Posted on 12/14/2008 2:30:55 PM PST by Daffynition
Perhaps hold his own shoes up, soles forward, and say with a snile, "Tell him that these are for him, since he seems to have lost his." Maybe?
What do the cultural experts think?
No. But he shouldn't have shrugged it off as inconsequential. It was a deliberate serious insult.
“That’s right. .............................................. Iranian allies, this shoe thowing incedent undermines everything and the war is now officially lost.”
In the long run, shortly after we pull out, Iraq will once again degenerate into the kind of mindless violence and anarchy typical of Islamic nations unless another military dictator arises to command obedience. The “democracy” you are applauding is responsible for increased violence against Iraqi Christians such as never occurred under Saddam. “Democracies” don't drive thousands of their own citizens from their homes over religious matters.
“Other than having General Petreaus implement the brilliant counter-insurgency surge which led to the routing of the al-Qaeda and Iranina backed militias, Bush did nothing at all.”
Yeah. And it only took how many dollars, how many years and how many lives for him to figure out the obvious - the bigger the military presence the less effective the opposition. George Bush II - military expert.
“No you didn’t. You wrote in Ron Paul both times and became so infuriated that when Paul lost, you screamed at the top of your lungs and started thowing your shoes at your fellow Americans.”
Are you calling me a liar? I didn't vote for Ron Paul - he is a foreign policy idiot and an isolationist - check my posts. I know we are involved in a war for survival against Islam - something your military genius apparently hasn't the slightest understanding of.
“Actually, this statement is accurate. I took a scientific poll, and 10 out of 10 code pink memebers agreed with your statement.”
????? Harriet Miers, the Dubai Port Scam, Mexicans digging tunnels under our southern border to infiltrate illegal aliens and drugs in record numbers, Mexican military incursions across our own borders to threaten our security personnel with NO reaction from Bush? How about letting Mexican truckers deliver good across our highways? How about bailing out crooked finance companies and NOW the UAW in defiance of his own political party and the majority of Americans?????
Sure - he's a great president. Most real conservatives recognize the Bushes for what they really are - rank globalists who are more than willing to sell out America's military and economic autonomy to benefit special interest groups.
Some of you FReepers are OFF TRACK. This is an insult against the United States of America, just as the USS Cole attack was. Just dreaming here, but if the SS would have capped the SOB right there, even though libs here would have been hysterical, the MEs would have understood and accepted his execution with “Uh oh, we screwed up, that cowboy is opening a can of whup-ass again!”.
Considering all that our country has done for those pukes (and we know this first hand in our family) there should be retribution but we’re Americans after all, sometimes we’re too damned polite.
I live in a border state for sure (Texas) and border security is also a responsibility of each GOVENOR too, quit giving them a pass and blaming everything on Bush, even though yes, he should have made strong moves right off to secure the borders, etc., etc. A lot of us started reminding “Good Hair” Perry about this and he started rattling his saber, some of my friends were sent on border details (cross-trained w/Homeland Security LE agencies) but “Good Hair” took some heat, well, kinda, sorta...
This lack of resolve is nationwide, not just Bush. They’ve all turned into wusses, it’s everywhere.
You miss the point.
Obviously he shouldn’t have spuuttered or thrown one back. But he most certainly should not have trivialized a serious insult to himself, his office and this country.
Bush is a miserable leader.
FOUR shoes?? I only thought the guy had two!
I guess you and I are the few people who really understand the seriouosness of the insult offered and the inadequacy of Bush’s response.
This “insult” is not worthy of a serious response from Bush.
So what if another culture thinks it’s a big deal to throw shoes at someone. I’m glad Pres. Bush responded the way he did. He responded as an American, not as a Muslim.
That was a great joke, size 10. We Americans look at the incident as some crazy guy throwing a shoe. That’s all.
I do think the Secret Service reaction time was slow. Now that’s a serious subject matter.
Too bad Bush himself didn’t beat the a@@hole senseless. That would play real well in the Arab world.
LOL. I meant he had TIME to throw 4 shoes. Not that he did throw 4 shoes. That would have been quite the spectacle. I guess it’s just a good thing that he wasn’t throwing bottles. Or hand grenades. Because he had really, really good aim, and the SS was obviously asleep. Or dreaming about Obama or something.
Absolutely.
“So what if another culture thinks it’s a big deal to throw shoes at someone.”
To a great degree, you have to deal with people on their own level, especially primitives like this who are locked in a time warp and whom we must influence to achieve our goals. What such a gesture means in our society is irrelevant if it is of great significance to millions of people who are making a value judgment of us based on how we react to what they would consider a grievous personal insult.
I also just found out the guy called Bush a “dog”. In THEIR culture, calling somebody a “dog” is a far more pejorative term than anything we could possibly conjure in our language.
Further, these insults are not merely directed at Bush. They are directed at the U.S.and the west in general. \
If we were not interested in impacting the attitudes of these people in the first place, we shouldn’t have committed our resources there.
“Because he had really, really good aim, “
Must have practised on his wife or kids.
“No. But he shouldn’t have shrugged it off as inconsequential.”
Well, if he shouldn’t have thrown a temper tantrum, and he shouldn’t have shrugged it off, what exactly should he have done?
“It was a deliberate serious insult.”
A deliberate serious insult? By some Joe Shmoe reporter based in Egypt? I take it you never bothered to watch how the US msm treats him during the press conferences.
” Iraq will once again degenerate into the kind of mindless violence “
The nay-sayers claimed that effort to remove Saddam would fail. Then they said that the Iraqi elections would fail. Then they said the surge would fail. Then they said that the IA would fail. Then they said that Maliki’s war against the Sadrists would fail. Being wrong about everything, now they claim that ‘In the long run, Iraq will once again degenerate into the kind of mindless violence..yada yada yada..’ despite the fact that Iraq’s security forces and army are becoming increasing effective at rooting out violence.
“The “democracy” you are applauding..”
The nay-sayers have reached a state of denial as noted with your use of quotations for the word ‘democracy’. Iraq is internationally recognized as a federal, democratic, pluralistic, and unified state and has held free and fair elections that have exceeded the international standards. The P-5 unanimously concluded this via UNSC 1546 and UNSC 1723.
I don't know. I'm not the President. He's supposed to be smarter than me. He might have made a statement about the seriousness of such an insult and how the U.S. doesn't take such insults - even from such an inconsequential nonentity as this guy - lightly.
“A deliberate serious insult? By some Joe Shmoe reporter based in Egypt? I take it you never bothered to watch how the US msm treats him during the press conferences.”
Insults are not suffered lightly in the Islamic world. People there who ignore insults lose face. It is NOT a 21st century western culture.
“The nay-sayers claimed that effort to remove Saddam would fail.”
Wasn't me. I supported and continue to support our removal of Saddam. I had no doubt we could do it. Iraq was a third rate military power. I think our accomplishments in Afghanistan were far more epochal from the perspective of military accomplishment.
“Then they said that the Iraqi elections would fail.”
Well, let’s see - the elections came off without a serious hitch - which was good - but the people who wound up in power are a bunch of miserable Islamic ingrates - which is no surprise considering who elected them.
” Then they said the surge would fail.”
Not me. The use of overwhelming military force to overcome military opposition is a no-brainer unless you are a Democrat - or George Bush II since it apparently took him several years to come to that realization despite advice to the contrary.
” Being wrong about everything, now they claim that ‘In the long run, Iraq will once again degenerate into the kind of mindless violence..yada yada yada..’ despite the fact that Iraq’s security forces and army are becoming increasing effective at rooting out violence.”
Name one Arabic Islamic Democracy which is successful.
“The nay-sayers have reached a state of denial as noted with your use of quotations for the word ‘democracy’. Iraq is internationally recognized as a federal, democratic, pluralistic, and unified state and has held free and fair elections that have exceeded the international standards. The P-5 unanimously concluded this via UNSC 1546 and UNSC 1723.”
Sorry. I'm not impressed. Neither are the thousands of homeless Assyrian and Chaldean Christians who are finding an Islamic “Democracy” can be a far more dangerous place than an Islamic military dictatorship.
You can't assume that all people everywhere are fit to govern themselves or that they are even capable of doing so if the opportunity presents itself.
The best functioning democracy which ever existed is ours. And it didn't get handed to us or spring fully blown from the pages of history. We had to fight for it a long time and it took CENTURIES of practice.
Come back in ten years and tell me its working in Iraq and I will THEN believe it.
“I don’t know.”
Figures.
“seriousness of such an insult”
The guy was a journalist, not a spokesman for the democratically elected government.
“but the people who wound up in power are a bunch of miserable Islamic ingrates “
The people who wound up in power have joined us in marginalizing the Sunni and Shia extremists.
“Name one Arabic Islamic Democracy which is successful.”
Exactly. Our achievement is unprecedented. It shows how absurd the nay-sayers are who are still trying to claim that Iraq is a failure. And they are foolish enough to try to politicize a shoe thowing incident by a journalist as proof of their poorly thought out conclusion.
“I’m not impressed.”
Of course not. You are in denial that Iraq is even a democratic state, despite the unanimous declaration of the P-5.
“Neither are the thousands of homeless Assyrian and Chaldean Christians...”
The crimes you sight are not sanctioned by the democratically elected government and thus are nothing more than fallacious arguments.
“You can’t assume that all people everywhere are fit to govern themselves”
You adhere to cultural condescension.
“The best functioning democracy which ever existed is ours. And it didn’t get handed to us..”
It didn’t get handed to the Iraqis. They fought against both al-Qaeda and Iranian backed militias who were attempting to undermine their democratic state. They joined efforts with coalition members to fight against these elements. We had foreign assistance in our struggle as well.
The guy was a Muslim, insulting our President, and, by extension, America, in a very visible manner and demeaning manner in an Islamic Country.
It was not an occasion for lighthearted levity or a simple brush off as Bush attempted to portray it. It was a serious insult and was so interpreted by the Islamic masses who saw it and approved of it.
“The people who wound up in power have joined us in marginalizing the Sunni and Shia extremists.”
The term “extreme” is a relative one, particularly when referring to Muslims.
“Exactly. Our achievement is unprecedented. It shows how absurd the nay-sayers are who are still trying to claim that Iraq is a failure. And they are foolish enough to try to politicize a shoe thowing incident by a journalist as proof of their poorly thought out conclusion.”
Like I said, come back in ten years and if this is still a pro-American government (assuming it is a pro-American government NOW) and I'll concede the point.
“Of course not. You are in denial that Iraq is even a democratic state, despite the unanimous declaration of the P-5.”
Right. Democracies are based on certain principles concerning minority rights. If these are not followed, it isn't a Democracy, its government by a mob - which is the only one of three types of government in Islamic nations. The other two are anarchy and military dictatorship, all of them generally with theological overtones.
“The crimes you sight are not sanctioned by the democratically elected government and thus are nothing more than fallacious arguments.”
Hardly. A democratic government doesn't allow religious persecution of thousands of its citizens without stopping it. But then Islamic governments are notorious for looking the other way while Muslims beat up Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims - check out Iran, Pakistan and Egypt among many others.
“You adhere to cultural condescension.”
No. I adhere to cultural analysis and Democracy, in the sense that term is interpreted by the culture which created it, and its use in Islam, are totally incompatible.
“It didn’t get handed to the Iraqis. They fought against both al-Qaeda and Iranian backed militias who were attempting to undermine their democratic state. They joined efforts with coalition members to fight against these elements. We had foreign assistance in our struggle as well.”
I think it was more a case of spoon-feeding by the west to a group of primitives with absolutely no concept of what democracy means.
I don't like Muslims, I don't trust them and I don't trust Muslim governments. As a non-Muslim, the preponderance of the weight of historical evidence substantiates my views.
Where I part ways with Bush is where the battle to remove a dangerous dictator became an American crusade to experiment in nation building at great financial and personal cost to this country. It was a failure brought on by the neo-cons and their flawed view of Islam and Islamic society. Muslims aren't just like non-Muslims except for the name of their god, their holy book and they way they dress. They think and behave very differently than we do and are motivated by other goals than motivate us.
Time may prove me wrong and we may very see Iraq evolve into a useful ally in the battle against terror and militant Islam. But I think the weight of recent events and historical precedence weighs strongly against it.
We are in a war and the war is with Islam. Some individual Muslims may prove useful tools to us, as they always have in the past in struggles between Muslims and non-Muslims. But that usefulness is very qualified and limited to the time when they are personally benefiting from that relationship. Once that personal benefit ends, they will revert to the normal state of hostility with non-Muslims.
ALSO, check out article and pictures on
They look like a real good bunch of appreciate democrats.
Primitive savages each and every one.
“The guy was a Muslim, insulting our President..”
And insulting his fellow Muslims who welcomed President Bush. Your attempt to demonize all Muslims using this clown has failed.
“It was not an occasion for lighthearted levity..”
You have already admitted you couldn’t come up with a better way for Bush to handle it.
“The term “extreme” is a relative one..”
The extremists are the ones who embrace the al-Qaeda radicals and Shia radicals like al-Sadr.
“Hardly.”
The government didn’t sanction crimes against Christains. Those are al-Qaeda and Iranian backed militias. They are the same groups that are at war with the coalition and the Iraqi security forces. Your argument is fallicious.
“and its use in Islam, are totally incompatible.”
Try telling that to the Turks. Your interpretation of what constitutes true Islam is no different than al-Qaeda’s interpretation.
“Where I part ways with Bush is where the battle to remove a dangerous dictator became an American crusade to experiment in nation building...”
You show no understanding of history. The objective all along was to foster a democratic Iraq. You would know this if you bothered to study the congressional legislation that authorized Operation Iraqi Freedom. You disregard these facts so you can run around spouting your ignorant ant-war nonsense and complaining about ‘neo-cons’. You’re no less ignorant than the far left and the isolationists who crowned Ron Paul as father of ‘true’ conservatism.
“It was a failure brought on by the neo-cons..”
Still desperately clinging onto the idea that Iraq is a failure, you run around posting statements worthy of the DU.
“We are in a war and the war is with Islam...”
What, then, should we do with the millions of Muslims who are American citizens and reside in America? Also, if we are at war with Islam, why do we have military bases thoughout the Muslim world, like Turkey, Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar, ect...?
You lefties and Paulbots declare that spreading democracy is an agenda of the ‘neocons’. Yet it has been our objective since the Atlantic Charter.
I am going to use your post against you. Anytime I see someone taking you seriously, I will notify them that you consider Iraq to be a ‘failure of the neo-cons’. And I have your post here to back up my accusation. You are just another person who opposes our mission in Iraq, since our objective was to implement democratic reform (if you bothered to read the legislation you would already know this). Whenever you claim that another peoples culture means they prefer dictatorship over democracy, you demonstrate cultural condescension.
[While we must be cautious about forcing the pace of change, we must not hesitate to declare our ultimate objectives and to take concrete actions to move toward them. We must be staunch in our conviction
that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings. So states the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, among other things, guarantees free elections. The objective I propose is quite simple to state: to foster the infrastructure of democracy, the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities, which allows a people to choose
their own way to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means.
This is not cultural imperialism; it is providing the means for genuine self-determination and protection for diversity. Democracy already flourishes in countries with very different cultures and historical experiences. It would be cultural condescension, or worse, to say that any people prefer dictatorship to democracy. Who would voluntarily choose not to have the right to vote, decide to purchase government propaganda handouts instead of independent newspapers, prefer government to worker-controlled unions, opt for land to be owned by the state instead of those who till it, want government repression of religious liberty, a single political party
instead of a free choice, a rigid cultural orthodoxy instead of democratic tolerance and diversity.]- Ronald Reagan 1982
I’m not interested in impacting an attitude such as this guy’s.
Insults are directed daily against the US on muslim websites. This shoe tossing is mild compared to what many other people of this “culture” are saying or possibly planning.
We are Americans, so we respond as Americans. Pres. Bush did just that. I’m satisfied with it.
I didn't see any Muslims in the street protesting the REPORTER'S actions. The idea of “moderate” Muslims is simply a myth. Sure, there are probably a small handful of them - afraid to express themselves due to typical Islamic violence from the mainstream Islamists - but they are an insignificant number. I have never heard from them or seen them except for a few obscure Internet websites they have set up.
“You have already admitted you couldn’t come up with a better way for Bush to handle it.”
He shouldn't have trivialized the action. Bush is totally clueless about a whole host of issues.
“The extremists are the ones who embrace the al-Qaeda radicals and Shia radicals like al-Sadr.”
Oh, really? Just them? How about the ones who believe the entire world is divided into the House of Peace and the House of War, that Dhimmis should be suppressed, that the Umma has to stand together against all non-Muslims, that Islam is destined to take over the world, that Sharia Laaw should be imposed everywhere?? What about them?? My guess is they make up over 90% of all Muslims and are found everywhere - even if they don;t support the Taliban and Al Quaida openly. They infest and infect every nation in the west as well as many non-Islamic nations in the east and are trying to spread their madness throughout sub- Saharan Africa. But BUSH calls it a “peaceful” religion - CLUELESS!!!!
“The government didn’t sanction crimes against Christains. Those are al-Qaeda and Iranian backed militias. They are the same groups that are at war with the coalition and the Iraqi security forces. Your argument is fallicious.”
No its not. They have done NOTHING to stop it. Driving thousands of people from their homes isn't a random act of terrorism. It is a widespread phenomenon in Islamdom and the government in Baghdad, as in MOST Islamic Countries, gives it a wink and a nod.
“Try telling that to the Turks. Your interpretation of what constitutes true Islam is no different than al-Qaeda’s interpretation.”
Turkey is a non-Arab country. However, even our “friends” the Turks refused to allow us passage through their country to attack Iraq from the North which led to the Fallujah situation and the resultant rise of the Insurgency. The “democracy” in Turkey is only there because the Turkish military is ready to crush the extreme radicals there, but it is hardly a paragon of tolerance. Ask the Kurds - and THEY are Muslims.
“You show no understanding of history. The objective all along was to foster a democratic Iraq.”
I thought the objective was to remove a dangerous dictator who was threatening the world with weapons of mass destruction, destabilizing the area, exterminating his own people, firing on British and American aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone, conspiring with terrorists and violating the agreement after the first war. I think that is what MOST people thought it was about. If it was to “democratize” a geographic entity with no real sense of nationality and no history or tradition of democratic government, you can be very sure NOBODY would have supported it. Although in Bush's clueless mind, the objective you present was probably always simmering there.
People who think they can create a stable democracy in Iraq are the ones with no sense of history.
” You would know this if you bothered to study the congressional legislation that authorized Operation Iraqi Freedom. You disregard these facts so you can run around spouting your ignorant ant-war nonsense and complaining about ‘neo-cons’.”
If THAT was laid out in the Congressional legislation, Congress is made up of a bigger bunch of fools than even I thought they were - if they even BOTHERED to read it - which may have been asking too much.
“You’re no less ignorant than the far left and the isolationists who crowned Ron Paul as father of ‘true’ conservatism.”
Baloney. I'm not an isolationist but I am realistic to know you can't make a purse out of a sow’s ear.
“Still desperately clinging onto the idea that Iraq is a failure, you run around posting statements worthy of the DU.”
The military victory and removal of Saddam was a success. What we created in its place with so much money and bloodshed of our own has yet to prove itself in my mind.
Just last night the news - FOX news stated that U.S. troops remaining the Islamic paradise of Iraq will need warrants from now on to arrest insurgents. What kind of idiocy is this? I think its about time we just pulled out and let these villain kill each other.
“What, then, should we do with the millions of Muslims who are American citizens and reside in America?”
Islam in the west needs to be very closely monitored. We in the west have a tradition of universal religious tolerance - which is a good thing. But Islam is distinct from all other “religions” as it is more than a theological belief system. It is a political and social system. At the very least, I would allow no more Muslims into the west.
Optimally I would remove each and every one and return them to the Umma.
” Also, if we are at war with Islam, why do we have military bases throughout the Muslim world, like Turkey, Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar, ect...?”
Because Muslims are getting something out of the arrangement as well as us. Either jobs or money, or military support or protection against other predatory Islamic states. We are not there because they love us.
“You lefties and Paulbots declare that spreading democracy is an agenda of the ‘neocons’. Yet it has been our objective since the Atlantic Charter.”
I'm NOT a Paulbot or a lefty. I have no problem with “spreading democracy” as long we don't do it with the kind of massive financial and blood costs that have been expended on the miserable ingrates in the Islamic World. When they leave the 7th Century and start thinking like post 17th century people, it might be another story.
“I am going to use your post against you. Anytime I see someone taking you seriously, I will notify them that you consider Iraq to be a ‘failure of the neo-cons’. And I have your post here to back up my accusation. You are just another person who opposes our mission in Iraq, since our objective was to implement democratic reform (if you bothered to read the legislation you would already know this). “
???? Big deal. I repeat - the ONLY justification for expending American lives and money in Iraq was in American self interest and self defense. If you think otherwise, there are millions of other people, even people who support the democratization of Iraq despite the cost in lives and money, who would disagree with your premise. The government in Washington has no right to use American lives and American tax dollars in nation building unless the prospects are good and our own best interests are involved.
“Whenever you claim that another peoples culture means they prefer dictatorship over democracy, you demonstrate cultural condescension.”
Now YOU sound politically correct. If you think that you can ignore the impact that religion and culture have on politics, YOU are the one who does not understand history.
“While we must be cautious about forcing the pace of change”
Bush was NOT cautious. Also, Reagan had limited exposure to Islam as his attention was directed elsewhere - to the major menace from Soviet expansionism and their nuclear capacity. One of the few areas Reagan erred in involved the Middle East and Islam. But then Islam was hardly a blimp on radar screen at the time and even I had neglected any in depth study of Islam and its threat to world peace.
9-11 changed all that. Prior to 9-11 America was more concerned with the West and not very focused on the menace thriving in our midst and the same could probably be said for other western nations which have been invaded by Muslims in recent days. Reagan's statements about democracy being suitable in many different cultures is true generally, but even general rules have exceptions and Islam, Muslims and the Umma is the exception which proves the rule.
“I didn’t see any Muslims in the street protesting the REPORTER’S actions.”
Because the ones that take offense to the reporters actions aren’t a bunch of drones waiting for someone like al-Sadr to tell them what to do.
“The idea of “moderate” Muslims is simply a myth.”
Yeah, you’ve already claimed that America is at war with Islam. Yet we’ve had our military bases set up throughout the Muslim world for decades. Radical Muslims don’t willfully host western troops. This is why al-Qaeda calls for the overthow of these regimes.
“No its not.”
Yes it is. Your accusation that the attacks is santioned by the government of Iraq isn’t supported by fact. The Christians, along with other refugees are returning as the security improves. It is the IA that is helping to provide this security.
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2008/10/28/59071.html
“Turkey is a non-Arab country.”
They are an Islamic country.
“The “democracy” in Turkey is only there because the Turkish military is ready to crush the extreme radicals there”
The Turkish military are Muslims.
“I thought the objective was to..”
The objective was to create a democratic Iraq. If you bothered to study the legislation that authorized the conflict, you would already know this.
“If it was to “democratize” a geographic entity... you can be very sure NOBODY would have supported it. “
Wrong. It was supported by both Congress and the White House.
“Although in Bush’s clueless mind, the objective you present was probably always simmering there.”
The objective I presented was presented within the congressional legislation that authorized Operation Iraqi Freedom. How do you think the operation got it’s name? It is called ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’, not ‘Operation Remove Saddam and Allow al-Qaeda and Iran Fill The Void’.
“Optimally I would remove each and every one and return them to the Umma.”
And here you are proposing that we deport millions of American citizens because of their religion.
“the ONLY justification for expending American lives and money in Iraq was in American self interest and self defense.”
A democratic Iraq is an ally against al-Qaeda and is not a threat. This is obvious to those who don’t run around claiming that Iraq is a failure and ranting on about ‘neocons’.
“Now YOU sound politically correct. “
I’m simply repeating Reagan’s assertion.
“Also, Reagan had limited exposure to Islam as his attention was directed elsewhere “
Someone who still claims that Iraqi is a failure, blames ‘neo-cons’ is now insinuating that Reagan was ignorant.
“But then Islam was hardly a blimp on radar screen at the time..”
Reagan helped foster our alliances within the Muslim world. The allied Muslim nations flooded the markets with cheap oil which helped bankrupt the Soviet Union.
[Freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings. Democracy already flourishes in countries with very different cultures and historical experiences. It would be cultural condescension, or worse, to say that any people prefer dictatorship to democracy.]-Ronald Reagan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.