Shoes and Promises

As you may have noticed from my last few entries, I have begun my campaign to highlight the accomplishments of the George W. Bush administration. I embark on this series of entries knowing full well that not everyone will agree with my interpretations of the Bush White House. What I call highlights, others will call smears and tarnish. So be it, I plead guilty as charged.

Today, however, I will truly attempt to look at the positive side of the Bush administration. I will do this by reminding everyone that we usually grade a politician by the promises he keeps or breaks. I will, after all, have the rest of his natural life to throw barbs at his legacy, and I look forward to doing that once he leaves office. Today I will give the guy a break.

Let’s start with Iraq. Bush did not break his promise on Iraq, mainly because he never made a promise about Iraq. I don’t recall him ever saying, “I promise to put this country into abject peril by starting a totally pointless, senseless war against a country that may have the possibility of perhaps threatening out nation’s security at a later date.” I don’t remember saying these words — let alone use the word “abject” – do you?

Of course, we all know now that Bush’s Iraq policy is now considered a disaster. His popularity has suffered from it, his party lost the White House because of it, and at least one member of the Iraqi press has seen fit to show his displeasure with it by flinging his shoes at the President. Really! He did this to our President. I for one am outraged at this event for two reasons. One, where the hell was this guy four years ago when John Kerry could’ve used this sound bite in his Presidential campaign? Two, why didn’t we think of throwing our shoes at Bush?

It turns out that shoes have played an important role in human history. Remember when Nikita Khrushchev mocked the power structure at the United Nations when he banged his shoe on the desk like a gavel? This act alone didn’t change history like he intended, but it certainly makes a memorable image for historical documentaries.

Similarly, Bush’s mind will probably not be changed by the sight of worn leather being thrown at him. On this side of the ocean, we’ve used editorials, blogs, debates, and poll numbers to convince the President to re-evaluate his positions. We never thought to start chucking our Hush Puppies at him.

We Americans are more subtle than that, but perhaps we should be more assertive in showing our disagreement with government policies. I will immediately rule out using guns and bullets. That’s advocating open revolution and treason; besides, the government may very well respond with bigger guns that use bigger bullets.

No, America, we should consider using other means to communicate our displeasure with President Bush. Has anyone suggested rolling up a newspaper — I’m thinking The Washington Post here — smacking him on the nose with it and scolding, “No! Bad President! Bad!” That’s how we do things in America!