Bush dodges shoe protest during visit to Iraq

I have never advocated any action against george bush, even though all know how I feel about him.

But, Muntadar al-Zeidi, thank you. < :-)

A shoe is about all he is worth.

This is abridged from the NY Times

The Iraqi journalist shouted in Arabic — “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog” — and he threw his other shoe, shouting, “This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq.”

Pretty much sums up Bush in Iraq.

I bet if that guy was in Iran and he threw a shoe at the Iranian president, his head would already be separated from his body. The Iraqis are the most ungrateful people on this earth...

Well, I have to say, I giggled a bit on this. But, "This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog”" Let's hope that they give many others the same opportunity to a few others not in the US admin, like Chemical Ali — and he threw his other shoe, shouting, “This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq.”

Well, I know a few New York Widows that would like to do that, but they would be called bigots but they'd be right.

Just think if Bush hadnt went to war this idiot wouldnt be able to be on tv nor have the freedom to talk smack without being shot. Its a double edge sword. He caused problems by invading, but he also created a life of freedom none of them would of had otherwise. Kinda funny to see the guy use his new freedoms to express his hatrid of the man who gave him those freedoms. Ironic.

A novel way of poking your tongue out at the president. I wonder if he was the sole protester. I suppose the security guys got the upper hand. It's lucky (or a pity, depending on your point of view) the shoe wasn't laced with poison. I expect he thought Bush was a real heel.

I bet if that guy was in Iran and he threw a shoe at the Iranian president, his head would already be separated from his body.

Well it isn't Iran. What's that got to do with anything?

The Iraqis are the most ungrateful people on this earth...

You are basing that on just one throwing his shoes? I did not read about anyone else so much as giving Bush the evil eye! Of course, its not like Bush was driving through central Baghdad waving to the crowds. We do not know how Iraqis would have reacted, although I am guess the extreme secrecy had more to do with other things than just worry of an al-Quaida attack.

Just write this guy off as a filthy Ba'athist who enjoyed special privileges under Saddam. I know plenty of others will.

skipthesong - for every widow from NYC there might be more than 1000 widows in Iraq. Now - where are those WMD and the idiotic "nucular" weapons that started all this mess? Bush is VERY VERY luchy to escape with only two shoes whacked on his head after all this mess he caused. Had the Justice been FAIR, he would have been hanged for crimes against the humanity long time ago. As an European I feel myself guilty for Europe wasn't able to stop this disaster. I wonder how Americans feels about this war...

Saw the video. al Maliki, standing next to Bush, barely flinched.

I heard it is the biggest insult if one would hurl shoes at someone, in Islamic culture. But Bush did pretty well at ducking, almost as well as he has been trying to duck the criticism on the financial crisis.

Wish ths shoe had hit him and given Bush a nice shiner.

That wod've taken the silly grin he always has on his race.

Just think if Bush hadnt went to war this idiot wouldnt be able to be on tv nor have the freedom to talk smack without being shot. Its a double edge sword.

Like heck it is! The freedom to talk smack is nothing compared to being alive and having your family intact! Its small consolation when you have difficulty getting the basics of life! Its a lump of dung compared to the freedom to get your wedding procession airstriked by the U.S. military, suicide bombed by al-Quaida, or sprayed with bullets instead of rice by factional insurgents.

Saddam's crimes were largely in the past. I hope to God the future of Iraq will be so paved with gold it might come close to justifying the debacle of invading and failing to secure that country, which had been stable for years. I suspect a lot of Iraqis would like to do more than just chuck shoes and grief at Bush. Anybody seen some believable poll figures on that question?

Now this is something I will have to look on the internet and on TV to see. A nice way at the end of his presidency to show how much the world has come to love the US president!

Mr. Muntadar al-Zeidi, your heart is in the right place. I only wish your aim had been better.

likeitis..

Too bad your logic is warped. Saddams crimes are in the past because the US invaded, not because he retired and went on vacation. Also considering the amount of civilians killed by the US forces is lower then the amount killed by Saddam's personal killing squards would make your point still not true. Again with the stable goverment, stable is a word used to describe a goverment that klilled its people to make itself stable, I didnt see you running from your democracy and safe little home to become an Iraqi under Saddam. SO yes its a two sided sword, the guy would of been dead if he did that to the former leader of Iraq, so he can throw his shoe and live because of the US invasion.

I dont like the fact the US was the country to go into Iraq, but I dont think people understand what they have gained in getting rid of Saddam. I dont support US troops any where in the world other then the US, but I also am not dumb enough to think if Saddam was still in power that Iraqis would be running around throwing flower on his feet, and living the good life.

All I can say is thank Allah he didn't throw a shoe at Saddam Hussein. He'd be dead before he could bend over to pick up the other one. Besides, what kind of man throws a shoe? What a pansy.

By the way, mass graves do not equal stability for Iraq.

I think there are a lot of people who would like to throw more than a shoe at Bush. He is responsible for the deaths of thousands of civillians in Iraq, in the search for WMDs which weren't there. The guy is a total retard.

Besides, what kind of man throws a shoe? What a pansy.

Nice to see you read the article before posting. "In Iraqi culture, throwing shoes at someone is a sign of contempt." Great, insult all Iraqi men, yeah that will get them on your side! On the other hand, maybe he just couldn't find any flowers, so he used his shoes instead.

hope I have reflexes like that at his age...

Bush said later, 'I don't know what his cause is'. (Mmmm, couldn't maybe hazard a guess? Maybe his house was bombed out by Bush, not by Saddam? Maybe his child was killed or injured playing with a cluster bomblet dropped by Bush, not Saddam? ) A moron to the end.

thank Allah he didn't throw a shoe at Saddam Hussein.

But he was thanking george bush for the deaths of 100,000s deaths.

Saddams crimes are in the past because the US invaded

But now we have 1,000,000s of children with ouy parents.

I dont think people understand what they have gained in getting rid of Saddam.

They understand exactly what they got out of this, a country totallt destroyed.

If george bush is as great as some of you posters think he is, why doesn't he take a ride down the main street of Baghdad? Why doesn't he go through town and get those flowers through down to his feet and hear their songs of rejoicing? Even with 100 armed guards and 3 helicopters overhead. < :-)

Bush finally gets the boot!

I'm surprised the dude didn't get gunned down by the secret service.

Bush should understand Iraqi people's feeling about the war over there. US troops killed too many innocent ordinary people over combats. I don't think US intentionally did it, but tried to kill unvisible terrorists. I don't think war action would make peace in Iraq. US troops should return home. Iraqi people should let handle their own country. Bush should have studied about Islamic countries enough (not with CIA's information)before staring war. US once made Japan American-like democratic country, but Islamic country is completely different. America never would be able to make it. All people know America have been fighting all the time for a long time. Does America love fighting?

Saddams crimes are in the past because the US invaded, not because he retired and went on vacation.

I said "largely" in the past. His mass murdering days were long since over in 2003. His rivals had been largely eliminated long before then. No doubt there was some suffering still going on, but nothing like on the scale of the bungling of the occupation.

Too bad your logic is warped.

Too bad you don't even know what logic is. Or the difference betwee a double-edged sword and irony. Maybe you think they are both made of iron, therefore the same?

SO yes its a two sided sword, the guy would of been dead if he did that to the former leader of Iraq, so he can throw his shoe and live because of the US invasion.

No sir. The freedom of expression is a mere perk compared to being surrounded by death and misery. Its not a fair trade at all. The American Revolutionary War did not happen to gain the freedom of speech, it was just a plus, and I am sure many an Iraqi would trade that in to take back the past. What we have here is irony, because we all know what would happen if he threw those shoes at Saddam.

But to be honest, I have to wonder about this guy's safety from now on even just doing this to Bush.

Have to laugh, the "Great War President" has finally experienced combat at first hand. How he can trade war stories with Barney the Dog (ageless enemy of the Whitehouse Press Corp) and "Dugout Dick" Cheney, that fearless shooter of hunting companions.

A ha ha ha ha! Sad that the only defense the bush lovers and pro war crowd can come up with is, "b-b-but he conducted himself soooo well afterwards."

He is like a hurt puppy dog. Cowering, humiliated left and right. I feel bad not for him but America.

Tatanka at 07:48 AM JST - 15th December

I bet if that guy was in Iran and he threw a shoe at the Iranian president, his head would already be separated from his body. The Iraqis are the most ungrateful people on this earth...

Holy crap....what are you smoking? You think they should be grateful? For what?

Just had another thought (2nd for the day and over quota), this whole shoe throwing episode is very symbolic in terms of islam. When Saddam was shown the door back in 2003, the image shown around the world was the crowd striking his statue with their shoes (and the implied message of uncleanliness). This time as well, I think the symbolism was the same.

PS. There are a couple of reasons why the secret service did not shoot this guy. Firstly, shooting unarmed Iraqis these days is not kosher. Secondly, if the Secret Service pulled their weapons, the Iraqi security detail would have done likewise. It only takes one hair-trigger to lead to disaster.

“This is a farewell kiss, you dog!” shouted the protester in Arabic, later identified as Muntadar al-Zeidi.

Dogs around the world took umbrage.

“So what if I guy threw his shoe at me?” he said.

Credit where credit is due. That was pretty good, but it doesn't top, "Goodbye, from world's biggest polluter" in terms of showing george w bush for what he truly is. O.K. - that, and not being able to find the door in China.

Taka

Timorborder,

Very good comment on the intelligence and professionalism of the Secret Service.

Taka

We must recognize that no president or prime minister of other nations wouldn't be greeted in this way. This is a highest insult to a President in visit. Bush really is the worst US President for the world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7782774.stm

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/12/14/vo.bush.shoe.pool.cnn

Glad to see all these people with so much experience in Iraq sounding off on this.

First, most of the widows in Iraq are widowed because of Iraqis. Sectarian violence and indescriminate IED bombings have killed many, many more Iraqi men, women and children than the coalition forces have.

Second, Saddam was so afraid that Iran would attack Iraq if they knew that Iraq had no more WMDs that he did everything in his power to convince them that he still did. Unfortunately, he convinced the wrong people. Remember, Bill Clinton also asked Congress for permission to attach Iraq because the same intellegence that convinced the Bush administration had convinced him too.

We must recognize that no President or Prime Minister of other nations wouldn't have been greeted in this way. It's a highest insult for a President in visit. Bush really is the worst US President for the world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7782422.stm

This guy is a shoe-in for Iraqi of the Year.

He's no loafer, that's for sure.

Wow ,I suspect that from now on in the present of any US president guests will not be even allowed to bend over to scratch their feet! The response of security service was rather slow ,second shoe was unacceptable. People hate Bush thats why they think its funny, but imagine Obama was treated like that!

OK, from now on, shoes will be considered as a weapon in the airlines. You need to fly the planes in special socks with locks, provided by the airlines and prices to added to you surcharge. Cannot be barefoot, because untrimmed nails are to be considered as weapon as well.

skip: "Well, I know a few New York Widows that would like to do that, but they would be called bigots but they'd be right."

They wouldn't be called bigots at all. They might be called fools if they wanted to throw a shoe at Chemical Ali, and rightly so, since he and Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 invasion. But if they wanted to throw said shoe at those responsible (Bin Laden et. al.), no one would bat an eye.

Boy this really must bother a lot of people. I think it's great. George Bush deserves far more than a shoe. This truly does some up his time in office, and couldn't have come at a better point.

"It was a size 10."

Har! Good one, Mr. President!

"You think they should be grateful? For what?"

Oh, for liberating them from an awful dictator, giving them the opportunity to choose their own leaders, you know, stuff like that.

Alria - Har!

"You think they should be grateful? For what?"Oh, for liberating them from an awful dictator, giving them the opportunity to choose their own leaders, you know, stuff like that.

That's wierd, they also did not thank the US for helping put Saddam in power in the first place. Nor for keeping Iraq in most favored trading status even as the US was aware that he was "gassing his own people" - effectively giving him diplomatic cover - this was later one of the major claims against him during the so-called trials of SH. I guess in your book they must be REALLY REALLY ungrateful people, those iraqis. Absolutely delusional. The shoe and insults flung at bush were methaphorically flung at you too sarge.

"This truly does some ( har! ) up his time in office, and couldn't have come at a better point"

Oh, for cryin' out loud, smith, ONE guy threw his shoes at Bush. In 2003 a whole bunch of Iraqis beat Saddam's statue with their shoes and were shouting "Thank you, Mr. Bush!"

Best shoeist 2008 I would suggest. When he leaves office, he can come here to collect his award.

The media can't get anything right!! It was a BOOT!!!!!!!!!!!

No more shoes during conferences from now on. And probably no more potential aggresors.

Samuraliki,

Or no more conferences.

Oh, for liberating them from an awful dictator, giving them the opportunity to choose their own leaders, you know, stuff like that.

Why did Bush chose to 'liberate' Iraq?

leitmotive: Your "facts" are a bit off. The U.S. did not put Saddam Hussein in office. Saddam was vice-president under Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr who assumed the presidency as the result of a coup. Saddam became president and dictator in 1979 - Carter administration. The U.S was unaware of the gassing of Kurds until after the fact. Most Favored Nation trading status does not give "diplomatic cover" to anybody it is a commercial status which is also called Normal Trade Relations. I suggest you research your "facts" before your next post.

sarge: "Oh, for cryin' out loud, smith, ONE guy threw his shoes at Bush. In 2003 a whole bunch of Iraqis beat Saddam's statue with their shoes and were shouting "Thank you, Mr. Bush!"

Yes, sarge... ONE guy... ONE guy that was allowed into a very private, very protected meeting, and who spoke on behalf of the thousands and thousands (if not far more!) dead, since the latter cannot speak for themselves. Now, here's my challenge sarge: let bush walk around outside the green zone and see how many want to shake his hand or throw shoes at him. I'm willing to get you will get FAR more of the latter than the former; but since of course he's not going to walk outside of the green zone, you can't prove me wrong. Here we have the proof that even in the most protected area he gets shoes thrown at him.

Again, he deserves far more than just a shoe, but it's a start of the way he's going to be remembered, and rightly treated, by the world.

This man (the guy who threw his shoes) is going to have hero status around the world. Well deserved. Since it was not an attempt to kill or seriously injure, but was only a sign of insult, I'm not against it.

smithinjapan,

Do you have any proof what-so-ever that this guy was authorized to speak for anybody but himself. And when was the last time YOU walked around out side the green zone?

These Iraqis are just laughable. Try doing that at a news conference given by Saddam during his leadership. That reporter would never have been heard from again. And the reporter talking about killing Iraqis, I suggest that he put that question to the terrorist leadership in Iraq. This silly reporter should do jail time as his actions constitute assault.

Gotta hand it to this ungrateful, resentful shoe-chucking guy; he's braver than the ingrates and tossers in Europe and Canada.

Have to wonder what Bush was thinking here, paying a visit to Iraq. By comparison, President Harry Truman, who ordered the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan, and in so doing "liberated" Japan from decades of disastrous military rule (as some see it), had the good sense not to pay a farewell visit to Japan in December 1952. Japan by that time had far more reason to be grateful to the US than Iraq does today; the country was at peace and had regained its full sovereignty earlier in the year, and its economy was booming due to Korean War procurement orders from the US. Even so, Truman didn't visit Japan as president; in fact, he never did. And we all know why.

So if more than a few Japanese back in 1952 weren't exactly grateful to the US for its benevolent military occupation of the country, you ought to be able to understand why more than a few Iraqis aren't exactly grateful today, either.

Do you have any proof what-so-ever that this guy was authorized to speak for anybody but himself.

This thrower of shoes with the poor aim is the only Iraqi who has a problem with Bush. Naturally everyone else sees him as the saviour that you see him as. That's why Bush so enjoys his pressing-the-flesh, hands-on tours of Iraqi bomb sites and kissing babies (not the DU-deformed ones, of course) photo opportunities. I do wish they'd show more of those on TV then we can see how well loved by the Iraqi people Bush is, instead of concentrating on one lone guy, obviously deranged, that no one else in the world agrees with.

(gags on own sarcasm...)

the sad thing is Bush will never have a moment of clarity and understand all the truly awful things he has done. he'll sleep easily every night for the rest of life. hopefully in later decades a historical retrospective will give an account of one of the world's most despised leaders.

These Iraqis are just laughable. Try doing that at a news conference given by Saddam during his leadership.

I'm sure most Iraqis hate Bush much more than they did Saddam.

Freedom of speech is a great thing.

An Iraqi blogger comments on this affair:

...See, I will forever remain indebted to President George W. Bush. He is my hero. He liberated Iraq, and that's how I will always see it. Had there been no President Bush, then Saddam would still be Saddam.

The usual suspects are ecstatic over what happened, especially the US-based media and Iraq-watchers. I would like to beat them all up too, but I think that would be a tad bit excessive. The best revenge is to make them watch Iraq's democracy strengthen and prosper. Today's images gave them a temporary high; a new Iraq, free and democratic, something they believed would never happen, will gnaw at their insides for the rest of their lives. I'll settle for that.

Give it twenty years or so, but a main thoroughfare in Baghdad will be called George Bush Avenue. Or maybe that's just the name of my driveway. Anyway, there will be a big sign and all.

http://talismangate.blogspot.com/2008/12/george-bush-avenue.html

I'm sure most Iraqis hate Bush much more than they did Saddam.

Doubtful...however, I would agree they hate the situation their country is in more than they would have when Saddam was in power, which is completely understandable.

As I mentioned earlier, the Iraqis are an ungrateful bunch of half-wits. Over 4,200 Americans died mostly at the hands of radical Islamists who want to subjugate the entire population to some wacko-version of the Islam where the only tolerance is intolerance.

techall/toofargone: It's not up to me, nor my fellow Canadians, to either walk around outside the green zone nor throw shoes at bush.

techall: I did not illegally invade Iraq, destroyed its infrastructure and kill THOUSANDS and then declare myself a great guy for it (after saying I regret it), so what need is there for me to go and parade outside the green zone? I never claimed to be a war president, didn't claim to have liberated the place, etc. In other words, your suggesting that I should walk around in the green zone because bush supposedly 'liberated' Iraq is not only moot, it's just plain unrelated and unintelligent. A more logical comparison to bush not stepping outside the green zone even though he 'freedumbized' Iraq and made it a better place would be with the chickenhawks who support the war but refuse to go fight themselves.

toofargone: See above chickenhawk comment; if you love the war and think it's right, prove it and go fight. As for throwing a shoe at bush, put him in front of me and not only will I do the same, I'll gladly spit in his face. And before you go saying, "I have the right to do so (thanks to him)", let me remind you that such an act is far more likely to land me in jail or worse NOW than it would have before bush. In other words, things are not as free and 'democratic' as they once were.

Again, though... good job to this man; he has shown how much bush is 'loved' in Iraq, and I hope bush gets many more such welcomes in the future. Bush is, indeed, nothing better than a dog, and arguably far worse.

“There is still more work to be done,” Bush said after his meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Absolutely correct. We have created more work than we have completed.

Everton: "These Iraqis are just laughable. Try doing that at a news conference given by Saddam during his leadership."

Everton, if someone tried to throw a shoe at Saddam during a news conference they simply would have hit Rummy while the latter was shaking the former's hand, or any other US politician helping give weapons to Iraq, etc.

Tatanka: "As I mentioned earlier, the Iraqis are an ungrateful bunch of half-wits. Over 4,200 Americans died mostly at the hands of radical Islamists who want to subjugate the entire population to some wacko-version of the Islam where the only tolerance is intolerance."

Might I remind you that the Americans died only after invading, and that the radical Islamists who killed them were not in the country beforehand. In other words, your point is moot.

And for all the others who go around saying, "Those ungrateful bastards!" and what not, just remember the Iraqis never asked to be invaded and 'liberated'. You don't force what you claim to be democracy on a sovereign nation after illegal regime change, killing thousands in the process (most of whom are innocent), and then say they are ungrateful for it.

"Freedom of speech is a great thing. An Iraqi blogger comments on this affair:"

Thanks for the blog quotation, LunchMeat.

Oh, and I am indeed out of my teens, which is a shame for you because it puts me above your level of arguing. :)

Like Muntadar al-Zeidi, I'll be glad when the day comes that I don't hear george bush's name again. < :-)

adaydream: If only the man's name and 'legacy' could simply vanish and the world be a better place... alas, we still hear name's like Saddam, Hitler, and other such historical villains all the time, so bush's equally notorious name is not about to leave the ranks of infamy even when he's (thankfully) no longer president.

Tatanka,

I think that the majority of Iraqis and of Middle Easterners in general are quite grateful that Saddam was deposed. However, that does not trump everything else. There is plenty for people to be upset about--including, but not limited to, going to war to eliminate a problem that might have been eliminated by other means, failing to establish security after achieving the objective for which Iraqis are supposed to be grateful and entertaining designs of permanent occupation, as witnessed by several very expensive bases which the US has built.

From the outset of the war, Iraqis looked at the coalition forces as being aggressors and a majority continued to think that it was acceptable to kill the aggressors even after Saddam was taken down. It's not like the coalition was invited in. So it really doesn't matter who the Americans were killed by. In fact, at least one anti-left logician here would argue that they were killed by Bush since he required them to go.

And it really doesn't matter that who killed the Iraqis in this conflict. The WW2 war crimes trials were conducted under the working hypothesis that the aggressor is responsible for all subsequent acts. So, unless you want to argue that Saddam was the aggressor....

Cleo: I added the 'if not worse' part at the end for you. I know dogs are better than bush, I was just tying in the man's comment. Perhaps 'snake' might be better... but nah, that belittles snakes. Dung-beetle? Nah... both the dung and the beetle contribute more to the world than bush does.... hmmmm.... terrorist swine? Well, aside from insulting pigs, I think it's fitting.

techall at 11:57 AM JST - 15th December leitmotive: Your "facts" are a bit off. The U.S. did not put Saddam Hussein in office. Saddam was vice-president under Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr who assumed the presidency as the result of a coup. Saddam became president and dictator in 1979 - Carter administration. The U.S was unaware of the gassing of Kurds until after the fact. Most Favored Nation trading status does not give "diplomatic cover" to anybody it is a commercial status which is also called Normal Trade Relations. I suggest you research your "facts" before your next post.

Nice that you can spout the talking points of some of the hawkish think tanks funded by the CIA. But parroting things you heard does not make them true. I suggest you research your facts. It has long been alleged by many many former govt diplomats and officials that US clandestine service help SH get into power. That is nothing new – the US has done it to get all sorts of autocratic-but-pro-US dirtbags into power countless times (indonesia, iran, virtually every country in central america, etc etc). You could say its their specialty and to deny they were involved in any way with SH entering and climbing the political ladder in iraq is a whole new level of propaganda swallowing that is difficult to understand. The US did indeed give SH diplomatic cover – plus cash and equipment plus military guidance. The equipment he used for “gassing his own people” were happily sold to him from the west including the US, germany, and many others. How did he buy them? Why with the billions of dollars of credits and loan guarantees the US gave him when it seemed they could rely on him to beat the crap out of iran (who had kicked out another US dictator earlier – a different failed “democracy” experiment of the US that had gone all frankenstein and needed to be contained). How else did the US provide for that war crime other than cold hard cash and equipment? Well they were able to buy these dangerous toys because Reagan had removed iraq from the “states who sponsor terrorism” list. That is called diplomatic support. And the US intellegence was fully aware at the time of what happened and who did it. There was some feeble claims that the epicenter of all evil (at that time) Iran had partial responsibility – but the US knew full well that most or all of it was good old SH. US spy satellites at the time were focused intensely on that area – which makes it hard to claim that “the US was unaware” (LOL!!) – and therefore that US intelligence was less reliable than the accurate reports at the time of groups like Human Rights Watch (who do not maintain a satellite network as far as I know). The US basically knew because, basically, it held the receipts of the materials used. You should occasionally read something other than propaganda.

TooFarGone: "Caps for Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Nice touch."

I capitalize your name too, for the most part, so what's your point?

I'll give bush capital letters when he is recorded in the books for his many war crimes, etc. (hopefully sooner, rather than later), as the others I mentioned have. The others are already recognized world-wide for the scum they were... bush still has two or three friends left, so it's fun to type his name in small caps and watch you guys squirm and shake your little fists.

I've hearding of voting with your feet, but never with your footwear.

Funny watching the same Lefties who were undoubtedly furious that a US soldiers put his fingers in Saddam's mouth - dude, that's a major insult in the Arab world! - come here green with envy at an Iraqi reporter (working for a Cairo-based station - LOL, no irony there, eh?) able, in a press conference, to throw a shoe at a patriotic Republican American.

BDS is a far greater threat to this world than "global warming" will ever be...

Wow 80 posts! Unlike most of his presidency, Bush handled the incoming shoe well. It is a fitting end to the Bush administration and the the republican party that has sunk down to a rump party only supported by uneducated rural whited men.

toofargone: It's actually funny that you drew the comparison of the troops putting their fingers in the mouth of a dictator to this man throwing his shoe at one. I certainly didn't make that allusion -- you did! Hahaha! Welcome to the club of knowing bush is nothing better than that which he declares his enemies to be! Took you long enough.

Oh, and as for the whole BDS thing, there seem to be only two or three sufferers on here: you, sarge, and.... geez.... are there actually any others? Derangement, indeed. When all the other rats who were once on the ship have already left, you guys still cling to it.

Welcome back, lunchmeat.

More ammo for the late night talk shows :))

I will say this, the last 8 years have been strannnnnge. His economic and constitutional legacy begins January 21, 2009.

'You do not do, you do not do, any more black shoe...'

Freedom of speech is a great thing. So is the US-created internet. Article states that the shoe tosser is a correspondnet for a Cairo-based station, Al-Baghdadiya. That's rich, when you consider Egypt's human rights abuses and routine crackdowns on journalists and bloggers.

A search turns up some interesting stuff, from an Iraqi blogger.

Yes, I know the international Left disputes the idea that an ordinary citizen should be allowed to publish views on things like media and political discourse.

That's why I post this:

Monday, January 15, 2007 Al-Baghdadiya

Today, there are over a dozen Iraqi sattelite channels that are broadcasting from inside and outside Iraq. We have all sorts of channels, some that broadcast only a few hours a day, others 24/7. Some that are funded by the US, others that condemn American presence and even show footage of attacks on American soldiers. Some that represent ethnic groups in Iraq, others sects. Some broadcast from Iraq, others from outside.

I dont generally spend much time watching most of these channels, but i do flick through them every now and then. The other day I was watching the "news" on Al-Baghdadiya, a channel that broadcasts from Egypt. It was showing Iraqi's in Ramadi complaining about the American seige on the city (that started about 3 weeks ago). It was the funniest thing i have ever seen on an Iraqi channel, of course the conditions that the people in that city are living in are nothing to laugh about, but what was comic was the fact that the people being interviewed were being coached to say what the reporter wanted them to say. You can even hear the reporter saying "say there is no government" and an old women then says "There is no government here, they dont care about us", then the reporter says "petrol"...and the women says "we dont have petrol here in the city, its hard to get around'. The reporter then says "American occupation" and the women than rants about the Americans who are besieging the city.

"Eye raki"

Monday, January 15, 2007

A size 10, which is just about his percent approval rating.

The old toss-the-shoe-at-the-visiting-head-of-state-while-calling-him-a-dog-trick, Ninety-nine.

"Yes, I know the international Left disputes the idea that an ordinary citizen should be allowed to publish views on things like media and political discourse."

Says lunchmeat, after starting his post by bashing the man who 'spoke his mind' to bush.

LM: None of us is against freedom of speech. In fact, you guys go out of your way to pretend as though GWB created it and said that the war in Iraq has somehow guaranteed our right to post anti-bush messages, remember? Now how could we possibly be against freedom of speech if you draw an unrelated link to the Iraq war in order to "prove" we have a right to speak freely? As usual, you're confused.

What we DO often say is bogus, is the idea that you (and I mean you, in particular) offer 'proof' by quoting people's personal blogs, as you so often do.

I will give bush credit for one thing, though, LM; as one poster said bush did handle the shoe better than his entire presidency.

patriotic Republican American

Sure you want to stack the adjectives this way? It creates the category of "unpatriotic Republican American."

Yes, I know the international Left disputes the idea that an ordinary citizen should be allowed to publish views on things like media and political discourse. That's why I post this:

No, you posted that because of the view it presented, a paean to GWB. The test of freedom of speech is accepting things you don't want to hear. In this regard, the LA Times has a range of opinions rather than just selecting one (as Saddam would have done). After all, democracy opens the door to pluralism:

"His wrong acts eventually divided the people of Iraq into sects, political entities and blocs, and as a consequence we are unable to reestablish our state," said Usama Najafi, a lawmaker from the secular Iraqi National List coalition in parliament. He blamed Bush for Iranian interference in Iraq, saying the U.S. presence had given Iran an excuse to send weapons to anti-U.S. militias.

"We cannot rebuild our country because of the fragile base which was formed on mistakes, and even President Bush is unable to convince the international community of the reasons behind his policy in Iraq," Najafi said.

Fawzi Akram, a lawmaker from an anti-U.S. Shiite Muslim bloc, said he wished Bush would "stand in the city center of Baghdad and apologize to all the people of Iraq." He said he hoped President-elect Obama "will learn from Bush's mistakes and end the occupation of our country."

As word of Bush's visit spread, mosques in Baghdad's Sadr City district, a stronghold of Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr, began blaring their sirens and calling for people to march in protest today.

But Abbas Bayati, a lawmaker from the main Shiite bloc in parliament, praised Bush "for his bravery in getting rid of the previous regime" and said any errors in planning for the aftermath of Hussein's regime should be viewed in context.

"True, there were many sacrifices that were made, plenty of pain and agony. Maybe the American administration was not very precise in planning what would come afterward," Bayati said. "But to start this project by removing Saddam and then to finish it off with the making of the [Status of Forces Agreement] is something great."

More of Baghdad Bob, Saddam mouthpiece and, judging from what B flag, cleo, smithjapan and friends have vented here, apparently some kind of proto-Lefty:

"We will welcome them with bullets and shoes."

TooFarGoon:

More of Baghdad Bob, Saddam mouthpiece and, judging from what B flag, cleo, smithjapan and friends have vented here, apparently some kind of proto-Lefty blahblahblhblah.....

Honestly - cant you actually come up with a cogent argument instead of just standing there insisting that everyone who does not agree with the war must therefore support SH. That is so incredibly lame and tired and illogical. Just try.

TooFarGone: That's why I post this:

Without a link.

But let us just assume its true.

Imagine you are a reporter, even a wannabe one, and you are wandering around looking for people to interview. That old lady over there looks good. You ask some questions. Can't understand a word she says. Its like she is talking around a brick in her mouth. Well she is no good. And neither is the next guy, or the guy after him. So, while sifting through all these people, do you film them all? Probably not. Because when you film them you want to consider things like backround, light, angles, etc.. and you don't want to do all that and only then realize the guy has nothing to say, or talks like a complete moron. So what do you do? You ask questions, find the right people (that process is where the real bias might take place), get them ready and in position, and then prompt them to say exactly what they said earlier. That is why the the guy said "petrol" with no context. He wanted her to say what she said about petrol earlier when they were not filming her.

Now imagine you are a reporter trying to get ordinary people to tell complete lies on camera. Are they just going to obediently obey? Or are they going to tell you to stuff it? I can't imagine that people in a city under seige are going to have much patience for such reporters. Can you?

Prompting people to rehash their own words has been standard practice of news crews around the world as far as I know. Pay close attention to "ordinary" people being interviewed on TV next time. It may be lessening in places that don't have to worry about wasted film or even DVDs thanks to modern technology. I have a camera with a hard disk myself (and it does fill up), but that is cutting edge consumer stuff in 2008. Can't say if the people you are talking about had that luxury.

Scratch...the...surface...

Here is your link, likeitis. Enjoy

http://eyeraki.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_archive.html

For the Iraqi press, its Mission Accomplished!

So great that the boy blunderer president has his phony victory tour captured by shoe tossing. Pretty much sums up what with the whole world thinks of bush, a complete and total idiot. A failure at everything. The murderer of thousands of Iraqi kids and others and 5000 plus of his own people as well. And for what? Nothing. Some two bit dictator, maybe again with the CIAs help again (like with Saddam), will take over Iraq and oppress this own people and get WMDs from the republicans if they can get away with it as Rumsfeld and Reagan did in the 80s.

The american liberals were so right about all of this from the start. Its amazing to see that some of the deadenders are still twisting in the wind about the massive failure that is Iraq and Afganistan. Oh yeah, and that pesky OBL, he is still free. Free as a bird. But thanks to this failure, and so many others like the US economy for one, we have President Obama now to clean up the failures of the bush train wreck administration.

TooFarGone, thank you. This is in the following paragraph:

Everything they said was probably true, and i doubt they were making things up, but why couldnt the reporter simply say what was going on?...Its much more proffesional than making the Iraqi's look like parrots.

That bolded part is essential. And I think I have answered his question.

Reporters have to do more than just interview people. They have to compete for attention to their work. To do that they have to do what I said. Otherwise, we, the fickle people, will tune in to something more stunning. Most of us seem to prefer that over truth, so even seekers of the truth have to include the stunning or be jobless.

Not a fan of Bush but hes definately nothing like past or current murderus leaders. At least hes not ordering people to shoot others at point blank or rape and beat them just because of their looks or opinions. If anyone expected a war that wouldnt include horrific situations for the people of Iraq or military personnel then you are dreaming...Ive always wondered how a leader who is so HATED internationally could stay in power for 2 terms. Looks like he fooled the US and the international community. He was never forced out so we`ll just have to live with what he did and continues to do for 30 some days.

likeitis:you,betzee and leimotiv make a good argument that if the Iraqi people are ready for a free and inquisitive press, even a raucous shoe-tossing one, then maybe they really are - brace yourself here - ready for democracy.

that guy who hurled the shoes wont have to buy another olive at the kebab stand as long as he lives.

No injury to President Bush also nobody feels hurt, a bright day in Iraq !

Pointofview,

No. What bush has done to the world is something that Americans will have to live with forever, not just for the next month. For some of us, that's a bitter pill to swallow. We didn't ask nor vote to have these things on our collective conscience, but they are ours to deal with, never the less.

Ironically, those least likely to feel any guilt over bush's (or more aptly, his handler's) sins are those who put him in power.

It's a strange world we live in. Fortunately, I think it's going to become a little more sane.

Taka

To TooFarGone:

Are you honestly saying that freedom and democracy is implemented in the US inspite of the covert censorship institutionalized? The Bush Administration keeps say they are promoting "freedom and democracy" while claiming the US Constitution is "just a piece of paper", and establishing a censored society. I find the contradicting promotions astounding.

Probably an Iraqi custom to throw shoes at other people by year's end. Or maybe he felt cheated and wanted his money back.

TooFarGone: "then maybe they really are - brace yourself here - ready for democracy."

One of the reasons why I and so many others have argued against you and yours so adamantly in the past and up to now has been because of the ignorance of what's going on UP TO NOW. What I mean is, for example, you sound, when you say they 'maybe really are ready for democracy', quite proud. I would be too.... it would be a fine thing if they are indeed ready to fully embrace democracy in the true sense (not necessarily that embraced by bush).

But here's the rub; until that comment a few minutes ago by you you still insisted that Iraq is and has been a democracy since the purple fingers a few years back. How is it they MIGHT be ready for democracy if they are not yet a democracy?

This goes hand in hand with bush logic itself: it's been 'mission accomplished' for how long now? And yet in this very thread bush is quoted as saying, "The war in Iraq is not over...", etc.

You see my point? You guys have argued the same things from day one of this debacle, and if and when progress is finally made you start to say, "See?! There's going to be a democracy in a few years!" or something of the like.

In other words, on more than one occasion the people who have backed bush without question have found themselves projecting what COULD happen some day onto what is NOT happening now, and claiming that it IS happening.

It's really the same thing as what bush himself has been doing; chanting for so long that the war is over and democracy great that he came to try and make one last plug for his legacy... what does he get? a shoe in the fact -- or two, actually. Like it or not, THIS is how bush is going to be remembered; a couple of shoes thrown at the world's most powerful man in his greatest moment of impotence. It could not have been timelier, since he's on his way out.

Got Austin Powers written all over this story....'Honestly, Who throws a Shoe'.

I still cant believe some on here are advocating more then shoes being thrown at the president. Consider for a moment that if the US hadnt gone to defend Kuwait in 1991 we wouldnt be in this stuation now(of course Saddam would have control of Kuwait and most people would be suffering a lot more in Iraq and Kuwait). Iraq wasnt stable with Saddam nor did any of the Normal people have freedom. Now they have Freedom, but it came with a price. In world War 1 and in world war 2 the US lost many men to help other countries so they wouldnt fall victim to Saddam like rule. We Americans have paid the price for so many other countries and very rarely are we thanked for the service we do. Bush going into Iraq to remove Saddam shouldnt of happened, it should of been the other countries of the world doing their part to control a cold bloodied leader. That doesnt mean we should praise idiotic thing that a anti Bush man did. Just like we shouldnt praise someone doing it to Obama, but when you say good for that guy he threw a shoe at Bush you open the door for it to be allowed to other leaders. Many Iraqies are glad the US got rid of Saddam in fact a majority of them are. They have an issue with the state of the country after the removal, and that is understandable. And point of view says it best.

Wow!I didn't know G.W was a good dodger, I think he can qualify for the military. I am sure he would be able to dodge those snipper bullets. I recomend he joins the army after retiring on Jan, 20.

Yet another prime example of a reporter with extreme bias toward the Bush clan. Kinda like Dan Rather.

If the U.S. and Iraq are indeed secure, then why the need for secrecy? The fact that this trip was made in total secret, tells the true tale of how much BS the Bush administration has shoveled to the world over the last eight years. And now at the end of his term he has the arrogance to make a victory lap? If the region was truly safe (as Bush likes to proclaim), then he should have been able to travel freely and openly through Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush is a baseball man, he has no problem evading an inside slipper or a non-breaking brogue.

smithinjapan, I don't think you are fair to TooFarGone. You are parsing his words. Granted I agree with you 99 percent of the time, but I have to draw a line here.

Iraqi democracy is still in its infancy, if it even exists. There is not really such a thing as not being ready for democracy one day and then being ready the next. Its a transition. Trying to put that in proper grammatical structure is too much of a burden for just about anybody.

As far as TooFarGone is concerned, I would imagine, they are now practicing democracy. Whether they are actually ready for it can be viewed as a totally different question. And I don't think any of us can accurately tell just much this infant Iraqi democracy is dependent on the United States. Until they are completely weened, its fair for him to think the Iraqi's might finally be ready, or ready soon, or even not yet ready.

Another angle is that he might have meant that from our POV rather than his own, and was giving us some breathing room in our opinion. So long as we come around to agreeing that the Iraqis are ready, just about any day, that is probably enough for him. His type prefers to focus on the future than the past. I have disagreements with the type, often, but they are not all bad. They have their uses.

We Americans have paid the price for so many other countries and very rarely are we thanked for the service we do.

You mean in this case thanked - after they have presumably already thanked the US previously for putting him in power and supplying him with goods and know-how for his crimes? Honestly the level of self delusion among the warhawks around here is utterly astonishing.

Consider for a moment that if the US hadnt gone to defend Kuwait in 1991 we wouldnt be in this stuation now(of course Saddam would have control of Kuwait and most people would be suffering a lot more in Iraq and Kuwait).

Utter nonsense. SH offered to leave Kuwait in the face of US invasion - but invasion and the attendant human suffering was preferred by bush sr. - so illegal invading the US did go. Only to sell out the kurds later and let SH go genocidal bonkers on them again with his planes and helicopters while schwartzkopf stood by shrugging his shoulders "golly....look at that would ya?....whaddaya gonna do?"

likeitis: "Iraqi democracy is still in its infancy, if it even exists. There is not really such a thing as not being ready for democracy one day and then being ready the next. Its a transition. Trying to put that in proper grammatical structure is too much of a burden for just about anybody."

Whether you are aware of it or not, you are agreeing with me here as well. The point of my last post is exactly the comment you make at the end of what I've quoted here: it is, if anything, a fledgling democracy, and may never see the day that it becomes an honest-to-god real one. And yet you have people on here defending the invasion as though Iraq became the world's newest democracy the day of, only for them later to state that 'mistakes have been made', and that there's, 'still work to be done (despite the mission being accomplished)'. In short, they've been counting chickens before there were even eggs, but when there was just a twinkle in bush's eyes. I used this logic sarcastically in my post on TooFarGone's comments.

smithinjapan;

"it [Iraq] is, if anything, a fledgling democracy, and may never see the day that it becomes an honest-to-god real one."

Good point there. But we could say the same of Canada, or of the Japan you consistently bash.

leitmotiv And the CIA killed Kennedy, We never landed on the Moon.. yada yada yada.. same crap different post. One ioda of proof for the US putting him in power? Maybe a factual source? Or just stay with the xfile style blame game. Self delusion is a funny thing to bring up when one creates history in their own head, creates situations that never happened in their post, kinda like you seem to be doing in your post above.

Since I was sitting in the region in the Military at the exact time of the US troops firing the first shot, I would have to disagree with your blog version of the war in 1991. We had been sent to the Gulf in August of 1990 and had been on stand by until the launch date of the 17th of January. At that time Iraq forces where in Kuwait, and wouldnt leave the area unless their demands of all resolutions in all countries of the region where meet(which was impossible, and just a delay tactic used by Iraq to gain more time to dig in). So you not only incorrect your just making it up as you go. If you like you can google the gulf war and you will find many many factual history write ups on it.

As far as the Uprising and the deaths from it, I guess that whole UN wouldnt allow the US to go into the Capital had nothing to do with the US not being able to help the people. I for one was willing to go the whole way,as was my whole command,But the stand down order came from the UN..If you dont think Im right ask USAFdude.

Smith your last post is correct. No country has an honest to god democracy in this world, and one will most likely never happen. Not the US not Canada and not IRAQ. But that shouldnt stop countries from trying it. Iraq needs to become what ever Iraq is to become, this will only happen when the US is out of the area. The Mission Accomplished is just a sound bite used against the war, the ship put that banner up, and as far as that phase of the operation it was accomplished. I dont think anyone truely thought the area would stablize instantly, just like no one really things Obama is going to change Washington, its just a sound bite used to argue a point.

As with any arguement people can find blogs or post from people in the region who support or do not support the US invasion of Iraq. We can also find people (who live in Iraq) who think it is worse now then before, and people (in the country) who think its better. Neither side is wrong as its an opinion and not hard facts. What if's and could of be's are just that, guessamations of what will be could of been or would be. In the end the only way we will know if the sacrafice is worth it is what happens to the nation after it has found its own place in history, be it good or bad.

I for one would like to see that this reporter is prosecuted to the fullest. I may disagree with President Bush, but he is the President. I will never stand by and allow anyone to attack him physically.

I am very disappointed at his secret service protection. This guy should never have had the chance to do this once.

Now why did we go in there in the first place? They deserved Saddam and should have kept him.

sailwind at 03:46 PM JST - 15th December Yet another prime example of a reporter with extreme bias toward the Bush clan. Kinda like Dan Rather.

To even make that comment sailwind is sad. Dan Rather has little more tact than to act like this scumbag Iraqi reporter.

I am so ticked off by this reporter and our Secret Service! Whoever was in-charge of his protection should be retired! Sorry for rambling on and on but this is our President!

Nippon5; Thank you. leitmotiv's statements were so far off base I decided not to reply. You did so elequently. May I add that the decision to bring the SR71 Blackbird back into service was beacuse, contrary to what leitmotiv thinks, we had inadequate satellite coverage in the area.

OK, I just got home. Did I miss anything on this thread or can I pretty much assume what's been going on? ;)

When Iraq was plotting to have GHW Bush killed, Bill Clinton threw a couple cruise missles into Baghdad. At least he had a little more class than most of you clowns.

I think Bush should return Iraq to the days the protester longs for under Saddam. That would mean killing him and his entire family.

Last month, attacks fell to the lowest monthly level since the war began in 2003.

Really? I didn't know that. You'd think after scanning through a half dozen papers on a daily basis I would have picked up that information somewhere. Odd.

Muntadar al-Zeidi was "kidnapped" in 2007 and released unharmed, no ransom paid. Picked up on a Baghdad street by his "brother."

He's a fraud.

all the country with a big amount of oil are in the terror list from the USA.that´s why Brazil and Chavez pick up some help from the Russian,,i dont understand how can a president talk about: we are fighting and we gonna win ? but against whom? against the irak people ? is saddam hussain still there? please give me a break please,welcome to reality,killing irak people doesnt help to keep the peace in that country....

man, this has gotten long today. I like how people came at me when comparing widows in Iraq and those of 9-11 (and I was only referring to a few without going to other places). "skipthesong - for every widow from NYC there might be more than 1000 widows in Iraq. Now - where are those WMD and the idiotic "nucular" weapons that started all this mess? Bush is VERY VERY luchy to escape with only two shoes whacked on his head after all this mess he caused. Had the Justice been FAIR, he would have been hanged for crimes against the humanity long time ago. As an European I feel myself guilty for Europe wasn't able to stop this disaster. I wonder how Americans feels about this war..." It seems to me that you feel that Americans in particular are not worthy of anger due to what terrorism has caused. Yes, Muslims are much higher than anyone...

You used the WMD fiasco, which it was, but it really only came to be nothing more than another excuse to get Islamic terrorist, who had been planning such an attack for a long time and that training through its schools, mosques, governments, etc had had support or at least no one really went on without any protest. No, not until the US started hitting back do they start crying foul. YOu are going to say that I shouldn't use Muslims in the context that the terrorist are just a few guys. Going at them is racist and bigoted but its ok when they do it?

Sezwho2..

So, unless you want to argue that Saddam was the aggressor....

Well I guess if you dont take into account he was the aggressor in the gulf war, which was what created the UN sanctions, and that he was also ignoring those sanctions, and that he was always trying to push the no fly zone, and the statements he had WMD and other statements of attacking Israel he made etc etc etc.(and on and on) then I can see where he wasnt the agressor.

I guess you can say he was the aggressor and started the sequence that ended in the invasion of Iraq if you take into account the whole picture of why the US was there in the first place.

So you are right about Saddam not being the aggressor in 2003( as in not invading another country), but if you go to the start of the US intervention in Iraq he was the aggressor at the time and created the enviroment that led to the 2003 invasion.

That doesnt mean I agree with the US going into Iraq, but if Saddam never attacked Kuwait then the US wouldnt have been in the region policing him before 2003, and most likely the 2003 invasion (and maybe even the world trade center bombing) wouldnt of happened.

Dont you love what if's and could of's.

Just in case everybody has forgotten, please go to this link and read it.

http://edition.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

The video is awsome:-) http://www.mayomo.com/#/id=32150/

Bush sure moves fast... gotta give him that!

Dont you love what if's and could of's." If a "few" didn't go flying airplanes into buildings, attempting a massacre if their timing had been correct, and if there weren't support for religious backed radicals, and if there weren't tolerance for the most conservative of conservatives by the most liberal of liberals, and if the countless widows of Islamic Jihad against all things not conservative in the Islamic world spoke up, perhaps I could of have probably invite many here over to my house for dinner and we could of had the opportunities to meet some of friends I once had from the Middle East as well as many other parts of the world who met a fate that is being somewhat suppressed here and that fate as far as I am concerned was the catalyst that lead to such a support for the invasion. The WMDs? For me they were irrelevant. See, I too am allowed to have anger and like the idea of seeking justice just like many of this reporters buddies are the only difference here is as three particular posters claim, my friends don't warrant the sympathy and I in seeking justice wouldn't get the support against the most conservative of conservatives by even the slightest liberal of liberals....

For the poster above, as you and Rosie would declare that no one else warrants sympathy except those that died at the hands of Bush, I say to you that when an Islamic leader comes to the US again, I will cheer when someone throws a blackjack at him (it won't be a her, that's for sure).

As much as I dislike Bush, I have to say he handled it quite well, you can not deny that. If it were me, the outcome would have been much worse.

yeah you probably wud be walking around with a real shinner!!

The thrown shoes were clearly out of the strike zone (and GW only flintched at the first) -but good throws.. I hope this incident brings some humor to the Iraqi people, Muslims, and the World at whole.

If I could throw my shoes at anyone the list right now would be fairly long. -Blago (good at ducking) -UAW -Barney Franks (100% chance of hitting) -Financial firms (big choice here and I hope my Allen Edmonds heel hits them firmly in the jaw)

=shoe throwing may get popular -this GW video is all over Youtube "Bush shoe"

Bush stood as thought nothing could hurt him. Pride nailed him to the floor boards. Could have easily been a shoe bomb but his arrogance would not let him believe it. So he swatted the second shoe into history. The throwing man yelled "here is your goodbye kiss". Well in this case the shoe surely fits. Goodbye Bush. Glad you have no son. The bushes have been given the boot forever. That is all they will be remembered for.

Yes, sarge... ONE guy... ONE guy that was allowed into a very private, very protected meeting, and who spoke on behalf of the thousands and thousands (if not far more!) dead,

Why is this ONE guy speaking on the behalf? Why couldn't it be the SEVERAL Iraqi journalists who apologized for the behavior of that one guy? What makes YOU able to determine whether the ONE or the SEVERAL were speaking on behalf of the dead, or for that matter - the millions of living?

The thrown shoes were clearly out of the strike zone (and GW only flintched at the first) -but good throws..

If Bush dodged that first shot anymore he would have bashed his face on Maliki's elbow. The first shot was right on target. It missed Bush very narrowly. Bush did more than flinch, but man, he dodged like a man who has been practicing! Had he leaned forward he to duck he would have eaten the mike. I think somebody has been coaching him on proper podium dodge techniques.

-but good throws

They sure were!

Just in case everybody has forgotten, please go to this link and read it.

http://edition.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

Thanks, a great reminder of why nobody threw shoes at Clinton, or even Bush Sr. Both were smart enough to find the problem targets, bomb them, and just walk away.

Only 35 days left to criticise GWB. For past 8 years there has so much criticisements on GWB. Glad it will end in 35 days.

People,we need to now focus more to criticise President Obama and his future mistakes as he tackles the tasks to heal USA/Iraq/Afghanistan. Past is Past. Improving the present, makes the future better.Now is the future. Past is past,is not the future.

The time to take aim at GWB with a shoe was when declared "major combat operations are over" on 1 May 2003. Now we learn:

An unpublished 513-page federal history of the American-led reconstruction of Iraq depicts an effort crippled before the invasion by Pentagon planners who were hostile to the idea of rebuilding a foreign country, and then molded into a $100 billion failure by bureaucratic turf wars, spiraling violence and ignorance of the basic elements of Iraqi society and infrastructure.

The history, the first official account of its kind, is circulating in draft form here and in Washington among a tight circle of technical reviewers, policy experts and senior officials. It also concludes that when the reconstruction began to lag — particularly in the critical area of rebuilding the Iraqi police and army — the Pentagon simply put out inflated measures of progress to cover up the failures.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/world/middleeast/14reconstruct.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

As that shoe whizzed by the boy blunderer that was the closest Bush has come to having a soul. For all his miserable life of empty suit failures, he has been missing that one element most humans, liberals as least, are graced with possessing.

Muntadar al-Zeidi was "kidnapped" in 2007 and released unharmed, no ransom paid. Picked up on a Baghdad street by his "brother."

He's a fraud.

I would just love to see the source for that information! Do I have to keep asking you for a link?

I also heard some Japanese people were "kidnapped" in the M.E. and released with no ransom. Were they also frauds?

Sorry, but your "the simplest explaination is usually the correct one" is not panning out on complcated human interaction events. Or maybe you are just not applying it correctly? Sometimes kidnappers make demands other than cash. Sometimes, they find the person they kidnapped either does not suit their purposes or is not deserving of such treatment. There are more simple explanations than just one.

The time to take aim at GWB with a shoe was when declared "major combat operations are over" on 1 May 2003. Now we learn:

Uh, major combat operations were over. It was no longer a plane vs plane, tank vs tank, army vs army deal with coordination of different branches of the armed forces running through generals and involving huge percentages of men and materiel. From then on it was mostly local occupation force vs pockets of guerilla-like resistance and sectarian violence. Nothing else came close to the scale of the invasion.

The invasion was done well, a little too well. It was the occupation that was bungled, and tearing out Iraqi infrastructure during the invasion was a cause, although they did that "well", they just should not have done it.

Thousands of Iraqis have demanded the release of a local TV reporter who threw his shoes at US President George W Bush at a Baghdad news conference. Crowds gathered in Baghdad's Sadr City district, calling for "hero" Muntadar al-Zaidi to be freed from custody. There were similar scenes in Najaf. Officials at the Iraqi-owned TV station, al-Baghdadiya, also called for the release of their journalist.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7783608.stm

"the sad thing is Bush will never have a moment of clarity and understand all the truly awful things he has done"

The sad thing is BlackFlag will never have a moment of clarity and understand that the tough decisions Bush has made are the right ones, resulting in an awful dictator brought to justice, and a government in Iraq that doesn't seek WMD or threaten its neighbors.

"hopefully in later decades a historical retrospective will give an account of one of the world's most despised leaders"

Hopefully in later decades history will record that Bush made the correct decision to plant the seed of freedom in the cesspool known as the Middle East.

"empty suit failures"

Let's give Obama a chance, zurc.

And to think, cleo, if that man had throw his shoe at Saddam, a man you wanted to keep in power, we'd have a newspaper story that Saddam just killed thousands today. Somewhere near the back of the paper, of course.

As that shoe whizzed by the boy blunderer that was the closest Bush has come to having a soul.

I have to say I was taken aback to read that GWB, in speaking with Charlie Gibson, revealed that "I'll miss meeting with the families whose son or daughter have fallen in combat, because the meetings I've had with the families are so inspirational. They — I mean, obviously, there's a lot of sadness, and we cry, and we hug, and we occasionally laugh. And we share — I listen to stories. But the Comforter-in-Chief is always the comforted person."

We know he ducked meeting with Cindy Sheehan; I presume he didn't meet with yours either, Zurc. Those he does meet with support the war since "winning," whatever that means, will vindicate their loss. While that's an understandable reaction to the loss, it should not misused by GWB as validation for his foreign policy.

I say, Muntadar al-Zeidi's punishment should be to have Bush wing a pair of his shoes at him.

Betzee - Why were you taken aback by that? Bush was simply saying, in his own quirky way, that he has been inspired by the bravery and understanding of the military families who have lost someone in the cause of freedom.

MSNBC should offer the guy a job!

Betzee - Why were you taken aback by that? Bush was simply saying, in his own quirky way, that he has been inspired by the bravery and understanding of the military families who have lost someone in the cause of freedom.

Sarge, years ago I remember my youngest brother had a way to barricade himself in his bedroom with various alerts so that when parental authority approached he would have time to be at his desk doing his homework. When our Dad busted him out he said, "You're only fooling yourself." Such is the case with GWB when he only meets with those who support the war, not those who feel their loved ones' lives were lost in vain.

Does "the cause of freedom" Justify the disappearance of billions of dollars for which there has been no accounting?

Nippon5: The WMDs? For me they were irrelevant.

Me neither. It was a legitimate reason, but in the end I didn't really think it was even necessary. I also laughed at the terrorist link with Saddam and Al Queda. I don't think anyone really understood how I could support the invasion but not support Bush. Bush's reasons were bogus. Just as bogus as the anti-war crowd's reasons. Bush didn't care about humanitarian assistance or democracy in Iraq. And the anti-war crowd didn't care that Saddam was killing hundreds of thousands as long as it wasn't anyone they knew.

I know the invasion was unpopular, and I know there was a lot of death and destruction. I also know the planning was poorly done and cause more destruction than necessary. But over a long enough time line I think Iraq will be better off. I think a child born in Iraq today will grow up in a completely different world than their parents, and I think it will be a better world. It won't happen overnight, and I know some people will never seriously look at the alternative with any real honesty about the cost of doing nothing.

Did the guy get his shoes back?

The only thing we need to see here is that Bush received the ultimate insult (even more than to spit on the face) in the Islamic world. If you remember the scene when the Saddam’s statue was pulled down, the people were beating it with their shoes, because it’s the worst expression to despise a person. Bush deserved it as well as Saddam did.

I think a child born in Iraq today will grow up in a completely different world than their parents, and I think it will be a better world.

A different world than their parents, yes. Assuming of course that they get to be born at all, and that they are born with all their bits in the right places. And let's just ignore the ones who will never be born at all because their would-be parents were turned into collateral damage. But for the ones who aren't that lucky, as they lie on their little hospital beds with stunted little limbs, or misshapen heads, or with their intestines on the outside of their abdomens instead of inside - they might disagree with you about it being a better world.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42762

http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/depleted_uranium_iraq_afghanistan_balkans.html

Bush has some good reflexes. He ducked both shoes. The guy throws worse than my dead grandmother.

The throws were good -had fair heat and intent.

If you are going to be a professional shoe thrower -practice up. You want a leather shoe with a dense heel. Crocs and running shoes just don't throw well.

If people would throw their shoes more, maybe some of this killing would stop -However many politicians, bankers and lawyers would be missing teeth. -You must take the good with the bad in shoe throwing it seems.

Cleo

According to Unicef and other NGO NPO's the death rate of children are lower then 1970 (last time until 1990 they had been recorded) and almost the same as 1990. The defect or birth defect rate is a little higher, but they say that the goverment has stopped training midwives and that is leading to many of the issues.

Your articles (both which are on rag sites) seem to create the numbers they use and maybe are a tad on the opinion side and not on the factual side. But thats why they are a website, so those who are seeking an answer they want so bad to read can find it, instead of finding a factual source.

http://www.unicef.org/

My only question is: where were the secret service? Isn't it their job to take one for the President? I saw no one diving to protect GWB from Shoes of Mass destruction. Wonder if Bush will require that everyone who meets with him during the last month in office comes in barefoot.

SezWho2

It's not like the coalition was invited in. So it really doesn't matter who the Americans were killed by.

Has there ever been war where "invaders" were "invited in"? Is this a historical prerequisite for all armed conflicts in order to be considered "legitimate or are these special rules for America?

SezWho2

The WW2 war crimes trials were conducted under the working hypothesis that the aggressor is responsible for all subsequent acts.

How do you think Japanese people feel about America (the former aggressors) today?

"or are these special rules for America?"

Mate, when your reasons for invasion have become a historical crock of b/s, and when there is a substantial amount of booty to be considered on the country invaded, then expect to be laughed at at all possible moments if you find youself defending the reasons Bush Co invaded Iraq...

This is getting more priceless by the minute.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7783608.stm

*Thousands of Iraqis have demanded the release of a local TV reporter who threw his shoes at US President George W Bush at a Baghdad news conference.

Crowds gathered in Baghdad's Sadr City district, calling for "hero" Muntadar al-Zaidi to be freed from custody.*

Somebody already mentioned the gravity of shoes in Arab culture. Watch the shit hit the fan over this if he isn't released...

Madverts

when there is a substantial amount of booty to be considered on the country invaded

Do you have a link confirming this booty that was acquired?

then expect to be laughed at at all possible moments if you find youself defending the reasons Bush Co invaded Iraq...

Asking for facts and not your opinion (conspiracy theory) is not defending "Bush Co".

The sad thing is BlackFlag will never have a moment of clarity and understand that the tough decisions Bush has made are the right ones, resulting in an awful dictator brought to justice, and a government in Iraq that doesn't seek WMD or threaten its neighbors.

my god....there's just no point is there?

how can you continue to believe that BS? seriously, how can you?

Also, since we have a few Iraq invasion apologists and revisionists present and correct, I'm still impatiently awaiting a reply to a question that has never been answered...

...how is that the hated old Mahmood can announce his visit to Baghdad weeks in advance, when the visits of US "liberators" are announced fait accompli or they risk getting an RPG aimed at their hotel, heh, or a pair of boots across the face...?

george bush took a bunch of lies created by the FBI, with the ideas concoctted (sp) by dick cheney/douh feith.

george bush wanted a lot of things out of the george bush Memorial War in Iraq, but his was attempt at liberating the Iraqis wasn't one of them.

he wanted to be a war president.

he wanted to kill Saddam Hussein.

he wanted to get big contracts for the Big 5 US petroleum producers.

he wanted revenge for Saddam attempting to take out his father.

he wanted to reward war machine makers.

Let's not forget Haliburton.

he wanted to create a American colony in Iraq that catered to the US.

he wanted a stepping off point to enter Iran.

Of course these are many others and my opinions.

Fact - We know he knew there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction before he attacked Iraq.

Fact - Haliburton No-Bid contracts benefit dick cheney.

Fact - george bush's "Shock and Aw" started the total destruction of all Iraq infrastruction.

Fact - george bush's actions resulted in the deaths of 100,000s of innocent Iraqi's.

Fact - 1,000,000s of children are without parents because they are dead.

Fact - george bush's actioons resulted in over 2,500,000 refuges out of Iraq.

Fact - george bush had oil contracts signed within a year of entering Iraq. (Too bad the Iraq parliment ruled them null.)

Fact - george bush and alberto gonzales authorized the use of torture.

I can see many reasons why Muntadar al-Zeidi threw his shoes at george bush. He was just expressing what many many Iraqis would like to tell him.

Instead of going to visit the politicians, who don't like him, why not visit the people of Iraq. Yes visit the people who many posters here want to express their accolades for. Go talk to those liberated Iraqis. Go shake the hands of the average peoson down the street.

george bush wanted a phote shot once again in Iraq to show his great power. But he was greated with just a touch of what the Iraqi people think of him. < :-)

Beambreak,

There are a couple fatal flaws in your argument.

Has there ever been war where "invaders" were "invited in"? Is this a historical prerequisite for all armed conflicts in order to be considered "legitimate or are these special rules for America?

When an invasion is billed as a liberation and for the good of the invaded - yeah, I think (and I believe many would agree) that an invitation is kind of important.

How do you think Japanese people feel about America (the former aggressors) today?

Well...first of all, you will find that there are a lot of Japanese who do not want the U.S. military's presence in Japan. The J-Gov. understands that there are a lot of benefits to it, but...there ARE, in fact, Japanese who don't really like us.

Secondly, America did not attack Japan unprovoked. America was attacked first. Iraq was not even considered to be an imminent threat when we attacked. BIG - HUGE - MONUMENTAL difference.

Taka

First of all, the Americans were not the "former aggressors" in Japan.

Madverts

Somebody already mentioned the gravity of shoes in Arab culture. Watch the shit hit the fan over this if he isn't released...

Iraqis were whacking the fallen statue of Saddam Hussein with shoes too. Congratulations to the members of JT for blowing this, in my opinion, laughable moment out of proportion. This doesn't bring to our attention anything about the mindset of Iraqis that we didn't already know.

Did the guy get his shoes back?

They're going on eBay.

Has there ever been war where "invaders" were "invited in"?

Hey Madverts I remember george bush in one press conference proudly saying, "BRING 'EM ON!!!"

Boy we rememeber how well that went.

But I have to make a clsrification out here. We were invited in by the Iraqi Liberation Front, I think that was their name. It was led by Chalibi and a bunch of other self-exiled Iraqis who wanted Saddam Hussein out of power. They helped george bush with obtaining false information.

This bunch of rebels wanted the same thing as george bush. An attack on Iraq and the death of Saddam. Legally or illegal, made no difference.

So yes we were invited in to attack Iraq, but not by Iraqis who lived under Saddam Hussein. < :-)

cleo: A different world than their parents, yes. Assuming of course that they get to be born at all

In October, 118 civilians were killed in Iraq. The UK averages 61 murders a month. If violence keeps rising in the UK and dropping in Iraq pretty soon you'll have to make the same point about yourself. But my guess is you had no idea the numbers were that close. Welcome to 2008. Pretty soon you'll be voting a man like Saddam as your leader to reap the same benefits you wanted to give the Iraqis, ne?

And let's just ignore the ones who will never be born at all because their would-be parents were turned into collateral damage. But for the ones who aren't that lucky, as they lie on their little hospital beds with stunted little limbs, or misshapen heads, or with their intestines on the outside of their abdomens instead of inside - they might disagree with you about it being a better world.

That's right, cleo. Keep debating from the position that keeping Saddam in power would have kept Iraq free of stunted little limbs or misshapen heads. You're well within your rights to ignore Saddam's violence since you didn't support it directly. Invasion = intestines inside out. No invasion = no intestines inside out. Invasion = death. No invasion = no death. As long as you compare the invasion to that mythical "zero" number under Saddam you're guaranteed to stay ahead!

Madverts: when the visits of US "liberators" are announced fait accompli or they risk getting an RPG aimed at their hotel

So you're saying the PM of Canada, a country that was against the invasion, could just drop on in anytime and just stroll through the streets? It's a security issue. A high profile target is a high profile target regardless if they supported the invasion or not.

superlib,

Those numbers you quoted to Cleo, do they include the number of civilian on civilian killings in Iraq as well or are they only war related deaths?

If they are not fully inclusive (and I suspect they aren't), then your numbers and ultimately, your argument is terribly skewed.

Taka

But super, you're not answering the question, despite your post half answering the image of the western world in Iraq, which I'm quite well aware of as you know.

I don't consider you a revisionist, though obviously I do consider you respectfully as an apologist for this mess, but perhaps you can have a stab at it...

...why can "evil" Mahmood not only annonce his visit almost months in advance, and take care of his own security in Iraq, when no western leader can visit anything other than the Green Zone, and even then make the news public once the plane has completely left the middle east.....

this terrorist went way to far: I mandate that all Iraqis must remove all said shoes (and related accessories) within 100' of any media circus and secure said items in a lockable container mandated by the UN with Nato approval.

Shoes can be very dangerous (however useful) and this type of behavior must be stopped.

-All the more reason Japanese take off their shoes upon entering a residence. Give up your shoe weapons!!

Also:

"It's a security issue"

Of course it is. And what and who caused this issue?

The guy didn't do anything a lot of the rest of us wish we had thought of first.

Things will get better, eventually. But this whole thing has been bungled by the administration's incompetence. From the looting of Bagdad to Abu Garib to Gitmo this administration has tiptoed dangerously close to the behaviour it says it it fighting against. GWB needs a size 10 up side the head. And another planted firmly in his posterior. I am convinced that Bush has been the worst president since Grant. Possibly of all time.

If it wasn't for the Armed Forces being as well trained as they are things would have been a lot worse. Maybe with Bush gone things will get more better more quickly.

Madverts

The only one trying to revise history is you, with your bias opinion and disregard to facts no matter where they lead.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/06/30/iraq.oil/?iref=mpstoryview

Madverts

...how is that the hated old Mahmood can announce his visit to Baghdad weeks in advance, when the visits of US "liberators" are announced fait accompli or they risk getting an RPG aimed at their hotel, heh, or a pair of boots across the face...?

Easy...the Americans kicked a lot of people out and assumed power. There are a lot of people that want the Americans to leave so that they can take that power. Also, Mahmood is Shia. Most people that live in Iraq are Shia and tribalism flourishes in that part of the world.

beambreak - What does your link have to do anything about the article?

What does Iraq taking bids on their oilfields have to do with Muntadar al-Zeidi throwing his shoes at george bush?

What does your link have to do with any reason why Muntadar al-Zeidi was pissed off with bush? < :-)

I have no idea? -but I am feeding this beast as much as I can to get to 200 posts.

I have no idea except utter contempt. What else could he do? On instant replay -Yes, indeed he batted away the 2nd shoe (LF). A good showing by Bush I must add.

What's the deal with a shoe being such an insult in the Islamic world? Foot odor, a bit of foot fungus and the lack of Desenex on the local chemist's shelves? I would think that the foot being given to man by God, Allah, whomever and walking on the earth he/she/it created would make it holy rather than dirty. Wonder if Nike could superimpose their trademark symbol on the shoes and create a new 'Just Do It' commercial?

adaydream

The link was directed at Madverts. He/She implied that America was in iraq for "booty". The link was given in response to his/her conspiracy theory.

Muntadar al-Zeidi didn't realize the president has cat-like reflexes. Like a ninja, our President.

Still, Muntadar al-Zeidi can't beat the guy who tossed a hand grenade at Bush and Georgia's slime-ball president a few years back. I don't bear any hostility (well not too much) towards Bush, but if the hand grenade had gone off and killed that Georgian Jew, the world would be a better place - especially for South Ossetians.

Wow... talk about late to the party... 176 comments and no patients to go through them all myself but.....

For all those Bush haters ( rightly or wrongly ) here, abroad or in Iraq itself ANSWER me this...

What would have happened to the same reporter if he would have thrown his shoes at Saddam Hussein while he was in power ?????

Sometimes, people forget just how bad they had it - not to say it's nice now or that the ends justify the means but in Saddam's day that guys head would be on a pike somewhere 2 minutes after the first loafer took to the air...

beambreak we did attack Iraq for oil. One of many reasons. Before we were in Iraq much over a year the Big 5 US oil companies went to Iraq and got the oil fields in contracts given by the US in charge of Iraq.

Then as soon as the Iraqi parlimanr took over they made tjose oil contracts null and void.

Yes we tried to steal their oil reserves. < :-)

Wish it was Geoff Capes who throwed the shoe, he wouldn't have missed.

Blimey, he might even have knocked some sense into Mr Thicko.

Nippon5,

Sure, you could argue that Saddam was the aggressor in 2003. Just to be clear, though, is that what you are arguing? I contend that he was not.

beambreak,

You ask three questions:

Has there ever been war where "invaders" were "invited in"?

I don't know. I doubt that you know either. If your answer is in the negative I think you'll have a tough nut to crack to prove that there has never been such a war.

Is [being invited in] a historical prerequisite for all armed conflicts in order to be considered "legitimate or are these special rules for America?

Neither. It is an observation that uninvited guests should not expect gratitude from their hosts.

How do you think Japanese people feel about America (the former aggressors) today?

I don't think Americans were the former aggressors. While I don't think our hands were entirely clean, we certainly did not throw the first punch. I think that Japanese people today now understand that. Nonetheless, the Japanese have mixed sentiments about America, about Americans and about the continued American military presence in Japan. Not all Japanese are grateful.

Was there a point to your questions?

Moderator: Stay on topic please.

What would have happened to the same reporter if he would have thrown his shoes at Saddam Hussein while he was in power ?????

I understand that you want to compare Saddam and Bush as they are the same kind. But we don’t know if this reporter hated Saddam as much as Bush, so this question makes no sense.

Which is better?

a) to have Saddam Hussein, responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, continuing to run Iraq into the ground whilst continuing to seek to ressurect his WMD, as we would have if the anti-Bush/anti-liberation crowd had their way

b) a freely elected government in Iraq that doesn't seek WMD or threaten its neighbors, as we have today

Let's take a vote. I say b.

4,000 troops died and US$ 500 bills spent for 2 shoes only?

It seems to me that the only thing funny about this was the guy after throwing shoes,tried to escape! As "real journalist" should know that he coud not escape, no way to escape...

Which is better?

a) to have Saddam Hussein, responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, continuing to run Iraq into the ground whilst continuing to seek to ressurect his WMD, as we would have if the anti-Bush/anti-liberation crowd had their way

b) a freely elected government in Iraq that doesn't seek WMD or threaten its neighbors, as we have today

Let's take a vote. I say b.

I think (b) is pretty much a shoe in on this.

What would have happened to the same reporter if he would have thrown his shoes at Saddam Hussein while he was in power ?????

Sometimes, people forget just how bad they had it

Fredster, are you trying to argue that all those men, women, and children who died since and as a result of the invasion were well worth it because a guy can throw shoes at a top politician? Seems like a real poor measure to me.

FYI, we have yet to find out what will happen to this guy. I think even Saddam would have put him in jail first. He might be getting roughed up even now. I doubt he will be executed, but even Saddam did not execute EVERYBODY.

Which is better?

a) to have Saddam Hussein, responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, continuing to run Iraq into the ground whilst continuing to seek to ressurect his WMD, as we would have if the anti-Bush/anti-liberation crowd had their way

b) a freely elected government in Iraq that doesn't seek WMD or threaten its neighbors, as we have today

Let's take a vote. I say b.

Sarge you are too late, voting was over last month and american people opted for (a)

Saddam didn’t kill the people randomly like in this US invasion did. Saddam killed the people who were against him. I know a girl who lived in Iraq when Saddam was still in power in Iraq, she said there was a freedom in Iraq, as long as you don’t criticize Saddam. People had almost everything, except the embargo period, but still then, they could have many things from the black market. She said it was like a freedom in a cage, but you could live decently if you know how to manage. But since the invasion, US destroyed the infra structure and the life in Iraq became impossible. She left Iraq just before the US invasion, but her relatives are still in Iraq and she can communicate with them only by the phone. As you can imagine she and her relatives hate Bush and US troops.

But she says clearly that the ordinary citizen's life was better under Saddam. (she hates Saddam as much as Bush,though)

Sarge

come on now surely you know WMD had absolutely NOTHING to due with the US invading Iraq, note I am in no way saying Sadam was a nice guy.

Question for ya, wud the US have invaded Iraq if it had no oil to speak of?

IMO I sincerely doubt it

From Europe.

Fact is we dont know if this guy hated Bush. He could of been paid to do such actions.

The question wasnt one of who hates who it was of if the leader was Saddam and the guy threw a shoe at him. Its used to compare the difference of freedom and no freedom. I know its a hard thing to remember but Saddam was a brutal dictator who used GENOCIDE to get his point across.

Also I just ran Adaydreams numbers on 100000 dead parents and over a million parent less kids. each parent had to have ten children each. Seems someone is pulling BS numbers out of his butt again.

The war is bad and just like any war civilians die, but to blame every homeless child and death on the US is just plain stupid, the country had homeless children and a goverment (and religious sects) killing people before the US invaded and they are still doing it today.

Nippon5

a goverment (and religious sects) killing people before the US invaded and they are still doing it today.

Do you have any proof of what you quote? Which religious sect killed the people under Saddam ???

I also know a few people who lived in Iraq at the time before and after the gulf war. They moved back there after 2005. They say since Saddam killed many of there family members because of the religion they had, and they had to live in fear all the time he was in power they think the new situation is much much better. They now have a nice place to live and good business they own. They say they havent seen much in the way of violence in their area of the city. They have some issues but over all they are happy with the way things are going. Just so you know they where not part of Saddams party. They also dont like Bush for their own reasons, but they hated Saddam like any person would hate a man who has their family members murdered and thrown into a mass grave.

See always two sides to a story.

Yea its called any news agency in the world

Use google and serch any news reports from the era of Saddam. Just asking that question shows your bias. Or you can follow any of the thousands of links on JT about the subject. You do make me laugh though with the tactics of questioning factual statements to try to build a case.

Saddam killed many of there family members because of the religion they had,

So, which religion was it???

Anyway, US invasion is killing the people without distinction.

Taka:

I get your point and based on principle I`m also sure that the American people would most definitely not have supported such a cause if they could have seen the future. But this all started in 2003 and there was no change in leadership and that is the fault of Americans. Remember, the President and other Politicians work for you...Citizens call the shots.

Sorry I figured your fingers actually could type outside of JT. Islamic is the main religion in Iraq, but the religion is split between shias and Sunnis These two groups held very different religious beliefs then the other major group the secular Baathists. Does that help fill your void for the religious sects? Or do you want me to go into detail of the Christian and Jewish sects too, since they had been targeted by the Islamic groups.

And My friends where Christians. I met them when we (the US military)pulled them from Iraq during the original Gulf war. They had been terrorised by Saddams rule.

And the statement of "the US invasion is killing people without distinction" shows you have no idea what care is taken to not hurt innocents. People who talk like you have never left a couch and actual served in war. They dont understand that the troops are human and are not blood thirsty monsters out to kill children (like Hitler, Saddam,). Many of the Americans who died in Iraq die because we have a code in the use of force, we didnt just shoot the lady with the backpack because she acted strange. Then they die because that innocent looking person had a bomb. My friends and family are in that area and to say they kill without distinction is not just wrong it shows the lack of intelligence and common sense on the part of the speaker of those words.

Sarge you are too late, voting was over last month and american people opted for (a)

Not really interested in what the American people would vote for. They mostly supported the invasion in 2003 anyway and I am not accepting 20/20 hindsight this century. I want to know what the Iraqis would vote for since they were on the business end of the stick. And I would want all voters to be people who were actually adults in 2003 under Saddam.

But I sure would not want them voting on Sarge's hopelessly biased choices. The man does not have an unbiased bone in his body.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm Here likeitis. A poll of Iraq one year after the initial invasion. Seems most are saying it is better then.

You are dodging my question. I was not asking what were the religious sects existed in Iraq.

You said:

a goverment (and religious sects) killing people before the US invaded and they are still doing it today.

And I asked which religious sect killed the people under Saddam.

Then you wrote:

Saddam killed many of there family members because of the religion they had,

So I asked which religion this family had.

You didn’t answer any of my questions.

Please give us the proof or link that we can check what you say. Thank you.

Wow. You can not read well ey? only dodging is your dodging of the facts and reality.

Friends =Christian.. as stated in the post

I not posting any links as there are to many that explian the religious issues in Iraq before and during Saddam. I posted all that information. As I have said before you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink.

Take the time read, study then come back to post your nonesense. Right now your just being silly and wasting bandwidth.

So you mean the Christians in Iraq killed the people under Saddam ?

Bush supporters justifications for this war change as frequently as the whitehouse's excuses. what reasons will we be hearing in another 5 years?

Once again you didnt read.

You have become a waste of time sorry.

No more stupid games for you.

Goodbye get your parting gift at the door.

Come back when you not trying so hard to be a bung hole.

See ya.

Enjoy your couch...

I just don't believe you.

Under Saddam, the religions were tolerated, but controlled at the same time. A French Nun who was in Baghdad for many years told that they were quite safe until Bush started to provoked Saddam about WMD. Then, not Saddam, but the Islamic extremist sect started to attack them as the symbol of the west. They decided to leave when Bush started to invade, before the troops arrive to Baghdad. They were more afraid of the arrival of US troops than the Muslim neighbours.

Saddam didn’t really care about the minority religions, such as Christians or Jews. He persecuted more the rival Chiit than those religions.

Madverts: Those numbers you quoted to Cleo, do they include the number of civilian on civilian killings in Iraq as well or are they only war related deaths?

You mean after 5 years you're not sure of how Iraqi civilian deaths are reported, and you're only asking now when the numbers are getting closer to your own country? Why don't you find out for yourself and get back to me. It's long overdue.

Sorry...the quote above is from Taka, not Madverts. I had to scroll to far down to post that I switched the name in my mind by the time I'd gotten to the bottom...heh. My apologies, Adverts.

From Europe: Saddam didn’t kill the people randomly like in this US invasion did. Saddam killed the people who were against him.

Ah, so he only killed Shiites and Kurds, or, put another way, a group that comprises the majority of people in Iraq. And he killed a lot more of them.

Look, until people are willing to take an honest look at death under Saddam you're just not going to get a fair comparison. What I object to is people who simply take Saddam's numbers off the table. Why not look at both? And why not think of Iraq over a period of 10, 20, or 30 years into the future under Saddam and/or after the invasion?

I know a girl who lived in Iraq when Saddam was still in power in Iraq, she said there was a freedom in Iraq, as long as you don’t criticize Saddam. People had almost everything, except the embargo period, but still then, they could have many things from the black market.

Odd story. Wanna know why they're having problems getting power 24 hours a day in the country? Because people have bought so many items that they couldn't own before that the demand for power in Iraq has gone through the roof compared to Saddam's days. What do you think is powering all of those new Satellite dishes and Tvs to watch worldwide media?

She said it was like a freedom in a cage, but you could live decently if you know how to manage. But since the invasion, US destroyed the infra structure and the life in Iraq became impossible. She left Iraq just before the US invasion, but her relatives are still in Iraq and she can communicate with them only by the phone.

Your story is bogus. They only communicate by phone? Is there some reason why she doesn't just send them an email? I can go to websites today and read bloggers in Iraq right now.

Tell me....are you really being honest right now?

Dont believe me, but same goes for your post, I have a hard time believing anything you post since most if not all is in direct contradiction of the facts available on any news site in the world.

Here are some links for you since you dont have the ability to surf your self.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/11/iraq1

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1141359.cms

http://chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-04/24/content_575732.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/religion.htm

And yes the Christian (only around 800k of them) didnt get the majority of the violence from Saddam, but they did get some of it, and more after the UN defence of Kuwait.

Bottom line is under Saddam many Iraq people died from him for Goverment/religious reasons. No matter how you try to change the facts.

GW/likeitais/BlackFlag - So, do you vote a or b?

This interview with Maj. Gen. Mark P. Hertling, the 1st Armored Division commander, who has been in Samarra and was fresh off the plane from Iraq when he made these observations, underscores the inappropriateness of comparisons to Western governments:

Iraq’s unemployment rate ranges from 40 percent to 80 percent depending on where you are in the country.

Violent extremists still attack soldiers and civilians daily.

And the infrastructure that has survived is obsolete and crumbling.

Nevertheless, things are better.

The violence in northern Iraq has decreased sharply, from roughly 1,800 attacks per month a year ago to a little more than 100 attacks during his last full week in Iraq, trending toward 400 for the month.

"While there are still too many, it certainly doesn’t compare to a Western country right now, where the police force is doing the things that they need to do, and the government is doing the things that it needs to do," he said.

A major problem is that the Shiite government shows no interest in the welfare and progress of the Sunni Arab north-- "It would be like having a central government in Bonn that didn’t care anything about what was going on in Wiesbaden or Frankfurt . . ."

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=59397

SuperLib -

Maybe you'd like to tell us where you get your figures so that we can all check for ourselves. According to icasualties.com, the number of civilian deaths in Iraq in October this year was 240 (lower than September and November), which does not tally with your numbers. Iraqi Security forces had 48 deaths in the same month. The average figures for this year so far are 424 and 89. You seriously want to compare those figures with 61 in the UK?

SuperLib :

Is there some reason why she doesn't just send them an email? I can go to websites today and read bloggers in Iraq right now.

You presume that all the Iraqi people have the access facility to the Internet, while even in Europe or in America, there are many people who are not connected to the Internet. I actually don’t know if her relatives have the Internet access, but if she says she contact only by phone, I believe that she can’t send the e-mail. You dream too much.

Nippon 5 :

Bottom line is under Saddam many Iraq people died from him for Goverment/religious reasons. No matter how you try to change the facts.

You are the one who are trying to change the fact. You said « a goverment (and religious sects) killing people before the US invaded and they are still doing it today. » But now you changed the term « religious sect » to « religious reason », which doesn’t mean the same thing at all.

Betzee : Good article. But the posters here will understand better if it says...

"It would be like having a central government in Washington that didn’t care anything about what was going on in New York or Boston . . ."

superlib,

So...instead of answering my question, you will try to duck it by putting back on me.

Looks to me like you aren't too certain about your facts.

It's a shame and kind of sad that you couldn't just come clean and say, "Hey, you know, I didn't factor in non-war related deaths. Yeah, that would change things in the numbers I gave to Cleo."

Taka

I can go to websites today and read bloggers in Iraq right now.

You'd have to be able to read Arabic to do that, and with a fairly high degree of proficiency, like 3+ or 4 according to the ILR scale (linguists will be familiar with this assessment instrument).

Thanks Nippon5, but it still does not really ask the questions I want. This comes close:

And 56% said that things were better now than they were before the war.

Oh boy! Slightly more than half! I am sure that could not be offset by resurrecting the dead!

The question I would put to Iraqis is:

If you could go back to 2003, would you rather a) see the invasion occur and accept all the good and bad that came with it just as it happened? or b) forego the invasion and accept all the good and bad that you imagine would come with that?

No mention of WMD, Bush, Saddam, freedom or any other buzz word chucked in there to foster positive or negative feelings save maybe "invasion". The respondent is free to conjure up whatever buzzwords they are already affected by good or bad. I can't think of any way to make it less biased. And I would want it asked not just in say 2004, but every year from as early as possible and every year until the U.S. leaves, at least.

But I have to take this shoe throwing and its support to mean that quite a lot of people would rather the invasion never happened because of the messy occupation that came with it. Maybe not a majority, but I cannot weigh the happiness of the many against the deaths and losses in family of certainly more than a few.

Of course best option for most Iraqis is probably invasion happened but occupation was smooth. That option is not really relevant to what I am asking.

Anyway, Bush should have picked up those shoes and took a walk in them.

You presume that all the Iraqi people have the access facility to the Internet, while even in Europe or in America, there are many people who are not connected to the Internet.

FromEurope,

There are a number of very poor countries which have active blogging communities. Cambodia is one. But that doesn't change the fact internet access is limited to a very few.

I have some experience in training people on the use of blogs as a source of information. They can be great fun to read but extrapolating blogger opinions onto an entire society is very dicey (and not recommended if you want to be taken seriously).

shoe me once, shame on me...shoe me twice...you know what I mean

This incident certainly gives fresh meaning to the expression "shooed away."

Betzee, I understand very well.

BTW, I travelled to Cambodia twice last year for a business. I was surprised to see an Internet café in the middle of nothing, in a very poor village. ( No paved road) There were 3 young boys sitting in front of the computers. I was curious to see how they type on the keyboad.(as you may know, they have their own alphabet) but all they were doing was to play with the game on computer. I thought about the importance of the education for the children. They can have the sophisticated tool in their hands, but as long as they don't know how to expoloit it, it's nothing but a toy...

Sarge - since your pitifully lame "vote" scenario represents a false choice, I vote "C": Good relations between America and Iraq, which suffers no longer under either saddam or bush.

I was curious to see how they type on the keyboad.(as you may know, they have their own alphabet) I was curious to see how they type on the keyboad.(as you may know, they have their own alphabet)

I read the history of making their script internet compatible. Initially, only those who knew English or French could use the internet. The push to get a Khmer script was to transmit important knowledge such as preventive medicine, still accessible only to a few and useful only to those with the appropriate background knowledge.

I haven't looked into it, but I doubt Iraq's blogger community is as active as that of neighboring Iran. Persian is the third largest internet language after English and Chinese.

But what does all this mean?

I've been in countless internet cafes in China and noted many people are online to engage in the same sort of mindless activities their counterparts elsewhere log on for.

Betzee, Thank you for your information. It's always interesting to read your post.

Look, until people are willing to take an honest look at death under Saddam you're just not going to get a fair comparison. What I object to is people who simply take Saddam's numbers off the table. Why not look at both?

Its a good starting point. Whose numbers do you suggest?

Lancet's estimates of Saddam's victims seemed good enough to everyone pre-invasion. But then the estimates of Iraqi casualties came out, then suddenly Lancet and everything it ever did was a problem. And some people started adding mass graves found in Iraq to the list of Saddam's crimes and did not revise their numbers when the graves were found to be soldiers from the Iran-Iraq war nor even when it was found the estimates were wildly inflated when those bodies were actually counted.

If we ever agree on whose numbers to use, I think its a great starting point. For US anyway. But for the Iraqis it may not be good enough. I think everybody on the planet is quite a lot more forgiving of deaths caused by their own than by a foreign invader. Just look at how the Japanese react to crime committed by US soldiers compared to JSDF members!

This is your farewell kiss, you dog!” shouted the protester in Arabic

WOO! if that guys hand hadnt got in the way one of the second shoe it would of hit him, wasted.. then bush has the guts to say "I dont know why he did that" LMAOO bush is an idiot.

FromEurope: You presume that all the Iraqi people have the access facility to the Internet, while even in Europe or in America, there are many people who are not connected to the Internet. I actually don’t know if her relatives have the Internet access, but if she says she contact only by phone, I believe that she can’t send the e-mail. You dream too much.

Your story was bogus. You said that she could get things from the black market under Saddam so things were better, but Iraqis today can buy exponentially more items today than under Saddam. You mentioned that your friend can "only" call her parents on the phone (as if communication is a hardship today), then report back saying that maybe she just doesn't live in an area with internet access.

Any way you slice it you're obviously just making stuff up. The hardships you use to describe Iraq today just aren't true. There are good reasons to support or not support the war. I don't see why you feel the need to give us false stories. The fact that you won't even admit to being exposed tells me you debate more from emotion than truth.

cleo: Maybe you'd like to tell us where you get your figures so that we can all check for ourselves. According to icasualties.com, the number of civilian deaths in Iraq in October this year was 240 (lower than September and November), which does not tally with your numbers. Iraqi Security forces had 48 deaths in the same month. The average figures for this year so far are 424 and 89. You seriously want to compare those figures with 61 in the UK?

I made a point that children in Iraq being born today will grow up in a much better Iraq than the one Saddam and his sons had planned for them. You responded by saying they'd be lucky to be born today since it means their parents weren't killed. So let me ask you this: When we're talking about 118 or 240 a month out of 27,000,000, do we really need to nail down the exact number before your wild statement becomes legitimate? Or can we go ahead and accept the fact that a child being born today in Iraq doesn't need "luck" to just be born?

You made a wild statement that you should back down from. Just like FromEruope with his bogus stories, Madverts with his "terrorists running amok" claims, and daydream's 1,000,000+ dead statistic. I know you guys could make up anything you wanted when the headlines were different a few years ago, but people just aren't buying it today.

With aim that bad this 'journalist' should be working for the 'Palestinians'. Bwahahaha.

Iraq is now safer than Mexico.

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/mexico/articles/20081215.aspx

I really don't think we know what kind of Iraq the current generation of Iraqi children will grow up in. Saddam was draconian, but there were rules. Present day Iraq has a lot of people who want to make the rules and it isn't at all clear who is going to prevail.

I made a point that children in Iraq being born today will grow up in a much better Iraq than the one Saddam and his sons had planned for them.

It's standard practice to provide empirical evidence to support such assertions. Are you aware that in 2006 one in four Iraqi children suffered from malnutrition? The effects of that are lifelong owing to a disruption in mental and cognitive development, not just physical development, at a critical stage of early life. Sadly, the situation was not so dire under Saddam.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones; you were asked to substantiate figures you tossed around and simply responded by attacking those provided by others. There may be a case to be made for long-term benefits to the Iraqi people of the US-led invasion that toppled Saddam, but it won't be found in your posts.

SuperLib -

I made a point that children in Iraq being born today will grow up in a much better Iraq ....

You tried to make the point that it's only a matter of time before Iraq has a lower violent death rate than the UK. Maybe that's the wild statement you should back down from? Remember, you were trying to compare 118 (or 240) a month out of 27,000,000 with sixty-something out of 60,000,000.

can we go ahead and accept the fact that a child being born today in Iraq doesn't need "luck" to just be born?

I don't see anything 'lucky' about being born in Iraq.

what a perfect way to capture the bush fake victory tour for the tragic fake war and the too real million plus that have been killed by the boy blunderer. due to his self loathing and wanting to prove to Daddy that junior was not a pure loser. Which of course he is.

The shoes show the boy emperor as naked, all it took was one act to unwind all the lunacy of the whole invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq.

Soon it will be over when President Obama starts the clean up process from the bush failures.

Muntadar al-Zeidi is now a folk hero because of his splendid use of metaphor. Your teacher's shoe on your head" is the supreme Arabic insult. Well, he put metaphor into practice and said what millions of people who suffered or watched the Bush gang's war crimes wanted to say to the chief monster.

This might start a trend. People will start throwing things at Bush whenever they see him.

I vote C, just A and B choice reflects the them and us fantasy world you live in

It't ironic that this coward whips his shoes at the guy who helped give him that freedom to do it.

I say "coward" because he wouldn't whip his shoes at the leaders of Egypt, Syria or any other Arab dictator 'cause he knows he'd've been dismembered on the spot.

Much of the Arab world is celebratin' this guy as a "hero" when he's nothing but an oportunistic coward. And that typifies again the ignorance of large numbers of people livin' in Islamo-fascist states.

USARonin: "I say "coward" because he wouldn't whip his shoes at the leaders of Egypt, Syria or any other Arab dictator 'cause he knows he'd've been dismembered on the spot."

How is he a coward for throwing his shoe at the world's 'most powerful man' (who incidenctally was too much of a coward to go fight himself in a war)? Perhaps he didn't feel the need to whip his shoes at the other leaders you mentioned. Maybe the US is indirectly or directly responsible for the deaths of people he loves, and not the other leaders. And if he's a coward for not doing so with the other leaders, so is bush for not attacking other leaders when he knows he can't get away with it, and only attacking one sovereign nation with an evil dictator.

You see? your comments can easily be directed back to the source.

"Much of the Arab world is celebratin' this guy as a "hero" when he's nothing but an oportunistic coward. And that typifies again the ignorance of large numbers of people livin' in Islamo-fascist states."

Exact same about bush, except that he's not living in an Islamic state, nor is he considered a hero by the world. The opportunistic coward part? for srue!

Mr. Smith, he's a coward because he knew he could do this and he would not be disemboweled on the spot had he done it to the leader of any Islamo fascist state. He's an opportunistic coward. Simple.

You don't have to over-think this, Mr. Smith, to excuse this coward's actions.

USARonin: "Mr. Smith, he's a coward because he knew he could do this and he would not be disemboweled on the spot had he done it to the leader of any Islamo fascist state. He's an opportunistic coward. Simple."

I asked you to differentiate this from how bush is an opportunistic coward, if you can. I fear you cannot, simply because you believe one is right and the other wrong. I can tell you this, the 'cowardice' of this man is far less damaging to the world and has killed no one compared to the thousands of innocent lives taken by the cowardice of the American president, again who himself refused to fight in any conflict.

I say Bush is a "coward" because he wouldn't throw 'shock and awe' at Pakistan, North Korea or any other nuclear-armed 'rogue state that is a threat to America/democracy/civilised nations' 'cause he knows he'd've had mushroom clouds over California. The wimp could only attack one nation that his Daddy had already bombed into the Stone Age, and another that never evolved out of the Middle Ages.

cleo:

The wimp could only attack one nation that his Daddy had already bombed into the Stone Age, and another that never evolved out of the Middle Ages.

And like Pakistan those two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, were also occupied, ruled or created by Great Britain.

Bush - like his "daddy" - is just another US president forced to clean up after you lot with your numerous, far-flung imperial disasters.

those two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, were also occupied, ruled or created by Great Britain.

So was America, in a way. Your point being...?

Well I'd have to disagree with you, cleo. I don't think Bush is a wimp for not starting wars with Pakistan or North Korea. I think it's a pretty smart play. I'm surprised that someone who claims to be anti-war would call a leader a wimp for not starting more wars. Starting a nuclear war is a world changing experience, not really something you should be chest thumping about.

cleo:

So was America, in a way. Your point being...?

In a very far-fetched way.

My point being our next president, son of a victim of your corrupt empire in Africa, will also have to deal with the disastrous consequences of British intervention and shortsighted foreign policy in the ME,Afghanistan and Pakistan - whether he likes it or no.

SuperLib -

Sorry, you misunderstand me. I didn't mean he was a coward for not starting wars against countries with nuclear weapons, I meant he was a coward for starting wars against countries he knew were defenceless. In other words, he did exactly what the shoe-thrower did, only on a much larger scale and for much less reason and justification. I don't imagine the people calling the shoe-thrower a coward because he didn't throw his shoes at Arab dictators are actually suggesting that he should do so. Or maybe I'm misreading what they are saying.

TFG -

Mmm, I think what Obama will be dealing with in the Middle East will be the disastrous consequences of Bush intervention and shortsighted foreign policy.

Author, ME expert and former soldier Ralph Peters nails it:

The only countries in the Middle East where a journalist could survive after such behavior are Iraq, maybe Lebanon - and Israel. Even Jordan doesn't allow such freedom.

"The media have been having a ball with the video of the Great Baghdad Shoe Toss. But they've missed the point completely. Our sacrifices let that pathetic reporter muster the courage to hurl his shoes at our president: He knew he could get away with it.

Brothers and sisters, the world has changed since 2003.

Yes, Iraq could still fail. The Arab genius for failure is the region's salient talent. But one Arab state has been given a chance to build something better than a nationwide prison - not perfect, but better.

TooFarGone, Ralph Peters does not seem to realize the guy is not free. Neither do you. The guy is in jail, and I have no idea what is in store for him.

Even Jordan doesn't allow such freedom.

Iraq not beheading him the spot hardly makes is some kind of freedumb.

Our sacrifices let that pathetic reporter muster the courage to hurl his shoes at our president: He knew he could get away with it.

He is not getting away with it. He is jail.

But they've missed the point completely.

I think Peter's should have stuck with being a soldier. He might have a better understanding of bayonet points. The only point to miss here was the one Shoe Bomber 2 was making, agree or not. Somebody might use it to make other points, but it would not be "the" point to miss or not.

cleo: I meant he was a coward for starting wars against countries he knew were defenceless.

I knew what you were saying. The flip side would be to say that someone is brave for starting wars with Pakistan and North Korea, which I'm guessing you wouldn't agree with. Your choice of adjectives is an emotional one that doesn't quite fit.

May I ask if all of the countries who participated in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are cowards, including your own? If so, have you ever directly called them cowards?

SuperLib -

The flip side would be to say that someone is brave for starting wars with Pakistan and North Korea

No, saying that someone is a coward for doing A is not the flip side of saying they are brave for doing B. Would the shoe thrower have been brave if he'd thrown his shoes at Saddam? Or foolhardy? Bear in mind the fact that when Muntadar al-Zeidi throws a shoe at Bush it's Muntadar al-Zeidi that ends up with a broken arm or whatever other consequences there may be; when Bush invades another country, he sits cozy in the White House making Christmas videos with Barney while other people bear the brunt and get a lot more than their arms broken.

It isn't my choice of adjectives, by the way; I was simply picking up the point made by smitty in his answer to USARonin, comparing the shoe thrower with Bush. I think smitty made a very valid point.

May I ask if all of the countries who participated in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are cowards, including your own? If so, have you ever directly called them cowards?

Countries? No. Countries are impersonal, they're neither cowardly nor brave. The leaders of those countries, the people who made the decision to follow Bush into 'battle'? Heck yes, from the start I have made my opinion of Tony Bliar, prime poodle and hypocritical Catholic convert, perfectly clear.

I am glad that the thrown shoes both missed. Pres. Bush and his Administration's term is almost over, and it is better that no major incident occurs. The Secret Service and security detail should be enhanced, and wait for Pres.-elect Obama to establish his policies. Maybe he can get that crummy image of the US promoting torture turned around, and somehow return the US to have some semblance of a constitutional democracy.

I'm sure that the guy would not have made the throws if he knew he was going to hang for it, but shoes for the memories.

If Bush hadn't bungled the occupation of Iraq and engaged in human rights violations I might have felt that the guy didn't have a reason to complain. Of course he does and now, in Iraq, he can. Thanks to Bush & co.

So it's a tangled story. Plenty of anger to go around. Guess we'll see what happens next. But really, no harm, no foul. Let the guy go.

i disagree about al-zaidi bieng a cowrd for many reasons: he's action was natural reflex when he saw his country is occupied and thousnds of civilians was killed in cold blood. puting aside the killing of many journalists in iraq by us soldiers.

I belive the real cowrds are those who couldn't understand the meanning of liberty and remaking what saddam did in his ruling days and much worse by breaking the hands and ribs of a protester journalist and toturing him right now in prison.

Cleo, Mr. Smith, and Co.

The coward has apologized and begs for a pardon:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9558CPG0&show_article=1

You can stop all your moral equivocations now and climb down off the fence. Even this guy doesn't buy what you're sellin'.

USARonin,

after torture, he is bound to say anything.

The coward has apologized and begs for a pardon:

You really should drop this "coward" nonsense. It does you no credit. I am doing you a favor, but I suggest "nutcase". Much easier to call this act crazy than cowardly. Cowardly would have been kowtowing to Bush despite hating him. Honestly, the guy could have been shot on the spot. If the timing was right, such as mid-throw of the second shoe, not many would complain about it. You just don't throw things at the American president.

Jack Handy once said: I think a good gift for the President would be a chocolate revolver. And since he's so busy, you'd probably have to run up to him real quick and hand it to him.

You would either have to be very brave or crazy, or angry to the point of crazy, ie "mad" to do this. Personally I think its a mix of all the above.

To bad Bush the incident couldn't be in Canada, cause they would have been size 10 ski boots! I respect Muntadar al-Zeidi for taking on the ultimate Terrorist of the world. Wouldn't it have been great if everyone in that room started throwing shoes?