…and this is a 
Rightful actions
Category: Politics
Posted on: December 14, 2008 5:10 PM, by PZ Myers
Our president, the wretched villain who threw away our economy and our people's lives in a wasteful, failed war, skulked into Iraq and tried to pretend he was a hero. Nobody was fooled, and he got a rude surprise.
Bush had just finished his prepared remarks in which he said the security agreement was made possible by the U.S. surge of troops earlier this year, when the journalist, Muthathar al Zaidi pulled his shoes off and hurled them at the president. "This is a goodbye kiss, you dog," Zaidi shouted.
Bush dodged the shoes and was not struck. Bodyguards quickly wrestled Zaidi to the floor and hauled him, kicking and screaming, from the room. Two other Iraqi journalists were briefly detained after one of them called Zaidi's actions "courageous."
Catch that last line: journalists were detained for commenting on this action. I'll comment, too: I think Zaidi was brave and right. I wish a few American journalists had the guts to throw shoes at the president — they should have started in 2001. Can we make it a new tradition?
Comments
Posted by: Scaurus | December 14, 2008 5:12 PM
I think it's quite impolite to throw shoes at the man who liberated you from Evil!
Posted by: Count Nefarious | December 14, 2008 5:22 PM
Throwing shoes at people isn't civilized. Doesn't matter who they are. You're wrong to condone this.
(And please, don't say, "Invading countries isn't civilized either." Two wrongs don't make a right.)
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 14, 2008 5:22 PM
On the other hand (foot?) it is entirely justified to throw shoes - and anything else available - at the man responsible for the deaths of several hundred thousand of your fellow-citizens, the displacement of 4 million more, the subordination of your country to foreigners, the destruction of many of its most important cultural relics, the establishment in power of misogynistic religious factions...
Posted by: Toddahhhh | December 14, 2008 5:22 PM
Who throws a shoe?
Posted by: Richard | December 14, 2008 5:23 PM
I'm not sure we should be encouraging the attempted physical assault of our President, even if we disagree with them. Throwing objects at people isn't a good mode of expression -- in addition to disapproving of people throwing shoes at Bush, I'll disapprove of people throwing things at Obama. More civility, not less, is what we need.
Posted by: Robert W | December 14, 2008 5:23 PM
TOO BAD IT DIDN'T HIT HIM!
Posted by: Crystal D. | December 14, 2008 5:24 PM
Yes, shoes seem to be used as a weapon more than most people would think. I have to say, though, Dubya has WAY faster reflexes than I would've thought!
Posted by: Brad D | December 14, 2008 5:25 PM
I'd rather fling poo at him. It would be harder to portray poo as a being a deadly weapon, plus the disgust factor is a major plus.
Alright fine... yeah civility is better. But I can still imagine it... SPLAT!
Posted by: kent | December 14, 2008 5:26 PM
The physical reflexes may be OK, But the mental is still too slow!
Posted by: bootsy | December 14, 2008 5:26 PM
Time to develop that shoe-cannon.
Posted by: zp | December 14, 2008 5:27 PM
PeeZee licks my combat boots
Posted by: wazza | December 14, 2008 5:27 PM
In Iraq, poo and shoes are roughly equal. Showing someone the soles of your feet (from, for example, a military helicopter) is a huge insult. Throwing a shoe... well, let's just say they're pissed.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 14, 2008 5:27 PM
Count Nefarious,
Are you seriously equating invading a country, with the appaling consequences we have seen, with throwing a pair of shoes? If so, I imagine you would regard a trampling contest between an elephant and a grasshopper as an even match.
Posted by: Count Nefarious | December 14, 2008 5:28 PM
@ Nick Gotts,
It is obviously foolish to say George Bush is "responsible" for all those deaths. He was largely responsible for making those deaths possible. Most of the blame should be laid on the Iraqi people, you know, killing one another like savages.
Even if he were responsible for arbitrarily many deaths, throwing shoes isn't the way we punish people in civilized societies.
Posted by: Murray | December 14, 2008 5:28 PM
In Canada, we throw cream pies at our leaders:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afp9H1tLmro
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | December 14, 2008 5:29 PM
I think this fellow is very unfair to shoes, which is almost as bad as being uncivilized, though not as bad as the current war the lame ducks got us into. This moment will live in memory as emblematic of the nadir of America's reputation abroad.
Posted by: Paper Hand | December 14, 2008 5:29 PM
I believe the shoe has a cultural significance, being unclean.
That said, to the first couple of commenters - seriously? You're complaining about a thrown shoe? That's a harmless protest. It's a bit more physical than waving a sign or burning an effigy, but it's harmless.
A group of Canadians have been throwing cream pies at people for years now.
Posted by: pcarini | December 14, 2008 5:30 PM
Agreed, I was actually sort of impressed with W for once. Aside from that I find the episode humorous but entirely inexcusable. (I agree with #2 above, two wrongs don't make a right.)
Posted by: Count Nefarious | December 14, 2008 5:32 PM
Are you seriously equating invading a country, with the appaling consequences we have seen, with throwing a pair of shoes? If so, I imagine you would regard a trampling contest between an elephant and a grasshopper as an even match.
Obviously not. Why bother to misrepresent me like this? I was merely pointing out, two wrongs don't make a right. The ratio of magnitudes of these wrongs doesn't enter into it.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 14, 2008 5:33 PM
I'll have to give the Pres this. Pretty good reaction on his part.
Posted by: Paper Hand | December 14, 2008 5:33 PM
Count Nefarious: Most of the blame should be laid on the Iraqi people, you know, killing one another like savages.
An easily-predictable outcome of destroying the central government and putting nothing in its place. And that's ignoring the large number of people killed directly by our soldiers.
Posted by: no chooze | December 14, 2008 5:34 PM
Bama's 1/2 brother does not own a pair of shoes.
Posted by: kryth | December 14, 2008 5:34 PM
That's the best things he could think of throwing at him?
Posted by: pcarini | December 14, 2008 5:36 PM
I imagine security for that event was pretty tight -- no chance of sneaking pie, rotten tomatoes, or dead fish in.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 14, 2008 5:36 PM
Comment #4 is, I assume, quoting from Austin Powers: Internation Man of Mystery; I was hoping I'd be the first in with it. Foiled again, dammit.
How he could go to Iraq and assume he'd be received as anything but a cartoonish super-villian is another indication of is ignorance and hubris. Anyone feel like starting a public campaign where displeased Americans send one shoe to him and see how many they get?
Posted by: Susan | December 14, 2008 5:37 PM
Someone on Digby's blog commented that the correct translation is not "dog" but "cur."
Or, you know, at least a few relevant questions.
Posted by: darkseraphina | December 14, 2008 5:38 PM
there is actually a symbolic meaning here...hitting someone with a shoe is a very dismissive statement in the middle east. shoes are unclean, but more than that, it is a punishment for someone who is beneath contempt. beating someone with a shoe is actually worse than stoning: stoning is an act of legal and religious punishment (though, of course, insane and stupid as well).
Posted by: Crappy Egyptian Camel Skin Shoes | December 14, 2008 5:38 PM
I bet he wore his sheety shoes that day.
Wonder if the cell floor is cold.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 14, 2008 5:39 PM
I can't believe someone actually wrote that.
Must...fight...Godwin...
Posted by: E.V. | December 14, 2008 5:40 PM
I'd rather he had mooned him. The insult and outrage would still be present but a case could not be made for attempted assault and battery on a foreign dignitary (I just buked a little).
Posted by: grouchomarx@netcabo.pt | December 14, 2008 5:41 PM
Let the one who has never sinned throw the first shoe.
Posted by: Count Nefarious | December 14, 2008 5:41 PM
An easily-predictable outcome of destroying the central government and putting nothing in its place. And that's ignoring the large number of people killed directly by our soldiers. OK, so if my country's government is removed, I'm not responsible for any of the murders (if any) I subsequently commit?
Presumably you'd say, yes, I am responsible, and so is whoever pulled the governmental rug. But now you're distrubuting the blame (and I think close inspection would reveal the actual murderer should get the lion's share of it). Surely, in this case, it's a bit misleading to say the rug-puller is "responsible", without even mentioning the other?
This is not a clearly wrong position, even if you think you have an argument against it. By leaping over these points of contention, you make yourself look unreasonable.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 14, 2008 5:42 PM
ANTI-shoe cannon.
Posted by: Bubbles | December 14, 2008 5:42 PM
Count Nefarious said: 'Even if he were responsible for arbitrarily many deaths, throwing shoes isn't the way we punish people in civilized societies'
I suppose it's better to fry them in a chair? Or stick a deadly needle in them? Two wrongs doesn't make a right you say. Is the 'an eye for an eye' idea many so called civilized countries advocate not worse than throuwing a pair of shoes at someone?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 14, 2008 5:42 PM
When I was in the military ever so many years ago, I was taught that the man in charge was responsible for the actions of subordinates. Plus there's the point that Bush had Iraq invaded for no discernible reason. So Bush as the instigator of the Iraqi Fiasco and as commander in chief of the US military is responsible for those deaths.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 14, 2008 5:43 PM
C'mon, folks: Even the target of this action isn't taking it seriously as an attack. Not only was he not injured, he almost certainly wouldn't have been injured even if the shoe had hit him. Yes, this was rude — since it was intended as an expression of contempt, how could it be otherwise — but can you really blame a citizen of a country that has been invaded, substantially destroyed, and occupied at gunpoint for being rude to the architect of all that woe?
I would never advocate violence against a visiting head of state, no matter how reprehensible the policies and actions s/he represented... but it's impossible to count this gesture as violence of any meaningful sort, and expressions of contempt toward a contemptible leader who has been the author of contemptible policies seem entirely within bound to me.
Posted by: Shaden Freud | December 14, 2008 5:43 PM
Bush is stupid, throw shoes at him.
Posted by: cognitive dissident | December 14, 2008 5:43 PM
Where is Richard Reid when you need him?
Posted by: Count me out | December 14, 2008 5:44 PM
WTF Count Ramble
Posted by: E.V. | December 14, 2008 5:44 PM
Yes, the President dodges shoes from disgusted Iraqis... and Cheney laughs and laughs.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 14, 2008 5:44 PM
It is obviously foolish to say George Bush is "responsible" for all those deaths. - Count Nefarious
On the contrary, responsibility is not a zero-sum game. Bush is most certainly responsible for all those deaths: they were a predictable, and indeed predicted, result of his actions.
Even if he were responsible for arbitrarily many deaths, throwing shoes isn't the way we punish people in civilized societies.
Oh, right. Kidnapping people, torturing them, then locking them up for years without trial or contact with their families is the civilised way.
If there were any prospect of Bush being punished for his monstrous crimes, your point might have some validity.
It was you, not me, who mentioned shoe-throwing and invading a country in the same comment. Your "two wrongs don't make a right" is simply grotesque. Maybe you'd like to make your point to some of those who have lost their families, or parts of their bodies, because of this loathsome scumbag's actions?
Posted by: pcarini | December 14, 2008 5:44 PM
Shoe Wars?
Posted by: Walton | December 14, 2008 5:45 PM
...the man responsible for the deaths of several hundred thousand of your fellow-citizens, the displacement of 4 million more, the subordination of your country to foreigners, the destruction of many of its most important cultural relics, the establishment in power of misogynistic religious factions...
As opposed to a misogynistic secular dictator, who was so much better? And didn't Saddam's regime also kill and displace a fair number of Iraqi citizens?
(Don't get me wrong. I don't think removing Saddam has made things substantially better in any sense, and it has, indeed, allowed Islamist lunatics to gain a foothold on power. But I also think it's counterfactual and unfair to act as if Iraq was some sort of paradise before the 2003 invasion. It was a state ruled by a gang of thugs who raped and pillaged the country at will.)
Posted by: S.Scott | December 14, 2008 5:45 PM
@ - #4 ... Honestly ...
Posted by: Paconious | December 14, 2008 5:45 PM
@NEFARIOUS
"It is obviously foolish to say George Bush is "responsible" for all those deaths. He was largely responsible for making those deaths possible"
He sent soldiers to their deaths. First to retrieve WMD's and then conveniently enough called the war a liberation of the iraqui people. He is a liar and a murderer. He didnt pull the trigger as you so eloquently put; he did however place the bullseye on the soldiers head, for no good reason, thats the bigger crime. He deserves far worse than a shoe attack.
Most of the blame should be laid on the Iraqi people, you know, killing one another like savages.
Yeah i know. We have to invade these savages turn them into christinanity and place padlocks on their shoes so they dont fling them.
Please, try not to sound so ethnocentric.
Posted by: Tomato Addict | December 14, 2008 5:47 PM
Paper Hand at #17 has it right; shoes are considered unclean and hitting someone with them is a severe insult. You may recall there were images of Iraqis hitting the statue of Sadam Hussein with shoes as well.
Posted by: E.V. | December 14, 2008 5:47 PM
*sniff sniff*
I smell sockpuppets.
Posted by: Denis Loubet | December 14, 2008 5:47 PM
Where was the Secret Service? I didn't hear "SHOE!" and see a man in black throw himself in front of the first shoe, much less the second. If they're not willing to "take a shoe" for the president, what makes anyone think they'll take a bullet? The SS dropped the ball on this one.
Personally, I think the ratio of magnitude of these wrongs is what it's all about. Does anyone seriously think that Bush will suffer one iota for the crimes he's committed? I don't. And it's abundantly clear there will be no recourse, no justice.
I think shoes is all anyone has left.
Posted by: tis tisk | December 14, 2008 5:47 PM
tis could not of been in the .mil
if you were i *think* you lost a lost of respect.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 14, 2008 5:48 PM
Is Count Nefarious J?
Posted by: Sastra | December 14, 2008 5:49 PM
This was a press conference: the journalist should have thrown an unwanted question at the president, not a shoe. I'm going to agree with Count Nefarious, and disagree with PZ. I can understand the motivation, but no violence, on principle, when discourse is still possible. That wasn't a "rightful action." Attempted assaults of unpopular speakers is probably not a wise thing to advocate, either.
Posted by: DaveH | December 14, 2008 5:51 PM
As I understand it, in many Islamic countries, hitting with shoes is a very heavy insult. One takes them off entering houses, mosques etc, because they are unclean.
Wouldn't hurt any more than falling off your bicycle at Gleneagles.
Posted by: bootsy | December 14, 2008 5:51 PM
@ 33, Rev. BigDumbChimp: Well, I was trying to argue for a more effective shoe-delivery device to target someone so sole-less. (groan)
Don't forget that any Anti-Shoe system deployed in the east will be seen as a provocation by the Russians.
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 14, 2008 5:51 PM
which poster was it who pointed out in an old thread that cries for "civility" are an act of censorship against the plight of the most desperate?
I think it applies here again: there's no "civil" way of getting the point heard, much less understood. throwing a shoe on the other hand is pretty hard to miss or misinterpret
Posted by: Otto | December 14, 2008 5:51 PM
Did Bush keep the shoes?
It would be a neat souvenir and could be sold on ebay.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 14, 2008 5:53 PM
Walton, I realize that you love George W. Bush with all your heart, but you have to admit that invading a sovereign country just to prove you've got a big pair of balls (or whatever your hero's excuse was) just isn't done.
Saddam was a big meanie. Got it. Kim Jong Il and Robert Mugabe are bigger meanies than Saddam ever dreamed of being. So why didn't your idol invade North Korea or Zimbabwe?
Posted by: Zarquon | December 14, 2008 5:56 PM
"Unpopular"? Unprovoked invasion is a war crime. Bush, Blair and the rest deserve more than shoes, they deserve hanging.
Posted by: Ethan | December 14, 2008 5:56 PM
Looks rehersed to me.
Posted by: E.V. | December 14, 2008 5:56 PM
Um, "have" perhaps? Blind respect for an obviously inept commander in chief (when one is not on active duty) is moronic. BTW, Tis Himself never said he was in the American Service.Posted by: Rey Fox | December 14, 2008 5:57 PM
Okay, okay. Can we subject him to a fair trial, THEN throw shoes at him? And does anyone have any steel-toes?
"Anyone feel like starting a public campaign where displeased Americans send one shoe to him and see how many they get?"
Sounds good. I have a pair of old black Vans that I've been wanting to get rid of for some time, but am afraid I'll have to keep them if I ever crawl back to my old inventory counting job because of the big shit Bush took on the economy.
Posted by: student_b | December 14, 2008 5:57 PM
Yeah, throwing shoes at a mass murder is so uncivil, how could you applaud something like this. -_-
Seriously, if it would go after me he should have thrown a shoe bomb. Since Bush will never face charges for his crimes (you're quite deluded if you honestly think he will) any attack on his life and health to make him pay is fine by me.
I don't have any mercy for powerful people, only for the weak and poor.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 14, 2008 5:58 PM
Count Nefertitti:
I think you might not be so quick to count the shoe-throwing if (you should forgive the expression) the shoe were on the other foot. If, in some alternate universe, Saddam Hussein had somehow managed to invade, wreck the infrastructure of, and occupy (permanently, if he had any say about it) the U.S., and then had the gall to make a smug "victory lap" visit here on his way to a cushy retirement, would you be so ready to call it "wrong" to publicly express contempt for him in a very traditional way?
I might agree with that principle if the two wrongs were of the same rough order of magnitude... but even if we stipulate the shoe-throwing was "wrong," a trivial attempted battery, on one hand, and crimes against humanity (which is what we call unjustified aggressive war), on the other hand, are comparable in any sane person's mind.
Posted by: Count Nefarious | December 14, 2008 6:01 PM
Oh, right. Kidnapping people, torturing them, then locking them up for years without trial or contact with their families is the civilised way.
No, it isn't civilized, and I didn't say it is. Again, why bother with these irrelevant distortions?
It was you, not me, who mentioned shoe-throwing and invading a country in the same comment. Your "two wrongs don't make a right" is simply grotesque. Maybe you'd like to make your point to some of those who have lost their families, or parts of their bodies, because of this loathsome scumbag's actions?
The "Evil America" causal model has never appealed to me. It ignores the significance of chance, complexity, and well-intentioned blunders, and seems to overestimate the inherent goodness of average human beings. I find it probable that George Bush has a fairly normal morality and fairly normal cognitive abilities. He made a few stupid decisions, and well, shit happens. That's life. The Universe isn't generally a nice place.
(That isn't to say we should accept his decisions. We shouldn't. But at least let's be reasonable in expressing our indignation.)
Anyway. There are more productive things to do than throw shoes at people.
Posted by: woody | December 14, 2008 6:02 PM
You are correct, sir. Entirely uncivil...
Shoes are altogether the WRONG things to toss at the Chimp.
Rotten fruit, decomposing produce, animal offal, bags of dog feces: These are the proper projectiles to launch in the El Boosh's direction...and every member of his regime...
Shoes are just too expensive...we ARE in a recession, yano?
Posted by: SC, OM | December 14, 2008 6:02 PM
Must...resist...shoe...puns...
Posted by: sara | December 14, 2008 6:03 PM
Oh, yeah. That was very courageous . . . good of you to endorse and condone the scene.
Posted by: E.V. | December 14, 2008 6:04 PM
Shrub's future Preston Hollow neighbors are none too pleased, since the SS is going to be hyper-vigilant against all the nutcases with axes to grind. I wonder how many people will be detained just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Posted by: Saint Jerome | December 14, 2008 6:04 PM
"I was merely pointing out, two wrongs don't make a right."
And I'm merely pointing out that the saying you keep repeating is bullshit. I argue that based on this war criminals actions, there is nothing wrong with throwing shoes at him.
Holy shit we're not in kindergarden anymore. We're a little beyond "two wrongs don't make a right" in the real world.
Posted by: Steven | December 14, 2008 6:05 PM
@51, Sastra, wholeheartedly agree.
I have less problem with the fact someone threw a shoe at Bush, more with the fact that many people seem to think it is the right thing to do.
So what? Do we suddenly condone violence if the target is someone unpopular? Sure, the journalist is desperate, sure, what he did was probably justified. But condoning assault is not right.
@35,
"When I was in the military ever so many years ago, I was taught that the man in charge was responsible for the actions of subordinates."
Ahhh, the Nuremberg Defense. Too bad it didn't work in WWII.
Posted by: Kitty | December 14, 2008 6:06 PM
Mr. Zaidi is a shoe-in for heroic journalist of the year...
Maybe the shoes were NunnBush brand?
The population of Gitmo just went up one.
Posted by: Zarquon | December 14, 2008 6:06 PM
I find it probable that George Bush has a fairly normal morality and fairly normal cognitive abilities.
How the fuck would you know? You're making excuses for crimes against humanity. That's not "normal" morality, it's the morality of thugs.
Posted by: Capital Dan | December 14, 2008 6:06 PM
Now it's time for a wounded nation to heel.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 14, 2008 6:06 PM
Walton@43,
I did not in any way imply that Saddam's Iraq was "some sort of paradise" pre-2003, you dishonest little creep.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 14, 2008 6:07 PM
Count Nefarious #63
You do know that after the Nuremberg Trial there were people hanged for invading other countries without just, or even reasonable, cause? Your buddy Bush did more than make "a few stupid decisions." He violated international law.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 14, 2008 6:09 PM
"When I was in the military ever so many years ago, I was taught that the man in charge was responsible for the actions of subordinates."
Ahhh, the Nuremberg Defense. Too bad it didn't work in WWII. - Steven
You idiot. No-one is arguing that no-one but Bush is responsible; simply that he cannot evade responsibility because he didn't himself pull any triggers or drop any bombs.
Posted by: Saint Jerome | December 14, 2008 6:10 PM
"As opposed to a misogynistic secular dictator, who was so much better?"
Saddam was secular? Way to ignore the Islamist propaganda he used.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 14, 2008 6:13 PM
Yikes!
Oh, of course.
play me some funk bootsy!
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 14, 2008 6:13 PM
the what now?sorry to disappoint, but the average human being is merely human. there's no such thing as "inherent goodness" or "inherent evil". and as for bush morality... i'm sure a lot of the genocidal freaks of the past only had the good of "Their Own" in mind as they exterminated "The Other"; just in case.
Posted by: Steven | December 14, 2008 6:14 PM
@61
Get off your high chair. This is how islamic extremists justify killing us "infidels".
Posted by: Malcolm | December 14, 2008 6:15 PM
Obviously the guy had run out of rose petals.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 14, 2008 6:16 PM
I find it probable that George Bush has a fairly normal morality and fairly normal cognitive abilities. - Count Nefarious
Then you're an idiot. In any case it is his actions, and the motivations for those actions that condemn him. It is abundantly clear that Bush and the neocons were determined from before his inauguration to invade Iraq in order to obtain military bases and control of its oil industry - in which, indeed, they may well succeed.
The "Evil America" causal model has never appealed to me.
Since I never put forward such a model, and don't believe in it, why bother with these irrelevant distortions?
Posted by: Sigmund | December 14, 2008 6:17 PM
I had similar thoughts to Denis on this one. Shouldn't Bush have been bundled out of there, pronto, after the first shoe went in? What were the secret service doing? Applauding?
And to those who don't think throwing shoes is a serious attack I'd advise you to rent 'Single White Female' at the first opportunity.
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 14, 2008 6:17 PM
way to ignore the fact that he didn't start until it became obvious that the US was about to go after him and he realized he needed help from his neighbors.Saddam was secular. It's why the US originally supported him and built him up against Iran.
Posted by: Petzl | December 14, 2008 6:18 PM
Zaid wasnt neither brave nor courageous.
Hes probably just a religious zealot.
Hes certainly a thug.
PZ: you of all people should not be
approving violence at a press conference.
Zaid couldve had a much more productive
effect by asking a particularly incisive
question: perhaps one getting Bush to
finally, finally confess his
true reasons for invading a country which did
NOT have WMDs nor ANY connection to Al Qaida
and DID have false, manufactured evidence of same.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 14, 2008 6:18 PM
This is how islamic extremists justify killing us "infidels". - Steven
If they stuck to killing murdering scum like Bush, I'd have no quarrel with them.
Posted by: Count Nefarious | December 14, 2008 6:22 PM
Come on. If you hate Bush and feel you must do something about his crimes, surely there are better things to do than throw shoes at him.
Start a personal smear campaign against him. Rant about him on some political forums. Draw a humiliating cartoon. This is more than a cut above resorting to physical violence.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | December 14, 2008 6:22 PM
. . . throwing shoes isn't the way we punish people in civilized societies.
No, of course not. Because then they'd have to let all of us do it.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 14, 2008 6:22 PM
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?
Did I say anywhere that Bush was the sole person responsible? No, I did not. I was disagreeing with Count Nefarious who was claiming that Bush had NO responsibility.
Also, in the military, the person(s) who performed illegal or hazardous actions were responsible for those actions, as was their commander. In 1980 the submarine USS George Washington surfaced under a Japanese ship, causing severe damage to both vessels and killing one Japanese sailor. The Officer of the Deck, a Lieutenant who I knew, AND his captain were both relieved. The captain was asleep in his bunk when the incident occurred but he was still responsible.
No, I was not making the Befehl ist Befehl defense for any of Bush's subordinates.
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 14, 2008 6:23 PM
sorry, that's not how reality works. polite questions from the oppressed have never resulted in the end of oppression.Posted by: ERV | December 14, 2008 6:23 PM
I loled.
Posted by: Steven | December 14, 2008 6:24 PM
@75
"You idiot. No-one is arguing that no-one but Bush is responsible; simply that he cannot evade responsibility because he didn't himself pull any triggers or drop any bombs."
"You idiot". Where exactly did I state that Bush is not responsible?
Posted by: Paper Hand | December 14, 2008 6:24 PM
If they stuck to killing murdering scum like Bush, I'd have no quarrel with them.
If they stuck to throwing shoes at people, or other acts of rudeness, as opposed to murder, I'd have no quarrel with them, either.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 14, 2008 6:26 PM
Zaid wasnt neither brave nor courageous.
His name is al Zaidi and he is obviously extremely courageous. He is very probably being tortured as we speak. He certainly risked this, to make his point.
Posted by: Chayanov | December 14, 2008 6:26 PM
I thought shoes were considered potentially dangerous weapons, seeing as how I can't walk across an airport without being forced to take mine off.
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 14, 2008 6:28 PM
and on a completely unrelated but hilarious note: The TRUTH behind Jesus walking on water!!! http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=fd3f34c9-9853-4020-9537-c23d090e43a5
Posted by: craig | December 14, 2008 6:29 PM
http://jfcshow.com
haha, anyone seen this?
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 14, 2008 6:29 PM
Steven,
Your #75 clearly implied that you thought someone was arguing that only Bush was responsible. That's why I called (and call) you an idiot - because quite clearly, no-one was.
Posted by: Count Nefarious | December 14, 2008 6:32 PM
Then you're an idiot.
I have confidence in my opinions and believe I can argue my case rationally. You, on the contrary, feel the need to twist my words and then insult me.
Your position is manifestly disingenuous, at any rate. Obviously it's possible for someone who isn't an idiot to believe George Bush isn't an unusually wicked man. Who do you think you're trying to fool?
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 14, 2008 6:34 PM
Let he who hath not invaded an other nation cast the first shoe.
Posted by: Steven | December 14, 2008 6:35 PM
@85
"If they stuck to killing murdering scum like Bush, I'd have no quarrel with them."
So killing is okay as long as you agree with the motive of the killer? What made you so high and mighty that your opinion are the absolute truth?
In eight short years, you developed an ideology so strong you would condone murder. Bravo! You put to shame the religious extremists for whom it took a lifetime of indoctrination to justify the killing of all infidels.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 14, 2008 6:35 PM
Come on. If you hate Bush and feel you must do something about his crimes, surely there are better things to do than throw shoes at him.
Start a personal smear campaign against him. Rant about him on some political forums. Draw a humiliating cartoon.
- Count Nefarious
Rubbish. None of those actions would have achieved the worldwide publicity the shoe-throwing did. Al Zaidi disrupted Bush's self-glorification, and made it abundantly clear that there are Iraqis (in fact, there are very many indeed) who regard Bush with loathing and contempt.
Posted by: Charles | December 14, 2008 6:36 PM
The most telling thing about the episode was Bush's response: "I don't know what his issue was ..."
Vacuum for brains. The empathy of a slime-mold.
Posted by: Capital Dan | December 14, 2008 6:38 PM
Come on! I thought I scored a small winner with that whole "Now it's time for a wounded nation to heel" crack!
You science types with your monkeys and microscopes are a tough, tough crowd to please.
Posted by: Count Nefarious | December 14, 2008 6:38 PM
Rubbish. None of those actions would have achieved the worldwide publicity the shoe-throwing did. Al Zaidi disrupted Bush's self-glorification, and made it abundantly clear that there are Iraqis (in fact, there are very many indeed) who regard Bush with loathing and contempt. OK, that's a good point. Provided the shoe-thrower realized this point, I accept that it was possibly a wise and clever little stunt.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 14, 2008 6:40 PM
So killing is okay as long as you agree with the motive of the killer? What made you so high and mighty that your opinion are the absolute truth? Steven
Are you an absolute and unconditional pacifist, or a hypocrite?
Posted by: BobC | December 14, 2008 6:42 PM
"This is a goodbye kiss, you dog," Zaidi shouted.
This is very unfair to dogs. I never met a dog as hopelessly stupid as our president. Worst economy since the Great Depression. Two wars that have lasted longer than World War Two. Science and science education constantly under attack. Good riddance.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 14, 2008 6:42 PM
It's the unrestrained proliferation of puns here at this blog that I rebel against. Yes it's funny he almost got hit by a show but I remain tight laced against such attempts at humor.
Posted by: moother | December 14, 2008 6:45 PM
i would hurl a bucket of vomit at him if the secret service let me.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 14, 2008 6:45 PM
Count Nefarious,
Kudos for acknowledging the point. Of course al Zaidi realised the impact this would have - have you not followed the comments about the significance of shoe-throwing in Arab culture? Not to mention that it would have been obvious to anyone that any assault on Bush was bound to be headline news around the world.
Posted by: CW | December 14, 2008 6:46 PM
Clearly there's a cultural gap here. For an Iraqi throwing shoes is a highly symbolic act. The "violence" is incidental, it's not intended to injure the recipient. It's similar to how we would feel about spitting on someone and (let's be honest) it's just about as dangerous to the victim.
Personally I think Bush deserves (poetically speaking) to be used to demonstrate the terminal limits of "waterboarding", I'd be willing to settle for him receiving some hefty jail time, but I fear that at the end of the day those two shoes represent the sum total of his brush with justice. As such I am certainly not going to condemn the incident.
Posted by: jagannath | December 14, 2008 6:48 PM
Well, cannot comment much of his actions until I have been in his shoes but boy did he make Bush shake in his boots.
One would think Bush would be tough as old boots by now. It is not like is the newest pair of shoes in the shop in the arena of dislike.
But it was clear that sooner or later the other shoe would drop. The normal Iraqi are not wanting to lick his boots but to give him the boot and in this case literally.
:)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, | December 14, 2008 6:50 PM
Of course, but misplaced outrage is entertaining. Trust me, I'm a pro at it.
Truthfully the shoe thing is fully symbolic. Even sitting across from someone with your soles shown to them is disrespectful in that culture.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 14, 2008 6:51 PM
I KNEW it! Your antipunnist rants were merely a cover for your punophilia! You don't have to sneaker round anymore, Rev. Come out of the closet.
Posted by: Jason A. | December 14, 2008 6:51 PM
*sigh* the same revenge mentality of the religionists. We really do have a long way to go, don't we?
For the record, I thought the video was funny. A thrown shoe is not a physical threat beyond a bruise or busted lip. It's the rationalization going on in here by quite a few members that I found more shocking.
Posted by: llewelly | December 14, 2008 6:51 PM
What social norm? I always get crap for putting the toilet seat down (actually I close the lid because I don't think it's good to have toilet water scattered around the room.)Y'all are missing an important question here: The shoes were clearly missiles, so why didn't Bush's missle defence system shoot down the shoes?
Somethin' fishy is goin' on, I'm tellin' y'all.
Posted by: Lesserdevil | December 14, 2008 6:52 PM
This heinous attack on our wonderful president (I can barely type that without puking into my mouth a little) underscores the necessity of purchasing Christian prayers. Bush was running behind on his tithes.
Seriously:
It's too bad he managed to duck. I would have loved to see a shoe imprint on his face. I have mad respect for al Zaidi. I can't believe nobody else has been man enough to do something like this before now.
There are some drawbacks to being an atheist. There's no hell to wish upon such people as Bush. It would be convenient if there were. I imagine he will never face true justice for his atrocities.
Posted by: GodIsLove | December 14, 2008 6:52 PM
This is what W gets for denying God.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 14, 2008 6:57 PM
UGH
Posted by: Dersu Uzala | December 14, 2008 6:58 PM
The intent of the shoe throwing is not to hurt the target, just the act of showing the shoe, an unclean and lowly object, who know what it has stepped on, is the ultimate insult. That is the intent, to show your disdain and contempt. In the process, if the shoe so much as touches the target, all the more better. Don't get carried away on your "lack of civility" thing. If the outraged guy had thrown a stone, you would have a case.
I don't condone violence of an sort, but pitching a shoe is nowhere near being violent.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 14, 2008 6:58 PM
Sastra #51,
Throwing an unwanted question would have had zero consequence. It wouldn't even have been covered by the international press. It would most probably not even be on this blog.
The shoe ? The whole world is going to know this. Most of the world will rejoice. Americans will discuss it, this will be remembered as a highlight of Bush's presidency.
If you want the world and Americans to get the message that he wanted to express, there's nothing more efficient than the shoe (apart from the really violent stuff, but that's something most people would never condone).
Sure, it's very rude, but I think that is part of the message.
There are very few cases I can think of when I would support this. But here, I think Bush deserved it.
Posted by: MC | December 14, 2008 6:58 PM
This is a foolish post from an otherwise admirable blog. Calling for physical violence againsts GWB is a sign of intolerant thinking and shouldnt be advocated. Better to suggest that intellectual arguments be made against his policies than to make such foolish proclimations.
Remember, despite all his failings GWB was elected to lead the US. Recently the people have demonstrated they they have repudiated this decision and have elected a another to serve as his replacement. This demonstrates that the voters recognise his failings too. Democracy is self regulating. There is no requirment for intolerance.
Posted by: Steven | December 14, 2008 6:58 PM
#105
"Are you an absolute and unconditional pacifist, or a hypocrite?"
Neither, I'm one who believe ideology or religion based terrorism is the worst threat faced by society today short of global nuclear war (which is getting less and less likely).
One of the distinguishing features of fundamentalists is the inability to see anything other than black and white. The fact you see such simple dicotomy in my posts clearly shows that your judgement is not as nearly as good as you think. While I'd not go so far as to call you an "idiot", for you do make some good points, I think the term "hypocrite" would fit you just fine.
Posted by: ambulocetus | December 14, 2008 6:59 PM
Obviously, none of us will ever get a chance at any similar display of contempt, so the best thing we can do to pay back Bush and his cronies is to stop using oil. Then they won't see any return on their "investment". I recently converted my car to run on E85. It's a step in the right direction.
Posted by: mootehr | December 14, 2008 7:03 PM
hahaha
now i finally understand all those images of people beating the statues of Saddam at liberation.
'"Down, down, Saddam," said one man, frenziedly interrupting my piece to camera so we should see him use his shoe to repeatedly strike the face of the statue, which had come down a few moments earlier.'
'A small boy was bending double to strike it with his shoe every step of the way. Then they all disappeared from sight.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3611869.stm
video here from 4 mins it gets funny: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=E8n0RxsS0e0
hehe this is even funnier after watching bush's insult
Posted by: SC, OM | December 14, 2008 7:04 PM
The Iraqi wedge strategy! (OK, even I'm groaning at that one.)
Oh, no. You can't cry "ugh" anymore, my friend. I've held my tongue on your behalf for too long, even though it was a dragletting you have the upper hand.
Grr. If I had time, I would let loose with even more, but I must get back to work.
:(
Posted by: gleaner63 | December 14, 2008 7:08 PM
For those interested, check out the January/February issue of Archaeology magazine. There is an excellent article called "Witness to Genocide: Forensic archaeologists uncover evidence of a secret massacre-and help convict Saddam Hussein of crimes against humanity". The mass grave in question has thus far revealed 114 victims (Kurdish), including 85 *children*. A *pacifier* was one of the articles recovered in the grave. Nine other mass graves remain in the Muthanna province remain unexcavated.
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 14, 2008 7:09 PM
It is hard to figure out which is most symbolic of dubya. Is it the pretzel? Is it the segway? Is it "Watch this swing?" Is it the shoe?
Sadly, none captures the true essence of dubya quite like Cheney's shot an old friend in the face at a caged hunt. But it does seems to form a mosaic that is all too clear.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 14, 2008 7:11 PM
Steven@122,
Right, got it, you're a hypocrite.
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 14, 2008 7:11 PM
Steven, you completely missed the point of #105. the truth is that when you condemn all use of violence per-se, unless you are a complete and utter pacifist, you are a hypocrite. the point is to realize that though violence is horrible, sometimes it's the last remaining resort. it of course means there was a massive failiure to prevent the situation in the first place, but at some point, acts of violence become the only solution left. those who accept that sad fact condemn the motives as well as the, uh, exectuion of the violence, rather than the violence in and of itself. because condemning the use of violence completely would be to say that the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Christopher Street riots, the fights for Civil Rights etc. were completely and utterly wrong and should have never happened.
Posted by: barry21 | December 14, 2008 7:13 PM
Like any other criminal, President Bush should be prosecuted for whatever crimes he may have committed while in office. Like any other criminal, he should not be subject to vigilantism or anything like it. It's important that we all respect the rule of law. It's what separates us from filth like Bush.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 14, 2008 7:13 PM
Remember, despite all his failings GWB was elected to lead the US. - MC
Somehow, I doubt if al Zaidi got to vote in the elections concerned.
Posted by: Magnifico Giganticus | December 14, 2008 7:14 PM
I realize you won't care but suggesting that people should throw shoes at anyone is ignorant and irresponsible and causes me to lose respect for you. I think that Bush ought to be impeached and imprisoned because I wish for a better world. What you suggest does not elevate you or anyone else but rather perpetuates the thuggish ignorance of which he is guilty and compels us to condemn him in the first place. I realize that throwing a shoe is relatively tame but the submission to visceral desires is the same and is thus no step forward.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 14, 2008 7:20 PM
the same revenge mentality of the religionists. - Jason A.
Not revenge: deterrence. I would much prefer a workable system of international justice, but in its absence, fear of retaliation by the victims of international violence is better than nothing. I see no reason why those who murder from the seats of power should enjoy immunity from the violence they use and profit from.
Posted by: scooter | December 14, 2008 7:20 PM
He's lucky it wasn't a spike-heeled Condi boot. I can't figure out why the guy waited until G-dub was facing forward, he had a perfect shot just prior to the pitch, he could have nailed him right in the ear.
Damn Iraqis can't do anything right...... after all we've done for them
Posted by: davem | December 14, 2008 7:20 PM
Bush:
..sums him up completely, sad to say. He probably doesn't have a clue what he's done.
Posted by: pauly | December 14, 2008 7:23 PM
Here Here, PZ! I've never agreed more.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 14, 2008 7:28 PM
I think that Bush ought to be impeached and imprisoned because I wish for a better world. - Magnifico Giganticus
But you know as well as we do, and as al Zaidi does, that he's not going to be. Under those circumstances, this expression of contempt and loathing is fully justified, indeed thoroughly admirable.
Posted by: senecasam | December 14, 2008 7:29 PM
Maybe they were pair of Bruno Magli's and the Iraqi journalist intended them as a gift? There was another murderer who owned a pair of Bruno Magli's, but he thought they were "ugly-assed shoes." Didn't stop him from wearing them, though.
Posted by: Zar | December 14, 2008 7:32 PM
I feel absolutely no pity for Bush. I wish people had thrown more stuff, like tomatoes or garbage. Or poo. Or pies!
Treating this like an act of violence is ridiculous and hypersensitive. It's like throwing a booger at someone. It is an insult, that's all, and a well-deserved one.
Posted by: scooter | December 14, 2008 7:33 PM
A foot in your Bush is worth what?
Two boots up the ass?
Any statisticians here?
------------------------------------
I wish I could have given that guy my Doc Martins, they have more steel in them than a framing hammer. He wouldn't have needed two shots.
I hope this catches on as a carny game, three shoes for a dollar.
-------------------------------------
He turned the other cheek like a good cross-monkey, I'll give him that.
Posted by: dave | December 14, 2008 7:33 PM
As was said in Life of Brian, "Follow the Shoe!"
I wonder how long it will be before someone tries to hawk that shoe (or a fake) on eBay. Especially if it had an image of the virgin Mary on it.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 14, 2008 7:35 PM
neg:
But here, I think Bush deserved it.I think we should be thankful1 this action was nonviolent: I'm sure there are no small number of Iraqis who consider their nation to be under armed occupation, and think of the "Iraqi" government as a mere puppet of the U.S. It wouldn't be hard for such people to convince themselves that the commander-in-chief of the occupying force was a legitimate military target. We should all be very glad this fellow chose to treat him, instead, as an object of contempt.
1 I say "thankful" because, no matter how strongly I condemn the policies and actions of the Bush administration, violence against a head of state is never a good thing. Even the worst leaders personify their nations, as a matter of diplomatic protocol; except as a matter of open warfare, we should never contemplate their killing with anything other than fear and disgust.
Posted by: davem | December 14, 2008 7:35 PM
mootehr@124: There was a TV programme last? year, on the BBC, with the BBC following Al Jazheera TV's coverage of the war in Iraq. One interesting comment came out - when the guys were hitting Saddam's statue with their shoes, one Al Jazheera man said he thought it was rather odd that none of the people hitting the statue had Iraqi accents....
Posted by: Killedthesavages | December 14, 2008 7:38 PM
@ #2 nd #53, I gr. Wht Pwr. Thr s n shm n bng wht.
All ths ngrs, jw, cthlcs nd th gdlss mslm blmng whts lk y nd m fr thr msry.
Dn't th nfrrs knw tht lbrtng thm ws fr thr wn gd. Thy cld nt pssblty xst wtht th ssstnc f whts lk y nd m.
Hy, I wld lk t nvts rl mrcns lk y t jn m n hvng wht prd.
www.kkk.cm
r
www.nnz.cm
Posted by: Radwaste | December 14, 2008 7:38 PM
This is so disappointing.
Once again, the intelligentsia focuses on the President, as he completely complies with the War Powers Act and the instructions of Congress. If you're going to be smart, read the Constitution and find out who really put you into the rage you express for him - because you can't be bothered to learn the responsibilities and names of your Congressmen.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 14, 2008 7:42 PM
Oh, damn! Blockquote fail @142! I think you can probably figure out what's what, so I won't waste the column inches needed to repost. Sorry, though.
Posted by: Katharine | December 14, 2008 7:42 PM
Lookie here, guys, we got a NAZI!
144 -
DIAF, you brainless scumbag.
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 14, 2008 7:44 PM
because you can't be bothered to learn the responsibilities and names of your Congressmen. some of us, including Mr. Zaidi, don't have Congressmen.there's a reason the U.S.A is so vehemently opposed to an International Court of Law.
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 14, 2008 7:46 PM
shit, blockquote fail. the first sentence is a quote from #145
Posted by: Steven | December 14, 2008 7:49 PM
@129
When did I condemn the use of all violence? I even stated what the jounalist did was probably justified. What I condemned was the act of condoning vigilante murder and terrorism because of one's personal belief.
The example you gave are all organized revolutions, for what society considers now "good" virtues. On the other hand, there are countless example of individuals who believed they hold the absolute truth and proceeded to terrorize society. You people willing to justify vigilante murder because your political belief are little different from the muslims who sung praises to the suicide bombers. There is a massive difference between a war and some high and mightly terrorist.
@128
This coming from the same guy who in one sentence called Bush a murdering scum, while on the other called for his murder.
Posted by: AJ Milne | December 14, 2008 7:50 PM
Oh, the humanity. A shoe, you say? He threw a shoe?!!!
How could he. What a vile, vicious, inhuman monster. Why, someone could get bruised or somethin'. Or, y'know, scratched. Possibly, if the shoe has recently been polished, innocent bystanders may even be grievously smudged with shoe black, which may require us to take such extreme lifesaving measures as using soap and water for removal of such material. Or, may our god save us and the pearls we clutch, we may even have to do some drycleaning.
Why, that villain. We must retaliate appropriately. I suggest we bomb the fuck out of his country, shoot some folk, fire off some cruise missiles, ruin the infrastructure, reduce the whole area to a smoking, anarchic hellhole, occupy it indefinitely... Oh, and let's torture some folk, detain them indefinitely without trial, ship 'em off to some other hellholes where they also torture people...
Oh, and, probably, just for good measure, we could also trash our own civil liberties in the process. That'll shoe em...
Erm. Show 'em. I meant show 'em.
The point is: they have it coming.
Posted by: george.w | December 14, 2008 7:50 PM
I will definitely start disapproving of throwing a shoe at our president, as soon as I stop laughing.
Posted by: Craig P | December 14, 2008 7:51 PM
I like how this has devolved into a discussion of punishment and violence, as if that throwing of shoes was either of those things.
"Respect the law" is a sickening meme I see floating around underneath many of these comments. The law is certainly not worthy of respect. It's best to act in the best interest of society, but law often has nothing to do with that.
It will certainly never punish Bush. The very idea is silly.
As far as I can tell, the people (or is it the same person over and over?) posting about how this sort of shoeing is abhorrent are totally disconnected from reality. If I met Bush, I guarantee you I would spit on him, which is about the same level of insult in our culture.
It would not be punishment, nor would it be violence.
But it would be justified.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 14, 2008 7:52 PM
Katharine@147,
Or (almost as disgusting) a troll pretending to be a Nazi. Fuck off and die, Nazi/troll.
Posted by: Killedthesavages | December 14, 2008 7:54 PM
@Rdwst
I gr. Wht ppl r th sprr rc, thy r smrtr nd thy hlp ll ths svgs frm kllng thmslvs by clnzng ll ths nmls lnds n Afrc, As, nd th mrcs.
Wht d ths ntllgst hv prblm wth nywys. Wht, d y lbrls hv wht glts s mch tht y r ncpbl f sng th sprr rc tryng t cvlzd th mnstrs wh r dm t hll fr bng dscndnt f Cn?
Prsdnt Bsh ws nt "rspnsbl" fr th nfrr rcs nd svgs dth s my fllw wht brthrs nd wht sstrs frm #2, 51, nd 145 hd sd.
Whts ppl cnnt b rspnsbl fr th mnstrs nd svgs dths bcs ths mnstr r gng t hll lrdy fr bng brn nfrr. It s lk gvng th dth pnlty t crmnls.
Th svgs n Irq r th crmnls nd Prsdnt Bsh s th xctnr. Y wld nt flt th xctnr fr pttng lthl njctn nt th crmnls wld y?
#145 ws crrct. Th lbrls n cngrss wh hts thmslvs fr bng brn sprr r th Jrrs, Prsdnt Bsh s th xctnr, nd th Irqs r th crmnls.
Blm th lbrl jrrs, nd th crmnls nt th xctnr.
#145, I hp tht y jn m n hvng wht prd.
www.kkk.bz
r www.mrcnnzprty.cm
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 14, 2008 7:54 PM
steve, you STILL fail to understand that one person's terrorism is another's resistance. only victory determines what was a justified cause for it. trust me, the British of the 18th century did NOT see the damaging of their property and the killing of their people as a good thing!
and there is NO difference between a war and an act of terrorism, except scale.
Posted by: Mark | December 14, 2008 7:59 PM
@144
Perfect reason for abortion.
P.S. Race is bullshit.
Posted by: ambulocetus | December 14, 2008 8:03 PM
Nazis hate themselves because they can't come to terms with the homo desires.
Posted by: Azkyroth | December 14, 2008 8:03 PM
This is nothing more than a vicarious "MO-OM! HE HIT ME BACK! AND I DIDN'T EVEN DO ANYTHING TO HIM!"
Posted by: Mark | December 14, 2008 8:04 PM
@155
Do all white supremacists have the grammar, spelling, and overall writing ability of an eight year old?
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 14, 2008 8:05 PM
This coming from the same guy who in one sentence called Bush a murdering scum, while on the other called for his murder. - Steven
I have not in fact called for Bush's murder, nor do I do so; but I would not condemn or regret it, since he is in effect immune from justice. You are a hypocrite: you get on your high horse, saying "So killing is okay as long as you agree with the motive of the killer?" - yet you defend events such as the American Revolution, which involved deliberately killing considerable numbers of people - so clearly you think killing is OK as long as you agree with the motive of the killer. Hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite.
Posted by: Katharine | December 14, 2008 8:06 PM
Neo-nazis are such idiots. They don't even have the slightest grasp of population genetics or general ability. There is no inherent biological 'superiority' - shitholes such as #144 twist and warp whatever information they get so badly because they don't understand it and because they're insecure little idiot sissies.
Posted by: Matt7895 | December 14, 2008 8:06 PM
I usually agree with everything you say on your blog, PZ. Not this time. I am disappointed that you're on the 'Let's hate Bush because of Iraq' bandwagon.
Posted by: Annie M | December 14, 2008 8:06 PM
Ah PZ! Balm for the soul (sole?). More than makes up for the awful 'The View' clip.
I have watched this three times already, and cannot stop laughing.
YES for freedom of speech (and hurling of shoes).
I am against violence, no matter who the target, but this is insulting, not life threatening. Hardly GBH, especially as it MISSED (dagnabit!)
I wish that the Canadians would give the Iraq journalists cream pie throwing lessons...
On a more serious note, whilst I applaud his bravery, I do fear for Zaidi's safety.
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 14, 2008 8:08 PM
anyway, my point was: we do not occupy some moral High Ground from which we can judge another and say "he shouldn't have used violence, even if he was justified to do so". sometimes violence is the only way that will yield a reaction. that will be called terrorism by the receiving side, no matter what. that doesn't give you the right to condemn those who see violence as their only solution. but HOW they use it (attacking military targets vs attacking innocent bystanders) is an issue. attacking a country that had SHIT ALL to do with Islamofascist Terrorism is on exactly the same scale as killing a lot of innocent civilians for the crimes of a (sometimes not even their) government. and the fact that more people died in Iraq than in 9/11 makes it worse
throwing a shoe is barely even violent. killing the man who ordered the unwarranted destruction of your country and the death of many people, especially if there IS no "civilized" way of punishing him. is a last resort action. where there is no law, vigilantism is the only form of justice.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 14, 2008 8:10 PM
Do all white supremacists have the grammar, spelling, and overall writing ability of an eight year old? - Mark
No, only their intellectual elite.
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 14, 2008 8:11 PM
PZ, I do not agree with, nor endorse the idea of throwing shoes at Bush. Such actions are a clear threat to the time-honored tradition of throwing rotten eggs and vegetables.
@Killedthesavages
Good Lord - somebody please tell me that's a Poe
Posted by: Neil | December 14, 2008 8:12 PM
I can't believe the comments that are bothering to condemn Zaidi's action.
I cannot imagine more misplaced concern trolling. How disappointing. Half a million people murdered, societies in chaos, homes destroyed, all based on greed and lies, and you want some polite dialog from your victims, while making up excuses for a gloating mass murderer.
To all of the amoral supporters of genocide here, and George Bush as well: I hope that you all have the chance to have your hometown invaded or bombed, have a few hundred thousand countrymen slaughtered, and then have smug, self-righteous douchebags sit on their safe, fat asses and mock your pain and outrage on the internet. The sheer careless nerve it takes to condemn a single physical insult, in the face of a minor holocaust, is astounding.
Go to hell, the bunch of you.
Posted by: spgreenlaw | December 14, 2008 8:13 PM
Nick Gotts, OM has earned his Molly all over again in this thread. Well played!
Also, when did PZ start attracting nazi scum? I've never seen them on here before. Fuck off racist trash, you angry little troglodytes.
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 14, 2008 8:13 PM
it most likely is a satirical attempt at pointing out the ethnocentrism and judging from a comfy position of power, peace and luxury perpetrated by some posters hereand it's disgusting.
Posted by: Azkyroth | December 14, 2008 8:14 PM
Yeah, really. I mean, PZ, are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the predictable outcomes of the choices people make somehow reflect on their character? What kind of vindictive monster are you?!
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 14, 2008 8:15 PM
I am disappointed that you're on the 'Let's hate Bush because of Iraq' bandwagon. Matt7895
Calling something a "bandwagon" isn't an argument, it's just a cheap rhetorical trick, used by those who have no argument worth the name.
Posted by: Steven | December 14, 2008 8:17 PM
#156
Jadehawk, I understand one person's terrorism is another's resistance, but what are we to do? Praise the terrorists for killing thousands of innocent people? Promote anarchy? Heck, why have a society after all, why not just a free for all where all disagreements are resolved by gladiator style deathmatch? After all, victory determine what was a justified cause for death.
You are the one who fail to understand how societies and wars work. It is different for two societies to clash in a war, after all, in the end one will win either for economic or political reasons. You crush the political will of a country, or their economic ability, you win the war. With terrorists who believe they hold the absolute truth, there is no war that can be waged, the ony "victory" for the target of the terrorism is to find and capture/kill every single one of them, while the most effective way for the terrorists to win is to kill as many civilian as possible, for maximum psychological effect.
As horrible as wars are, they are still very civilized conflicts compared to terrorism, and that is the biggest difference.
Posted by: Matt7895 | December 14, 2008 8:18 PM
@Nick Gotts
It is cheap, and it is pathetic.
Posted by: Katharine | December 14, 2008 8:19 PM
steven -
War is still killing people.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 14, 2008 8:20 PM
spgreenlaw,
Thanks - much appreciated! Now, I must get to bed - 1.20a.m., with work in the morning.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 14, 2008 8:21 PM
Radwaste (@145):
I think it's hard to argue, after the last two election cycles, that people aren't paying attention to Congress or its responsibilities. The Congress is liable for approving the use-of-force authorization in 2002 and more generally for not exerting itself more vigorously to thwart the Bush administration's Iraq policy... but it was the Bush administration's policy!
Bush came into office with a hard-on to invade Iraq, and surrounded by a crew of ideologues who were looking for ways to expand the power of the executive. Invading Iraq was never Congress' agenda; it was Bush's agenda, even before any of us had a hint of that, and long before any of us thought he would actually go through with it. I actually don't think he would've gone through with it — wouldn't have had the
ballschutzpah — without the political cover provided by 9/11... but once that happened, it was a done deal. In retrospect, Congress should've fought harder, but IMHO [1] Bush would've gone ahead in any case and [2] that would've added a constitutional crisis to all the other misery we've been through.It's really easy for you to broadly accuse "us" of not knowing enough — or doing enough — about our government, but is there a beam in your own eye? Over the last 3 years (i.e., since the beginning of the 2006 campaign), I've put my talents, shoeleather, and treasure in service of getting better members of Congress to represent me, and a better president to lead us all. You?
Posted by: rs | December 14, 2008 8:23 PM
Has this guy ever tried to throw a shoe at Saddam Hussein?
If not - is it because he thinks that Bush is worse than Hussein?
Or is it because Bush is actually better than Hussein?
Posted by: JC DiStefano | December 14, 2008 8:24 PM
Ha! I like that the reporter mentions that "In an Arab culture, the sole of the shoe is considered and insult." Isn't throwing a shoe at someone's head in any/many culture(s) an insult?
Posted by: Varlo | December 14, 2008 8:24 PM
Did I skim the comments poorly, or did someone else suggest that it is past time to gibe Bush the boot?
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 14, 2008 8:24 PM
only someone who has never lived through a war can claim they are in ANY shape or form civilized
further, I do not condone, or like, or praise terrorism. I see it as a failure of society. In this case the failures were 1)the hubris to attack and destroy another nation without provocation 2)the lack of consequences to those who have done it.
if a functional, unbiased International Court of Law existed, then getting Bush and all those Congressmen, Generals etc. who participated in it to be tried by it would be what Iraqi's should resort to
we do not have an unbiased, universally applied ICoL. therefore, the ONLY source for justice that Bush may ever see is a painful death at the hand of one of his victims.
and it would be his fault first, our (as a society) second, the murderers third.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 14, 2008 8:27 PM
Matt7895 December 14, 2008 8:06 PM
Do you approve of Bush wasting American prestige, treasure and lives by invading and occupying Iraq? Do you think that thousand of Iraqi deaths were excusable, possibly because they were just "rag heads"? Do you applaud invading Iraq because
of WMDof Hussein's 9/11 connectionsSaddam is a big meanie? How do you feel about justifying the Iraq Adventure with lies?There are a lot of things wrong with the entire Iraq Fiasco and many of them can be laid directly at Bush's feet. This isn't "hating Bush," it's called "reality."
Posted by: John | December 14, 2008 8:29 PM
You should not be advocating violence against anyone, never mind a legally elected official.
Would you condone this for the Pope or other elected leader?
And you have also made a tactical blunder. Those words will be used against you by the ID community.
Posted by: MartinDH | December 14, 2008 8:30 PM
Steven@69:
You're right. It is the wrong thing to do. The right thing to do is to frogmarch Bush, Cheney and the rest of the chickenhawks out of the White House and put them on a plane to the Hague International Criminal Court and try them for war crimes. As that isn't going to happen throwing a pair of shoes is probably best that can be done.
This is not the Nuremberg Defense. This should be the Nuremberg Prosecution wherein the criminals at the top are held ultimately responsible AS WELL AS THOSE who are physically responsible (i.e. those issuing orders are MORE responsible than those following them).--
Martin
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 14, 2008 8:32 PM
PS to me @177: Here is a War Powers explainer by Dahlia Lithwick, written just days after 9/11. Note the key quote:
Jus' sayin'...
Posted by: Eric Saveau | December 14, 2008 8:35 PM
@Nick Gotts, OM
Calling something a "bandwagon" isn't an argument, it's just a cheap rhetorical trick, used by those who have no argument worth the name.
Mind if I steal that awesome line, with attribution, for a sig?
Posted by: Non Edible Nacho | December 14, 2008 8:38 PM
Some people's arguments are disgusting. If a jew in a concentration camp threw a shoe at an SS officer, would you also say "oh, two wrongs don't make a right, the jew was wrong"? This people have been invaded, destroyed, they are defending themselves against a foreign agressor and what you do is... condemn the victim for defending himself! On that basis, we should also condenm the allies for fighting against the axis in the second world war. They killed people after all, didn't they?
What's your alternative method for defending yourself against an attack by the world's biggest superpower, with one of the lamest justifications ever? Should they defend themselves by writing poems?
And finally: using the "religious irrationality" argument to attack this people is despicable. Who is being more irrational? The guy that defends himself against an agressor or the guy that condemns him using a moral argument as poor as the ten commandments, ignoring the context in which actions happen so as to condemn them or condone it, and just saying "oh, violence is just always wrong"? I'd like to see how this people keep saying "violence is always wrong" if someone starts punching them in the face and kicking them in their balls for no reason whatsoever in the middle of the street. Will they hit back to try and defend themselves? Or stick to their "principle" 'til they die from the internal haemorrhages? Hypocrites.
Posted by: Azkyroth | December 14, 2008 8:39 PM
Since this is G. W. Bush we're talking about, I don't see how "a legally elected official" is relevant.
How many people has the Pope gotten killed? (Hint: look at the intersection of Catholic-inspired anti-contraceptive policies with HIV rates and starvation rates. The answer is "many," ergo "yes.")
Your *concern* is noted. And stupid.
Posted by: CalGeorge | December 14, 2008 8:44 PM
"This is a goodbye kiss, you dog."
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Posted by: John | December 14, 2008 8:44 PM
Azkyroth
1. Bush was legally elected. Even if your hatred of him clouds 2000, there is no normal person who doubts 2004.
2. So you condone violence against the Pope and other elected leaders. Is this reason or just thuggery? How far does this violence go?
3. The tactical blunder is true. In America you cannot condone violence against the President without looking bad - regardless who that President is.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 14, 2008 8:45 PM
This has to be one of the most ignorant things I've ever read, and that includes libertarians' rantings.
As one who has actually been in a war, I can assure you that "civilized" is not a word that describes war. People die and get maimed in wars and on a more massive scale than terrorists achieve. 3000 people people died in the 9/11 attacks. There were 23,000 casualties at the battle of Antietam, 9/17/1862, including 6,000 killed or died of wounds. That was just one battle. The low end estimate of casualties at the Battle of Stalingrad (July 1942-February 1943) was 1.5 million, which included 40,000+ civilian dead.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | December 14, 2008 8:45 PM
That anyone finds this incident worth more than a raised eyebrow and a nod is the interesting and newsworthy aspect.
That this has not happened before is certainly more surprising.
The shoe-launcher should have worked on his release point.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 14, 2008 8:47 PM
Well said, AJ Milne @ #151 and Neil @ #168 (and of course Nick Chowderhead Gotts,OM, @ everywhere).
I'm astonished at how out of touch with reality some here appear to be. It does make the lack of strong opposition to this criminal war and occupation in the US over the past several years much more understandable.
Posted by: Katharine | December 14, 2008 8:48 PM
Of course, to the fundies, all of this pales to the minor holocaust they think happens when every man masturbates.
Posted by: deang | December 14, 2008 8:50 PM
It hasn't been a failed war. Bush and his cronies have succeeded in destroying Iraq, setting up a string of US military bases there (including the most massive one in the world), and in killing at least 1.3 million Iraqis by the latest estimates, most of them killed by the US and not by the "sectarian violence" we hear so much about. That is what the Bush people set out to do: destroy the country, which they have done, and establish US military bases there. The US now has several bases in Iraq from which to carry out other actions in the region and continues to slaughter Iraqis. That was the plan. That is what was done and is being done. The fact that it was deliberate makes Bush et al, including the millions of Americans who continue to support it, all the more evil, and deserving of more than just having shoes thrown at him.
Posted by: killedthesavages | December 14, 2008 8:52 PM
@ Jdhwk, thnk y fr dfndng r wht brthr, Prsdnt Bsh nd t nyn ls.
Lk my wht brthrs nd sstrs hd sd, Prsdnt Bsh cnnt b rspnsbl fr th dths f Cn dscndnts. Rmmbr, Cn ws th n wh klld Abl nd Gd's pnshmnt n Cn ws drk skn.
Whn Sddm Hssn, prsn f Cn's ffsprng klld th Irqs nd brd thm n th dsrt fld, f crs Prsdnt Bsh hd t ct by sng Chrstn kndnss nd lbrts thm.
Jdhwk, y sm lk tr Amrcn wh s prd f hs cntry. Thnk y fr dfndng r cntry frm th gdlss lbrls. I knw tht Jss Chrst s prsnt n yr hrt vry sngl dy. Of crs thr s dffrnc btwn Hssn nd Prsdnt Bsh.
Mslms nd Jws rjct r svr, Jss Chrst. Jss sd tht h s th wy t trnl slvtn, s whn th gdlss Hssn klld hs ppl, r Prsdnt Bsh flld wth th sprt f Hly Sprt lbrtd thm wth th ssstnc f r svr, Jss.
Whn r Prsdnt, wh s flld wth th hly sprt f Jss Chrst drp bmbs n th gdlss wh rjct Jss, ll 650,000 f thm, tht s nt gncd lk Sddm.
Wht th Gdlss wh rjcts r svrs hv dn ws vl bcs th cndmn ds nt hv th rght t hrt gd's chsn ppl. nd bsd, wht d y xpcts frm th svgs wh d nt ccpt Jss nt thr hrts.
Gd blss y, rtrn t Chrst, b prd f bng gd's chsn ppl, nd mrry Chrstms t y lbrls.
Posted by: Frederik Rosenkjær | December 14, 2008 8:53 PM
I have to chime in with my support and agreement with Count Nefarious, or at least what I think he was trying to say (I haven't read all posts).
I think there's a big difference between throwing a shoe and condoning and even encouraging this behaviour. I don't particularly blame the guy for doing it, but condoning it is not the right thing to do IMHO.
PZ, I agree with most of the things you write, but this is not one of them. Nefarious: you're not all alone :o)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 14, 2008 8:56 PM
killedthesavages is either a Poe, in which case he's an asshole, or he's a genuine white supremicist, in which case he's a racist asshole. In either case, kill file.
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 14, 2008 8:58 PM
¿que?reading comprehension, u needz it.
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 14, 2008 8:58 PM
Posted by: Matt7895 | December 14, 2008
I usually agree with everything you say on your blog, PZ. Not this time. I am disappointed that you're on the 'Let's hate Bush because of Iraq' bandwagon.
What about those of us who hated dubya long before he was appointed president in 2000.
Posted by: Katharine | December 14, 2008 8:59 PM
If the nazi is a Poe, whoever is doing it really isn't horribly funny. We've had a string of bad ones, and we are ALL aware that whether you are Poe or not, PZ has expressed the intent to banhammer anyone who godbots.
If the nazi is actually a nazi, we ought to torment him and play off his insecurities a little before PZ killfiles him.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 14, 2008 9:00 PM
But fortunately Bushlovers like Steve, Nefarious and Frederik Rosenkjær are a distinct minority on this thread.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 14, 2008 9:02 PM
you think that's the only reason?
Do you live under a rock?
Here's a big one..
His total contempt for the Rule of law.
Posted by: I have an idea, | December 14, 2008 9:04 PM
I want to mail my shoes to the white house now.
Posted by: ambulocetus | December 14, 2008 9:05 PM
Bet ya got a nice tight leather jacket, nazi boy. With lots of manly chains and zippers. Ooh, bet you got a tatoo, don't ya. What a man!
Posted by: S E E Quine | December 14, 2008 9:06 PM
Those poor shoes!
Posted by: Christopher Petroni | December 14, 2008 9:10 PM
I don't support the actions of the shoe-thrower, for one simple reason. He was a journalist. He has the ability to reach people with his criticisms in a civilized medium. Throwing his shoes and hurling insults at an elected official doesn't make him look heroic, in my eyes.
Throwing shoes at an elected official during a ceremony counts as self-defense? Really? That's a new one on me.
I can understand the viewpoints of people who get behind Zaidi. I still don't think he did anything heroic. Writing a bold feature in the newspaper or on TV would be better. Why do we remember Frederick Douglass today? Because he threw dog shit at President Lincoln? No, because of the passionate pieces he wrote for abolitionist newspapers.
If that point of view makes me a concern troll, then so much the better for concern trolling.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 14, 2008 9:12 PM
At least killedthesavages is a bit more informed than most of the woo-soaked idiots who come here and mention the KKK -he's aware they're a proud christian organisation.
Beyond that point, of course, he's pig excrement in human form.
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 14, 2008 9:16 PM
there are thousands upon thousands of such. their sum effect is less than a single pair of thrown shoes. or are you saying Rosa Parks should have never violated the law, either?once more, for the extra slow among us: when reasonable, polite and lawful methods fail cause so much as a blip on the radar, more drastic measures are called for, in increasing drastic-ness (yeah, i know that's not a word, but i can't think of anything better)
Posted by: Joel | December 14, 2008 9:17 PM
No matter what, it shows the level of respect the office of the President now has, yet one more failure of the Bush Presidency. I always thought Bush would fail miserably, but this is beyond my wildest imagination.
Posted by: Non Edible Nacho | December 14, 2008 9:18 PM
There's a guy in Germany who has a statue for trying to kill Hitler. Is that wrong too?
Throwing shoes at Bush is the least than can be done. He should be in prison for life but it's unlikely he'll end up there, 'cause there's a lot of powerful people defending his actions and profiting from them.
Posted by: AJ Milne | December 14, 2008 9:22 PM
Well, I'm increasingly impressed with the brave, brave Commander-In-Chief. Why, to hear the chorus of concern on this thread, the throwing of footwear is a terrifying thing. Lethal, maybe.
And yet that dear, suicidally courageous soon-to-be-ex president walked into that room all the same. Knowing that many, many of those reporters were, indeed, probably wearing shoes. To think that he'd do such a thing, knowing full well that in every pair of oxfords, topsiders, pumps, and sneakers there lurked such grave danger...
Who are we to judge such a hero? Me, I couldn't have done that. I couldn't so cooly have faced that room, knowing that at any moment footwear might come hurtling my way. I may never look at him the same way again.
Nor, for that matter, at a shoe store clerk. Who are these people? I never realized what a danger they posed before. Shouldn't they be stopped?
Enablers, the lot of 'em, clearly...
Just to be safe, let's line 'em all up against a wall and let fly with the loafers.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 14, 2008 9:22 PM
"Shit, another Iraqi reporter bitching on the news about the war. C'mon, I want to know who won the Giants game."
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 14, 2008 9:22 PM
While the reporter's actions certainly got a lot of lols (me included), it is worrying to imagine how this incident will affect future press cons.
As a journalist, I can only see this making it harder to actually attend any future briefings. Let's not even got into the searches...brrr
Posted by: Lurkbot | December 14, 2008 9:24 PM
Damn, I wish I had the capital to invest in this! This is abso-fucking-lutely brilliant! Picture it: T-shirts, bumper stickers, posters. No "Commie" slogans, no "Incitement to Riot", nothing they can use against you, just a pair of shoes, soles out. It's happening, I tell you: tomorrow at the latest!
And oh, yes, to all the pearl-clutchers out there: Bush, Cheney, Kristol, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rice, Armitage, etc. etc. etc., all deserve to die slow painful deaths, and anyone capable of accomplishing this would be perfectly justified in doing so.
Posted by: clinteas | December 14, 2008 9:25 PM
2 points I want to make :
1. There is no point in playing journalist at a Bush press conference anyway,so might as well make a non-violent gesture that everyone in your country will recognize is a pretty bad insult.He did that well,I think,and achieved what he wanted.Got his point across much better than in asking lame questions that would never get answered truthfully anyway.
2.This is essentially a gesture,a non-violent demonstration of dissent.We should not be condoning,and I certainly dont,violence against people we disagree with,whether we think they are mass murderers or whatever,it makes us look just as bad as the people we want to condemn.
Posted by: killedthesavages | December 14, 2008 9:26 PM
@NnEdblNch
Yr rgmnt s vl nd wrng. A Jw wh thrw hs shs t SS grd s glty. Th SS grd s flld wth th Hly Sprt nd h knws tht Jss Chrst s prsnt n hs bdy.
Rmmbr, "gd s wth s" ws n th bckl f Grmn sldrs, Jss rms. Jws rjcts Chrst nd whn thy cmmt crms gnst Gd's chsn ppl, thy cmmt crm gnst Jss nd Gd.
@Jhn
I d nt prsnlly cndn vlnc gnst th Pp bt h s rmn dcttr. As w ll knw, n th scnd cmng f r svr, Jss Chrst, ll ths wh d nt blv wll g t hll.
Th Pp s nt mn flld wth hlnss; h s dcttr wh prmts vlnc gnst Gd's chsn ppl, th Sthrn Bptst. If gdlss Mslm Irq thrws hs sh t th Pp, h s jstfd fr th Pp s dcttr nd th Mslm Irq s gdlss, svg, nd nfrr.
Prsdnt Bsh s nt gdlss, fr h cnslt gd n dly bsc, s fr gdlss svg t thrw hs sh t gd's chsn ppl s t g gnst gd.
@Chrstphr
Y r nt cncrn trll; y r flld wth hlnss nd th sprt f th lrd. Tht jrnlst wh rjct Chrst cld hv wrttn n rtcl bt h cn't bcs r Prsdnt hv clns th cntry thrgh bmbs s tht h cld nt mk lvng ttckng gd's chsn ppl.
If h dd wrt n rtcl, I knw tht Jss wld hv cmmndd y t dfnd r prsdnt by cllng hm gdlss. Ethr wy, sh thrwng r wrtng n rtcl s smthng t b cndmn.
I knw tht y wld jn m n cllng fr th jrnlst t b pnshd s Prsdnt Bsh s ft. Snd hm t Gtm r whtvr th Prsdnt wnts, fr h hd sn gnst gd, I knw tht y wll jn m n ths.
Gd blss y Chrstphr nd Jhn, fr dfndng r Prsdnt. Y tw sm lk gd cnddt t b prt f r mvmnt. www.kkk.bz nd www.mrcnnzprty.cm ths s th lst pst I wll wrt.
Als, hv ll th gdly ppl wh dfnd r gdly prsdnt thght bt jnng th mltry t fght th Irqs? Th sthrn pvrty lw hs rprtd tht thr hs bn n ncrs n wht sprmcst jnng th mltry t fght n Irq; I wld hp y jn thm.
Thnk y my brthrs nd sstrs wh dfnd r Prsdnt. Y wll b th chsn tht Jss wll snd nt hvn n th scnd cmng.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 14, 2008 9:28 PM
TORTE STATT WORTE
(Tarting stupid politicians who act out their stupidity has a certain tradition in Austria, too.)
:-D
O RLY?
JAIL
TO THE
THIEF
I strongly disagree. Terrorism has a definition: it has as its goal to, well, terrorize people. Some acts of war are terrorism, others not, regardless of scale. Some acts of terrorism have contributed to winning a war (the best-documented example being the foundation of Israel), others have been committed by the losing side (and of course many are not part of any war at all). In other words, you can be a terrorist and a freedom fighter at the same time.
<check> Day saved.
Like all arguments for the death penalty, this is deeply ridiculous. Justice? Justice would be to kill him painfully six hundred thousand times. Forget justice already. I would vastly prefer a Pinochet-style outcome (being found guilty, but utterly absolved of all jail time on rather manufactured medical reasons) over a lynching.
And anyway, reality has a well-known liberal bias...
Posted by: John | December 14, 2008 9:28 PM
There are a lot of nutters on here who probably think they are perfectly reasonable.
Ridiculous comments advocating violence and comparing Bush to Hitler show an intolerance at the basis of their supposed tolerance.
It says a lot that the Gentleman who threw the shoes at Bush works for an Egyptian TV station yet has never thrown his shoes at the Egyptian dictator Mubarak.
It is also instructive that he felt he could act violently at Bush and not Saddam or Mubarak. Maybe, because he would not be alive after it. In Saddam's case neither would his family.
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 14, 2008 9:29 PM
by the way, I fully support a "mail shoes to the White House" campaign. that would be hilarious
Posted by: dean | December 14, 2008 9:32 PM
A secondary concern to this story relates to our "liberation" of this country. According to new reports, two other Iraqi reporters who, after this press conference, stated that the man who threw his shoes was "courageous", were arrested and taken away as "security risks".
If this is true, so much for our introduction of "democracy, freedom, and rights" to these people.
Posted by: Nemo | December 14, 2008 9:32 PM
Hey John, am I misreading you, or are you calling the Pope "an elected leader"? I mean, technically, yeah, but I wouldn't exactly call the College of Cardinals a democracy.
Posted by: SteadyEddy | December 14, 2008 9:34 PM
I was surprised Bush didn't duck behind the podium on the second throw. I wish the guy had better aim. He certainly had a strong enough arm. If this is the worst thing that happens to Bush during his presidency, he's gotten off easy. Bush and his cronies should be put on trial for war crimes.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 14, 2008 9:35 PM
Insert standard lamentation on how I always comment too late at night here.
Yes, terrorism was involved in the founding of Israel; several terrorists subsequently advanced to high government posts. Yes, some acts of terrorism have probably contributed to winning a war, even though I can't think of an example right now (Hiroshima and Nagasaki might count). No, the foundation of Israel itself didn't involve a war (even though it directly led to one).
Posted by: Matt7895 | December 14, 2008 9:36 PM
It is a sad day for reason, when the majority of commenters on the blog of PZ Myers are Saddam Hussein supporters.
Posted by: John | December 14, 2008 9:37 PM
No Nemo, I was using the Pope as an example along with elected leaders.
We may not agree with him (or them) but acts of violence are not the answer.
It amazes me that on this site of all places I have found the opposite. Isn't that interesting?
Religious nutters and Secular nutters can all find ways to rationalise violence when it suits regardless of their starting point.
Posted by: Katharine | December 14, 2008 9:38 PM
Matt7895 -
You are a stupid, strawman-constructing, equivocating shithole.
Nowhere did anyone here say they supported Saddam Hussein.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 14, 2008 9:38 PM
What makes you think he'll get away with it now? Abu Ghraib has not shut down. Iraqis still get picked up on suspicion of being a suspect and a fair number of them are never seen again. Zaidi was taken away by the Iraqi police. How many teeth do you think he has left?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 14, 2008 9:40 PM
That's a very common phenomenon. For example, the ETA terror only started when Franco's reign started to weaken. Empirically, using state terror against freelance terrorists works.
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 14, 2008 9:40 PM
I actually agree. that statement was meant as a response to Steve saying war is more moral and "civilized" than terrorism, which is bullshit as far as I'm concerned. I would vastly prefer him being found guilty in a court of law as well. but it's not going to happen. so the only vague semblance of justice, or punishment for his crimes, or whatever you wish to call it, is if he were killed by a victim of his. I never said I agree with murdering him, only that in this instance it was an understandable action by the murderer, and that he'd be guilty, but Bush himself and our society (which doesn't allow for a fair trial and punishment for his crimes) would be just as, if not more, guilty.and unfortunately, sometimes acts of violence are the only way to begin righting a wrong. our society DOES suck that badly, still.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 14, 2008 9:42 PM
There are other shades besides black and white.
Posted by: Count Nefarious | December 14, 2008 9:42 PM
But fortunately Bushlovers like Steve, Nefarious and Frederik Rosenkjær are a distinct minority on this thread.
Bullshit. I'm most definitely not a Bush-lover, and I made this very clear.
Those of you who think we secular liberals are beyond this kind of emotion-charged taboo-behaviour should pay close attention to these transparently dishonest distortions.
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 14, 2008 9:43 PM
@Matt7895
Supporter? Hardly. While I do think that Saddam was a scapegoat more than anything at the time, I doubt he is going to be missed. I anything, I think there's a lot of people out there who are far more deserving of his fate.
Posted by: John | December 14, 2008 9:44 PM
'Tis Himself
He will be seen again. I don't think even the most bush-hating fantasist with half-a-brain would think such a public figure would be "disappeared".
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 14, 2008 9:45 PM
I agree with that part :-)
If you can't chimpeach, just keep tarting him. (And Darth Cheney, too.)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 14, 2008 9:47 PM
Nefarious, you may not be a Bushlover, but you do an excellent imitation of one.
How do you explain your defense of Bush and your excusing him of thousands of deaths?
Posted by: pauly | December 14, 2008 9:48 PM
It is a sad day for reason, when the majority of commenters on the blog of PZ Myers are Saddam Hussein supporters.
apparently if I'm against another country invading and occupying the united states that means I'm a george w bush supporter.
Posted by: craig | December 14, 2008 9:52 PM
I think we'll see more and more now that Bush was the sad little figure-head we all thought. On this day, though, he looks in good shape, with excellent reflexes. The little wave-off of his lead SS agent shows Bush's complete grasp of the situation. Maybe it was staged. Save a big boot for Cheney.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 14, 2008 9:52 PM
So the possibility of a monumental war of evil against evil is incapable of entering your head?
Looks like in your head everything is Superman vs Lex Luthor. But look at the Iraq war and its surroundings: it was Saddam (evil) vs Bush (evil) vs Iran (evil) vs al-Qaida and other Sunni terrorists (evil) vs People's Mujahidin (evil). Evil against evil against evil against evil against evil. Not a single good participant. There is no superman. It's Lex Luthor vs Karl Blofeld all the time.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 14, 2008 9:55 PM
He might reappear, he might not. He might be "shot while attempting to escape" or "suffered a heart attack during questioning" or "committed suicide in his cell."
I've had dealings with third world countries' legal systems. Being a prisoner is a high risk occupation, especially if you've "caused disgrace to the government" or some such charge.
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 14, 2008 9:59 PM
@'Tis Himself
...Or just disappear completely, or be released shortly, only to be gunned down in broad daylight by several "unknown" assailants. The Iraqi Gov't will obviously run an investigation, which (predictably) results in zero leads regarding the perps.
Such is the situation in most Third World countries (like the one I live in).
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 14, 2008 9:59 PM
Since it's getting late and I have to work tomorrow, I bid all of you a good night (or day, if you're in Oz).
Posted by: lithopithecus | December 14, 2008 10:00 PM
i tried to start a "no bush in '04 campaign" where participants would commit to shaving off their pubes, putting them into ziploc bags, and pelting administration members with them on the campaign trail...
...it didn't catch on, though.
-this is almost as good!
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 14, 2008 10:03 PM
Posted by: Matt7895 | December 14, 2008
It is a sad day for reason, when the majority of commenters on the blog of PZ Myers are Saddam Hussein supporters.
Wait a second! I get it! If I hate dubya, it means I had the warm smoochies saved for Hussein.
Please tell me, what is life like in such a digital world?
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 14, 2008 10:05 PM
shouldn't that be binary, not digital?:-p
Posted by: John | December 14, 2008 10:07 PM
Condoning acts of violence, outpourings of hatred and conspiracy theory's.
Jeezus H. Christ.
Is this a parallel universe?
Posted by: Azkyroth | December 14, 2008 10:08 PM
Guys, don't mistake John, Matt7895, and their ilk for people arguing in good faith.
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 14, 2008 10:08 PM
I show have stuck with either/or. But you understood what I meant.
Posted by: Jon | December 14, 2008 10:09 PM
I am suddenly reminded of the origins of the word "sabotage"...
Posted by: gleaner63 | December 14, 2008 10:09 PM
Alright, since most here are agreed that Bush is a criminal, and guilty of at least *something*, can someone answer at least two questions for me; #1. Why has he not been prosecuted by someone, somewhere, for something, for *anything* he has done during his eight years in office? and #2, can you name the actual charge and step by step process on how he will be prosecuted?
This should all be a slam dunk, right?
Posted by: JamesR | December 14, 2008 10:14 PM
I enter this fray without having read the previous posts. Has anyone considered that Bush who has controlled every news conference since 1990 may in fact have staged this? Honestly if ithad been me throwing the shoe I would have hit the little sissy. This seems too easy to be spontaneous. It WAS STAGED.
Posted by: John | December 14, 2008 10:15 PM
Azkyroth,
Can I add paranoia? What part of not advocating violence, hatred and conspiracy theory's makes me someone of bad faith?
Is disagreeing with your advocacy of violence against the Pope a sign I am a creationist? Does it not just make me civilised?
You are not a very tolerant or reasonable person are you?
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 14, 2008 10:16 PM
re #250:
http://www.amazon.com/Prosecution-George-W-Bush-Murder/dp/159315481X
read it. it makes a pretty good case.
Posted by: Joshua | December 14, 2008 10:17 PM
PZ,
I agree with almost everything you say on this blog, and even when I disagree, I still respect your position. But I can't respect you saying that American reporters should throw their shoes at the president. No matter how much of an asshole Bush is, it is irresponsible for you to incite violence against him. I suspect you were joking, but it isn't clear that you in fact were, so I really hope you'll retract the last three sentences of your post. It would be courageous to shout at the president, but violence is unhelpful and lowers the offender to Bush's level of cowardice.
Posted by: GaryB | December 14, 2008 10:17 PM
I see the shoes are flying in here. I'll come back later.
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 14, 2008 10:19 PM
@JamesR
What does Bush stand to gain from this skit?
Posted by: Numad | December 14, 2008 10:20 PM
"Guys, don't mistake John, Matt7895, and their ilk for people arguing in good faith."
It's an hard mistake to make. At least in John's case. Opening with a stock comment inappropriate to the context then basically just commenting on what he's supposedly witnessing. Things really contrary to dialogue.
Posted by: Joshua | December 14, 2008 10:21 PM
I should add that while I think criminal prosecution of Bush is warranted, violence is not.
Posted by: John | December 14, 2008 10:27 PM
Numad,
Isn't it interesting that even though I have repeatedly said I am against violence towards anyone you criticise me, yet those who advocate violence get a free ride?
If you disagree with me then great, but no inquisition please. Use evidence to debate, not silly labels.
Posted by: Count Nefarious | December 14, 2008 10:28 PM
How do you explain your defense of Bush and your excusing him of thousands of deaths?
I have no problem saying Bush was "partially responsible" for hundreds of thousands of deaths. "Partially responsible", inasmuch as his reckless tampering with the social and political structure of Iraq was "one of the causes" of a staggering amount of grief and misery.
The person to whom I was initially objecting didn't say "partially responsible" or hint at the existence of more than one guilty party. I think this is misleading, and I think it unwisely diverts attention away from the people who really are getting their hands bloody.
It also opens an ugly moral can of worms. Drunk drivers are in a very meaningful sense responsible for any deaths they cause in a car crash. But I think most liberal-minded people would accept that (in a typical case) it's not exactly a considerable degree of responsibility. It's not something to keep throwing in their faces. People foolishly deceive themselves into an optimistic point of view and assume everything's going to be okay. They want to believe they're able to drive (or fight wars) without calamity, and so they trick themselves into going ahead with it.
There's no reason to believe Bush consciously intended to kill hundreds of thousands of people. If prior to the war he had a perfect crystal ball (as opposed to then-contestable intelligence) showing him what would happen if he toppled Saddam, it's very possible he would have had seconds thoughts. This, in my opinion, puts him on a different moral level to the people who are actually consciously killing their fellow countrypeople in cold blood.
Posted by: Bjørn Østman | December 14, 2008 10:29 PM
I'm gonna generate some random numbers here...
I would just like to say that I agree with comments # 200, 104, 18, 209, and 136, while I disagree strongly with 155, 195, 194, 44, and 157.
"Well said", and "You're out of you mind!"
Posted by: gleaner63 | December 14, 2008 10:32 PM
jadehawk at #253:
Thanks for the link to Vincent Bugliosi's book "The prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder". Admittedly, I haven't read the book, have you? In the first review, the author states that the book contains "...incontrovertible evidence that President Bush took this country to war under false pretenses...". If that is true, "incontrovertible evidence" would meet any standard of evidence in any court room in the entire world. Where then, is the lawsuit? Surely, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy and all the rest are not just "sitting" on this bombshell, slam dunk of a case.
Posted by: MikeG | December 14, 2008 10:36 PM
Mr. Bush,
I lob my loafers in your general direction. No go to the Hague or I shall taunt you a second time!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 14, 2008 10:38 PM
Ok, there are many many candidates but this is hands down the absolute dumbest fucking thing I've read all week.
Posted by: gleaner63 | December 14, 2008 10:39 PM
Joshua at #258:
You stated:
"...I think criminal prosecution of Bush is warranted..."
Please give us a brief outline of your Lis Pendens, Summons and Complaint. On what grounds and what court? And what is your "standing" to agree it is "warranted".
Posted by: dkew | December 14, 2008 10:43 PM
Well, this has been a weird thread for Pharyngula. Reads more like Fark or my crappy local newspaper, with it's general ignorance of facts and lack of common sense, it's Poes and Bush lovers and binary thinkers.
Throwing shoes is not a physical assault, it is an insult. If you haven't been insulting Bush for the past several years, you've been comatose or benefitting from his crimes. There was no expectation or possibility they would have actually harmed Bush. It was done in camera view so many people can witness it. We don't know yet what will happen to Zaidi, if anything, and I will be surprised if he remains healthy. And yes, he and his family would be horribly dead if the shoes had been thrown at Saddaam the shoe-shine boy.
Bush ran on a attack-Iraq platform in 2000, with plenty of help, and used every excuse, real or not, to promote the war, so he and his colleagues are guilty of war crimes. That said, the pre-war sanctions by the West killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, too, and failed to drive Saddaam from power.
Posted by: MikeG | December 14, 2008 10:44 PM
Seconded.
As a side note, Rev, what happened to your addenda?
Posted by: scooter | December 14, 2008 10:45 PM
This is very ironic, a few years back we recorded a conversation with GW Bush and he addressed what his response would be to someone throwing something at him.
http://acksisofevil.org/audio/moron.mp3
Posted by: Numad | December 14, 2008 10:45 PM
John,
What does your stated position against violence has to do with my criticism of you? What labels have I used? What inquisition?!
Nothing in your supposed response has any relation to my comment. As Azkyroth said, the epitome of bad faith. Just stitched phrases selected because they sound like damning criticism out of context. Seems like it would be a sound policy for me to ignore you from now on.
Tchao.
Posted by: Brachychiton | December 14, 2008 10:46 PM
Christopher Petroni @ #207:
It probably escaped your notice but GWB is not an elected official of Iraq. This was an Iraqi showing contempt for a foreigner who has caused ... well .. a spot of trouble, shall we say.
Posted by: george.w | December 14, 2008 10:53 PM
I agree completely; it's stupid to hate George Bush just because of that. There's LOTS more reasons to hate him. Iraq is just one entree' on the smorgasboard.
And - several commenters - Bush is fully responsible for the deaths in Iraq. Others are partially responsible; it isn't a zero-sum game.
Posted by: Zar | December 14, 2008 10:53 PM
Sooo... insulting one white dude is equivalent to killing how many brown people?
Posted by: Former PZ Student | December 14, 2008 10:53 PM
I empathize with the thrower-of-shoes, although I don't condone the throwing. I would love to throw a shoe at Osama bin Laden, but I would rather see him captured and prosecuted.....just my opinion.
Posted by: gypsytag | December 14, 2008 10:55 PM
Hitting people with shoes is a social custom in those parts that is considered a great insult. When the statue of saddam was toppled near the beginning of the war, you could see children running along side of it smacking it with their shoes as it was dragged away. He wasn't trying to hurt georgie, he was insulting him in the tradition way.
Posted by: John | December 14, 2008 10:55 PM
Numad
I have no idea what you mean by "bad faith". I take it disagreeing with you means I must be labelled negatively since what you say is obviously THE truth I must be saying untruth. How religiously minded.
In fact, it is noticeable that you have not picked one sentence that you disagree with. You just hate it that I do not agree with something you take as "good faith".
How interesting that Religious nutters and Secular nutters both label people on emotion and never on reason or evidence.
This thread is very enlightening. :)
Posted by: Lee Picton | December 14, 2008 10:57 PM
The first time I saw this clip, I gasped. Someone threw shoes at The President of the United States. This sort of thing simply IS NOT DONE. It represents a breach of, well, lots of things. That being said, after I got over that, I laughed my ass off. No amount of protesting ink will ever have an effect on the smarmy weasel that I am embarrassed is the head of this country, but THIS, this will be remembered forever. I just hope they don't torture the poor guy who threw the shoes.
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 14, 2008 10:57 PM
gleaner, if you do not understand why powerful people do not get persecuted for their crimes, I can't help you. if you don't understand the basic concept and existence of inequality in our society, you need a lot of remedial courses in history, sociology, economics etc., and I don't have the patience for it.
Posted by: Riman Butterbur | December 14, 2008 10:59 PM
Make this a new tradition? I'm surprized W hasn't already done it. He's made every other Middle Eastern custom a US tradition: theocracy, jingoism, censorship, secret arrests, detention w/o trial, torture,...
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 14, 2008 11:05 PM
oh and also: I've only started reading it. but I've heard a handful of interviews with Mr. Bugliosi where he explains himself and the book, so I dare say the man knows what he's talking/writing about, and it's all pretty sensible. just not realistic, considering our society.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 14, 2008 11:06 PM
I have no idea what you are talking about...
Posted by: gleaner63 | December 14, 2008 11:08 PM
Jadehawk at #277:
I majored in History, taught it at the high school level, read it on a daily basis, so I don't need any remedial courses thank you very much :). I am also very much aware of why some powerful people do not get prosecuted. but the people who call Bush a criminal are not exactly "powerless", do you think? I would think that Pelosi, Kennedy, Reid, Buffett, Soros, Kerry, the Clintons and all the rest are pretty powerful, money wise and influence also. So, I don't buy it that the reason Bush is not going to be prosecuted is because he controls the world or wields all the power; he will not be prosecuted simply because there is no evidence.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | December 14, 2008 11:11 PM
Paul,
Have you ever been to Iraq? Or is this a case of, "I don't have to check the claims out, they fit my conclusions."?
Posted by: MikeG | December 14, 2008 11:12 PM
I have no idea what you are talking about...
Please excuse my impudence.
Posted by: markp | December 14, 2008 11:13 PM
Oh come on concern trolls, throwing a shoe is abusive at best, it's not exactly an assassination attempt. To enjoy this moment is not to condone violence but to applaud the fact that someone actually got close enough to Bush to express their outrage openly and honestly. Many many innocent people have died, the world is less safe from extremism, and as commander in chief he bears primary responsibility for deciding to go ahead with a war that the international community had already deemed illegal, and then bungling that war by not following the advice of his own generals. And having a shoe thrown at him will probably be the worst retribution he will receive.
He's a thug who has always ignored anything approaching civilized disagreement, I'd love to see more people throw their shoes at him.
(I know this is a repeat of what others have already said but since there are multiple comments balking at this act of "violence" I felt I had to chime in)
Posted by: GrahamGirl | December 14, 2008 11:14 PM
So you are saying that Bush is not really guilty of a crime hear because he was given "contestable information."
Therefore, you fault him for meddling in the politics of Iraq but he is not at fault for their deaths because his intent was not to kill them because of bad intelligence?
So you differences between being guilty of murder or not relies on the perpetuator intents? Such as if person intent was to "murder" in cold blood as you accuse the Iraqis of is wrong but Bush in completely innocent because he did not intended to murder the Iraqis because of Bad information's? Some spin.
Let see what Bush said:
There was a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, one was Syrian, and two was Egyptians. If Bush was worried about getting revenge against the terrorist who attack us on 9/11, than why not invaded Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Egypt? Also, the CIA reported that Osama Bin Laden was in the mountainous regions of nuclear Pakistan.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6248595&page=1
Bush said that Iraq has WMD.
It doesn't make any sense. If the Russians moved Iraq's WMDs to Syria and Bush knew it, why didn't he invade Syria instead of Iraq-or invade BOTH countries? And if the weapons are still there why doesn't he invade Syria now instead of railing against Iran which he admits currently doesn't have WMDs?
He doesn't have a problem with Pakistan which is said to already have WMDs and he turns a blind eye to the charges that they train Al Qaeda terrorists there and that Osama Ben Laden is possibly using Pakistan for his base of Operations.
And if the WMDs were already out of Iraq when Bush attacked, why did Bush invade-So that the Syrians couldn't ship the WMDs back in order to get rid of them
You do realize that the inspectors went into Iraq but Bush kicked them out because so that he can start the bombing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvDe7Z-ykDo
Even the Roman Catholic Church and the majority of protestants churches, with the exception of Southern Baptist and the Church of the Latter Day Saints, opposed the invasions of Iraq. Pope John Paul II said that "god is not on your side if you invaded Iraq"
http://www.americancatholic.org/News/JustWa/Iraq/papalstatement.asp
Also, Dick Cheney and his cohorts were definitely aware of how the invasions will affect the world. Just look at this clip where Dick Cheney in 1994 (yes, he knew back then) explain intelligently how it would be a bad idea to invaded Iraq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9YuD9kYK9I
Are you saying that A) Bush is stupider than the Pope, several mainline protestant churches, Jews, Muslims, and thousands of intelligent experts or B) Bush was not paying much attentions to the warning because he was determine to invade Iraq?
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=45689&d=26&m=5&y=2004
Posted by: scooter | December 14, 2008 11:14 PM
A lot of talk about Nuremberg upstream. Totally missed the mark, all of it.
For what crime were the Nazis hanged?
That's the most pertinent thing to this discussion, or any discussion of this administration.
For what Crime?
You may be surprised.
Posted by: MikeG | December 14, 2008 11:14 PM
Quote fail. I'll go to the back of the line...
Posted by: GrahamGirl | December 14, 2008 11:18 PM
@gleanor
Of course there is no evidence for his prosecution, there is no evidence for evolution or gravity or that the earth evolves around the sun but it is taught in science class.
No, Pelosi and Reid don't prosecute because they are cowards and wimps. It also means that the democrats that voted for the invasions of Iraq, the entire Bush administrations, and many more will have to face prosecutions.
Posted by: Michael | December 14, 2008 11:20 PM
On the other hand (foot?) it is entirely justified to throw shoes - and anything else available - at the man responsible for the deaths of several hundred thousand of your fellow-citizens
Well, if that was the case, this the war was justified as Saddam killed tens of thousands of his own people. After Saddam was removed, most of the Iraqis died at the hands of terrorists who were killing themselves and killing others, not Bush.
This is why there is more peace in Iraq now than ever before, because the terrorists didn't care who they were killing as men, women and children were dying at their hands. They assumed just hating Bush would sustain their popularity in the area and justify all the killing. Liberals thought hating Bush would create a major civil war, no increase in troops would work, we lost the war! Remember how that was played out? As it turned out, the Iraqis turned against the terrorists, took more control of their own country!
Liberals started to admit the increase in troops worked, talk about a major civil war ended, and more focus was put on a date for a troop pullout which was agreed to.
Posted by: spgreenlaw | December 14, 2008 11:20 PM
Let's play Dumb Comment Breakdown! Tonight, our very special guest is gleaner63! Come up on stage, Gleany!
Appeal to authority, appeal to authority, appeal to authority!
Forgets/Refuses to acknowledge that all those he lists also benefit from the same privileges of power that Bush does, and a good number were complicit in some of the crimes Bush is no doubt guilty of, so have a special interest in not rocking the boat!
Strawman! Forgets/Refuses to acknowledge last 8 years!
You win the grand prize! Congratulations, gleaner, come claim your reward oooooof derision!
/drunken commenting (sorry everybody [except you, Gleany], "I am full of shame, you know.")
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 14, 2008 11:21 PM
Tax evasion?But seriously, fuck the guessing game, scoot...if you have some interesting information, spill it!
It was always my impression that they were convicted of relatively non-specific "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity."
But I am no historian.
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 14, 2008 11:21 PM
massive Politics Fail. the politicians in that list are just blustering. they'd never take action to have Bush persecuted for real, because they might be next. if they were serious, they'd agree to put the U.S. under international law, so that U.S. leaders could be persecuted in the Hague.the same reason no one seriously persecutes CEO's who defraud shitloads of money: because they all either do the same, or hope to someday be in the position to do so. it's the rare Person in Power who wants to shake up the Status Quo. to my knowledge, the U.S. is currently almost completely devoid of such.
Posted by: GrahamGirl | December 14, 2008 11:22 PM
So you are saying that Bush is not really guilty of a crime hear because he was given "contestable information."
Therefore, you fault him for meddling in the politics of Iraq but he is not at fault for their deaths because his intent was not to kill them because of bad intelligence?
So you differences between being guilty of murder or not relies on the perpetuator intents? Such as if person intent was to "murder" in cold blood as you accuse the Iraqis of is wrong but Bush in completely innocent because he did not intended to murder the Iraqis because of Bad information's? Some spin.
Let see what Bush said:
There was a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, one was Syrian, and two was Egyptians. If Bush was worried about getting revenge against the terrorist who attack us on 9/11, than why not invaded Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Egypt? Also, the CIA reported that Osama Bin Laden was in the mountainous regions of nuclear Pakistan.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6248595&page=1
Bush said that Iraq has WMD.
It doesn't make any sense. If the Russians moved Iraq's WMDs to Syria and Bush knew it, why didn't he invade Syria instead of Iraq-or invade BOTH countries? And if the weapons are still there why doesn't he invade Syria now instead of railing against Iran which he admits currently doesn't have WMDs?
He doesn't have a problem with Pakistan which is said to already have WMDs and he turns a blind eye to the charges that they train Al Qaeda terrorists there and that Osama Ben Laden is possibly using Pakistan for his base of Operations.
And if the WMDs were already out of Iraq when Bush attacked, why did Bush invade-So that the Syrians couldn't ship the WMDs back in order to get rid of them
Posted by: scooter | December 14, 2008 11:23 PM
gleaner 63@281: Bush is not going to be prosecuted is because he controls the world or wields all the power; he will not be prosecuted simply because there is no evidence.
Hey, gleaner. You should come down here and teach fairy tale history in TX schools. You'll fit right in.
And you can ride dinosaurs with the biology department on field trips.
Maybe you can answer the Nuremberg quiz, no takers yet.
Posted by: GrahamGirl | December 14, 2008 11:26 PM
You do realize that the inspectors went into Iraq but Bush kicked them out because so that he can start the bombing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvDe7Z-ykDo
Even the Roman Catholic Church and the majority of protestants churches, with the exception of Southern Baptist and the Church of the Latter Day Saints, opposed the invasions of Iraq. Pope John Paul II said that "god is not on your side if you invaded Iraq"
http://www.americancatholic.org/News/JustWar/Iraq/papalstatement.asp
Also, Dick Cheney and his cohorts were definitely aware of how the invasions will affect the world. Just look at this clip where Dick Cheney in 1994 (yes, he knew back then) explain intelligently how it would be a bad idea to invaded Iraq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9YuD9kYK9I
Are you saying that A) Bush is stupider than the Pope, several mainline protestant churches, Jews, Muslims, and thousands of intelligent experts or B) Bush was not paying much attentions to the warning because he was determine to invade Iraq?
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=45689&d=26&m=5&y=2004
Posted by: gleaner63 | December 14, 2008 11:32 PM
scooter at #293,
Scooter,
On Nuremberg; I'll take a stab that crimes against humanity would be one of the charges and if I remember correctly, conspiracy would be another. But's here's the point you can't seem to grasp. Anyone can make charges, the really hard part is proving them. That's where you would fail.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 14, 2008 11:32 PM
I know I've linked to this several times already, but in case anyone hasn't seen Robert Newman's "History of Oil"...
http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/music_satire.htm
(Scroll about 40% of the way down to find it.)
(Hilarious history. Added bonus: Contains the answer to scooter's question.)
Posted by: GrahamGirl | December 14, 2008 11:32 PM
@Micheal,
So Bush purpose was to pull out all along. I thought that Bush did not want to pulled out because of the "terrorist" and now, his purpose was to pull out?
Wow, thank you for the spin. It most be amazing to live in spin alley. Can I please join you there? How much do you charge. Can't wait to come in.
Posted by: Azkyroth | December 14, 2008 11:33 PM
I need to be more careful when responding to concern trolls, I see. I now realize that granting you, for the sake of argument, that "confrontational" protest tactics like throwing shoes match the connotation of the term "violence" sufficiently to make its use to describe them intellectually honest, was a mistake, since you've taken it and run with it, and are now implicitly misrepresenting my position by characterizing it in a misleading fashion. Had I been more attentive I would have anticipated that.
You being too thick to understand the difference between saying something is justified and "advocating" it (IE, saying it should actually be done, as opposed to saying that doing it isn't blameworthy) was a surprise.
Both confrontational/disruptive protest tactics like shoe-throwing, and any level of self-defense, are indeed justified as a response to the unrepentent architects of human misery on an almost unfathomable scale. Given the massive needless death and suffering both have willfully and knowingly caused, I would advocate that both of them be tried and hanged for crimes against humanity. You, dishonest little shit that you seem to be, will no doubt "quote" me as saying that "Bush and the Pope should be killed" or some such, which is technically accurate, but misleading, since to someone unfamiliar with the conversation, this will sound like advocating assassination or some such. I also believe you know this perfectly well, and am merely explicating it for the benefit of those watching.
On a different note, you do indeed "advocate" violence and hatred, by maligning anyone who suggests that a forceful response to organized campaigns of violence (as the term is generally understood) and hatred (in the sense of bigotry and prejudice, not in the sense of antipathy towards individuals on the basis of their actions) would be justified, and therefore attempting to perpetuate a general social and political climate that will ensure that violence and hatred will stand unchallenged. It's not clear to me where "conspiracy theories" came from, so I can't speak to that.
Finally, I can't speak to your repeated references to "creationists" as I cannot for the life of me imagine how they entered into your understanding of the conversation.
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 14, 2008 11:34 PM
Re: Nurenberg
1)War Crimes: murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity
2)Crimes against humanity: murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in the execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated
3)Crimes against peace: planning, preparation, initiation, or waging a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing
4)Conspiracy to commit the above.
Posted by: GrahamGirl | December 14, 2008 11:42 PM
@Jadehawk,
Forget about responding to these people who said that Bush did not commit any crime. They are like the intelligent designers.
No matter how much information's you provided, just like the scientists who proves evolution, the Bush lovers/ID would always said that there is no proof.
No proof would the round earth theory, no proof for evolution, no proof for gravity, no proof for bush's crimes.
Posted by: robotaholic | December 14, 2008 11:44 PM
it's wrong to kill people and it's wrong to throw objects at people and I didn't find this humerous
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 14, 2008 11:46 PM
oh I know, GG. the last post was merely for the benefit and edumacation of any honest, openminded lurker (and the better participants of this discussion) that might stumble upon this thread.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 14, 2008 11:48 PM
What if it was a cream pie?
Posted by: John | December 14, 2008 11:52 PM
Azkyroth,
I had written a long an eloquent reply to your post, but then I realised that you are trying to show your reasonableness in the same post as one you say the Pope should be "tried and hanged".
I think you are best ignored.
Posted by: ndt | December 14, 2008 11:53 PM
Bush was in Iraq as an invader. War is not about civil expression.
I don't know about you, but if some bastard invaded my country to help out his buddies in the oil industry, I'd be throwing a lot more than shoes.
Posted by: Futility | December 14, 2008 11:54 PM
@gleaner63 #281:
regarding 'lack of evidence':
- It was disclosed not that long ago (you can google it yourself, I am sure), that what methods to apply to 'enemy combatants' (methods that outside of the neo-con bubble are properly labeled 'torture') was discussed on the highest levels of the Bush administration (Rice, Cheney, ... it seems reasonable to assume that Bush was informed as well.). The US ratified provisions against torture, i.e. to torture is against the law of the land, in other words, those involved broke the law. No question about that.
- Listening to phone conversations of American citizens inside the US is also against the law. The Bush administration broke this one as well. A few months ago, Congress gave retroactive immunity to the phone companies involved.
- High officials of the Bush administration admitted openly (see Woodward's first book on Bush, forgot the title in the moment) that the plan to invade Iraq _preceded_ 9/11. (Interestingly, this fact received little interest at the time of the publication of the book.) 9/11 only provided a convenient pretext. There's also more than enough evidence that contradicting evidence (Niger uranium hoax, 'curveball' = unreliable source etc) was willfully ignored or played down.
By the way, Bugliosi is a well-respected attorney who wrote a well-regarded account of the Kennedy assassination. It seems reasonable to believe that he knows what 'incontrovertible' evidence is. However, your remarks also speak of a fair amount of naiveté on your part. From the examples I give above, it is clear that in all cases, Democratic party officials were complicit (Pelosi, etc were informed of the prisoner treatments and did not protest, the retroactive immunity was passed with the votes of Democrats (including Obama), Congress gave Bush the war resolution he wanted, again with votes from the Democrats (most famously H. Clinton). Do you really believe that there is a lot of incentive to push for a trial of Bush?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | December 14, 2008 11:55 PM
A report at http://justpeacenow.blogspot.com/2008/12/soleful-send-off.html has it that al-Zaidi "... was beaten badly after he was removed from the pressroom."
There's a petition for his release at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/montather/ in which the Baghdad television station for which he reports states, "Multiple sources in Baghdad confirmed that Mr. Al-Zeidi was heavily beaten right after the incident. (He can be heard shouting in pain in this video)." [link not provided at petition site]
Signing the petition is slightly more effort than slamming an online poll, but it's for a better cause - and you get to provide comments.
Posted by: Simon | December 14, 2008 11:56 PM
Of all the pompous asses I've come across as a non-left-wing atheist PZ Myers and his acolytes here have got to be up there as some of the pompousest and assiest of all. Is this post some kind of spoof? I notice this part of the report has been left out...
"Some Iraqi journalists stood up to apologise.
The White House said Bush ducked to avoid the first shoe, while the second narrowly missed the president.
Bush said: "Thanks for apologising on behalf of the Iraqi people. It doesn't bother me. If you want the facts, it was a size 10 shoe that he threw"."
Funny, and impressive how quickly he moved. I think he handled it admirably. PZ is disgusted by the treatment of the brave patriot, but I wonder what would have happened to someone lobbing footwear at dear Saddam. Him and his family rounded up, raped by dogs, tortured for years, chucked in the wood chipper? after all Saddam was a 'big meanie' to quote someone here.
If you guys were a trillionth as achingly clever as you think you are you would have noticed the irony of this retard so courageously having a pop at the man who got rid of the big meanie who he would never dare look at the wrong way.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 14, 2008 11:59 PM
Simon: "irony"? Are you serious?
Posted by: Azkyroth | December 15, 2008 12:00 AM
While I perhaps haven't been at my best tonight, judging by what you've offered so far, I doubt that very much.
Am I to understand that you do not believe that, among other things, deliberately orchestrating and funding multiple campaigns to undermine international humanitarian efforts to prevent hundreds of thousands to millions of needless, painful deaths from disease and starvation, qualifies as a crime against humanity? If so, what would, in your opinion, qualify?
Or is it the death sentence for "crimes against humanity" that you take issue with?
Posted by: Graculus | December 15, 2008 12:01 AM
Can we do a whip-round and buy Zaidi more shoes?
Posted by: ndt | December 15, 2008 12:03 AM
That's what you would do to someone who invaded your country? Draw cartoons of them?
Seriously. Are you an American? If some foreign country conducted a military invasion and occupation of the United States of America, you would respond by drawing cartoons?
I'm an American, and for my country's sake I really hope you're not.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 15, 2008 12:04 AM
Oh - note to Walton:
My Iraqi history challenge can be found at #132 on the "Whoa, Hitchens endorses Obama" thread. Some other people might also be interested in the articles at the link referred to in that comment.
Posted by: ndt | December 15, 2008 12:07 AM
What is this, the freaking 17th Century? We don't personify nation-states anymore.
Bush is head of government as well as head of state. The former is by far the more important role.
Posted by: Diego | December 15, 2008 12:12 AM
I don't want to shoe horn anyone into it, but it would be cool if someone could dub that awful "Christmas Shoes" song onto this video.
Of course if they could shoe Bush away so easily it would go a long way toward heeling the divides within Iraq. And I imagine there are many others who would also throw shoes at W-- this guy can't be the sole one.
Posted by: ndt | December 15, 2008 12:15 AM
But what about starting the war? Isn't he 100% responsible for that?
Except he was told that the events that turned out to happen were a very likely possibility. He chose not to plan for that possibility.
Posted by: uncle frogy | December 15, 2008 12:18 AM
"the ony "victory" for the target of the terrorism is to find and capture/kill every single one of them, while the most effective way for the terrorists to win is to kill as many civilian as possible, for maximum psychological effect."
Steven
I tend to disagree with that statement. The terrorist does not need to kill the most people as possible at all. The terrorist only needs to "kill" enough of the enemy to cause a violent reaction on the part of the enemy. That is done much easier by being unpredictable. That 9/11 collapsed a large building and killed a lot of people was a bonus the attack alone was enough to get the "enemy" to show his true colors and invade 2 countries with the resulting deaths and chaos. We the United States seem to respond as desired without much help.The whole point of the terrorist attack is to stimulate repression and there by convince the general population of the truth of "the cause" and the Terrorists leadership, the more violent the repression the surer the ultimate defeat of the "enemy". We are bogged down in 2 countries and despite the benefits of the "surge" AKA escalation are not wanted or liked in either country and not to be easily extricated. Looks like an f'n mess to me. Why anybody should be surprised, threatened or angered that a reporter would through a shoe at W, well gee whiz?????????
I wonder what kind of over reaction this will stimulate?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 15, 2008 12:20 AM
Brave patriot bent on tearing down the Constitution.
Posted by: ndt | December 15, 2008 12:21 AM
Yeah, it's totally unreasonable to hate people for starting unnecessary wars.
Posted by: John | December 15, 2008 12:23 AM
Azkyroth,
You may have very noble intentions but your self-righteousness comes across as very intolerant. Like a modern-day Robespierre.
He's Stupid. He's a Troll. He's a Shit. Hang the Pope. Throw shoes at Bush.
"O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us."
- Robert Burns
Posted by: gleaner63 | December 15, 2008 12:23 AM
Futility at #306,
Thanks for your constructive post. I never said, and do not believe, that Bush is or was a perfect president. Clearly, mistakes have been made, and all presidents make them. Do these mistakes rise to the level of impeachemnt or calling Bush a "war criminal"?
I am sure that Belogosi, as an attorney, knows what "incontrovertible evidence" is. But, as I am sure you are well aware, "invontrovertible evidence" is also lawyerspeak for their side. You still have to "go through the process". Otherwsie, Begolusi is preaching to the public, not a defense attorny, judge or jury. Surely, you understand that. Otherwise, it's you that is showing a degree of naivete, not me.
Posted by: Dia | December 15, 2008 12:28 AM
I also think that PZ is wrong on this issue. The shoes that the reporter threw were heavy and had the potential to hurt Bush if they had hit him. In my opinion, this definitely amounts to an attempted assault of our president. It is one thing to express your opinion. It is another thing to try to cause physical harm to people. The action was vulgar and primitive, and was the hallmark of someone unable to express themselves in a more civilized way. It reminded me of the people playing with Sadam Hussein's body after he had been killed. Bush is only in office for a few more weeks. His reign is over, and he is almost universally despised. There is no need for people to throw their weight around and condone abominable behavior just because it has become it has become pc to dislike Bush. Also, in my opinion, the American citizens who voted Bush back into office for his second term are guilty of enabling Bush's actions. However, I don't think anyone would advocate throwing shoes at people who voted for Bush.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 15, 2008 12:32 AM
Repeatedly lying to start an unprovoked invasion and war?
Approving and/or ordering torture?
Illegal wiretapping?
Extraordinary rendition?
Suspension of habeas corpus?
"Mistakes were made."
Posted by: Chad | December 15, 2008 12:37 AM
Someone needs to make this a flash game, Now.
Posted by: BMcP | December 15, 2008 12:38 AM
I wish a few American journalists had the guts to throw shoes at the president -- they should have started in 2001. Can we make it a new tradition?
Sure, I'll start on the 20th of January. :P
Posted by: ndt | December 15, 2008 12:39 AM
It continually baffles me how some people don't understand that tapping phones without a warrant is illegal.
As for war crimes: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/11/AR2008121101969.html?referrer=emailarticle
Posted by: gleaner63 | December 15, 2008 12:42 AM
On Belogosi's book the Case for Murder against Bush;
I was involved in a court case recently when a home inmprovemnt contractor filed a fraudulent mortgage against our homes and property (yes, I own three homes unlike the rest of you poor people (scooter?) who inhabit foolragula here). The case was filed in 2005 and took almost 4 years going through the legal process until we finall won. But what I learned about lawyers in that long space is that they will do and say anything on behalf of their clients. But, it is all bunk until the final verdict is rendered. So, while Belogosi might be a great lawyer, and it might be a good book, it is still *nothing* but words on a page until a court of law decides otherwise. Now, because I live on a farm, I must go feed my dinosaurs outback in the barn. I have names for all of them; Gotts, holbach, tropyeater and Majeff.
Posted by: scooter | December 15, 2008 12:43 AM
David @ 244: Yes, terrorism was involved in the founding of Israel; several terrorists subsequently advanced to high government posts.
Also the United States. What you do not read in most history books is the fate of Americans who did not go along with the revolution, referred to as Tories.
They sort of disappeared, usually late at night.
BTW, tar and feathering was not a practice of humilliation.
The reason chicken feathers were added was because it made the victim easier to light. It was a form of execution and public entertainment.
Not too many descendants of Tories around these days.
They were about 25% of the population. That's Pol Pot stats.
Posted by: ndt | December 15, 2008 12:45 AM
On another legal point, the president is required to follow treaties the US has agreed to. One such treaty is the UN charter, where we agreed only to use military force to defend US national security, the security of one of our allies, or to avert a humanitarian crisis. Bush's Iraq war was none of those.
Posted by: Futility | December 15, 2008 12:45 AM
@321:
'mistakes have been made' seems like the understatement of the year to me. Attacking another country on false pretenses is sufficient cause to call Bush a war criminal. And, of course, Bugliosi is preaching to the public. What other choice does he have? The only place where action could be taken is Congress by starting impeachment hearings. Bugliosi just offers material that could be used during such hearings and by doing so tries to create momentum for such action. It is up to the American people to force their representatives into action since they will not take action by themselves (since their hands are dirty as well as I pointed out). If lying to conceal fellatio in the White House is an impeachable offense, lying to the American people about the reason to go to war, torture, etc surely is, too.
Posted by: MP2K | December 15, 2008 12:50 AM
#322
Poe or Moron? The game continues.
Posted by: gleaner63 | December 15, 2008 12:51 AM
Futility at #330,
I admire you for being fair. Both parties had a hand in this.
Posted by: scooter | December 15, 2008 12:54 AM
Tis Youself @ 228: Zaidi was taken away by the Iraqi police. How many teeth do you think he has left?
On the other hand he might run for Iraqi president in 2010 and win. Are you sure he's not considered a hero everywhere but the states, home of Joe the Plumber?
Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | December 15, 2008 12:57 AM
Dave M @224
The British night aerial bombing of the German homeland during WW2?
Posted by: I'm so tired | December 15, 2008 1:04 AM
It's unlikely that you have to do anything like this again for the next four years. After all, you went and did a silly thing; you elected the better alternative.
Also, it was ok to throw out the British from your country, but when someone else even suggests he wants the occupying forces out of his country, then suddenly it's wrong. Maybe he should have been satisfied with just dumping your hamburgers in the harbor.
Posted by: gleaner63 | December 15, 2008 1:05 AM
Blindsquirrel at #334:
...you mean the fire bombings of Dresden and Hamburg amongst others...
Posted by: Rrr | December 15, 2008 1:06 AM
Throwing your shoes at someone isn't violence!?
Bullshit, it easily can be. Can being the obvious keyword.
This event was clearly intended as insult rather than violence, and even if he had attempted to exert violence using his shoes in such a situation (in a room full of journalists, at the very powerful speaker in the other side of the room), he would have horribly and pathetically failed.
In conclusion: BLOODY FINALLY! I kept hearing "Horrible, Bush is breaking so many laws! Eek, and now he's showing downright contempt and arrogance to the average Joe... It's as if he thinks he can get away with anything! He'll probably get kicked out of office." but noooooooooo. This unfortunately wasn't a trial, but at least that journalist's venting was pretty soothing to see, considering that I doubt I'll ever see Bush being trialed for anything (including domestic as opposed to the warmongering - I have no hopes about the majority of USians caring about what happens overseas, but the least they could do is bloody stand up for themselves when they're being violated in their own home).
Posted by: MP2K | December 15, 2008 1:06 AM
#334
I'd say many actions of the French Resistance, because actions committed directly by nation states are usually considered Acts of War and not Terrorism. It gets kind of iffy if you bring in unofficial actions by intelligence agencies, though, since they are usually technically staffed by private citizens.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 15, 2008 1:08 AM
Posted by: SC, OM | December 14, 2008 6:02 PM
"Must...resist...shoe...puns..."
Bush nearly took the shoe attack with tongue in cheek.
Posted by: gleaner63 | December 15, 2008 1:11 AM
While on the subject of war:
"Lusitania's Secret Cargo", Archaeology magazine Jan/Feb issue. Seems she was "...a legitimate target for a German submarine...". Remington .303 caliber ammunition found in hold
Posted by: Futility | December 15, 2008 1:11 AM
#168, 193, 213:
well said! In this context, I also find it very telling that only after it became abundantly clear to the American populace that McCain would sink the ship completely in these times of economic crisis, they started to get behind Obama, not because he wanted to end a criminal war as soon as possible or restore the rule of law (which remains to be seen), no it's the economy, stupid! Reports of American moral superiority are greatly exaggerated.
Posted by: Hank Fox | December 15, 2008 1:12 AM
Way down here in the comments, I still have to weigh in.
If nothing else, I know Jon Stewart pick up on this comedic gem, and I hope Saturday Night Live will do something with it too.
President Bush has become sheer slapstick, and this incident was just the perfect underline to that point.
Posted by: craig | December 15, 2008 1:16 AM
I watched Bush order the inspectors out of Iraq, despite their pleas to be allowed to continue.
Not to long afterward, I watched Bush give as one reason for the impending war that "Saddam ordered the inspectors out."
George Bush flat-out lied, and that wasn't the only time.
I watched Cheney claim we knew for a fact that Saddam had WMD. I watched claim that Saddam had ties to Bin Laden.
I watched him DENY having made these claims when confronted, despite videotaped evidence.
A couple of weeks after his denial, I protested an appearance of his where he mad the same claims he had just denied having made. He deliberately lied. No miscommunication, no misinterpretation. HE LIED.
Bush allowed the torture of prisoners - denied it, and then later admitted to it.
Anyone who says there's no evidence that they have committed crimes has something seriously wrong with them. Stupidity or mental illness, one or the other.
Posted by: Azkyroth | December 15, 2008 1:20 AM
John,
Posted by: Futility | December 15, 2008 1:24 AM
@332:
Well, the amount of blame is not distributed equally, though. The Bush administration pushed for these actions, a lot of Democrats caved in, either because they were convinced by the beefed-up intelligence or because they didn't want to appear weak on terror in these dire times. Surely, nothing to admire them for. They should have asked the right questions. That's why the citizens put them there. However, it appears very unlikely that similar actions would have ensued had the president been a Democrat on 9/11.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 15, 2008 1:26 AM
Aerial bombing of civilians on both sides of WWII in Europe had the opposite effect of that intended.
The Resistance, of great importance in many ways (if anyone hasn't yet seen the classic The Sorrow and the Pity, by the way, I couldn't recommend it more highly), was less important to winning the war than the codebreakers. Score one big one for math geeks.
Posted by: JJJJ | December 15, 2008 1:29 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials#The_main_trial
not sure what scooter was referring to up there
Posted by: Azkyroth | December 15, 2008 1:33 AM
And as long as we're batting quotations around:
"Don't wait for the translation, answer 'yes' or 'no'!" -Adlai E. Stevenson II
Posted by: SC, OM | December 15, 2008 1:34 AM
I think he's done for the year, unfortunately.
Posted by: scooter | December 15, 2008 1:38 AM
Sorry for the cliff-hanger, I had drive home after a slow day at work making shoe jokes.
The hangings at Nuremberg were for "Crimes against the Peace" This is often misquoted as Crimes against Humanity, and most people now believe Nuremburg was about Nazi war crimes as in the Holocaust, the slave labor camps, etc.
Not so, the Nazis were hanged at Nuremburg for starting the war, essentially they were executed for invading Poland, and yes, the 'Just following Orders' defense was not rejected.
There were later trials during the post war occupation that pertained to war crimes and the Holocaust, but that was not Nuremburg.
From Nuremburg came the Nuremburg Protocols which addressed invading countries.
If you have studied WWII, you know how legalistic the Nazis were. They had a far longer list of gripes against Poland and Polish crimes against the Reich, than Bush's shabby sham for invading Iraq. The Nazis were very thorough, and they considered the border with Poland 'Disputed Territories', which gave them a hook to hang their claims.
But I digress.
The Nuremburg Protocols that everyone spouts off about haven't been worth the paper they were written on. They've never been applied nor enforced, they are too stringent for militarist ubber primate fucktards.
But make no mistake about it, if you like to hold up a Nuremberg banner, you are advocating the execution of GW Bush, and, BTW, every other US president since FDR except for maybe Eisenhower.
Nuremburg says invading a country that has not mounted a military attack on your territory is a capital offense, and there is no ooooops clause for 'bad intelligence, otherwise the Nazis would have been acquitted.
Sorry for Godwin.
gleaner @ 332: I admire you for being fair. Both parties had a hand in this.
you are absolutely correct, if you want to bring the Nuremberg protocols into play, the gallows and rope industries would skyrocket. Talk about redistribution of wealth and power!!!
I'm game.
Posted by: Ryan Cunningham | December 15, 2008 1:43 AM
Compared to the things that got thrown at Iraqi citizens and American soldiers, I'd say Bush got off easy.
Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | December 15, 2008 1:59 AM
I was referring to the fact that the bombing of the German cities was so inaccurate that it amounted to random terror to a civilian population, but as MP2K mentioned at 334 this was probably technically an act of war. I agree with SC, OM @346. Both sides tried to avoid civilian casualties at the beginning of the war because of uncertainties about how the populace would react.Posted by: gleaner63 | December 15, 2008 2:04 AM
Scooter at #350,
Your info doesn't square with the wikipedia article on the Nuremberg Trials. Breifly, 24 defendants were indicted on 4 charges, for #1-Conspiracy, #2-Wars of Aggression, #3-War Crimes and #4-*Crimes Against Humanity*. 15 of the defendants were found guilty of crimes against humanity, only 12 for wars of aggression.
Posted by: scooter | December 15, 2008 2:06 AM
For perspective, and I know this from experience, throwing a shoe at somebody, and missing, in the US is called misdemeanor assult, and I doubt you could get the cops to press charges.
If you hit the guy, but don't injure him, that's called misdemeanor assault and battery, usually punished by a fine, around 500 bucks max.
If you hit the guy and fucked him up, it gets into felony territory.
In the US, this would be a misdemeanor, with a few disturbing the peace like infractions thrown in.
That pertains to citizens. In the US we learned nothing from Britain, we still have kings and laws that pertain only to them, so you're taking a big chance trying to shoe a president.
But I've interviewed New York's Pie Man, and he's Pied some pretty powerful figures, yet walks free.
Posted by: Eric Paulsen | December 15, 2008 2:08 AM
I have been playing around with the idea of starting a campaign called "Eggs for George" to pay tribute to the brave soul who chucked and egg at his motorcade on inauguration day. I would like to see his limousine covered in egg from bumper to bumper, so many as to blot out the sun, the roadway slick with yolk. Unfortunately I am torn by the fact that this is a huge waste of food especially in this time of economic devestation. Maybe "Flaming bags of dog poo for George" would be a better fit?
Posted by: Bjørn Østman | December 15, 2008 2:09 AM
Dia at #322, I often throw soft little baby-shoes at people who voted for Bush.
Besides, this was only a size 11.
I wonder if they gave him the shoes back, or if they will be paraded next to Saddam's gun in the White House.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 15, 2008 2:16 AM
I am stunned and amused by many of the comments here. The wingnuts, Bush apologists, racists and moralists have all reacted as if this was a 911 redo. It is clear this has flipped the same lizard brain switch.
They were shoes. It was an insult. It was a protest.
To equate this action with violent attacks and as support of Saddam is completely ridiculous. It is no different then a creampie in the face or burning an effigy. It was an effective PR action that was eaten up by the world press as well as a courageous act of civil defiance.
Fools like gleaner love to tout how many homes they own as if that somehow gives their wingnut opinion more validity. It is this complete lack of rational acumen that completely negates any point they try to put forward. I too own 3 homes... and so the fuck what? It has no bearing on the veracity or moral weight of my opinions.
Because many in the US were still cowering in lizard brain mode during the 2004 presidential election, we didn't give Bush the "boot" he deserved for bungling incompetence, flouting the Constitution and war crimes. Instead he was given an Air Jordan by an irate Iraqi. Oh, the horror!
Thankyou PZ for having the temerity to post your reaction. While many have declared the shoe thrower an "arch" enemy, you have rightly perceived his action as the right fit. (Ironic how the left is usually right...) Hopefully the situation will begin to heel as the Bush catastrophe is kicked into the cheap failed shoe bin of history.
Posted by: Inquisitor Numad | December 15, 2008 2:17 AM
Azkyroth,
Heed your own advise!
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 15, 2008 2:21 AM
@Eric Paulsen
1. Burning Paper bag = unwarranted greenhouse gasses
2. Dog Poo = Can be used for biomass reactors and fertilizer.
Under these conditions, I doubt Obama's administration, with their stance on going Green, would endorse such ammunition.
Have you tried rocks?
Posted by: C. M. Baxter | December 15, 2008 2:24 AM
Little Georgey kept annoying the man so the man finally shooed him away.
Posted by: gleaner63 | December 15, 2008 2:26 AM
mayhempix at #357 stated:
"...fools like gleaner love to tout how many homes they own as if that somehow gives their wingnut opinion validity...".
Yes, I own three homes, and I worked for every bit of it. Are you jealous? I'd say then you are a typical liberal. But, if you really must know, it wasn't an attempt to validate anything, but rather, if you read the rest of the post, to insert a little humor into the conversation. But, again, I find that a lot of liberals don't have much of a sense of humor either. Finally, fess up; why do liberals like to try and take things from people who have earned them and give them to people who haven't? I've never understood that impulse...other than pure jealousy of another's talents, intelligence and hard work...
Posted by: gleaner63 | December 15, 2008 2:29 AM
mayhepix,
Two more things that would help you; The Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, and read "Atlas Shrugged".
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | December 15, 2008 2:33 AM
Zaidi was upset and wouldn't control his impulse to attack the person who made him upset. I don't know his background or his experiences in the war and occupation, so I won't be making any guesses as to why he did it.
Those prior comments stating that we had no cause to invade and occupy Iraq lead me to say this . . .
Holocaust Denial, Creationism/Intelligent Design, 9/11 Trutherism, a Flat Earth, the sasquatch, the invasion and occupation of Iraq; no matter what the subject is there is one reply to any request for the denier to look into any evidence supporting it. That being, "I have no need to take a look at your evidence, I'm satisfied with what I hear from those who agree with me."
And a question for the anti Iraq War crowd. Armistice violations are not acts of war?
Posted by: mayhempix | December 15, 2008 2:39 AM
@gleaner
"Yes, I own three homes, and I worked for every bit of it. Are you jealous? I'd say then you are a typical liberal."
- If you had read my entire post before having the typical wingnut reactionary freakout, you would have noticed I also own 3 homes and believe it or not I also (gasp!) worked to earn them. The point is it doesn't matter... except that in this case it reveals your insecurity and ignorant stereotype bias against liberals. But it is ironic how your responses reinforce typical stereotypes about wingnuts.
"But, if you really must know, it wasn't an attempt to validate anything, but rather, if you read the rest of the post, to insert a little humor into the conversation."
Uh huh, sure buddy. Keep back peddling. I must admit you are funny... just not in the way you fantasize.
Posted by: scooter | December 15, 2008 2:40 AM
Squirrel@ 352,
I had to research the shit out of Nuremburg to score a co-major in History, and if you look into it, you'll discover that all the honcho Nazis were strung up for Crimes against the Peace, that was the biggy, the other shit got piled on. Legal systems are similar, and if you've ever been busted, you know that if they can get you on the biggy, they will pile on the resisting arrest, and aggravated [fill in blank], disturbing the peace, and so on.
Also these trials have been conflated and cross referenced so many times, most of the information, even in print is not great.
You don't have to take my word for it, the central point I'm trying to express is that Nuremberg was about military aggression, that was the point, and those Nazi leaders hung for starting a war, to make an example, as a deterrent. The war crimes as we think of them were underplayed, because the Allies didn't want to muddy the water with a bunch of stuff that might fly back in their own faces.
The Nazis were doing a pretty good job of throwing war crime stuff back at the Allies, it was a really nasty conflict, Vonnegut is a great source on wanton civilian only massacres, as well as Howard Zinn, a WWII bombadier.
These trials were broadcast on radio all over the world, even in the European Colonies, if you catch my drift. We didn't want all of those Africans and Indochinese going
"Whoa, wait a minute, what is happening here is ILLEGAL, you can't round people up into camps for no reason?"
It was Crimes Against the Peace and military aggression that was prosecuted at Nuremberg, and every fucking country with a military since than has ignored everything established at Nuremberg.
seriously, check it out, I wish I could give a bunch of citations, but it's been thirty years since I dabbled in the scholar stuff, so I can't back my shit up.
It's an Occam's Razor if you think about it though.
Posted by: Hoosier X | December 15, 2008 2:43 AM
Does this include U.S. foreign policy during the Reagan years when Saddam Hussein was provided with all kind of military hardware to use against Iran?
And other than Reagan and his people, who acted as if Iraq was some sort of paradise?
Talk about counterfactual and unfair ...
Posted by: gleaner63 | December 15, 2008 2:46 AM
mayhempix at #364,
Right. You start out by calling me names, but I am insecure? Okay I got it. Again it was an attempt at humor. It's not my fault you don't get humor, either. Finally, if you weren't jealous, you *wouldn't* have raised the issue of my material wealth. Sorry pal, no back peddling here....
Posted by: Hoosier X | December 15, 2008 2:46 AM
I got a question for you: Is this lame sophistry the best you can do?
Posted by: mayhempix | December 15, 2008 2:47 AM
Posted by: gleaner63 | December 15, 2008 2:29 AM
mayhepix,
"Two more things that would help you; The Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, and read "Atlas Shrugged."
Limbaugh? The one set up by Rush's brother? Like I said... you are funny. And I outgrew the simpilistic platitudes of "Atlas Shrugged" after we performed it as a theater piece in high school.
Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | December 15, 2008 2:48 AM
Scooter, I never said anything about Nuremberg.
Posted by: scooter | December 15, 2008 2:49 AM
Gleaner @ 361 why do liberals like to try and take things from people who have earned them
If you have been paying any attn since 2006, you would know that the liberals have taken a back seat on redistribution of wealth in America. We're looking at another New Deal rescue, and neo-socialism after 8 years of conservative rule.
Posted by: Azkyroth | December 15, 2008 2:52 AM
Have conservatives stopped beating their wives?
Posted by: Dark Jaguar | December 15, 2008 2:56 AM
I have to add to the list of those who disagree that this was justified.
What purpose does throwing a shoe serve, unless you consider violence, even non-lethal violence, justifiable as a mode of expression? Clearly he intended to hit the president and only his bizarrly catlike reflexes spared him. Argue all you like that it likely wouldn't have hurt him THAT much, you miss the point. Besides, it very well could have done more damage than intended. As the drunk who punches, unknowingly, someone with an internal head injury and accidentaly kills him can attest, random violence with no real calculations and medical history beforehand can have far worse consequences than one expects.
Also, it's just plain wrong to hit people for any reason. Those who say "he had it coming" are using this bully mentality, the sort of disgusting "I'll beat some sense into that boy" thing that some kids have to deal with in school. There is simply no excusing it at all, and no, I do not promote it and consider it a mistake for PZ here to condone it.
Does anyone think that sense can actually BE beaten into someone? This incident, and even 20 more like it, won't ever change his mind. Heck it might strengthen his resolve to feel a nice pursecution complex coming on.
I hate our president. He's a terrible leader and a deluded idiot. I can say that of a lot of people, but this is really just a step away from saying hiring thugs to "send a message" is justified. Protest, that's the way to send a message. Impeech, I'd be all for an attempt to do that, though it's too little too late now. Violence however is no good. It's fine as a response to violence, but to claim that throwing a shoe at him is a respone to the war is stretching the whole "response to violence" thing. It's not meant as a rule of "eye for an eye", it's meant as an instruction to only use violence to directly prevent violence the person is actively doing right at the moment. The president is sending people to kill and die, but he's not assaulting the guy with the shoe, so it's pointless to toss a shoe in his generation direction.
Violent activism is simply evil. Oh, those canadians tossing pies? Never heard of it, but seriously, it seems rather risky.
There are plenty of ways to pull a stunt that don't risk someone's health. There's all sorts of movie cliches, like they could dress as dead soldiers and start shouting in hippy accents to explain the already obvious symbolism of their costumes, though admittedly maybe Bush would need an explanation to get it.
Posted by: scooter | December 15, 2008 2:56 AM
Gleaner: Atlas Shrugged
BWAHAHAHAHA that's a fucking comis book, never mind you are a fucking idiot.
Ayn Rand pfeeew
what a piece of shit she was, I love how all her women heroes get raped by the manly protagonists.
I suggest Fantastic Four and Harry Potter, you'll think it's reeal and I have a great wand to sell you, but it'll cost you a house, but you can afford it from your history teacher pension
I can't believe you trolled me into responding.
Hat's off for that.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 15, 2008 2:59 AM
@Allan Kellogg
You can't seriously be equating "Holocaust Denial, Creationism/Intelligent Design, 9/11 Trutherism, a Flat Earth, the sasquatch," with those who who oppose(d) " the invasion and occupation of Iraq" ?
But then again after checking out your wingnut blog and the other blogs you link to, I guess you really are.
Posted by: scooter | December 15, 2008 3:01 AM
Squirrel
Sorry about that, I did pick up on that just now, it was the ditto head troll just above your post.
sorry.
Posted by: John Scanlon FCD | December 15, 2008 3:03 AM
I'm not caught up on all the comments, but a lot of people seem to be forgetting that G.W. Bush, when in Iraq, is not an elected official. He's the guy who invaded their ass from the other side of the fucking planet, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths and all that other stuff.
Pretty good throws considering the heat of the moment. But after seeing that, I'd say W. has had more practice ducking thrown objects than you might have supposed.
Posted by: gleaner63 | December 15, 2008 3:04 AM
scooter at #374.
No problem scooter, I wouldn't expect you would know a great deal about Ayn Rand or anything similar. But, you know, that's just the kind of folks who inhabit foorangula.
Posted by: Hoosier X | December 15, 2008 3:04 AM
I'll have to disagree with this. After all, many comic books are very good whereas something by Ayn Rand cannot be good.
But tread carefully when talking about Rand. Many of her acolytes are very sensitive and you know how politically correct they can be.
Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | December 15, 2008 3:08 AM
haw haw haw hawscooter: no problem
Posted by: scooter | December 15, 2008 3:08 AM
Dark Jaquar: Also, it's just plain wrong to hit people for any reason.
Mindless pacifist?
So you are a martial arts expert packing a handgun, and there's a thug in your house raping your daughter while slicing away at her with a razor blade, what do you do?
Send him an angry emale from the funeral home?
If you decided to protect your daughter with force, it's all moral relativism from there.
Posted by: Frederik Rosenkjær | December 15, 2008 3:10 AM
I'm amazed and thoroughly disappointed to see how many in here appearently think it's relevant to this case to discuss how bad Bush has been, how bad Saddam was, how bad Hitler was etc.
The only reasonable choice (and I would like to continue thinking of this as an oasis of reason) is to say that this type of action should not be incouraged or condoned, no matter what the cicumstances are.
It's a slippery slope. What, then, are your criteria for when it becomes OK to do these things, and when is it not?
This is not to say I don't sympathize with the reporter and not to say that I'm a "Bush lover", as I have been called previously in this thread. I hate Bush - always have. But this forum has stooped to a moral low I wouldn't have thought possible, and PZ lead it. Sad.
Posted by: scooter | December 15, 2008 3:15 AM
Gleaner: I wouldn't expect you would know a great deal about Ayn Rand
Read all her books, Mr Galt, I think that bimbo was from here, we have streets all over Houston named after her pulp fiction. Fountainhead Avenue is my favorite, all the Neiman Marcus over consumer stores are there.
Too bad her fans shut down all the railroads around here.
Reardon must be spinning in his grave.
Didn't I meet you in the early nineties when I used to troll alt.Limbaugh on USENET, sockpuppeting and setting all you morons at each other throats?
Yall sure did melt down easy.
Posted by: H.H. | December 15, 2008 3:16 AM
Yeah, I gotta side with the "this fall under righteous protest" camp. If he had thrown a grenade, that might have fallen over the line. A shoe? That's a little bit of justice in an unjust world.
Posted by: CapeTownJunk | December 15, 2008 3:17 AM
Would it be too cynical of me to suggest a selfish motive for Muntader al-Zaidi's shoe-throwing at GWB?
If he gets out of detention/jail/Gitmo alive, he'll have a job for life at Al-Jazeera!
Quite possibly the ultimate risky career move... but if it pays off, he'll be a journalism superstar in the Middle East!
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 15, 2008 3:18 AM
"but rather, if you read the rest of the post, to insert a little humor into the conversation."
Capitalist chest-thumping is humor? Um...okay, ha ha, I guess.
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 15, 2008 3:18 AM
@Hoosier X
One good thing did come out of Atlas Shrugged: BioShock.
Posted by: gleaner63 | December 15, 2008 3:19 AM
Rosenkjaer at #386,
I'm probably misreading you post, but when you say "...oasis of reason...", are you talking about Pharygula? I don't mean any disrespect by that just asking an honest question.
Posted by: Adam | December 15, 2008 3:21 AM
I wish he would have aimed lower and actually hit him, for two reasons:
1) He would have actually been hit
2) It's a less violent act and still a valid protest
If you think his actions are inappropriate then I you have more reflecting to do, simple as that.
I suggest you go live in a Iraq for a year, then maybe I'll take your opinion with a grain of salt.
Or better yet, imagine if a bomb was dropped in the United States and killed your entire extended family, and then you had a chance to see the person who is the figure head of this bombing, a man who has never taken any responsibility for his behavior, standing in front of you.
I would say you might be tempted to do more than throw a shoe.
Posted by: gleaner63 | December 15, 2008 3:23 AM
scooter at #383,
Yeah, I'm quite sure you read them all. And no I don't think we've met before.
Posted by: scooter | December 15, 2008 3:24 AM
Rosenkjær@ 382
I'm somewhat confused to some of the blog jargon that the kids are using these days.
I haven't figured out what a Concern Troll is.
I'm sort of embarrased to ask, because I don't want to sound like a square
Just between you and I, are you a Concern Troll?
Posted by: scooter | December 15, 2008 3:35 AM
gleaner, you still here?
hurry, Michael Medved is on the radio, he needs you to hang on his every word.
I know you're upset about his feud with Michael Savage but don't let that get in the way of your fantasy life, they have more houses for you, and there are Arabs to bomb, and they might have some cool inside info on Sarah Palin.
I know she gets you all lumpy in the pants, she just throws down, you don't have to slap her around like that no means yes gurl Ayn Rand.
I have a Sarah Palin web page if you'd like to contribute
http://hockeymompitbull.net
Posted by: Frederik Rosenkjær | December 15, 2008 3:39 AM
@Gleaner, #388: Yes, I was referring to Pharyngula...(he, it looks like something else when your keyboard swallows the "P"...."Haryngula"...pretty close)
@scooter, #391:
I'm a regular Danish reader who logs on to Pharyngula as one of the first sites every time. I post only occasionally when I have something on my chest and using my real name and sincere thoughts. So that would be a "no".
Posted by: secularguy | December 15, 2008 3:43 AM
The vast majority of the Iraqi people never killed anyone, or gave an order to have someone killed, or helped actively with the killing of someone, or tried to or wanted to do any of the aforementioned.Posted by: Audrey | December 15, 2008 3:44 AM
Count Nefarious: "Even if he were responsible for arbitrarily many deaths, throwing shoes isn't the way we punish people in civilized societies."
By "we" do you mean the noble and honorable US? Current world leaders in tribunal show trials, water-boarding, and a contender for state-mandated executions? To be honest, most "civilized societies" find the use of capital punishment in the US to be rather backward. It's something that civilized nations have turned their back on, long ago.
But you're right in one aspect - Dubya should have been arrested on the spot and tried for crimes against humanity.
To absolve him of personal responsibility for what has been suffered by the people of Iraq ("It is obviously foolish to say George Bush is "responsible" for all those deaths. He was largely responsible for making those deaths possible. ") is analogous to absolving any head of state of the horrors inflicted by their regime. By your argument, Slobodan Milošević, Robert Mugabe, and others like them should never be tried for anything - because all they are doing is offering people the opportunity to die terrible deaths.
How magnanimous of you.
Posted by: Frederik Rosenkjær | December 15, 2008 3:45 AM
Also, I'm a bit perplexed that PZ would write something like this as I usually find him very good at condemning acts of violence, vandalization (typically of religious websites or places/whatever in real life) etc. Even "better" than I would be or think necessary.
But in this case I must say I'm disappointed.
PS. Oh, and sincerely: fuck Bush. (Just to avoid the knee-jerk responses)
Posted by: clinteas | December 15, 2008 3:59 AM
Frederik @ 382,
A moral low because you disagree with his position? That makes it a moral low?The comments have been covering the whole spectrum,is my impression,and people have expressed their opinion.
Where's the moral low,I dont see it.
Concern troll.
Posted by: BobC | December 15, 2008 4:06 AM
OFF TOPIC.
Is anyone here interested in publicly humiliating a creationist on the Texas State Board of Education? I hope so. You can do your part to defend the teaching of evolution HERE.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | December 15, 2008 4:06 AM
People don't understand the journalist was actually sending a gift to Bush. He kept hearing everywhere that the US President "has no sole". So he sent him a pair. Of course, there may be a slight misunderstanding somewhere.
Posted by: may