Dear Mr. President:
Over the weekend, an Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at you.
When you were running for office, you let everyone know that you employed the Cliff’s Notes version of policy. That is, you depend on experts to tell you what is happening. Having studied your administration for eight long years, I think I’m something of an expert, so I’d like to take a minute to explain to you what is going on.
Mr. Muntader al Zaidi was being disrespectful, it’s true, when he threw his shoes at you, but he, like millions of other people have been trying to get your attention for a very long time. Eight years, in fact. Sadly, you haven’t been the great listener, just the great decider.
Muntader was angry because your invasion killed thousands of Iraqis, destabilized his country, and reduced a good deal of it to rubble. I guess you might call him a sore loser. Nevertheless, when you tried to make light of his gesture, you made things worse.
I think a couple of other people might like to add their shoes to the cause.
Here are the combat boots of the 4,029 American soldiers who have died in your misguided war of conquest, and for their parents and children. Here are another 30,852 pairs of combat boots for soldiers injured there. If we bought shoes that cost $50 a pair, we could buy 12,239,700,000 pair to throw for all the money you have wasted on Iraq. For ignoring your own Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, when he told you that we should withdraw from Iraq, one more pair. For hoodwinking Congress into funding the invasion, 535 pair, and for making those legislators who tried to use the power of the purse to control your escapades into political scapegoats, 535 more. No one will ever know how much you and your war profiteer buddies made from Iraq, but let’s throw in a couple of hundred pair for good measure. For telling us all “mission accomplished” five years ago, but still keeping us in Iraq, one more pair.
For trampling on the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we have to add a few pair. For the USA PATRIOT Act, one pair. For Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay, two pair. For silencing Americans who disagreed with your policy, having them arrested when they refused to go where you would not see them, and for making it an arrestable offense to wear a T-shirt that voiced objections to your policies in your presence, three more pair of shoes. For refusing to listen to Americans who objected to your policies and for browbeating Congress to go along with your plans, two more pairs of shoes are coming your way. For spying on Americans without warrants and for shielding telecom companies from lawsuits for helping you spy on Americans without warrants, we’re sending two pair. For getting an Attorney General to legalize torture and for claiming that the United States should not be subject to international law or the Geneva Convention, three more pair.
For spending our hard-earned tax dollars on war instead of health care reform, passing an incomprehensible prescription drug plan that caused seniors of this country even more headaches, and preventing people from importing their drugs from Canada, three pair. For passing No Child Left Behind, which makes more work for teachers and gives them less time to educate our children, 54.3 million pair of children’s shoes. For allowing junk science like “intelligent design” to invade our schools, one more pair.
For bailing out Wall Street bankers, but refusing to help the big three automakers because you don’t like labor unions, when 30 per cent of all American jobs depend on the automobile, here are 500,000 pair of shoes on behalf of the members of the United Auto Workers.
For cutting family planning funding here, and to the United Nations World Population Fund that helps women in third-world countries, two pair of shoes. These both belong to me, because third-world women are too poor to have shoes, thanks to your idea that poor people need more children, perhaps because they are not poor enough to suit you. For the people of New Orleans and the gulf coast, 1838 pair, one for each person who died in Hurricane Katrina.
For lying about global warming, treating our national parklands like a free concession for logging, herding, and mining, and for gutting the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, here are three more pair of shoes.
And finally, Mr. President, for making the United States universally hated in the Arab world and a laughingstock in the rest of the world, two more pair of shoes go onto the pile.
Mr. President, I know you don’t like to be shown disrespect. No one does. I just need to remind you that none of these 12,294,538,014 (that’s 12 billion, 294.5 million) pair of shoes shows you any disrespect you did not first show to our country, our people, and the world.


Comments: 92
Good article/letter Ann.
Well said and AMEN!
Such a sad state of affairs when you see posts like this.
One problem though, I don't think you gave him enough shoes; the heel.
My response to this: Mr. President, I know you don’t like to be shown disrespect. (in his own pathetic words) "So what."
"Boo-Hoo! Obama is turning America into a socialist state" So what!
"Boo-Hoo! Obama is going to redistribute the wealth to all those little people who didn't work as hard as me! It's not fair"! So what!
Oh! The Republican side of me is going to have fun, with this!
So what exactly is the good thing he did for Africa?
YOU win!
I'm going through my closet now, and selecting everything that didn't fit, wasn't in style, wrong color, wrong everything (when it comes to shoes...) and I'm fed exing them to Crawford, TX.
Please, everyone, do the same.
All my lipstick tubes went to Wasilla...
Now, I'm sending the useless, soul-less heels to Crawford, Tx.
It's worth the price of freight. Send the message. Send it today!
Thanks. But, no thanks!
If I only had a pair of bull-riding spurred cowgirl-boots! But, Alas! No.
Join and send. Join and Send the message.
Blessings, Ann...beautifully crafted article, and a concise list of no-no's achieved by our national villiage idiot.
Wilka
January 20, 2009 - The End of an Error
I agree with Mary's statements. You only see things you dislike and don't bother looking for any good in someone you made your mind up about, a long time ago. That's sad.
You can be certain to start reading lots of hate posts about your great BO real soon ... IF the supremes decide to not make him prove where he was born. But.. of course ... you'd not mind the constitution being changed to allow a citizen from any country to be our president anyway.... right?
This post and all the hateful responses are a sad picture of our society. It's responses and posts like this, that make me ashamed to be American. You have your free speech rights and you use them very freely. Let's hope we all continue to have free speech, in the coming years.
Bush, worst president, ever.
I'll give you TWO golden "tens" for this one. Nicely done.
..
U
I do have comments about everyones favorite President Elect, If you think things were bad with Bush, I got news for you, Its about to get a whole lot worse. His campaign was unclear and full of questionable people and statements. I just hope the people of this country don't all start claiming they didn't vote for him after things start going downhill. BUT, If they hold true to Obama, They will as he has changed his stance SEVERAL times. To me, He has already failed everyone of this country for not addressing Congress about this tragedy we call the Big 3. REGARDLESS if he has taken office, IF he was going to try an make NON-Belivers like myself have some kind of optimism that maybe, JUST MAYBE, He WILL be what this country needs, He would have done what he said he was going to do and help the Middle-Class before their extinct. ADDRESS Congress. Even if it doesn't work, Make that gesture of good faith. Wait, I don't want the faith he attended for 20 years representing us, WAIT, He did toss that man under the bus when his numbers dropped, thats right. In good FAITH, he could have spoke up. Period. To me, He is already a Questionable President and he hasn't even taken office yet. Whats that going to say when he does?
George W. Bush for the last year has done NOTHING. He is literally sitting back and watching. Sorry Mary, But I want to hear about the "Good" he did for the country he RAN. Not other countries.
Agents need to be a little more attentive and security needs to be upgraded a lot over there and probably in all future news conferences everywhere.
I'm still shocked that the secret service were so far away that he was able to throw TWO shoes at him.
Wurdzgurl !!!
Is the key phrase here, "more than any other country or leader"? I don't know for sure in this instance but for the most part (in general), it seems that many other countries (and many private citizens of the U.S.) complain about what is or has not been done by the U.S. but aren't doing it themselves either; whatever 'it' happens to be at any particular moment. They wait for the U.S. to shoulder most of the burden and then they complain about how she positions it on her back. +sigh+ For the moment in this thread, the burden is Africa.
One more thought--do you have any idea how much President Bush has done for Africa? More than any other country or leader. It's a shame how easily what he does for good is overlooked. And out country is still safe! Yes, it's a shame you can't look at the positive, but then those who look at somethings negatively, usually look at most thing negatively. They never learned to look for the good. It's sad.
Mary Bradley McCauley
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Tuesday/Columns/copy_of_2416731/Article/index_html
So what is George W. Bush's redemption? What is his great legacy to the world? One word: Africa.
And believe me when I tell you that it's a far cry from Bill Clinton's legacy of Somalia and Rwanda.
A month ago, Africans from all over the continent rejoiced in celebration of a black man being elected president of the United States. The irony of it, is that Africa's great black hope was already here, only it came in the guise of the very white George W. Bush.
With an initiative that has gone largely unnoticed outside the continent itself, the US$15 billion (RM50 billion) President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief is now in its fifth year and is the most significant aid programme in Africa today. And while the programme has been criticised for emphasising abstinence in AIDS education and the use of religious organisations to deliver care, it is nevertheless responsible for extending millions of lives via the distribution of antiretroviral drugs, medical equipment, and the training of large numbers of healthcare staff.
To the 19 million in Africa and the Caribbean infected with HIV, it is an absolute godsend and a true example of money actually reaching where it should.
But there's more. Under the Bush administration, America is now the largest single donor to the Global Fund for AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, and provides for about half of all the emergency food aid across the globe. In fact, no US president has done as much for the Third World as George W. Bush.
But is it enough? What equation of virtue versus vice does George W. Bush need to achieve in order to atone for everything else that's gone wrong? And is it even possible? Successes and failures are never absolute, or even objective; the best that we can do is to give credit where it is due, and to leave everything else for history to judge.
So what exactly is the good thing he did for Africa?
Ann Weaver Hart
And it made me ponder the culture differences just a bit (although to read many of the comments here and elsewhere on this subject one might never know there was a culture difference at all). But anyway, to this man and his countrymen, throwing shoes at the president of the U.S. during a news conference to which he was invited as a civilized member of the press was a great act of patriotism and valor; and a terrible insult to GW.
To me ... he reminded me of a two year old having a temper tantrum. Ordinarily, does that tantrum insult his mother or any other adult in the room? No. It reflects the self-control and maturity level of the two-year-old.
Similarly this "reporter's" actions, in my mind, reflected more on him his upbringing and his character than on GW's (or anyone's).
I pondered it to make sure I wasn't being as partisan as it sounds, and as much as Amadinawhatever grates on me, I would never be tempted to throw anything at him because I hope I am better behaved than that (unless he's pointing a gun at me or waving a machete at my neck; then all bets are off lol).
The election is history, so now we must wait and see what will be as shoes fly in the air. And for those who may not be aware, in the Islamic world, striking someone with shoes is the ultimate insult.
Maurice K.,
So abstinence is a very good start - have to get a handle on it by all means necessary and a change of behavior has to happen however small it might be or all the meds and contraceptives in the world won't stop the spread of or the deaths that occur because of this sexually transmitted disease.
The only things I can remember are that he supported abstinence education in countries where the rate of HIV infection is above 25%,
Ann Weaver Hart
I cannot see him go quickly enough. He is the devil incarnate.
4,000 children are murdered each day in the USA. These little kids never even get to wear little boots.
You used the shoe metaphor fantastically !!
BIG KUDOS !!!
Since 43 ran for office on his Christian credentials, I'd like to add a least one pair of sandals to the pile. 43 definitely did not do the things that Jesus would have done.
Excellent writing, Ann.
You only see things you dislike and don't bother looking for any good in someone you made your mind up about, a long time ago. That's sad. What made this person think you haven't bothered to look? Many of us have been looking for the good in the Bush family for decades - searching daily - and not finding anything. I resent statements like this one, that are based on nothing but projection. That's sad.
Lee Yah, Why is it so important to some people that OTHER people not have sex?
I have the answer to that question.
Who said that? I think it was you, not me.
Here is what I actually said, "So abstinence is a *very good start* - have to get a handle on it *by all means* necessary"
I cannot believe Lee Yah's response, either. Instead of educating people, offering contraception, protection and real medical advice, just tell people to abstain from sexual activity. Talk about moving people back into the Middle Ages. Unbelievable.
Sheryl O
Crawford TX 76638
Here is my actual answer to it.
Ann,
mmm... not sure which of my comments inspired you to ask this question but, here is my answer.
Your question does not seem to be particularly about the African situation or the HIV situation in other countries, so putting the Africa and other country's HIV situation aside ....
If I'm paying for their abortions, for their meds or for hospital stays if and when they get an std or the big one.. AIDS .. or irresponsibly have yet another baby with still no discernible way to care for or support that child etc ... or if I'm paying for their birth control whether they use it responsibly or forget to use it, if I'm paying for any or all consequences of anyone's sexual activity of any kind it's a big deal. If some or all of that happens on my dime I certainly do have every right to try to educate them to behave in a way that may mitigate my financial liability and emotional roller coaster in regard to their choices in regard to their private activities.
Um ... it's kind of like the bailout for the big 3. Not sure where you stand on that but for me IF the big 3 get money from taxpayers (me and you) of course they have to make some changes in the way they do business so that we have some assurance that we'll get some or all of the loan back. Mmmm? This issue about private sexual activities is the same thing as that one. What I mean is IF people want me, the taxpayer, to pay for their sexual activities and/or the consequences thereof, then I think it's okay to begin to require them to make some changes in the way they "do business" (no insulting inuendo meant) so there isn't so much for me to pay for. To that end I think it's okay to make them take classes and to practice how to make better choices including teaching them that abstinence really can be a safe, fool proof, viable choice and not an impossible mission.
On the other hand, if they keep their activities as private as you think they should be (behind their own closed doors hopefully and with any luck at all), their hands out of my pocket, and their noses out of the public trough so to speak irt facilitating and funding their private sexual activities and any consequences thereof, I am happy for them to keep their sexual activities private as I wish they still were and as they should be. If that is the case my opinion is that anyone can have as much or as little sex with anyone they want to have it with and I'm happy to leave them to their privacy irt it (with a couple of exceptions), as long as they keep it private.
So, to answer your question, when I as a taxpayer for whatever reasons end up paying the bills for the consequences of other people's private sexual activities, their private sexual activities become my public big deal.
Lee Yah, Why is it so important to some people that OTHER people not have sex?
I have the answer to that question.
Sandy Knauer
We supposedly live in a republic that values and allows free speech. Our policies must, therefore, incorporate a range of political views. If I object to my taxes going to kill people in Iraq, too bad. I can speak out against it, but the policy continues in effect.
Likewise, if your taxes go to helping poor women avoid pregnancy, too bad. There is a wide range of policies that can provide that help, and you are free to speak against whichever ones you choose, but the fact that your taxes support it is irrelevant.
I think I understand at least as much as many who have posted here, quite a bit less than others possibly, but certainly enough to see your point about policy and the range of political views that must be addressed, and have accepted it long ago. It's a +shrug+ issue and I think is irrelevant to the question and the particular context given in the question that I was asked, and to my answer.
I was asked a certain question in the context of why something so private to someone else is such a public big deal.
The fact is regardless of whether or not the policies that fund some citizens sexual activities and needs are a fact and a function of a government like ours, the answer to the particular question I was asked was not about whether those policies should or should not be in place, the answer is that as soon as someone comes to the public trough, their business becomes my business, *becomes* everyone's business publically whether any of us likes it or not.
That fact can't really be refuted or insulted away. In other words, "the fact that my taxes support it" isn't really the issue but *is* the answer to why these issues are or become a public big deal. If someone wants money from "the government", from me, from you .... their business becomes our business no matter how private it should or might be otherwise.
Maybe I'm not saying it as clearly as I could say it but there it is.
One track minds ... please don't take that too badly it's just that you have focused on the one thing you do not like or can't phathom in the plan and have ignored the rest. Abstinence is not the only thing offered. It is only one part. I don't know for sure about all this stuff, but here is (partially) what I've read on many sites about that particular thing:
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Tuesday/Columns/copy_of_2416731/Article/index_html
"And while the programme has been criticised for emphasising abstinence in AIDS education and the use of religious organisations to deliver care, it is nevertheless responsible for extending millions of lives via the distribution of antiretroviral drugs, medical equipment, and the training of large numbers of healthcare staff.
To the 19 million in Africa and the Caribbean infected with HIV, it is an absolute godsend and a true example of money actually reaching where it should."
Lee and Mary Bradley--I'm sorry. Telling Africans "just keep it in your pants" to avoid HIV infection is not helpful. The fact that they spent my tax dollars to be unhelpful simply adds insult to injury.
Ann Weaver Hart,
This conversation isn't really going anywhere ... better writers and thinkers than you or I have failed to agree or come to terms with all the irresponsible and greedy as well as sad and tragic arms and legs of the subject so let me just focus once again on the privacy issue that seems to be a sore spot for some of us.
I *want* other people's sex life to be their private business. Really. Soooo, let me leave you with this thought ---- Your (the general 'your' not you in particular) ... Your sex life should be as private as your or my religion; take care of it yourself, keep it out of policy and off of TV and from my children and their classroom and we'll get along fine. Otherwise, it's gonna be public and subject to regulation and scrutiny just like banks, car companies, safety concerns in workplace, and civil rights. +shrug+
My sex life *is* private. My religion is private. I like it that way. But, you can't have it both ways. Either someone's sex life is private stuff or it's paid for out of public funding becoming public and thus subject to scrutiny by me even through the glass of my particular religious background. That's just the way it is.
Your religion should be as private as your sex life. Hide it from me in your policy and we'll get along fine. Abstinence is not viable family planning.
Ann Weaver Hart
So, I guess Christmas at your house is a no? +chuckling+
If I'm poor, I can't have sex without your permission, because I cannot afford my own contraception?
Did I get that right? That's what it sounds like.
Re the Africa issue. I agree that the US has done better than most other countries... However the distribution of CONDOMS along with the 'Abstinence Education' would have probably done much more towards the prevention of AIDS and other STD's than just 'Abstinence Education'.
The number of people who have started Obama bashing before the man has even been sworn in is ridiculous. I mean he has done more towards making sure his Cabinet and Administration are ready to get down to business as soon as the innaugeration is over than any other President. Whether you voted for the man or not for pete's sake give him a chance to sink or swim before you condem him!
then those who look at somethings negatively, usually look at most thing negatively.
Maybe this person needs hold the mirror up to herself and think about what she is saying... (pot-kettle?)
But, once again let me try to clarify. I did not say whether I was either for or against helping the poor in this area. What I did do was give one answer to a question about why these kinds of things may be more publicly discussed than any of us would like them to be.
Here is what I said and what I meant:
Either someone's sex life is private (and paid for out of their own pocket) or it's paid for out of public funding becoming public and thus subject to scrutiny by me (not me personally but the taxpayer me in the form of my senators and representatives). Just like any other program that is government (taxpayer) funded. +shrug+
Lee, let me see if I understand you.
If I'm poor, I can't have sex without your permission, because I cannot afford my own contraception?
Did I get that right? That's what it sounds like.
Ann Weaver Hart,
If I am poor, and I cannot afford to pay for my own contraception, the government gets to tell me that I may not have sex?
So we are allowed to regulate prostitution if it is paid for out of public funding?
As I understand, it is the contraception that is being paid for, not the sex. And yes, we want public regulation over the companies that produce these products so the tax payers get our money's worth.
Okay, I'll try again.
If I am poor, and I cannot afford to pay for my own contraception, the government gets to tell me that I may not have sex?
Ann Weaver Hart
libramoon said.
So we are allowed to regulate prostitution if it is paid for out of public funding?
I don't know for sure in this instance but for the most part (in general), it seems that many other countries (and many private citizens of the U.S.) complain about what has or has not been done by the U.S. (or we could insert Bush here) but aren't doing it themselves either; whatever 'it' happens to be at any particular moment. ... *They wait for the U.S. to shoulder most of the burden and then they complain about how she positions it on her back.* --- They wait for the US to do most of it then complain she didn't do it all in every way yesterday. +sigh+
Kathleen ? L. said
Re the Africa issue. I agree that the US has done better than most other countries... However the distribution of CONDOMS along with the 'Abstinence Education' would have probably done much more towards the prevention of AIDS and other STD's than just 'Abstinence Education'.
When people are poor, they have two choices when it comes to sex. They can seek public assistance for pregnancy prevention, or they can seek help after they are already pregnant. Now, as a liberal, I think it is infinitely more sensible to make it easy to avoid pregnancy. The conservatives who have had the upper hand for the last 8 years disagree with me, preferring to make it difficult to obtain contraception, and telling people "just don't do it."
People will not give up screwing. It's built into their genes. So why is it that conservatives insist on swimming up this stream? It costs more to support children on welfare than it does to buy their mothers birth control pills, but somehow, y'all don't see it that way. The only thing I can figure is that your religion is intruding on policy.
I'm not being obtuse, and I'm not being duplicitous. I simply don't understand why conservatives insist on dictating who can do what with whom. It's none of their business and out of their control anyway.
I do have to say that he ducks well. I also have to say that his Security is lacking. If that media clip said an underlying anything, it is that Bush has no protection whatsoever. Even shoes can make their way at his head. Good Lord! Obviously the Show Thrower is not the only one who doesn't have any respect for him or his well-being. His Security Team I hope he fires. I'm sure they won't care --
A gift for Bush!
Although I know many of us would like to throw something a lot harder than a shoe... Something I suppose he and his followers would consider a CRIME, though he/they sure didn't think it was any kind of "crime" to throw BOMBS at lots of innocent people, did he/they??
GT
I just wanted to say I am finally going through what is now under 7,400 pieces of gather new mail that is in my inbox on here. So with that in mind I have finally come to a piece of mail that was addressed to me in regards this article submission you have created to share with the gather community. Thank you for taking the time and sharing your piece with us here at gather. :o)
And as well Merry Christmas... and Happy Holidays... :o)
*I* certainly don't want to know or dictate what anyone does in their bedroom or anywhere else and as long as they themselves keep it in their bedroom or at least behind their own closed doors, (ie and not in the classroom or in the middle of the street or the aisles of my church) I like it better that way and in that case, anyone can certainly do what they want to do.
However, if someone accepts public money for something that should be kept private the government can and will but their noses in where it doesn't belong and regulate the how much's and how often's of most of the whatever's that come up ... or don't come up as the case the may be. Not just conservatives. And recently ... not even the conservatives.
Note what is going on in the news these days... you being one of the more vocal on how good Obama is doing to be sticking his nose in where it doesn't belong irt private sector businesses ... And the justification he uses for it? They took public funds.
I don't think it's right that they got the public bailouts in the first place; and I don't think it's right that the Admin is in the business of taking over private sector businesses. But once these businesses started eating at the public trough, it's a given that the government is gonna stick their noses their feet and their hands into it.
And while I don't think it should have been done in the first place, just like those who "need" the government to pay for their private wants, those companies put their necks under Obama's foot and can't really complain if/when he grinds them under it a bit.
It's wrong. I don't want to be in their business. They shouldn't have accepted it and he shouldn't have offered it, but now it's accepted ... AIG's and Chrysler's etc private business has become our public business. +shrug+
Same-same.
I'm not being obtuse, and I'm not being duplicitous. I simply don't understand why conservatives insist on dictating who can do what with whom. It's none of their business and out of their control anyway.
Ann Weaver Hart, Dec 18, 2008, 11:38pm EST