Muntadar "Shoe-Tossing Iraqi Guy" al-Zaidi: Jailed, Beaten, Status Unknown
I've been posting some funny internet ephemera related to the Bush Shoe-Tossing Incident over the last few days, but what's since happened to the 28-year-old Iraqi journalist who hurled his loafers at outgoing American war criminal George W. Bush is not funny. There are concerns al-Zaidi may have been tortured or abused. He is in jail with little or no information available about his present condition or whereabouts. Boing Boing community manager Teresa Nielsen Hayden writes,
Free Muntadar Zaidi now! (Making Light)Muntadar Zaidi, the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at George Bush, needs to be rescued.
According to his brother Durgham Zaidi, Muntadar Zaidi is in the heavily fortified Green Zone compound in central Baghdad where the US embassy and most Government offices are housed. He’s being held there by Iraqi forces under the command of Muaffaq al-Rubaie, Iraq’s national security adviser.
“He has got a broken arm and ribs, and cuts to his eye and arm,” Durgham said.
Three things the entire world knows:
1. Bush dodged both shoes with impressive speed, and didn’t seem upset.
2. It was a symbolic act of contempt, not an attack.
3. If Muntadar Zaidi had intended harm, he wouldn’t have been throwing shoes.One more extremely important thing the whole world knows: It may have been a serious expression of contempt, but it was also funny.
the latest
latest episodes
It behooves every American that is sick of their name being dragged through the slime in the name of "democracy" to stand up now and say "NO MORE!"
No more Abu Graib, no more Gitmo,no more torture and murder of those who dare to stand up to the Cheney Mob and its agenda of terror.
The present puppet government in Iraq will fall the day the last American soldier leaves. Let the Iraqis elect their own and make sure those in prison now are alive later to be released when that happens.
Will someone here finally make a giant shoe memorial to honor our beloved outgoing leader? You can start with Papier-mâché and place it in a large public park for all to admire.
I am certainly no Liberal. And I don't think you need to be to agree this shoe-throwing was how a democracy should work. I would however disagree that Zaidi meant no harm. You don't throw shoes that hard and that close without trying to harm someone. But if he meant to kill he would have brought more than shoes. It was a statement most of all.
Having said that, If the act was illegal to do then the man should have paid a fine and been sent home - after all he has had some pretty horrible things happen to him and his family. But to beat and torture him for the attack is right back to Sadam-style leadership.
This is the government we spent all that blood and treasure on.
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Ths mrn s jk.... drwn wrd wnnr!
Honestly, I think that the fact that it was funny is part of the reason Zaidi is in danger. It's one thing to attack a world leader - people rally behind the attacked person and feel the need to defend. Making a mockery of someone is another thing altogether, and it's worse when the mockee so richly deserves it.
I think that Zaidi is a hero for doing that thing that so many of us have wished deep in our secret hearts we would have the courage to do, but he's paying a horrible price for his courage.
You'll notice I did not suggest in this post, or any other, that folks should be free to throw shoes at one another with impunity. I do not think hurling objects at people, with or without the intent to kill or maim, is something we should all be free to do to one another. If I tossed my shoes at someone's face here on the street in Los Angeles, I'd expect some sort of legal/civil repercussions.
The point here is that there are reports of extreme or abusive treatment in jail, and lack of due process. Zaidi did not attempt to assassinate Bush.
And, context: the reason he and others in Iraq are so enraged involves massive loss of life, abuse, and torture, and impunity on a far greater, far more grave scale.
I beg to differ about one of those points the "entire world" knows. If he had merely pointed the bottom of his shoes at him, THAT would be symbolic (as we all know by now in Arab cultures throwing shoes blah blah blah), but he DID throw them, therefore making it an attack.
That being said it certainly doesn't deserve any severe punishment.
Had he done it with Saddam Hussein, he and his family would have been toast within the hour.
Until we really know what is going on, it is hard to judge is a knowledgeable fashion.
Yes, the judge visited him in his cell to conduct the interview, however according to what I've read the initial judicial interviews TEND to be less formal.
Is it possible that he got the crap kicked out of him? Well, there was blood on the floor when he was pulled from the room, so I'd say yes, that he may have been beaten.
He might not've either. He *DID* commit a crime that carries a maximum two year prison sentence. I'm not a fan of the current administration, but I have no illusions what would've happened to me if *I* had been the one throwing shoes. The fact that Bush waived off his security may well have saved this guy's life.
Does the guy deserve to be beaten? No.
Is he an idiot who should be damned happy that he's still alive? Yes.
So really, I have little sympathy for a person who KNOWINGLY put themselves in a bad position.
To all the people making specious arguments for why its ok that this person should get in any trouble for tossing his shoe at an official who invaded his country:
Please leave the free world. We no longer require your services.
Wr Crmnl? **Snr** Fnd nw drm t bt. Tht n s wrn t. r nxt Wr Crmnl tks ffc n Jnry.
Can I through the shoes I take off at the TSA agent now?
@#10, Ceronomus
Bravo, spoken like someone with absolutely no clue just how angry and upset the people living in Iraq are likely to be at this point.
Not to belabor the pun, but I think if you put yourself in the shoes of any Iraqi citizen you might not feel that what he did was idiotic. I mean seriously, the man that Zaidi threw his shoes at represents an administration that callously and falsely started an armed conflict in his country.
This conflict has cause the deaths of untold numbers of Iraqis. Try wrapping your head around that. We will never know exactly how many Iraqis died becuase of our actions there all we know is that it's a lot. More than likely he knows people who've died in the conflict and apparently part of his beat was often covering the state of widows and orphans within the country.
So here's a man who regularly sees the results of our national stupidity. He sees people mourning the death of loved ones all the while living in conditions that are often third world at best and yet somehow you think you're qualified to categorize his actions as being stupid? Of calling him an idiot?
No, if anyone is the idiot it's all of us who ignore the rest of the world and then get surprised when they don't like us. Look at how his actions are being received throughout the Middle East. They're at the perfect level of seriousness to be meaningful, but yet they're obviously not a real danger to anyone's health or safety so you really can get a good feel for how people view our president (and by extension us) and as far as most of the world is concerned, the real idiot was the one ducking the shoes, followed closely by the country that managed to elect him not once, but twice.
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." —Samuel Adams 1722 - 1803
Antonius, who is a far kinder and gentler person than I, does not approve of me calling other posters craven. So I shall not! But let me say, I do have great sympathy for the brave, and my prayers are with al-Zaidi, a courageous man who did the right thing at great personal cost.
--Charlie
H!
hp thy pt hm n DY's rn Mdn!
Dmb zz. HMN RGHTS HV NT YT TRCKLD DWN T TH RB WRLD! (nd nvr wll s lng s slm(spt) cntns t b thr clt).
I wonder how many US personnel in Iraq thought that we captured Moqtada al-Sadr for throwing shoes.
OKCalvin 9: Had he done it with Saddam Hussein, he and his family would have been toast within the hour.
<eyeroll> I'm so tired of seeing this same inane remark over and over! It boils down to "X isn't bad and wrong because Y is badder and wronger" (and yes, it's about that intelligent). What's next? I'm not a bad shot because Dick Cheney shot someone in the face? The Day The Earth Stood Still (2008 remake of the excellent 1951 classic) isn't a bad movie because Independence Day (1996 remake of 900 different "Invaders From MARS!!!!" movies, none of them classics) is even worse?
Abuses are still abuses, even if they're not quite as bad as the previous regime. And we're supposed to oppose such abuses, not go on with news conferences while the guy screams audibly from the next room.
Ceronomus 10: Is he an idiot who should be damned happy that he's still alive? Yes...I have little sympathy for a person who KNOWINGLY put themselves in a bad position.
Am I correct in thinking you have the same lack of sympathy for the guy who faced down the tank in Tiananmen Square in 1989? And the students who were killed there? They were breaking the law, and should have known what they were getting into, right? And do you have the same contempt for anyone who's joined the military? After all, they knew when they joined they might be shot at...idiots, right?
Well, some of us don't think acts of heroism are contemptible.
People have been beaten, detained and tortured for far less over the last few years in Iraq. He knew what he was doing and it was obviously worth the risk to him. If he survives and is released within the decade, that should be considered lucky. Nothing positive is going to come out of throwing your shoes at the POTUS...well except for some great gifs.
OKCalvin 9: Had he done it with Saddam Hussein, he and his family would have been toast within the hour.
If we are reduced to claiming that we are morally superior to a brutal dictator who gassed his own citizens, ran torture and rape camps, and maintained a terror-based regime for 24 years, we can all go home now.
The problem with standards like that is that they are very low. There's a lot of actions better than Saddam and worse than anything America should ever do. Regardless of what should happen in this particular case, the justification OKCalvin used is absolutely specious and direly pernicious.
guess this has been linked to some knuckle-dragger site, perhaps those should ask themselves who installed Saddam Hussein in the first place.
#15 I'll have a Sam Adams!
#16 Valueless and so, thankfully, devoweled.
Yes it was funny, and president Bush didnt seam to faded by the whole ordeal, and it is a sign of contemp but if he did not intend any harm he would not have thrown his shoe like a Matsuzaka fast ball
"Had he done it with Saddam Hussein, he and his family would have been toast within the hour."
I don't feel this is a bad statement in and of itself. It's a true statement. Personal spin decides if it is appropriate for our own views. For me, if the statement is made as final justification then it's sad. Being better than someone else does not make you good. If the statement is made as an exclamation of moving in the right direction, then I agree with it. Though only for acknowledging that it isn't the end, just a step in the right direction. Like trying to get healthier and making a goal to run the entire flight of steps. Maybe half-way there you stop and turn around. You will feel good knowing that 2 weeks ago you couldn't get that far. But it's only good if you realize there is more to go and you keep going.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, traditional Middle Eastern shoe styles have a lot less mass than most traditional European shoes. By my very rough estimate, it's like throwing a couple of old high-pulp-content twelve-signature Ace paperbacks. (Granted, the shoe's more aerodynamic, but it doesn't have corners.)
I've been amazed by the number of comments I've seen at different venues that claim it was an insult aimed at the United States. It wasn't. If Zaidi wanted to insult the United States, burning a flag would have met the specs. What he did was a personal insult to George Bush.
I have spent a considerable amount of time and energy opposing everything Bush. That said, this guy chose to protest through violence. If you throw a shoe at someone on the street, you can expect charges. This guy didn't wrap himself in a flag and lay on the floor, he didn't hold up a sign, he didn't symbolically point his shoe at Bush, he protested through violence, and after all of the misery of the last 8 years, I would hope that we can all agree that that cannot be supported or condoned, even if it feels good. I hope to God, though, that this guy wasn't beaten in American custody or otherwise.
I feel so much safer knowing that the shoe thrower is getting tortured. I can't imagine that would flame up any more terrorism around the world or here at home or anything.
Maybe if we burn him alive on live TV it will completely eliminate all terrorism in the future? Should I start an online petition to get this safety measure enacted?
Oh fer cryin out loud: there is no freakin' way I am justifying ANYTHING GWB, et al., did with this regime change. Nor what was done to Mr Zaidi. You attribute things to me that are not true.
FWIW, I'm a former reservist military chaplain who found this war to FAIL in meeting the criteria for just war even after SoS Powell gave his UN presentation.
I do find it heartening that there is such a swell of protest within Iraq. Such a thing is healthy. It certainly wasn't the case under Hussein. It means that some people are tired of getting pushed around. And that now one may lodge such protest without such fear of reprisal as one did during Hussein.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/12/20081214758933305.html
Unfortunately, the Iraqi military is botching this and making America look bad.
I don't think they know how to handle these political things delicately, mostly because their definition of justice was ingrained under Saddam. I don't think America wants him to be mistreated, even if its only because we would lose face.
Clearly throwing a shoe at a president is more than "freedom of expression", but it doesn't warrant more than a short trip to jail.
doesn't he deserve this for such a lame insult?
yelling "this is your final kiss you dog" in arabic and tossing a couple loafers? that's all he could muster up?
I think it is safe to assume that if you hurl anything at any world leader in a threatening way, there's a possibility you'll get kicked in the ribs a few times. I'm not saying it is due process, but the likely cost of doing shoe throwing business.
We don't know, and there is no way of finding out:
- the how he got hurt - the dogpiled him but good after the shoe tossing.
- what we could do, even if we wanted to do anything. Since he is in the custody of the sovereign nation of Iraq, are we now saving a Democratic Iraq from itself*? I think the internet got together an agreed that it was a bad idea the first time.
Also, I am not sure how "symbolic" a shoe to the face would have been. Let's say less symbolic than a burning effigy. Bottom line, he did something deeply foolish. We should not be hooking a car battery up to his testicles, but funny is not the same thing as innocuous.
*I really, really, really do get it. The war was stupid, pointless, and costly. No argument from me, and sweet merciful Jesus, no need to recapitulate.
read the link in #24 did you?
Fck l-Zd. H's lcky thy ddn't sht hm.
*takes off shoes, points the soles at SNSR*
Srry fr th prvs hrsh pst, bt y gys r bnch f pnss.
Wr s vl, ths n prtclrly s, bt tht dck dsrvs t spnd sm tm bhnd brs.
I agree about Cheney, but Bush's first name is George, not Dick.
Seriously - this whole mess makes me incredibly sad inside. I wouldn't want any harm to come to that guy, or anyone for that matter, but he didn't toss his shoe, he *threw* his shoes. At the President. And, though I never voted for Bush, I still think al-Zaidi should get locked up.
Seriously - I'm sorry there isn't a shoe print on Bush's face, and if Zaidi were here I'd shake his hand and thank him for expressing what many of us feel. Then I'd apologize for the stupidity of my nation in electing a person of no value whatsoever to the highest office we have.
"So really, I have little sympathy for a person who KNOWINGLY put themselves in a bad position."
what, like being a citizen of a country that just happens to be under an illegal and brutal occupation by the usa and its trained mercs?
@40 - Its ok. Any harm that comes to him is likely to just be of a symbolic nature...
Scared of shoes? Not a pansy.
Not scared of shoes, and don't like torture? Pansy.
Thanks for clearing that up, SNSR!
#21: That's a heckuva cancer, that's lingered in the host for 64 years.
Yeah, Bevatron, it's gotta be something really slow-growing, like prostate cancer...
...that's it! It's a Cancer of Assholes! (Hmm, I'm not sure if that's the collective noun or a Henry Miller novel.)
I know the USA is teh evil, but ya'll need to see past that to see this current event clearly. He embarrassed the *Iraqi* government, and the *Iraqis* are punishing him. This is an issue with convincing a society to treat its dissidents humanely, not an issue of "OMG Chimpy McBusHitler is teh devil!"
It is terrible that this guy is being mis-treated. that being said I think he must have known the risk. If the secret service had been on the ball I am sure they would have shot him before the shoe left his hand.
@44, That's clearly not SNSR's point, and you're being ridiculous.
The dude assaulted a head of state. Quite frankly, it doesn't really matter who the head of state was, or what the assault was committed with; it should be dealt with the same way: harshly.
That was SNSR's point, and I daresay, I rather agree. Otherwise, what justification do we have for dealing just as harshly with those that assault heads of state that we happen to like better?
...I've a question that should hijack the hell out of this thread: If this had been Obama intead of Bush, would BB readers and regulars be so concerned about this guy's current status?
Be honest now, and keep it civil out of courtesy to Teresa, eh?
"He embarrassed the *Iraqi* government, and the *Iraqis* are punishing him. This is an issue with convincing a society to treat its dissidents humanely"
Bushes pet "government" is doing the proxy torture.
This man is being tortured in your name.
That said, yeah, *if* the guy's been mistreated (and that's actually still a fairly big *if*, since the scuffle afterwards involved an awfully huge dogpile of bodyguards- again, quite appropriately, and he could have easily gotten injured at that point), that's kinda inappropriate. "Dealing with [assaults on heads of state] harshly" shouldn't actually include prisoner abuse.
Just to be clear.
Anyone that throws an item in an attempt to injure the head of any country should be jailed - you know it and I know it.
Certainly everyone allowed into the room was searched - IMO, if he had anything on his person more lethal than a shoe, he would have used it.
how about jailing all those people that threw explosive objects onto the heads of the Iraqis on the basis of a dirty lie?
how about this fucker?
http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/kim-jong-il_hitler.jpg
a brick in his face OK with you?
@yrogerg
Lessee...SNSR starts with saying 'f*ck al-Zaida' and goes on in subsequent posts to call people 'pansies' for being concerned that he might be tortured while in custody.
Over two shoes.
That didn't even hit the Chimp in Charge.
Who's being ridiculous?
And if you want to get technical about it, it wasn't assault, it was attempted assault.
@OM
If this had been Obama intead of Bush, would BB readers and regulars be so concerned about this guy's current status?
In your hypothetical, did Obama invade Iraq based on lies, killing possibly over a million Iraqi civilians, as well as make torture standard procedure? Don't pretend that this guy didn't have very specific reasons to do what he did.
"He is in jail with little or no information available about his present condition or whereabouts. "
"Muntadar Zaidi is in the heavily fortified Green Zone compound in central Baghdad...He’s being held there by Iraqi forces under the command of Muaffaq al-Rubaie, Iraq’s national security adviser.
“He has got a broken arm and ribs, and cuts to his eye and arm.”
Little or no info?
We seem to know where he is and how he is.
That's a lot more info than we have on other detainees.
Is he being charged?
"He embarrassed the *Iraqi* government, and the *Iraqis* are punishing him. This is an issue with convincing a society to treat its dissidents humanely"
No definition of "dissident" I'm familiar with implies that violence against heads of state is necessarily a component. For that matter, no definition of "humanely" that I'm familiar with suggests the unconditional release of people for violent crimes committed in full view of camera. Some shenanegans here. Should we call for him to be treated humanely in custody? Sure. Does that mean that he didn't commit a crime- a violent crime- against a head of state, and that he shouldn't be punished accordingly? No, it does not.
@55:
how about this fucker?
http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/kim-jong-il_hitler.jpg
a brick in his face OK with you?
Honestly, not especially. The guy is a scumbag, and a megalomaniac, and North Korea would be a much better place with him and his government gone, but that really doesn't justify violence against his person.
Moreover, for someone to commit violence against him, the reasonable consequence would be for such a person to get jailed. It would still be perfectly fair and reasonable and good to call loudly for humane treatment of that person, but imprisonment is an extremely just consequence for violent crime against anyone, let alone a head of state.
Likewise, someone had assaulted Ahmedinejad when he visited New York last, such a person *should* suffer the full effect of the law, or else the rule of law means nothing.
the rule of law means nothing
Well, at least you understand the Prime Directive of the Bush administration.
@56,And if you want to get technical about it, it wasn't assault, it was attempted assault.
Actually, if you want to be technical about it, it was absolutely assault, at least as defined by law in United States, as well as England, Scotland and Wales. The word you're searching for is "battery", not assault.
Australia and New Zealand take an even more liberal definition than the rest of us, apparently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault
Well, at least you understand the Prime Directive of the Bush administration.
Jesus christ, it's not as though I'm saying Bush is great and the Iraq war was a morally justified complete success (though, y'know, feel free to quote me out of context to pretend that's what I said, Antinous).
All I'm saying is that laws are kinda supposed to be there to do things like protect all people equally, whether we like the person or not.
Personally, I'd much rather see soon-to-be-former-President Bush be the focus of a very intense war crimes prosecution for his perpetration of the invasion of Iraq and his "War on Terror" than see him be the victim of more random -if well-publicized- physical assaults. Most BBers, it seems would rather it the other way around. Nice priorities, folks!
While we're talking technicalities, I'm curious about the repeated mention that his target is a head of state. What, precisely, is the legal difference? It wouldn't surprise me to learn there is one, but it doesn't come up often enough that I'm familiar with it.
If he had killed Bush, I would have called it the lawful slaying of an invading tyrant. I wonder how long King George would have lasted walking around revolutionary America? Say Boston?
@60
Even more actually, what constitutes attempted assault varies by state in the US. What matters is the Iraqi law, and from what I've read so far he has been charged with insulting a head of state. If that's true, then it wasn't just the shoes that got him in trouble, but also shouting, "This is a farewell kiss, you dog."
Guess that's some of that old-timey American liberal democracy we dropped on Iraq.
In any event, I don't think people are arguing that he shouldn't have been placed in custody. The issue is what is happening to him while in custody.
there is no Rule of Law in Iraq. What exists is an imposed dictatorship. It is absurd to speak of legal process when those on top respect no law at any level. Why should they enjoy the protection of law?
>> Had he done it with Saddam Hussein, he and his family would have been toast within the hour.
Some other genius in the other thread mentioned that Iraq must be a better place, because under Saddam the man would have been shot on the spot.
Now, they have implemented the American model. Which is the payment plan. Get your no interest, no money down abuse spread over many years in permanent detention before your untimely death.
And, yes, Americans... Worth noting that Saddam Hussein was installed and nurtured by the United States. Like Noriega or bin Laden, he outlived his usefulness.
We just don't give a fuck, do we?
>> Anyone that throws an item in an attempt to injure the head of any country should be jailed - you know it and I know it.
This is comedy.
The lowest kind.
Fuck the hypocrites for rushing to the cause of rule of law when it applies to thrown shoes, but not torture, corruption, theft, or mass slaughter.
This is a jizzdress, Ken Starr moment.
Why should they enjoy the protection of law?
Because we're better than them. You do realize that you're applying exactly the justification neocons like to turn to to justify torture, indefinite detention, and worse, right?
I'm so conflicted about this. On the one hand I wish he had connected good and hard with at least one shot. On the other hand I don't want to live in a world where world leaders can be attacked with impunity.
He should get due process and the appropriate penalties of an enlightened and fair Democracy.
Then a lifetime job somewhere cozy for having a huge pair that go clang.
If somebody with no past felony convictions throws his shoes at my head without injuring me, he's going to get a citation for disturbing the peace and a $50 fine. If I feel so inclined, I'll get a restraining order. If I want him to have a broken arm, I'll do it myself. It's not the government's job to get revenge via bodily harm. Certainly not for something slightly worse than a pie-throwing.
Certainly not for something slightly worse than a pie-throwing.
Depends on the pie.
If you've ever been in a room with the president or vice-president, you'd realize this moron is lucky he didn't end up perforated.
The most telling thing about the entire incident for me is that the Secret Service didn't tackle both Bush and the attacker to the ground after the first shoe.
#69 ROSS,
You LOLed me, man!
I saw on the news earlier that the maximum penalty for assaulting a head of state is two years in jail. I just caught the last part, so I don't know if they were quoting Iraqi law or US law.
I have to admit, that was a pretty ballsy action for the man to take - he had to know he was going to get at the very least a good beat down for what he did. When/if he gets out of prison, I'm pretty sure he'll be set though. Every talk show in the world will want to interview him. Think of the book deals he'll make.
For what it's worth, back in 2000 (when most of us thought Bush was little more than a harmless moron) somebody shoved a pie in the Canadian Prime Minister's face (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/08/17/canada.chretien.pie.reut/).
He was arrested on assault charges and later released on bail. In the end he got a $50 fine and 30 days in jail.
OM, you're a master of false equivalence. The difference is that Bush actually did harm to this man, to his family, and to his people, and Obama did not. If Obama becomes deserving of such treatment, I will feel exactly as I feel now should someone give it to him.
There's this bizarre belief that because he's Teh President he's exempt from accountability for his actions. He's done everything to foster this belief in himself and others, of course: he surrounds himself with sycophants and avoids hearing any criticism. That you're swallowing this line of bullshit is a little more surprising.
As for heads of state generally...it still matters what they deserve and how harmful they're being. I think that anyone who has a serious chance at taking out Robert Mugabe and is willing to take it, that person would be a true hero. Bush isn't quite in THAT category, but bouncing a shoe off his head? You go, boy.
N (#72) is right, although this incident reminds me of Reagan's post-presidency stage protester where a guy rushed up and smashed the glass something or other that was on the podium. How that guy (like Zaidi) wasn't shot to death remains a mystery. Bush should've been pulled from the room and the event canceled. Maybe the Secret Service A-squad has already been assigned to Obama.
With how much force would the shoe have to hit to cause a fatal broken nose into the brain?
As for Zaidi's alleged injuries, early word from the room was that the other journalists were hitting him. It's just as likely he got a few more laid into him between there and the cell.
Bush's comments about the attack will hopefully extinguish any doubt as to the intelligence of the person who has been sitting in the Oval Office for the last eight years.
why did the secret service let it by? Pay back.
If the Secret Service was on top of their game, this guy would have been and by all rights should have been shot dead. It doesn't matter if it was funny or an act of defiance or a brave attempt to stand up to an infidel aggressor. Had the POTUS been harmed or god forbid killed, the entire world would have been thrown into turmoil. cnsdr myslf prgrssv, bt th p n th sky rgmnts y gys r mkng n ths dt's dfns mk m rlz why lbrls gt sht n fr bng psss. This was OBVIOUSLY an attack; whether the shoes were lighter weight because of their style or whatever specious argument you make, the guy deserves what he gets. You don not, can not, attack a head of state with impunity. Fck frng hm- pt hm n trl fr sslt. H TTCKD TH PRSDNT.
The word in the Arab press is that he is getting 10 years for this. What can we do to help out here? Any possible way of getting our administration to help on his behalf?
hee! meow!
"Had the POTUS been harmed or god forbid killed, the entire world would have been thrown into turmoil." yup, we would have been breaking our necks slipping on empties for a month. At least.
think about it: little Georgie has been such a puppet and useless little puke that his death honesty wouldn't matter. All those last minute sabotage bills would be signed by Cheney, the world has already written off Bush politically, he REALLY DOESN'T matter. At all.
So did Colbert, and to worse (read: fabulously better) effect.
If the Secret Service was on top of their game, this guy would have been and by all rights should have been shot dead.
You want someone shot dead for throwing a shoe? Thank you for outing yourself as a vengeful, little hate troll. It saves me the trouble.
Dave78981: Had the POTUS been harmed or god forbid killed, the entire world would have been thrown into turmoil.
Pfft, you gotta be kidding us! The most hated US president in decades, with the lowest approval rating since Nixon, the lamest lame duck ever, just a month before leaving office? The only "turmoil" the world would see would be due to thousands of newscasters and other officials desperately straining to act sad reporting the news and attending his funeral.
Sure, you throw shoes at a world leader, you face legal action. Attempted assault charges, etc. Not beatings, though, that's just barbaric. Al-Zaidi deserves to face charges and stand trial, maybe do a little jail time. Then he can get out and spend the rest of his life having strangers buy him drinks and dinners.
Madoff will do about six months for stealing $50,000,000,000.00
OptUser @77: We're reduced to hypothesizing "a fatal broken nose into the brain"?
JHollington @75, thank you for the comparison. It's nice to have Canada provide us with an example of a civilized society.
GrimC @71:
That's already been established: shoofly.Antinous you miss the point completely. I am in no way defending Bush or excusing his atrocious record as President. But he IS the president and the Secret Service's job is to protect the president BEFORE an attack. Had they been on top of their game, as I said before, the guy should've been dead.
Hey and thanks for outing yourself as someone who can't have a rational discussion but needs to immediately stoop to ad hominem attacks. Free speech- alive and well here on BB, as long as you don't stray from the party line.
#82- You also seem to miss the point. Bush is not the point. The death of a US president by a muslim would unleash untold suffering on the muslim people. Just because Bush sucks and is unpopular doesn't excuse the fact that this guy subverted POTUS security detail and attacked the president. What he attacked him with is as irrelevant as how many days Bush has left in office. You guys seem to be playing up the joking nature of this incident and fail to see the very serious international incident that was only narrowly avoided.
Now please resume the name calling.
dave78981,
You just stooped to calling for death for shoe-throwing and you're concerned that I've resorted to an ad hominem attack on you?
avram you seem to live in a world that is divorced from reality. Barbaric? The guy is lucky to be alive. It doesn't matter how low Bush's approval ratings are or even who he is. it's what he is- the president. this country would not stand for the president being injured or killed by a person from a country that we care little about to begin with. don't think for a second that anyone in the us government, no matter how opposed to Bush, wouldn't support an immediate attack on some country as retaliation.
and i absolutely love how dogmatic and downright nasty you guys are getting about this. no better than the idiots that listen to Limbaugh.
buttface.
Also, I've done political security and the first line of defense is to throw yourself in front of the target, not to shoot a suspected assailant.
nobody shot squeeky!
89- I didn't call for anyone's death. But I can see now that i'll have to explain this in an even simpler way than before so that you can understand. The secret service is there to protect the president. There are many ways to do this, but the one the secret service follows goes something like this: One detail gets the president out of the way while another detail subdues the attacker. sometimes this require beating him or, yes, shooting him.
My only point is that any attack on any president should have, if the secret service wasn't hiding in a back room somewhere, resulted in a quicker more lethal response.
please don't make me have to explain again.
Had they been on top of their game, as I said before, the guy should've been dead.
You keep saying that, but they didn't kill Oswald. They didn't kill Hinckley.
I guess you think the Secret Service has been slacking for decades.
Have you ever been a bodyguard? Done political security? In real life, it's not like the film version.
Well my cousin, a SECRET SERVICE AGENT, begs to differ with your assessment. They are, you know, in a freakin war zone. I spoke to him last night and pretty much no one thinks the detail brought their A game.
btw, bng bdygrd n Wrld f Wrcrft dsn't cnt s xprnc n rl lf. Wt lt m gss, y dt spr mdl t, rght?
Oh, and also: If you've actually watched the video of the Night of the Deadly Shoes, you'd have seen Secret Service agents securing al-Zaidi, so they weren't "hiding in a back room somewhere."
GRMC- did you not see them running into the room from behind the door to the right of Bush?
"OM, you're a master of false equivalence"
...Amazing. You resort to a personal attack and totally avoid the question. Tsk.
GRMC- all the incidents you mention happened on us soil, not in WAR ZONES. is it really so hard to understand the severity of this situation or why, maybe, this guy should be detained and roughed up a little? the guy deserves jail, not a parade, despite what the iraqis and their supporters here think.
I had a cousin that was a moderately successful international banker. Well, until we found out he was just selling pot to foreign exchange students.
it was a bullshit question.
"...this guy should be detained and roughed up a little?"
And there it is.
Dave78981 94: My only point is that any attack on any president should have...resulted in a quicker more lethal response.
I think your jackboots are too tight. What the hell is wrong with you? The POTUS' security's duty is to protect the POTUS, not to kill anyone who annoys him.
OM 100: You resort to a personal attack and totally avoid the question.
So you don't think "The difference is that Bush actually did harm to this man, to his family, and to his people, and Obama did not. If Obama becomes deserving of such treatment, I will feel exactly as I feel now should someone give it to him" is a direct answer to your question? Either I've misunderstood what you were asking, you're insisting on your false equivalence, or you and I live in different realities.
Dave, if you truly think that way, it is up to you to find your way out of the darkness. Best of luck.
I think we may have reached the limits of Godwin's Law here.
At My first glimpse on GMA of the alleged shoe toss I cracked up laughing. I immediately noticed how quickly the little shrub dodged. anyone can easily see with a glance that gwb has a lot of experience dodging things. Then on my second viewing, I cracked up again. In fact I simply can't watch it without laughing.
I'd toss in a buck for Muntadar's defense. With Robert Kardashian dead, anyone got any ideas for a lawyer that can get Muntadar acquitted?
Xopher, you haven't reached the limit of Godwin's Law, until someone pulls out:
The True ASCII 50 Hilter Post ! ! !
Background.. NSFW
Actually, Let's put an NSFW note on the "background" link, because there's a 2000 Goatse Post just dying to get you fired.
Throwing a shoe at a President?
Seems like kind of a trivial incident. America has a strong tradition of our elected represetatives punching each other, beatings with canes, swearing, wrestling in the aisles.
Oh, and about Secret Service agents blasting away at attackers? That appears to be a pretty rare accurance. I can't recall the last time a Secret Service agent shot someone attacking the president. Just guesing, but the protocol seems to be protect the president first, then stop the attacker while keeping him alive if possible. That takes a lot more courage and intelligent restraint than just blasting away into the crowd.
Thanks Teresa.
Dave78981, next time you talk to your cousin, the Secret Service Agent, ask him how many attempted or actual presidential assassins have actually been killed by the Secret Service, and how many haven't. Ask him how often the Secret Service responds with lethal force to something other than actual gunfire.
Tharklord @111: I can't recall the last time a Secret Service agent shot someone attacking the president.
February 2001. Robert Pickett was shooting through the White House perimeter fence, and was shot and injured by a Secret Service agent. Pickett was sentenced to three years in prison.
It looks to me like the Secret Service never responds with lethal force unless the assassin uses lethal force, and there's no other way of stopping him.
In 2005, Vladimir Arutyunian threw a live grenade at Bush in Georgia, and was shot in the leg while trying to escape by Georgian Special Forces. But that's not the Secret Service. Arutyunian's been sentenced to life in prison.
From CNN
From the NYT
In case some of you missed it:
Note that he is not in U.S. Custody, he is a guest of the Iraqi Government, near the U.S> embassy ("where the Government offices are housed"), and while the U.S. Government is apparently giving him a pass, the Iraqi Government is not so understanding of free speech, self-expression, and differences of opinion.
What he did was brilliant. I so wish I could've been the ones to throw my shoes at Bush. Although I probably would have gone for older stinkier ones. But, he's paying a high price for his beautiful gesture and I want to make sure that it doesn't just get forgotten as a quick internet meme so take a look at www.freealzaidi.com
Find my way out of the darkness? Try finding your way to reality. The salient point is not the shoe thrown, it's the attack itself. Maybe in your world we should all join hands and sing Cumbayah but in the real world there are consequences to attacking a head of state in a war zone.
Dave, got anything new to add?
First, there ain't no war in Iraq. This is an occupation by an invading army, with an armed insurrection.
Second, the consequences for throwing a shoe at Bush should be the same as throwing a shoe at you or I, which would not include a beating.
Third, if Bush were half human, he would stopped the beating, met the man later, and insured his safety. Instead he continued to make lighthearted jokes while the man was being beaten in the next room.
Fourth, once again Bush passes up an opportunity to mend the damage done and helps create another martyr and reason to hate America.
Mission Accomplished
lv th wy my pst ws dtd (#12). Tkng wy ll my vwls ws s dvrs nd tlrnt. gss y nly gt n ndstrtd vc f y gr wth lft-lnng gnd. Pss th cl-d.
Bukahobbit
You made a bullshit statement, designed only to rile people. Whether or not Bush is a war criminal is actually debatable. Obama? Not even a remotely.
And then another bullshit statement with the usual response to a well-earned disemvowelling. And you misspelled Kool-Aid™. Of course, actually it should be Flavor Aid™.
H h, y'r fnny.
>> although this incident reminds me of Reagan's post-presidency stage protester where a guy rushed up and smashed the glass something or other that was on the podium.
The name of the man was Richard Paul Springer. He smashed a statue Reagan was awarded and Reagan was hit by a chip of the glass, but not injured (he immediately resumed his speech).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q93XHjsiMd4
Springer wrote a book about it (which I read), and whose name escapes me (good luck finding ANY mention of it online or anywhere).
The "liberal" media portrayed the incident as an attack and played up the action as Reagan being assaulted by a "2-foot tall statue," a "30-pound statue," and having it "smashed near his face."
The real issue is that Springer acted without reason because the US was conducting nuclear weapons testing it claimed it was not doing. Of course, as with the shoe throwing incident in Iraq, the real issue gets lost in propaganda about shoes and statues instead of the real crimes of people like Bush and Reagan who lie and steal from the American people every fucking day of their dismal lives.
Bush is a goddamn criminal.
Eight years later...
Shoes?
That's the best we can do?
>> Pass the cool-aide.
Pass the spell checker.
#18 - If you think that this was an act of HEROISM, you have much lower standards than I. I think that this was a petty act, that he KNEW was going to get him arrested. This wasn't a kid facing certain death to prevent his fellow students from being gunned down and rolled over by tanks, this was a jackass tossing a shoe. If you call that a hero, you have pretty low standards.
Of course, everyone is jumping to the conclusion that he is being tortured, despite the fact that there is no evidence of this. Certainly, if he IS being tortured, that is horrendous. However his being arrested and jailed for a crime he knowingly committed? That's his own doing and I continue to have ZERO sympathy.
#42 - Like it or not, the occupation of Iraq is not illegal and folks ARE safer than they were under the prior regime. Yes, there is so much room for improvement left as to be mind-boggling, but again, commit an idiotic crime and go to jail.
For the number of people here calling and praying for the death of Bush (and I think he's no saint) I think this thread has sunk beyond the realm of being salvageable.
The guy was an idiot who is quite lucky to be alive. Had this been one regime ago, he'd be dead. That isn't wishing him dead for throwing a shoe.. .that's pointing out a simple fact. The fact that he is still alive is a good thing. But you'll also note if you watch the footage that he didn't exactly go quietly or willingly. Yes, he was probably taken down with excessive force by overzealous Iraqi security and I hope that is taken into account during his sentencing. I think giving him a month sentence would be fair, unless he actually HAS been tortured, then they should indeed let him walk.
The guy is facing two years in jail for this act, and everything is proceeding the way it normally would. Claims from people who haven't had access to him not withstanding, there is no proof of torture. Granted, this is a country that has ROUTINELY used torture for decades, so it is quite possible that they haven't really stopped either.
I'm against torture. I think it hypocritical of the US Government to have used waterboarding when the Japanese interrogators from WWII who used the same technique were put to death for war crimes. I'm also against making a folk hero out of a show throwing idiot.
He committed a crime and goes to jail, that is how the system is SUPPOSED to work. For everyone screaming about how evil the current Iraqi government is, all signs point to the rule of law being FOLLOWED. For a country that, just a few years ago, would've had him summarily executed, this is a huge step forward.
Again, there is still a long way to go, but folks, screaming about it at one another, calling for the death of POTUS, and being morally indignant over something that most of you really don't even CARE to try to understand? Useless.
He threw a pair of shoes. This is not a great act of courage. This is not an act of heroism. By this very same standard, suicide bombers are heroes (though depending on your cultural bias, I suppose that they are). He did something knowing that it could end in his own imprisonment, and yet it was only a useless and pointless gesture. Yes, it might win him some sympathy from people who are concerned about him. Beyond that, what has he accomplished?
Has he brought to light that Bush is an idiot?
Nope, we already knew that.
Has he brought to light that the Iraqi people are suffering?
Nope, we already knew that.
Has he brought to light that throwing a show can be considered a grave insult?
Yes, many people didn't know that.
Has he done ANYTHING to help the plight of the people he was ranting about?
No.
In a country where so many people ARE starving, are going without basic necessities, this guy is one of the lucky ones. He's got a job, he's got an income, he could've been helping, even if only one person at a time if he truly felt so strongly about it.
Instead he threw a show and was arrested.
Yeah, he's a REAL hero.
"#42 - Like it or not, the occupation of Iraq is not illegal and folks ARE safer than they were under the prior regime." there is a proplem with these two points as they are in fact, lies.
folks ARE safer than they were under the prior regime.
Ceronomus,
Over a million people have been killed in Iraq since we invaded. That vastly exceeds any atrocities under the previous regime. We took a country whose government was about mid-range repressive by world standards, destroyed the entire infrastructure, created a civil war and got a million people killed. It's now the least safe place in the world.
?
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
In fairness:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/world/middleeast/10casualties.html
Great, now not only will everybody have to take their shoes off to get on a plane, they'll have to take them off to get into a press conference too!
CAIRO (Reuters) - An Egyptian man said on Wednesday he was offering his 20-year-old daughter in marriage to Iraqi journalist Muntazer al-Zaidi, who threw his shoes at U.S. President George W. Bush in Baghdad on Sunday,
hp th gy dspprs nd wks p nxt t Sddm's dd bdy n hs spdr hl. Wht lwlf vrmns dt. Sv hs cntry thn h's pssd? ngrtfl drtbll.
Y flks wh thnk Bsh s wr crmnl nd ll tht wll t ths wrds ftr bmm fnshs ths cntry ff. Thr wll b psts syng "rmmbr whn w hd RL prsdnt?"
thanks...and good bye.
Dear Teller: Iraqi Body Count is only the named for sure. They took the extremely conservative position from the start since they knew and estimations would be used to pretend that no one at all had died. Don;t forget the half million children killed by American instigated economic sanctions that denied the essentials of life even before the bombs fell and the nation's hospitals, roads, water and electricity vanished.
craigantler for the LOSE.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9555QEO0&show_article=1
the Iraq puppet government is staging this to avoid the embarrassment of a trial.
gift of bush
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/18/iraq.arrests/index.html
So, I've been following the news on this. While there are cries of "Puppet government" it was really interesting to hear what the JUDGE in the case had to say.
First, Al-Zeidi "was beaten in the news conference and we will watch the tape and write an official letter asking for the names of those who assaulted him,"
VERY not good. As I've said all along, I'm not for abusing the guy. Now this next part though is ALSO very interesting...
"The journalist was in custody and was expected to eventually face charges of insulting a foreign leader. A conviction could bring a sentence of two years in prison.
Al-Kinani also confirmed that the journalist had written a letter of apology to al-Maliki. Iraq's president can grant pardons that are requested by the prime minister, but the judge said such a pardon can be issued only after a conviction.
He added that he could not drop the case even though neither Bush nor al-Maliki had complained.
"This case was filed because of an article in the law concerning the protection of the respect of sovereignty," he said.
Now, once everyone stops laughing about the whole respecting sovereignty issue, it is interesting to note that no official complaint was filed...the legal system just acts because that is what it is supposed to do.
At this point, seeing as he was beaten, and that the legal system is investigating it, I'm all for a guilty finding with zero sentence. He *DID* commit the act, so he *IS* guilty however the State has an obligation to protect him, which it failed to meet, so he should go free (and be able to pursue whatever other form of legal action he chooses).
He's still not a hero though. He's just a pissed off guy with some shoes.
Anyone who wants to know if al-Zeidi is considered a hero should go to Iraq or any predominately Muslim country or neighborhood, and conduct a poll. If you are a non-Muslim European or American your opinion is unimportant.
When I heard about this incident, my first thought was this guy is going to eat for free the rest of his life, but as I posted above @131 he is being offered more than a free meal ;)
the puppet government of Iraq will do everything to avoid a public trial. Forging requests for a pardon included. The last thing they want is the entire populace standing outside the courtroom demanding he be freed. This may lead to demands for an Iraqi selected government.
#140 - Oh brother....
The straw that broke the camels back.
The judge who sentences our good buddy Al to anything more than a slap on the wrist and a kiss on the cheek is going to be painting a bullseye on his own back. That's a given.
Ceronomus , he may not be a hero to you, but he is to me! and to millions of other citizens of the planet earth. oh, brother! where art thou?
Iraq shoe-thrower inspires Bush-bashing Web games
Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:41pm GMT
DUBAI (Reuters) The television reporter who threw the shoes, Muntazer al-Zaidi, has become an instant sensation in the Arab world. A Facebook profile set up in his honor had enlisted 1,871 fans by Wednesday afternoon, many of whom had posted disparaging messages about the outgoing U.S. leader.
THR'S FR MR THN SH CMNG TWRDS GRG W. BSH!
" TH" LTRNTV "W TH MV" cmng strght frm th dg f Pnk nd Bl Flms.
THS N TKS SD!
http://www.ytb.cm/wtch?v=H_BCw70s
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/20/iraq-georgebush
http://www.cjad.com/news/565/847258
Pink and Blue Films, we don't like blatant advertising in our conversations. We also don't like all-caps messages.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/22/turkey-george-bush-shoe
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/22/iraq-georgebush
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1868644,00.html?iid=tsmodule
http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_11340225
Check out the Global Pulse video on this, showing how different TV news around the world are covering the issue.
Watch it here: http://www.linktv.org/video/3425
I'm an intern with Link TV, the nonprofit that produces Global Pulse. Interesting to see how the rest of the world is reporting on the news.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jVLyMfz24UHwB7RZrnMiwnTkD6HQD95OC82O0
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7836816.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7862180.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/12/iraqi-shoe-thrower-trial-resumes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/12/iraqi-shoe-thrower-trial-resumes