It’s not funny, especially because our dear out going POTUS had no clue what a deep insult it was. Trouble is, the insult was hurled not just at Dumbya, but at our brave troops over there trying to do a job. There are a very large and growing number of Iraqis that want our occupation to end, thus we should end it ASAP! We’re clearly there for our own self interest, not mine, probably not yours so I speak of official government reasons.
Guess i missed the screw who thread, but i kinda thought it was “funny”. The fact the dude is probably gonna be in a prison cell for life isnt, but id love to see more shoes thrown at king georg, on teevee nonetheless.
And i doubt he was clueless as to the significance of the shoes in iraqi culture. He was doing his best to deflect any real attention, which he usually does quite well, with the complete cooperation of the media, of course.
Bugg brings this up over at ScruHoo, and I agree with him. Not funny.
No, it’s not funny. The ignorant and disgruntled journalist should only wish for the days of Saddam who would have been just as likely to have pulled out a pistol and shot the fool in the head. What these sycophant journalists and their sheeple supporters do not seem to realize is that the freedom exercised by that fool came by the hand of the man and his country that he targeted with his shoe. Had it been the Obama who was targeted as a rep of the US we would be hearing nothing but how awful it was.
If America had been invaded by Russia in the 1980s, Regan had been killed by hanging on a stairwell, the entire country had been plunged into civil war between Yankees and Southerners (two groups with a long-standing grudge) and then Gorbachev came over and gave a speech about how much he was going to miss having our little sandbox to play in, I think a lot of Americans would applaud Tom Brokaw for lobbing his loafers at him and calling him a dog.
It’s not like Bush was actually in danger. He had some shoes tossed at him and he was insulted. Meh. Worst case scenario: He’d have gotten a bruise. It was a symbolic attack against a man who launched an unprovoked attacked their country. And this was the last chance anyone in Iraq would ever have of saying or doing anything to make that point. I’m not saying it was a smart move, but it’s certainly understandable.
No, it’s not funny. The ignorant and disgruntled journalist should only wish for the days of Saddam who would have been just as likely to have pulled out a pistol and shot the fool in the head. What these sycophant journalists and their sheeple supporters do not seem to realize is that the freedom exercised by that fool came by the hand of the man and his country that he targeted with his shoe. Had it been the Obama who was targeted as a rep of the US we would be hearing nothing but how awful it was.
It’s not funny, but calling the journalist ignorant is unwarranted. Many in Iraq are justifiably unhappy with the way Bush incompetently handled the war; resulting in much unnecessary death and suffering amongst not just American Soldiers, but by Iraqi civilians in far greater numbers. If the shoe was on the other foot you would be the one throwing it.
I kinda agree with some of what travelah said ....
His freedom to throw a show and the peoples ability to rally behind him is only made possible
through the removal of Saddam ... not that I agree with the war, but a freer press and the ability to demonstrate is a by product of the invasion ...
Just as important is his duty as a journalist. His job is to document and report the story not to make it ... if you want to march and burn effigies that is one thing do it on your own time ... if you want to wear press credentials then honor the work ....
One has to think that reporters now will be scrutinized more and may have more limited access to people and information as a result of this clown ....
it may be funny on some level, but if you listened to the BBC call in over this story a great many people actually stood up for Bush(as amazing as that sounds) many africans dealing with political crisis including dictatorship and many iraqi ex-pats were ashamed of the behavior ... many of these people lost entire families for being critical of saddam ...
If America had been invaded by Russia in the 1980s, Regan had been killed by hanging on a stairwell, the entire country had been plunged into civil war between Yankees and Southerners (two groups with a long-standing grudge) and then Gorbachev came over and gave a speech about how much he was going to miss having our little sandbox to play in, I think a lot of Americans would applaud Tom Brokaw for lobbing his loafers at him and calling him a dog.
It’s not like Bush was actually in danger. He had some shoes tossed at him and he was insulted. Meh. Worst case scenario: He’d have gotten a bruise. It was a symbolic attack against a man who launched an unprovoked attacked their country. And this was the last chance anyone in Iraq would ever have of saying or doing anything to make that point. I’m not saying it was a smart move, but it’s certainly understandable.
Sigh. It’s a slippery slope, but if we hadn’t deposed Saddam this journalist wouldn’t even exist, much less be able to get away with that.
I don’t agree with the reasoning or the launch of the war, but Reagan wasn’t Sadaam Hussein.
if a an iraqi throwing a shoe at the man who represents the imperial powers that invaded his country against his will as well as world law irks you, then have a gander at http://www.sockandawe.com
Sigh. It’s a slippery slope, but if we hadn’t deposed Saddam this journalist wouldn’t even exist, much less be able to get away with that.
I don’t agree with the reasoning or the launch of the war, but Reagan wasn’t Sadaam Hussein.
Sigh. It’s a slippery slope, but if we hadn’t deposed Saddam this journalist wouldn’t even exist, much less be able to get away with that.
I don’t agree with the reasoning or the launch of the war, but Reagan wasn’t Sadaam Hussein.
Tell that to the Nicaraguans.
Your comparisons are still fallacious. Seriously, compare the records and actions of Reagan and Hussein and tell me what’s similar and what’s glaringly different.
Sigh. It’s a slippery slope, but if we hadn’t deposed Saddam this journalist wouldn’t even exist, much less be able to get away with that.
I don’t agree with the reasoning or the launch of the war, but Reagan wasn’t Sadaam Hussein.
Tell that to the Nicaraguans.
Yeah, but the difference is, Saddam didnt authorize the CIA to sell columbian cocaine in his own country to help pay for his illegal wars. And he didnt sell any weapons to Iran, either. Of course, Saddam didnt have to, because he got his chemical weapons directly from Rumsfeld, too.
Former State Department official William Blum calls the 1980’s CIA actions in South America in the 80’s an “American Holocaust.” Some sources state that some 63,000 Salvadorians were murdered or tortured during reagan’s presidency.
Saddam was not the most evil leader in the world. But let’s not forget, that Saddam was a bad man was NOT why we invaded Iraq…....we did it because of “WMDs”........an outright and premeditated lie foisted upon the American people by our own president.
If Bush would have said “we need to go to war with Iraq because Saddam is a bad guy” he would have been laughed out of office.
