Bush's Original Farewell Address Leaked to Press

Dear America States -

I beenz Precedent of The United over 8 to 10 yearz gone bye. I haz fun to be Precedent of y'all, even immegrantz, but not gayz. I am done now with itz. Here is my list of favorites, all favoritez, for you:

- I gotz wear pilot costoom suit on big boat. BIG BOAT!

- My house haz bowling amy for bowling ballz. Me and Karl play. Karl iz fat.

- Mister Chainy gave me cake for me only me because I go get him oil from sandy country in dessert. Camels. Mister Chainee likez oil. I gets cakez.

- We played hide andgoseek with Valery Planes. I think I winned.

- Carl show me picturez of ewwy pile of guys with naked buttz in prison. Eww.

- Easter EGGS!!!!!!

- Barney bitez me once and I bitez him back!!

- Karl cut up my pretzels because once once it pretselz hurt my neck. Owwy. But now little tiny weeny pretselz no hurt George.

- Bye bye Donny Rumsfelt. Donny leave. No one know where hez go?? Smell still here.

- I win Amarica.

Daddy said I comez back to Texas now. Yea! No more scary microfone men reports. Barney bitez one once! That was best day of my Barney. Good Barney.

See you next time I'z Precedent!!

~Goerge
(Previously titled: My Farewell to "Bush Is Stupid" Jokes - We Will Miss Thee)

Bouquets, Boots and Bush

By Ram Puniyani

During the press conference in Iraq a Iraqi journalist, Muntadhar al-Zaidi, in an act of protest, hurled his shoes at George Bush. (December 2008) One does not know how the American President took it but one knows that the Iraqi people, were very elated at this insult hurled on their aggressor. Since the second Gulf War, 2003 the condition in Iraq has been worsening rapidly to disastrous proportions. By the way, one must introspect and correct the terminology, war. It was not a war; it was an invasion by the US on Iraq.

Just to recapitulate US, in its dreaded role as the global imperial power has been attacking country after country in a reckless manner. After the collapse of USSR, the other super power, the US has pursued its ambition of controlling and exploiting oil of the gulf region nakedly, apart from its overall hegemonic behavior all around. The US governments irrespective of their being Republican or Democrat, have been keeping the US war machinery on the boil. Many a countries in the gulf region have been the victims of US designs. Iraq in particular has come under the chopping block since the Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait. Iraq as such had been supported strongly by US during its war against Iran. During that time Saddam Hussein not only waged the war with Ayatollah Khomeini’s regime but also committed atrocities on the helpless Kurds in Iraq. These deeds of Iraq were staunchly and materially supported by US, as at that time for US, Iran was supposed to be the major problem in the region. This more so after the Ayatollah overthrew the US puppet regime of Raza Shah Pehlvi.

After the Iran-Iraq war ended in1988, US felt that the large army it had helped build in Iraq will be a threat to its domination in the gulf region and should be demolished. Iraq foolishly walked into the trap laid by the US. Through its allies in the region Saudi Arab and Kuwait, it put severe economic pressure on Iraq, which made Iraq think of invading Kuwait. When Saddam Hussein talked about his plans to US ambassador April Glaspie, she categorically stated that ‘we have no opinion on your border dispute’, meaning there by, you are free to go ahead, we won’t interfere.

As soon as Iraq invaded Kuwait and declared that Kuwait is the 24th state of Iraq, US jumped to shout that Kuwait Sheikh’s sovereignty has been violated and that Iraq will be taught a lesson. Iraq pledged to withdraw its troops. Ignoring that, US went for a decisive strike, blockading Iraqi soldieries, who were willing to withdraw, and stopping supplies to Iraq. Betraying the worst of imperialist greed Iraq was bombed by US, its electrical systems and sewerage plants were destroyed, with the result that millions of Iraqis perished due to war, the accompanying sanctions and spread of diseases. Blinded by its greed the US secretary of state Madeleine Albright affirmed that all this destruction was worth to save the Sovereignty of Sheikh of Kuwait.

After the 9/11 2001 and the consequent attack on Afghanistan, US came back to old goal of expanding its hold on oil zone by occupying Iraq. It decided to build up its case of attacking Iraq by declaring that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. UN, though not a political force any more, deputed its inspectors to find if Iraq had such weapons. None could be found. That was not to deter the tyrannical empire. It went ahead with its preparations of the war. It went on to add the excuse that Iraq is supporting Al Qaeda. It was a common knowledge that Saddam had no link with this organization, which any way was the creation of US itself. As a prelude to war US leaders started saying that Iraqi people are fed up of the tyrannies of Saddam and they need to be liberated. Dick Cheney, the US Vice President went on to say that US troops will be welcomed as the liberating forces by Iraqis and will be greeted with bouquets. A good pretext was laid; a sense of mission was put on as the mask.

The invading US armies were resisted but the resistance fell through against the might of the formidable army. Still resistance was on through various forms till the total occupation took place. The occupying army unleashed a reign of terror for which the US leaders need to face the court of human conscience. The tip of iceberg of atrocities was displayed to the horrified world when it saw the US army torturing Iraqi soldiers. In Abu Ghraib prison they were stripped naked and made to form a human pyramid! Arrogance of the occupying army of the most democratic and civilized state of US! An international jury, disturbed by the goings on in Iraq, put together a tribunal, International tribunal on War crimes in Iraq (2005). This Jury of Conscience from 10 different countries heard the testimonies of 54 members of the panel of Advocates who came from across the world, including Iraq, the United States and the United Kingdom. This global civil initiative came to an end with a press conference at the Hotel Armada where the Chair of the Jury of Conscience, Arundathi Roy, announced the Jury’s conclusions, “The attack on Iraq is an attack on justice, on liberty, on our safety, on our future, on us all.”(http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?b=93)

Why is the world witnessing such a massive erosion of human values, the trampling of international norms, conventions? US after its humiliation in Vietnam had decided not to send its armies to outside countries for some time and during that time, to counter the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, it propped up Al Qaeda type terrorists. From last three decades its aggressive designs are rampaging not only the countries of the world but also the spirit of humanism as a whole. The undermining of United Nations by US arrogance has been a major reason contributing to miseries of the World today. US actions to couch its politics in the language of religion, to prop up the theory of Clash of Civilizations, to demonize Islam and Muslims can be regarded as one of the worst sins against humanity in contemporary times.

As per US claims that wherever it intervenes it brings in democracy, lesser said the better. Earlier when the Colonial powers came to plunder the colonies they wore the mask of ‘civilizing mission’, of carrying the burden of civilizing the colonies. Now US while pursuing its role of plundering the oil resources of the world is putting on the mask of ‘exporting democracy’. Let’s remember democracy or for that matter no social system can be exported. USSR in it’s hey days was claiming to export socialism. Social systems can nurture themselves if they develop from within. What British colonial powers did in India was to plant the poisonous seeds of communalism and what US is doing in countries it invades is to bring in sectarianism. It has, during its occupation, promoted ethnic and tribal cliques. It has heightened the divides on the lines of Shia-Sunni, and other narrow identities. The economic condition of Iraq has worsened and the number of lives lost due to US misdeeds runs over millions.

It’s a shame that in the name of civilizing missions, exporting democracy etc., few powerful nations have brought in misery to these victim states in particular and human society in general. It is high time the world wakes up to the threat of this barbarism, the brute force trampling and causing miseries all over the World. The need for democracy amongst the nations, the concept of non alignment at global level and strengthening of United Nations through World Peace movement is the need for the hour. Bush rightly deserved the humiliation for what his/US policies have brought in to Iraq. Muntadhar al-Zaidi, who threw his boots, is rightly being hailed as a hero by Iraqis and many others. What US administration wanted to believe that it will get bouquets, was a make believe to invade. The boot it is getting now is what these invasions deserve. The crime against Iraq and humanity as a whole, is one of the serious tragedies of our times.

Achieving the Impossible: Expectations for an Obama Presidency

By Lincoln Mitchell

Managing expectations, as we saw again in 2008, is a key part of presidential campaigns. If a candidate is unable to meet expectations, a minor defeat, or even a narrow victory can be a serious setback. The most historic example of this was in 1968 when Lyndon Johnson dropped out of the race for the Democratic nomination for president after the New Hampshire primary where the peace candidate, Eugene McCarthy, didn't actually beat President Johnson but merely exceeded expectations by coming within six points of the incumbent president. New Hampshire was again the place for unmet expectations this year when a somewhat unremarkable victory by Hillary Clinton, in a state she had long been expected to win, breathed new life into her campaign because in the few days leading up to that primary, Obama had been expected to win that state.
Expectations are even more difficult to manage during the early days of a presidency. Some presidents succeed in keeping expectations relatively low. For example, when George H. W. Bush took office very few Americans expected much from him. Expectations for the first President Bush upon taking office might have been described as more of the same, only less. Bush, of course only served one term, but it was the recession of the early 1990s that led to his defeat, not unmet expectations. Four years later, Bill Clinton took office amid high hopes for health care, welfare reform and other domestic reform. Clinton's failure to make progress in any of these areas during his first two years, led to his party's defeat at the polls in 1994. Clinton learned his lesson from that experience and for the remainder of his time in the White House kept expectations low. Clinton's 1996 campaign was a great example of this as his campaign slogan of a "bridge to the 21st century" essentially promised that if Clinton was reelected, by the end of his term it would be the 21st century. Once reelected, Clinton was able to pursue a course of stewarding the economy as well as some foreign policy successes without having to worry about unreachable expectations.
When Barack Obama takes office in January, due to the all things to all people nature of his appeal, he will do so amidst a range of hopes and expectations, including ending the war in Iraq, getting the economy back on track, rebuilding tattered relations with numerous allies and even changing the way we eat and what we drive that is more imposing than those faced by any of his recent predecessors. Achieving all of these goals will be almost impossible. Achieving even one or two of them would be an extraordinary accomplishment.
To achieve this, Obama needs to have a well planned out legislative agenda, with probably no more than three or so major pieces of legislation for his first year, from which he does not get sidetracked no matter what external events occur. Health care reform or a progressive energy bill are the kinds of legislation which will require focus and priority setting from the administration, but which can easily fall out of focus in the face of larger and external events. However, these bills are very important and will be a central part of how President Obama will be evaluated.
Obama will, of course, also be evaluated on how he handles the two biggest issues of the campaign and likely of his presidency, at least its early years, as well. These two issues, the economy and the war in Iraq, raise different challenges regarding hope and expectations. A drawdown of troops in Iraq is now almost inevitable. This was a central promise of Obama's campaign; and now the conventional wisdom has largely caught up with where Obama was more than a year ago. Meeting this campaign promise, at least in part, will not be difficult, but Obama must make sure to take the credit for this. It is even possible that this drawdown will happen relatively quickly and without much controversy.
The problems of the economy are much graver and less likely to be solved easily, or early, by President Obama. All those hoping for a quick economic turnaround once Obama and his team come to power in the New Year will almost certainly be disappointed and may lose confidence in Obama. While Obama needs to focus most of his energy on the economy, if it becomes the only issue on which he focuses, and overwhelms the rest of Obama's legislative agenda, Obama will accomplish little in the White House and may well be ultimately viewed as a failure for his inability to solve the economic problems created by previous administrations. The economy is the issue where Obama is most needed, but also where he has the most to lose. For this reason, immediately reducing expectations around the economy and warning American that there will be no quick solutions will be essential for Obama's political fortunes.
The early keys to a successful Obama administration will be both managing these expectations and setting up an administration that will be proactive and not get sidetracked by the inevitable events and crises, both foreseen and unforeseeable, which occur during all presidencies. We have no way of really knowing what other issues will dominate Obama's presidency, just as few would have predicted that George W. Bush's presidency would have been largely defined by a Global War on Terror, that Bill Clinton's presidency would have been primarily driven by foreign policy or that George H. W. Bush would owe his defeat to an economic downturn. To be a good president Obama will have to respond effectively to all of these unforeseen crises; to be a great president he will also have to succeed on his own terms with his own agenda.

'Bush shoe' creates 100 new jobs in Turkey

London, Dec 23 : The world's most notorious pair of black leather shoes, that made history, has even generated 100 jobs in Turkey.

The footwear that robbed George W Bush of his dignity and landed its owner Iraqi journalist Muntazer al-Zaidi – who hurled them at the US President at a press meet in Baghdad – in prison, has yielded an unexpected bonanza for its maker.

Ever since the incident, Ramazan Baydan, the owner of the Istanbul-based Baydan Shoe Company, has been swamped with orders from across the world.

In fact, Baydan has recruited an additional 100 staff to meet orders for 300,000 pairs of Model 271, more than four times the shoe's normal annual sale, following an outpouring of support for Zaidi's act, 'The Guardian' reported.

Orders have come mainly from the US and Britain, and from neighbouring Muslim countries, he said.

Around 120,000 pairs have been ordered from Iraq, while a US company has placed a request for 18,000. A British firm is said to have offered to serve as European distributor for the shoes, which have been on the market since 1999 and sell at around 28 pounds in Turkey.

A sharp rise in orders has been recorded in Syria, Egypt and Iran, where the shoemaker's federation has offered to provide Zaidi and family with a lifetime's supply of shoes.

And, to meet the mood of the marketplace, Baydan is planning to rename the model "Bush Shoe" or "Bye-Bye Bush".

"We've been selling these shoes for years but, thanks to Bush, orders are flying in like crazy. We've even hired an agency to look at television advertising," he was quoted by the British newspaper as saying.

The Shoe : Round the World

By John Kenney

Hitting someone with a shoe is considered the supreme insult in Iraq. It means that the target is even lower than the shoe, which is always on the ground and dirty. IN France, of course, it’s a waffle. Throw a waffle at someone and you have said, in essence: “I loathe you. You are scum. Your people are donkey traders.” It suggests that the target is even lower than a waffle, which is sometimes on the ground if it happens to fall off a plate, and the ground could be dirty, depending upon the ground.

Who’s to say why, exactly? Some say the waffle’s association with Belgium is enough to disgust any Frenchman. Others suggest it is its annoyingly spongy consistency. Still others say it’s the derivation of the word — “le waffle” in French, from the Flemish “wafflintis” and originally the Latin “wafflibus,” all of which translate, loosely, to “waffle.”

For scholars of insults, what comes to mind almost immediately after a high-profile insulting incident is the central African nation of Chad, where hitting someone with a pair of pants is the highest form of insult. It means that the target is lower than pants, the hem of which, while not on the ground, is often near the ground and, again, unclean. The only problem with this form of insult is that the thrower then has to retrieve the pants, as he or she had been wearing them.

For many years people threw shorts, but almost no one was offended, as the hem of shorts is a great distance from the ground. “We’re working on new forms of insult, as well as changing our country’s name, which, strangely, is a common first name in California,” said a Chadian cultural attaché. “We need to be taken more seriously.”

In the former Soviet Union it is not uncommon, especially among the savage Russian mafia, to throw a 68-ton American-made Abrams M1A1 tank. It means that the target is even lower than a tank, whose treads are always on the ground, unless they’re not for some reason — say, repairs or what-have-you. In fairness, though, the throwing of tanks appears to be happening with less frequency, due to the near impossibility of surprise, especially at indoor events.

In Peru, meanwhile, people throw their voices as a form of insult. While not technically near the ground, a voice suggests “sound” and “sound” rhymes with “ground,” the ground being low and possibly unclean, depending upon where, exactly, you’re standing.

Peruvians say that throwing your voice is the ultimate insult because the intended victim doesn’t know where it came from. It is not uncommon to hear someone say, “Who said that?!” on the streets of Lima after a particularly cutting remark. The danger, of course, is insulting someone by trying to throw your voice, but doing it poorly and instead moving your lips. The intended victim knows immediately where it came from.

And what of tiny Bhutan, snug between Tibet in the north and India to the south? In this mysterious Buddhist country, perhaps the only one in the world that measures its Gross National Happiness, people throw brightly colored tissue paper, so as not to hurt anyone. The paper falls harmlessly to the ground — a symbol of both lowness and dirt — and the thrower quickly picks it up, disposes of it, and then apologizes profusely.