The fundamental flaw with asserting a CODEPINK member would be a competent leader is the presumption that CODEPINK affiliation is a meaningful qualifier. CODEPINK makes known the beliefs it supports (and the even-greater number of those it opposes) but fails to establish the critical link that equates those beliefs with an ability to successfully govern, which includes honoring and supporting those beliefs which may not be their own, but which are necessary for responsible government or represent the collective will of the nation.

Such is the case with CODEPINK’s recent appearance at the AIG bonus hearings. Reflecting no consideration of the material facts, (i.e. the bonuses were not “performance” bonuses, they were contractual payments for specific services successfully provided by those who were not responsible for the need to subsidize AIG, and both the treasury secretary and congress had approved their payment), the desire to reflect a “stance” took precedence over the realities it purported to espouse.

For affinity with any particular organization to be considered a qualifier for a successful candidate, that organization must first have earned the credibility it seeks to impart. In the case of CODEPINK, and despite the thousands of women who could and would be effective presidents, I’m afraid I don’t agree.

Throwing your shoes at someone is an attack, not “speech.” I cannot throw my shoes at you as you walk down the street, you would have me arrested or committed. Not that it matters, you are all reacting to this as if it happened in America. What we wanted was for Iraq to be able to govern itself, and now it can. Quit projecting your Bush hate on the Iraqi justice system.

If you all started viewing the world objectively, maybe people would take your group seriously.

Naba Hamid, I don’t think you truly understand the situation in your country before 2003 or now.

Grilo D, your arguments not based in any sort of fact, he was not attacked by Bush (in fact, HE attacked Bush). Acting on strong emotion is not a defense for attacking another person. For a non-socio-path, strong emotion is actually a requirement for a human to attack another human. Bush certainly is not an Invader, as the legitimate and legal government of Iraq not only desires but required US presence in their country to maintain security.

Meredith B, you should just keep to yourself, or at least be much more careful when you state your opinion. Not that I don’t support your right to free speech, but you managed to make no sense in your first sentence and then attack the wrong person in your only other sentence.

I would certainly welcome any logical arguments.

26 comments

I believe you Americans heard about the event of hurl a pair of shoes on the face of Bush by Muntazar the journalist, but this man is a human being as well please don’t forget that.

What you heard is only part of the story. Through your media you will never get the whole picture. You know only a tiny part “the overt story” but the covert story of the war crimes, occupation and destruction of a state and traumatizing millions of people constitute the bulk of the story.
It is a black spot and stigma in the repetition of America.

I will tell you the hidden part of the shoe story!
Muntazar as an Iraqi suffered a lot from the shameful strategist of America in handling Iraq after toppling Saddam’s regime, bad security, and harsh destruction of the country. Muntazar as an Iraqi has observed rivers of blood in the streets of Baghdad, more than million Iraqi were killed, two million widow women, about five million orphans, five million refugees, hundred thousands of best professionals and scholars were either killed, kidnapped or fled the country, loss of basic needs and many more!

Muntazer himself was kidnapped few months ago and his family had to pay ransom for getting him back to life.

Bush and his administration come to Iraq at any time they want and not necessarily by invitation or with the consent of the Government of Iraq.
What a moment? Muntazer the victim finds him self face to face with his executioner! Hearing the arrogance and provocation when Bush said:
“I took the war resolution on Iraq for America’s security and safety of the world!”
What offense and insult? America violated the borders of Iraq to help secure the borders of America? Iraq is being slaughtered and Iraqis cannot sleep from fear but Americans stay safe? Iraqi children sleep on empty stomach, Iraqi woman can not reach hospital and her baby born dead while America encouraged its nation to grow for the glory of America!

Bush you are the president of the greatest country in the world; you have sent the world calls for fighting terrorism?
Muntazar responded, Bush you are the terrorist who destroyed my nation and my country.
Iraq neither a sacrifice nor offering for America.

What kind of message does that send about using violence against anyone, even someone as lowly as George H.W. Bush?

Best regards and keep up,
Grilo D