thrower yells back “why didn’t you get rid of him? You must be birds of a feather” . . . that’s hard to distinguish to the crowd watching.
Comment by busboy33 — 12/15/2008 @ 12:56 pm
Meh. The guy started a poorly-conceived poorly executed war that is going to cost us three trillion dollars and untold dead and maimed on both sides. All of this in order to secure a foothold for US energy corporations to have access to vast middle eastern energy reserves.
The fact that he claims to not know the significance of the shoe insult is par for the course. The joke has been on the American people for quite some time now. This does little to change that.
Were you in the Wizard of Oz? That’s the last time I saw a walking talking strawman.
ed.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 12/15/2008 @ 1:39 pm
Chuck - how MUCH Kool Aid do you drink on a regular basis? The merde you’re shoveling is so old, so tired and so discredited that it should embarrass you greatly.
As to our president - that great and good man cannot be harmed by idiotic prattlers such as yourself, who have the imagination of a kumquat and prate whatever twaddle is spoonfed to you by your leftist jingomaster!
Oh yes, have a wonderful and blessed Christmas!
Comment by Gayle Miller — 12/15/2008 @ 2:20 pm
Old, tired, and discredited? Old and tired, maybe. But discredited? Not even close Gayle. What part of what I said has been discredited?
And Rick… strawman? Your argument is that the joke was on liberals. While I agree, I was simply pointing out the much bigger joke, that is on all of us. Hardly a strawman. More of an addendum.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 12/15/2008 @ 3:12 pm
I’m as amazed at the delayed response of the Secret Service as I am with the whole incident. I would have assumed that the guy would be bum-rushed and tackled by 6 agents before he could get his second volley off. A powerful man could have charged the podium and (at a minimum) delivered a couple of punches.
Two things: as Michael pointed out, pretty good reflexes on Bush’s part, and good for Maliki for trying to deflect the shoe.
Comment by lionheart — 12/15/2008 @ 4:40 pm
This shoe thrower will be remembered just like Tank Man in Tiananmen Square. Suck on that!
BWHAHAHAHAHAHA. Right. A half crazed, deranged Bush hater will be remembered in the same breath as a guy standing in front of a tank? Do you hear yourself? Can anyone really be that stupid?
Thanks for the chuckle. I needed it today.
ed.
Comment by HyperIon — 12/15/2008 @ 4:47 pm
Throwing shoes at power. The new political rebellion.
Comment by Allen — 12/15/2008 @ 5:56 pm
“The shoe toss was as much an insult directed at the left as it was Bush.”
Unless another Iraqi throws his shoe at Obama, no way is this true. Few non-Americans think that insulting Bush is the same thing as insulting all of the American People. The minds of most people on this planet no longer see Bush and the USA as being the same thing. (They are now thinking that Obama and the USA are one and the same! Scary, but true.) Therefore, why should anybody (especially liberals) see this as being an insult to the United States?
Hyperlon, Rick was right to call you out for equating the Tiananmen Square Tank Man. (No moral equivalency between the 2!) However, you are correct in making the point that the Shoe Throwing Iraqi Journalist will be remembered. This image has now entered the consciousness of the entire planet (thanks to the MSM), and no future summary of the war will be complete without mentioning the shoe throw. Right or wrong, playing that clip makes for a simple (and lazy) summary of what the Iraqi people think about Bush after 5 years of liberation.
PS- michael reynolds, I didn’t know there should be a litmus test for shoe-throwers! Aren’t all nationalities equally qualified to throw their footwear at each others leaders? (Not that its ever a good idea…)
Comment by Surabaya Stew — 12/15/2008 @ 6:54 pm
Surabaya:
I don’t get why this is hard. He’s the President of the United States. So long as he holds that office he is the representative of this country abroad. The man may not deserve respect, but the office does.
One more thing: however badly Mr. Bush screwed up this war, he did not set out to hurt Iraqis. Obviously, the opposite is true. He did his best to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people. He’s a f*ck up, but for all his many (many) faults he was trying to help Mr. Shoetoss, not hurt him.
Comment by michael reynolds — 12/16/2008 @ 12:30 am
Why haven’t the pundits of the left–great lovers of liberty and “change” that they are–been rejoicing that this Iraqi has enough freedom of speech now in Iraq that he could get away with a public display like this? Would he have DARED to do such a thing under Saddam?
No, wait. That’s too easy. Sorry.
(Hint: if you’re still thinking about the answer to that one, you must have voted for Nobama.)
Comment by Janny — 12/16/2008 @ 9:36 am
What #16 said.
And … maybe we can throw back at the ungrateful boobs the boots of a soldier killed in action defending Iraqi security from the terrorists and insurgents.
All this incident proves is the wisdom of the saying “No good deed goes unpunished”
Comment by Freedoms Truth — 12/16/2008 @ 11:00 am
Janny,
He was severely beaten. His arm was broken as well as his ribs. His face is split open from being repeatedly punched in the head, and he multiple cuts and abrasions elsewhere. All of that BEFORE they started the interrogation.
I guess by “get away with” you mean that he was allowed to live. By that standard, I guess there is some progress there in Iraq… depending on how the interrogation goes, that is.
It’s good to see that the blood of my family and my f’ing tax dollars are being put to such positive use.
You are using the testimony of his brother as fact? Or his employer? Supporters of Mookie al-Sadr? Get out! I would suggest we hold off believing anything from either gentlemen until the information can be verified.
ed.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 12/16/2008 @ 11:48 am
Good point Rick. I let my personal feelings get the better of me.
On a side note. President Bush has the reflexes of an F’ing NINJA.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 12/16/2008 @ 12:27 pm
michael reynolds, do you honestly think that the average non-american sees Bush as “the representative of this country abroad”? No, they just see him as a total ass who’s just a placeholder until January 20. Certainly the readers (and writer) of this blog feel that an attack on our leader is an attack on all of us, but we are not representative of humanity. The average earthling is not very educated, loves American culture, hates Bush, and is glad to see Obama elected. Such advanced thinking about respecting the Office of the President of the United States is lost on them. (In this case, all the shoe thrower cared about was that here was the man who invaded and screwed up his country these past 5 years.) When most of the world wants to throw shoes at Obama, we can talk about our country being disrespected; somehow though I don’t see such an event happening. (After all, there are advantages to having the MSN in your pocket!)
Comment by Surabaya Stew — 12/16/2008 @ 1:50 pm
Surabaya:
You’re saying: 1)the world doesn’t like Mr. Bush, and 2) that because they don’t like him they don’t see him as our representative to the world, 3) therefore pelting Mr. Bush with shoes shouldn’t be taken as an insult to the United States.
The world’s opinion of Mr. Bush doesn’t alter the fact that Mr. Bush is the POTUS, and that any president is the representative of the United States abroad. It’s not about popularity, it’s about the office.
As for Mr. Bush screwing up Iraq, you’re kidding, right? It’s like accusing someone of stinking up a cesspool. Iraq was a sh*thole before we got there. It still is one and is likely to remain one.
Had the Iraqi people taken care of their own business they wouldn’t be where they are today. The US didn’t force Iraq to start a war with Iran, attempt the genocide of Kurds, carry out murder and torture on an epic scale or invade Kuwait. The Iraqi people have been pretty lousy at self-government. (Answering the question: “can I give an example of ‘understatement?’”) Turned out we weren’t very good at governing Iraq, either, but our invasion was as much effect, as cause, of Iraq’s status as a miserable, brutal, hate-filled, superstition-addled ghetto.
Comment by michael reynolds — 12/16/2008 @ 3:29 pm
Ok michael reynolds, no point in belaboring a point here. Saddam is dead now, and we are seen as the main cause of instability in Iraq. Rightly or wrongly, thats how we are seen by Iraqis. As a result, the shoe throwing shouldn’t surprise or offend anybody.
Comment by Surabaya Stew — 12/16/2008 @ 4:20 pm
michael reynolds,
So then, what was the point of starting a war there?
This is absurd. What business were they supposed to take care of? We’ve had a hand in their business for a very very long time.
No, but the US backed Iraq with funds and hardware.
No, but the U.S. knew about it and specifically and explicitly CHOSE to do nothing because it would hurt US farm exports to Iraq, which were over $1 Billion at the time.
The US has been a huge enabler of this to enable US commerce.
Our invasion was due to our energy needs, both present and future. Which is something I might be able to get behind if it wasn’t carried out so incredibly poorly.
Iraq has, and will probably always be a money sink for the US taxpayer, and a payday for well connected corporations. That’s the reality. The invasion was in no way/shape/form a noble undertaking.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 12/16/2008 @ 6:29 pm
Chuck:
1) The fact that we failed to accomplish our goal does not in itself invalidate the goal. We try to cure cancer. We fail.
2) We’ve “had a hand in their business” and therefore they bear no responsibility for their own government? Really. Various other nations had a hand in Weimar Germany. Does that mean the Germans are blameless for the 3rd Reich?
3) We agree that we did not force Iraq to start a war with Iran. It’s nice to agree.
4) So we are to blame for anything, anywhere that we know about? Like the mess in Congo? So, it follows logically if we are responsible that we have a moral obligation to act. Right? So, we’re sending the Marines to Congo?
5) Out of curiosity, is there anything for which we are not to blame? Or, to reverse the question does no one but the US bear any responsibility? Does it follow, if we are respnsible for all the evil in the world, and no one else is responsible for their own actions, that we are equally responsible for all the good and no one else deserves credit?
6) The blood for oil meme has some truth to it. But only some. Few political events have single causes. And you’re missing the essential tragedy here, which is the idealism, however much you may dislike it, of people who hoped we could build a free country in the middle east and by so doing extend the blessings of liberty to people who had known only tyranny.
Don’t oversimplify the world: it makes for faulty analysis. It’s not a simple case of U.S. bad, everyone else good. We are sometimes bad. And sometimes stupid. And sometimes heroic. Like any well-conceived character.
Comment by michael reynolds — 12/16/2008 @ 9:50 pm
1) You do us both a disservice by suggesting that attempting to cure cancer correlates comparatively in any way with what has been done in Iraq. This is pure logical fallacy.
2) I suggested no such thing. The US helped make Iraq into what it was. The US directed and manipulated Iraq for its own purposes. Of course they bear responsibility, but so do we, more than any other country.
3) Yay!
4) Your logic builds on an assumption that is nonsense. I didn’t say we were to blame for anything, anywhere, that we know about. But I think you know that. The US helped bring Saddam to power. The US enabled him with weapons, intelligence, and funds. The US LOOKED THE OTHER WAY during his attempted genocide. The US looked away because we didn’t want to interrupt the commerce or distract Iraq from battling Iran.
5) I will never understand this line of argument. It’s so disjoint and wrought with fallacy that it’s hard to even attempt to have a real discussion. The US is not to blame for Iraq doing horrible things. However, the US does bear responsibility because of complacency.
The US knew of the atrocities at the time, had the power to stop it, and chose instead to DO NOTHING. Chose to keep exporting and collecting a paycheck. It was only when Iraq went off the leash and threatened the energy flow did we choose to do anything. While this keeps energy supplies and commerce protected. It’s a far cry from good and noble.
6) I don’t consider it blood for oil. I make the distinction between oil and energy because it takes significance off of any one country, or that country’s issues. The fact is that the US will go wherever it needs to, and do whatever it needs to, to secure an energy supply. It has to, and I fully understand and accept that. What I don’t accept is the notion that what we do to secure our energy supply is noble or good. Saddam screwed with our commerce and energy, and we destroyed him and his country for it.
We’re not trying to build a free country in the Middle East out of the goodness of our hearts. We’re doing it because it’s the next best thing to a dictator who’s gone off the reservation. We’re doing it so American companies can get a foothold and a piece of the energy pie. The United States is not in the business of extending the blessings of liberty. We’re in the business of business. If it so happens that Iraqis feel blessed by the gift of liberty that my tax dollars have provided, then great.
By no means do I oversimplify the world. Reread your #5 above. If that’s not a drastic oversimplification, I don’t know what is. I just can’t stand it when I hear people from your party tell me how good we are because of the blessings of liberty we’re trying to spread, or somesuch.
The US is all about the US. And you know what? I don’t have to have some convoluted sense of nobility or purpose to get behind that. We do what we do to further our interests, nothing more. If good results from that, then great. If we sit idly by while genocide takes place because stopping it would hurt our interests, well, we’ve already shown that we’re willing to do that too. That’s a hard pill to swallow, and maybe that’s why we need to be lied to in order to start wars. The lies make the pill easier to swallow.
This is what I’d love to hear… I’d love to hear someone say that our latest excursion in Iraq was to secure our energy interests. But instead we get “Saddam has weapons of mass destruction,” or “Saddam killed his own people.” It’s all crap. It’s mixing truth with lies and intentional omissions of our own complacency.
You know? How about just saying, “The US needs to secure its energy supplies. It’s going to cost $3 Trillion in the end, and hundreds of thousands of people will die in the process.” Maybe because people might say “Uh… is there a cheaper way to do this that won’t kill so many people?” People whose interests lie in waging war don’t want to hear this, which while morally repugnant, is understandable.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 12/17/2008 @ 11:38 am
The neo-cons were not about securing energy. They were idealists. Read what they wrote, listen to what they said.
In what way was an invasion of Iraq securing our energy supplies? Oil is a commodity. Unless it is sold it has no value to the producer. When it is sold it will move through the market. So, one way or the other, Iraq wanted to sell oil, and we wanted to buy it. So one way or the other that would have happened. No invasion necessary. Saddam wasn’t cutting off our supply of oil, just the opposite, we were keeping his oil off the market for political reasons.
You could argue that we desperately wanted US companies to handle the extraction rather than, say, Chinese companies. But the actual drilling is too small an economic interest to fit your conspiratorial theory.
As for #5, every point you made took us back to: US evil, indifferent, and complicit. We are not the puppet masters of the world. Any number of godawful things go on without our involvement.
And anyway what is the logical conclusion to be drawn from seeing the US as complicit? That we should do nothing? Or that we should do something? I’m confused. If we do nothing we’re guilty, and if we do something we’re guilty. Your core principle is: we’re guilty.
Simple question: should we intervene in Congo or Sudan? Should we have intervened in Rwanda? If we fail to intervene aren’t we even more complicit?
And one more: If I grant arguendo that we were complicit in the rise of Saddam, doesn’t that argue in favor of toppling him? Having created the monster, isn’t Dr. Frankenstein the person most responsible for stopping him?
Comment by michael reynolds — 12/17/2008 @ 1:43 pm
“The government of the United States – last I looked – was a government of, by, and for the people. In other words, the government is us. And any insults directed at the government are insults hurled at each and every American regardless of party affiliation, ideology, or, in the case of liberals, intelligence or the lack thereof.”
Half of “the people” have rejected our current President so I suspect rather than believing the country as a whole has been insulted, they relish any and all insults hurled toward “BusHitler.” They’ve been flingin’ insults themselves for the last eight years, why would they take this one personally?
Comment by DoorHold — 12/17/2008 @ 2:25 pm
I guess this is the crux of the discussion. This is my take on it…
The US is not good or evil. The US has only one real interest, and that is keeping the US as a strong, powerful, dominant country. In order to do this, the US must do both good and evil things, and not always in equal measure. Hopefully, the end result will be that the US retains #1 status.
I can accept this, and I don’t need to be lied to and treated by my government like a child who can’t understand the way of things. There is no morality in all of this, there is only survival, and I get that. The methods though, that’s the problem.
During the Reagan Administration someone noticed what was going on in Iraq. They said, “Hey, Saddam’s committing genocide using the tools we gave him. We need to stop this.” and then a bunch of other people said, “Yeah, but our farmers will lose a bunch of money if we do, plus they hate Iran as much as we do now. So, we’ll just sit this one out.”
And even though I understand the way of things, all I can think is, there simply must be a better way to deal with this. But the powers at the time decided to do nothing. It’s not like they were powerless. There were tools at their disposal, and yet still…
I understand that oil is a commodity, but having US companies in control in Iraq helps the US maintain dominance. The entire war, the fledgling democracy, the contracts, it’s all for the future benefit of the US, as our leaders seem to see it. I just HATE being lied to with bullshit about freeing the Iraqi people and Saddam killed his own people and blah blah blah. The US doesn’t care about this stuff, but it needs it to sell the measures necessary to remain #1.
I dunno. I guess most people can’t accept what needs to be done to stay dominant. I guess they do need to be lied to in order to sign on. I’d be very interested to know if the farmers and industry exporting to Iraq during the genocide would be willing to give up their income in order to stop the genocide? Do you think they would? I mean, if they really knew what was going on? I guess that’s why it takes 20 years for this stuff to come out.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 12/17/2008 @ 3:50 pm
If all we’d wanted was Iraqi oil, then an invasion would have been the dumbest way to get it. Military actions are expensive and risky, as yes even the evil neocons know.
Rather, we’d have simply cut a deal with Saddam. We’d have said “look, stop pretending like you have WMD for a bit and we’ll get the Security Council to end the sanctions. We’ll sign a sweetheart deal and just buy the oil from you.”
Saddam would have thought about it for 1/3 of a second and then agreed.
Everyone would have gone home happy; we get cheap oil, Saddam gets out of the sanctions regime.
Easy as pie.
Comment by Tom the Redhunter — 12/17/2008 @ 8:35 pm
“I understand that oil is a commodity, but having US companies in control in Iraq helps the US maintain dominance. The entire war, the fledgling democracy, the contracts, it’s all for the future benefit of the US, as our leaders seem to see it.”
Having US companies in control in Iraq ? Could you please let us know of these oil companies that are “controlling” Iraq ? The last time I checked the Democrats were whining about how Iraq was profiting from its oil exports and how the US should stop paying for Iraq’s re-construction.
The new Status Of Forces Agreement was signed with the agreement of a majority of Iraqi legislators and envisions a complete US pull out - no residual presence, no nothing.
I’d like to know how this helps the “controlling” oil companies.
Even though you say that you understand that oil is a commodity sold in the open market, you then go to illustrate that you dont really understand that/ or you dont agree with that statement - oil fell to under 40$ a barrel today - where are those oil companies who are supposed to be “controlling” things in Iraq ?
“I just HATE being lied to with bullshit about freeing the Iraqi people and Saddam killed his own people and blah blah blah. The US doesn’t care about this stuff, but it needs it to sell the measures necessary to remain #1.”
Some people like to think that freeing Iraq’s was more than bullshit - cynical Americans like you WHO HAVE NEVER known tyranny will NEVER understand that.
When neo-cons get blamed for pushing the US to a war with Iraq, why is it that no one gives them credit for what they believe in ? You may not agree with such “bullshit” things like freedom, but you now want to deny that this was not a goal ? the whole “domino” theory - that if you establish a democracy in the Arab heartland, it will influence other Arab countries ?
Many people think that democracy promotion in the Middle east is foolish - but almost no one denies that neo-cons believed in the freedom of the moderate Arab world and pushed this as an important reason.
Also what is this thing about Hussein violating innumerable UN resolutions - or the US Congress authorizing regime change in Iraq in 1998 through the Iraqi Liberation Act under the leadership of DAschle, Dodd and Kerry?
Oil seems to be how ever the only/primary reason according to many people.
Comment by Nagarajan Sivakumar — 12/18/2008 @ 12:16 am
Context implied control of oil production and refining, not control of the entire country. But you knew that. You always know it, every time you rant.
The SOFA does not apply to US corporations under contract. But I’m guessing you knew that too.
Oil production in Iraq is only at a fraction of what it will eventually be. Could possibly be due to the fact that there’s a WAR going on there. Thus, there is small effect on the market from them at the moment. Oil will go back up in price soon, as OPEC cuts production. The interesting part will be when Iraq is at full production capacity.
It’s great that some people think that. While it’s not true, it does mean that our propoganda works as designed. It would make me feel great if freeing Iraq was the goal, instead of the side effect. Speaking the truth is not cynicism.
Probably because so much money was spent, and so many people were killed or maimed. This tends to overshadow whatever lofty ideals the neo-cons may or may not have had. The one goal that they do have, that is the bedrock of their entire philosophy, is that the US continues to be the #1 superpower. I’ve already said that I’m behind them on that.
Freedom itself is not bullshit. Being told that a free Iraq is the goal IS bullshit. The goal is to ensure that the flow of energy commerce is not disrupted. A free Iraq simply one route to making that happen. It also happens to be great propaganda for selling war to people who don’t understand the potential impact to the American way of life if other world powers gain control of energy production.
Neo-cons believe in maintaining the position of the US. They pushed freedom in the Arab world as the best route to secure that position. If the middle ease didnt hold such massive energy reserves, it would be ignored.
Meh. Iraq now understands that the rest of the world will not stand for interruptions in the energy market.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 12/18/2008 @ 11:56 am