"Shoes Fly, Don't Bother Me" soundtrack to Bush's (R) latest visit to Iraq

[DanaC]

Just as an aside: we're getting too hung up on the soldiers who have committed these acts. The fact is that even if a soldier is doing his job well, that doesn't mean the average person in Baghdad is going to feel it is fair enough if his family are wiped out by a bomb. To us it might be collateral damage: to them it is the wholesale slaughter of their nearest and dearest. In effect it must feel little different to the slaughtering of innocents by Saddam. When we bombed Baghdad back to the stone age; did we really think that ordinary people caught up in that bombing would welcome us? Might they not instead feel as if we'd dropped bombs all over their city? When one of our soldiers makes an understandable human error and mistakes a wedding party for a bunch of insurgents and bombs said party, might not the friends and relatives of those killed come away with an abiding hatred of us and our troops and see us as the enemy? Whatever our reasons for being there it was not at the request of the ordinary people of Baghdad: to many of them we were aggressors and our leaders warmongers. Even those who may have wanted assistance removing Saddam from his perch, doesn't mean they wanted their homes destroyed in the process. If you had a problem with rodents, and the exterminators blew up your house, you would not calmly thank them for ridding you of your rats. You might even throw something at them.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Just as an aside: we're getting too hung up on the soldiers who have committed these acts.

That was the point.

The fact is that even if a soldier is doing his job well, that doesn't mean the average person in Baghdad is going to feel it is fair enough if his family are wiped out by a bomb. To us it might be collateral damage: to them it is the wholesale slaughter of their nearest and dearest. In effect it must feel little different to the slaughtering of innocents by Saddam. When we bombed Baghdad back to the stone age; did we really think that ordinary people caught up in that bombing would welcome us? Might they not instead feel as if we'd dropped bombs all over their city? When one of our soldiers makes an understandable human error and mistakes a wedding party for a bunch of insurgents and bombs said party, might not the friends and relatives of those killed come away with an abiding hatred of us and our troops and see us as the enemy? Whatever our reasons for being there it was not at the request of the ordinary people of Baghdad: to many of them we were aggressors and our leaders warmongers. Even those who may have wanted assistance removing Saddam from his perch, doesn't mean they wanted their homes destroyed in the process. If you had a problem with rodents, and the exterminators blew up your house, you would not calmly thank them for ridding you of your rats. You might even throw something at them.

I can't disagree.

[classicman]

Interview with Senator Harry Reid, NBC’s Meet the Press, December 5, 2004

MR. RUSSERT: When the president talked about Yucca Mountain and moving the nation's nuclear waste there, you were very, very, very strong in your words. You said, "President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country."

Is that rhetoric appropriate?

SEN. REID: I don't know if that rhetoric is appropriate. That's how I feel, and that's how I felt. I think to take that issue, Tim, to take the most poisonous substance known to man, plutonium, and haul 70,000 tons of it across the highways and railways of this country, past schools and churches and people's businesses is wrong. It's something that is being forced upon this country by the utilities, and it's wrong. And we have to stop it. And people may not like what I said, but I said it, and I don't back off one bit.

h/t Brian Walsh

More, via Tim Grieve, from a 2005 Rolling Stone sit-down:

RS: You've called Bush a loser.

HR: And a liar.

RS: You apologized for the loser comment.

HR: But never for the liar, have I?

Whatever your personal opinion of what he said may be, this is not the first time its happened... nor the last.

What was Reid's punishment? I can't seem to find it anywhere.

Originally Posted by classicman

Whatever your personal opinion of what he said may be, this is not the first time its happened... nor the last.

What was Reid's punishment? I can't seem to find it anywhere.

I dont condone these types of attacks by our top elected officials, but it is a different playing field completely.

Reid's remarks were not on the floor of the Senate where such actions are prohibited.

Both were in poor taste, but only one went a step further and violated the commonly known and accepted policies of the organization as they apply within the physical boundaries of the organization.

[classicman]

Both were by elected members - I find them equally distasteful and unacceptable.
Where it was said matters MUCH less to me than what was said.

Originally Posted by classicman

Both were by elected members - I find them equally distasteful and unacceptable.
Where it was said matters MUCH less to me than what was said.

OK, but there is a place for rules as well and consequences if you violate those rules.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

OK, but there is a place for rules as well and consequences if you violate those rules.

Does "ok" mean you agree? Is this the first time this has ever happened in this situation? If so, I'm surprised.

What is the "rule" you mention?

Originally Posted by classicman

Does "ok" mean you agree? Is this the first time this has ever happened in this situation? If so, I'm surprised.

What is the "rule" you mention?

I agree that comments by both were in poor taste and both should apologize.

The rules of the House are adopted each session, but there are standard protocols of decorum that go back to the very early days of Congress.

This is from the Republican side of the House Rules Committee referring to decorum and civility on the floor of the House :

The precedents of the House allow a wide latitude in criticism of the President, other executive officials, and the government itself. However, it is not permissible to use language that is personally offensive to the President, such as referring to him as a “hypocrite” or a “liar.” Similarly, it is not in order to refer to the President as “intellectually dishonest” or an action taken by the President as “cowardly.”

http://rules-republicans.house.gov/E...Read.aspx?ID=5

Oh..and turn your cell phones off!

[Undertoad]

[classicman]

From Redux's link.

The offending Member may obtain unanimous consent to withdraw the inappropriate words or the demand may be withdrawn. Following such a withdrawal, the Member proceeds in order. However, if the Member’s words are ruled out of order,
they may be stricken from the Congressional Record by motion or unanimous consent,
and the Member will not be allowed to speak again on that day except by motion or unanimous consent.

After all thats been said and done ... move on.