…and this is a 
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: mayhempix | December 15, 2008 4:11 AM
Posted by: gleaner63 | December 15, 2008 2:46 AM
" Finally, if you weren't jealous, you *wouldn't* have raised the issue of my material wealth."
Dude are you blind or just incredibly dense? You ignorantly confuse "jealousy" with "contempt". I have strong contempt for those who wave their wealth as something that validates their idiotic predatory viewpoints. You really don't want to get into a pissing war me over "material wealth" because you will lose. That's why I challenged you because you can't play the class warfare card on me. But you went ahead blindly after I tried to point it out to you and did it anyways. And you lost. Big time. I would have thought it goes without saying, but never raise when the other player already has the stronger hand face up on the table.
And remember you are the one who initially raised the wealth issue because of your inherent need to "humorously" prove to everyone how important you are and that only wingnuts earn their wealth. Shed the insecurity cloak. It doesn't look good on you. Smells too.
And finally: reread my post at #357, you know the one you claim shows no humor, and see if you can comprehend any of the satire and obvious puns. And then reread my responses to you and look for the same. You were troll baited and caught.. hook, line and sinker. But instead of punishing you by watching as you flop and gasp for air until you are dead and chopped up for chum in hopes of luring an respectable catch, I'll do the humanitarian thing and unhook you and throw you back... I'm a liberal you know.
Posted by: jagannath | December 15, 2008 4:16 AM
Am I mistaken but I read the words of PZ
as having nothing to do with actual violence but as the concept of critique which have been so lacking in the medias.
I might be mistaken but I do take into account previous writings/comments of people before using the latest as indication of ones true feelings towards issues like violence.
The Fastfood-Medias thrives on the simplistic binary stories which are never telling you but one side and quite biased side at that. Journalism is dying form of honesty as it seems is the concept of shades of truth. There are very few issues where one can make a clear cut division between winner/loser, good/evil, right/wrong.
The readers are also to be blamed as the one stop solutions are more sought after than those requiring more personal decision making. Jumping to quick judgement without mulling over the situation does not foster understanding of the nuances which can be far more important than the actual action reported, like the throwing of a shoe.
To judge Zaidis action without looking at the whole picture is folly. Sure, the action of Zaidi was not the best possible but it was not a bomb nor bullet as I believe many iraqi quold have used instead. For him it seems to have been a protest according to his cultural values which muddy the waters even more when seeking the elusive and hardly ever reached binary truths.
"Show me a human who knows to be always right and I show you a moron."
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 4:20 AM
Allan Kellogg,
I would like to remind you what the rationale for the invasion of Iraq was, as stated by the US in its Iraq Resolution of Oct.2002 :
to remove a regime that
1. developed and used weapons of mass destruction,
2. harbored and supported terrorists,
3. committed outrageous human rights abuses,
4. defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world
1. FAIL : no evidence, or fabricated fake evidence
2. FAIL : no evidence, or fabricated fake evidence
3. not sufficient : As Human Rights Watch's Ken Roth wrote in 2004, despite Hussein's horrific human rights record, "the killing in Iraq at the time was not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention".
4. FAIL : this would have been to the UN to decide, which they rejected, as you well know. You may not want to remember, but this invasion was/is an illegal act as determined by the UN
Conclusion, all evidence shows that 3 out of 4 of the key elements justifying the invasion failed, and one was clearly not sufficient to justify it.
I think the deniers, in this case, are people like yourself who refuse to look at the evidence and study history of events in an completely biased way, not those who have opposed, and still oppose this illegal invasion.
Posted by: Frederik Rosenkjær | December 15, 2008 4:34 AM
@#397
I'm just appalled that so many in here see no problem in condoning this behaviour. Very important to note that I'm not talking about throwing shoes, I'm talking about condoning the throwing of shoes.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 15, 2008 4:35 AM
To all those who are somehow convinced that throwing shoes is a terrible violent act:
When was the last time someone was seriously or even mildly injured by a flying shoe? I mean if Bush was kicked and beaten you might have a point, but it was a shoe... thrown by hand. I guess if it had hit W in the face it might have given him a black eye, but even then it would not have been a serious attempt to injure him. It was a serious attempt to humiliate him by a citizen of a country that Bush preemptively invaded and then proceeded to destroy its infrastructure and maim and kill countless numbers of innocent men, women and children. At the very least you must be able to understand why he was motivated to his actions.
It was a protest. Shoe heels are considered a serious insult. It was not an act of violence.
Posted by: scooter | December 15, 2008 4:41 AM
Not only what Negen said, but the carnage in the five years of occupation by the US and their mercenaries is exponential in comparison to the murderous reign of Sadaam killing his own.
I'm into that numbers thing, and fact stuff, so yall will have to bear with me.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 15, 2008 4:49 AM
If he was throwing a shoe for the purpose of injuring Bush then I do not condone it. If it was for the purpose of causing him an egregious personal insult (as the explanation of middle-eastern cultural beliefs imply it is) then I'm fine with it.
Of course, future press conferences will have to be held with all present required to be barefoot. Maybe they can just hold them in airport departure lounges.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 4:50 AM
If a throwing a shoe from that distance is to be considered a violent life-threatening act, we should stop immediately playing football, handball, and basketball.
Posted by: Gordon S | December 15, 2008 4:50 AM
I'm not gonna read all these comments, but I want to respond to some of the first ones about throwing shoes being uncivilized.
Maybe so, but acting civilized isn't always the appropriate reaction to some transgression.
For example, I think Americans should have burned the Supreme Court building to the ground when they gave the presidency to Bush in 2000. Not civilized, but a perfectly appropriate response.
Posted by: J Epic Failes | December 15, 2008 4:52 AM
I agree that such matters should be handled civilly.
Bush should be tried for war crimes in a court of law,
convicted,
and executed,
without a single shoe being thrown.
But that will never happen,
no matter how strong the case against him,
no matter how high the body count gets,
no matter his complete lack of remorse,
extending even to never admitting he was wrong at all.
So, I cannot entirely blame Muthathar al Zaidi,
for throwing his shoes,
at a man with no sole.
Posted by: Kitty | December 15, 2008 4:54 AM
#71 Kitty
Seems someone else is using my name!
Audrey - well said. I find it hard to equate 'civilisation' with the American penchant for state murder, obsessive ownership of firearms and the bland acceptance of state torture by your media. It's not a form of 'civilisation' I'd care to inhabit.
Throwing shoes is an insult and should be seen as such. There seems to be an inability to recognise this in some comments. The cultural statement is obvious in its context.
As for condoning the throwing of shoes, I'm sure our good opinion is neither sought nor needed by the Iraqis when they consider how to insult their invader.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 15, 2008 4:56 AM
I agree: W should have the book thrown at him, not shoes.
Oh, OK, shoes too.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 15, 2008 4:57 AM
Good point. I suspect that the entire Iraqi population are ensuring that the concerns (of those who are concerned) are noted.
Posted by: JB | December 15, 2008 5:01 AM
Bush showed nice reactions, and reminded calm all the way. His comments afterwards, how incidents like these are a sgin of a free society, was great.
Detaining for short while som people who were present and showing support for the shoe thrower is sensisble until the situation is fully under control and it is clear that there is nothing more to the situation.
Posted by: Frederik Rosenkjær | December 15, 2008 5:04 AM
Kitty: I'm sure our good opinion is neither sought nor needed by the Iraqis when they consider how to insult their invader.
Certainly not, and as I've said before, I do sympathize with the reporter. I'm mostly concerned about PZ's statement.
Posted by: GS | December 15, 2008 5:06 AM
Nefee boy is playing the old game, so dear to the ones in power, called "blame the victim".
Posted by: Leo van Miert | December 15, 2008 5:11 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?"
Shouldn't we wait until Obama actually does something first?
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 5:11 AM
Throwing a shoe is not civilized ?
Ok, let's make it civilized : here is a proposed resolution, "Throwing of shoe act" of December 15, 2008 that I intend to submit for approval by the parliaments of the nations of the world :
"Throwing a shoe is hereby authorized to insult the leader of a nation that illegally invaded another country, causing several hundred thousand unnecessary deaths, and destroying that country's infrastructure and economy."
Now, is that more civilized ?
Posted by: gleaner63 | December 15, 2008 5:17 AM
Hemphix:
You really are angry aren't you? I don't think your in any position to call anyone else dense. Let me explain it so even you can understand it. *You* threw the first insult...got that? If you don't want to be insulted, or poked fun at, then don't do it to others...got that? That seems like something you would have learned in the third grade. Being jealous and showing contempt are just two sides of the same coin. Since you chose to join this conversation, *you* re-read my post. It was not meant to show that I was somehow important, but, if you don't understand that, then your just an idiot "dude". Got that?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 15, 2008 5:35 AM
yeah, that's bullshit.It's your "I got mine," virtue-of-selfishness attitude that inspires contempt, not your multiple domiciles.
(By the way, anybody who can write "your an idiot" is himself an idiot).
Posted by: Emma | December 15, 2008 5:47 AM
I can't believe there are people complaining that throwing shoes at someone who invaded and destroyed your country is an act of terrible condemnable violence. It's all very well to sit in your non war-torn country and say 'oh but that's just uncivilised and unproductive!!'. Can you really not see that it might be a little bit difficult to remain calm and polite when faced with the person who ordered the invasion of your country? Can anyone honestly say they wouldn't do the same thing, or worse? No. No one can, because as much as it's fun to be all self congratulatory over how polite one is, no one can say in all honesty what they would or wouldn't do in this reporter's situation.
And 'incisive questions'? Please. When does Bush ever answer those? It'd just be another question Bush dodged.
Chances are that this is the only time Bush is ever going to be held even remotely accountable, since the American political class won't do a thing. Mr al Zaidi deserves some kind of award or at least thanks from the rest of the world.
More empathy and less smug, racist, American exceptionalism and self righteous indignation would be nice. Bush has the wingnuts of the world to defend him (and, you know, the Secret Service and the US military. No need for anyone else to start jumping up and down on his behalf.
Posted by: Kitty | December 15, 2008 5:55 AM
I'm more concerned that the president of the United States of America, when interviewed after the incident, thought throwing a shoe was an amusing thing to do than that PZ commented as he did.
Bush shows an appalling lack of understanding of another's cultural mores and lack of gravitas in his thinking. (Why am I even saying this?)
Goodbye President Bush. Shut the door on your way out.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 15, 2008 5:57 AM
Posted by: gleaner63 | December 15, 2008 5:17 AM
Hemphix:
"You really are angry aren't you? ...YOUR just an idiot "dude". Got that?"
Oh, the irony! Got that?
Too funny. Jerking this guy's chain is way too easy.
I also love how wingnuts always think my moniker is some reference to smoking pot and that it is somehow an insult when they think they are being clever by pointing it out. Some of the brightest most successful people I know always end the day with a fine freshly rolled blunt.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 15, 2008 5:59 AM
The question is not why this man hurled shoes at Bush. The question is why nobody else has done so sooner. Kudos to a brave man.
All commentators complaining about oh, the impoliteness, how shocking, are blind fools.
Posted by: Walton | December 15, 2008 6:05 AM
Nick Gotts: There's no need to call me a "dishonest little creep". I apologise for the fact that my original post wasn't clear; I certainly wasn't intending to suggest that you believed Saddam's Iraq to be a paradise.
However, I do disagree with the implications of your original post. Yes, the invasion of Iraq was a mistake in many respects and has led to political instability, violence and many deaths; that much is beyond doubt. But Saddam's treatment of the Iraqi people was also horrific; and while Bush can certainly be legitimately condemned as incompetent, I don't think it's fair to act as if he were a mass murderer. He sent troops into Iraq to remove a mass murderer and gang of violent thugs from power; he succeeded in doing that, but, unfortunately, caused a complete breakdown of stability in that part of the Middle East in the process.
I am not an uncritical supporter of President Bush. He has made some catastrophically wrong decisions. But I find it, frankly, offensive when he is labelled a "war criminal" and "mass murderer"; it's offensive, inter alia, to the victims of genuine war criminals and mass murderers (Hitler, Mao, Milosevic, Saddam...).
As regards the other point of contention on this thread: I don't see anything inherently wrong with throwing a shoe at someone as a form of political protest.
Posted by: Levi | December 15, 2008 6:06 AM
Al-Zaidi is my hero. Well done, sir, well done.
Posted by: Levi | December 15, 2008 6:08 AM
@Walton:
You don't consider unnecessarily starting a war that you know will kill thousands of civilians an act of mass murder? Really?
Posted by: JB | December 15, 2008 6:23 AM
Implying that people are idiots, based only on a spelling mistake, that's stupid.
"Some of the brightest most successful people I know always end the day with a fine freshly rolled blunt."
Intelligent people do stupid things too. But I really hope they don't "always" end the day that way, because that indicates a serious problem.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 15, 2008 6:41 AM
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..."
Speaking of Michael Savage, in case any of you don't know it, his son is the owner of Rockstar energy drinks and Savage is the main investor and helped formulate the drink. Every time someone downs a Rock Star they are feeding the Savage beast.
http://www.thetruthaboutrockstar.com/
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/20/savage/print.htm
"Savage's son, Russ Weiner, kicked off the show. With his spiky, dyed-orange hair and calculated scruffiness, he was reminiscent of Dr. Evil's son Scott from the Austin Powers movies. The resemblance was confirmed when Weiner proclaimed, 'I'm proud to be the son of Savage!' "
Boycott Rockstar energy drinks and be sure to point it to owners of bars, liquor stores, etc. that sell them and to friends who unknowingly imbibe them.
Posted by: Frederik Rosenkjær | December 15, 2008 6:44 AM
Kitty: I'm more concerned that the president of the United States of America, when interviewed after the incident, thought throwing a shoe was an amusing thing to do than that PZ commented as he did.
Me too. So I should only worry about the current no.1 concern and ignore all other?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 15, 2008 6:51 AM
Making a "spelling mistake" that suggests you do not understand the difference between a possessive and a contraction while calling somebody else an idiot: that's stupid.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 15, 2008 6:52 AM
Posted by: JB | December 15, 2008 6:23 AM
"... I really hope they don't "always" end the day that way, because that indicates a serious problem."
You are so right. It indicates they have a serious problem with moralizing prudes who have no idea what they are talking about.
Posted by: MH | December 15, 2008 6:54 AM
I'd wager that having a pair of shoes thrown at him will be the only consequence Bush will experience for instigating the destruction of Iraq.
Hardly seems just, does it?
Posted by: JB | December 15, 2008 7:00 AM
Calling people "moralizing prudes" because they think a certain habbit is a serious problem, that demonstrates another kind of problem.
You may of course disagree with me, and think it's not a problem. But disagreing about facts has nothing to do with either moralizing or being a prude.
Posted by: Spiro Keat | December 15, 2008 7:02 AM
"Throwing shoes at people isn't civilised. Doesn't matter who they are. You're wrong to condone this.
(And please, don't say, "Invading countries isn't civilised either." Two wrongs don't make a right.)"
You sir are an idiot.
"Forget the magnitude of the two wrongs" you say later in a reply.
Your president has led your country into international pariah status, aided and abetted by our prime minister Blair.
Trial by the International Court for war crimes is more appropriate than shoe throwing.
Now, if Bush and Blair had ousted Mugabe, there might be a touch of respect. Zimbabwe however has no oil and Mugabe didn't piss off W's father.
Shoes equate to thousands of deaths on all sides eh?
I say again, you are an idiot.
Posted by: JB | December 15, 2008 7:03 AM
MH, what destruction?
Posted by: SOCR-4735 | December 15, 2008 7:03 AM
Wow, took a while to work through all the comments.
Anyway, my thoughts.
First, while it may be true, I don't think we should start calling people 'war criminals' before they have actually been convicted of war crimes. So Bush is just an alleged war criminal until that point.
Not that he'll ever stand trial.
About the shoe; I feel it's being blown out of proportion. An Iraqi journalist who apperantly really, really hated Bush...threw a shoe at him. Threw a shoe at him It's not like he tried to assasinate him or anything. It was just an insult, in Western culture more or less equivalent to spitting on him (as has been pointed out repeatedly already).
If Bush had been visiting, I don't know, say Germany, and some German had spat on him, would that be a big deal? Probably not, even though Bush hasn't invaded Germany or anything...
I don't think it should be seen as anything other than a grievous insult to someone that reporter didn't like.
And, as far as I'm concerned, anyone has the right to grievously insult anyone they want to (well, should have, at least), wether it is because they are responsible for the deaths of close family members, or because he killed your dog or something.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 15, 2008 7:07 AM
"But disagreing about facts has nothing to do with either moralizing or being a prude."
What "facts" are you possibly talking about? In spite of millions of dollars spent to prove pot is addictive, dangerous and causes brain damage, it has never been done because it was one of ther most benign substances people have injested for thousands of years with no physical damages, period. Alcohol and tobacco are suicidal weapons of mass destruction in comparison. Anything else you have read is just BS propaganda to support the utterly absurd and failed War On Drugs worded to appear as if it is dangerous... again like like the the supposed WMDs.
Posted by: cmotdibbler | December 15, 2008 7:10 AM
How long before we see a "Shoe Dodge" flash game?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 15, 2008 7:10 AM
I've smoked pot for 35 years and I'm far more seriously addicted to this damn blog.
Posted by: JackH | December 15, 2008 7:12 AM
Count Nefarious: "Even if he were responsible for arbitrarily many deaths, throwing shoes isn't the way we punish people in civilized societies."
you're quite right. they should have hung the bastard.
Posted by: paleotn | December 15, 2008 7:22 AM
Walton: "He sent troops into Iraq to remove a mass murderer and gang of violent thugs from power"
And as commander and chief, is ultimately responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and over 4,000 US service personnel. No matter that the intentions in the UN resolution are all flowery and nice, everyone knows the real focus of the invasion was and is the stability of Middle Eastern oil resources. That's the central point of this neo-con, wet dream. Sacrificing tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives so that we can remain fat, happy and stupid in the West constitutes war crimes, thus Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest are war criminals by any civilized definition. There are literally hundreds of "mass murdering gangs of violent thugs" in countries all over the world (Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Sudan etc. etc. etc.), and yet, we do nothing to stop them. No US economic interests therefore our elected leaders simply don't give a shit.
Shoes, hell! Shrub and the rest should be prosecuted in The Hague.
Posted by: JB | December 15, 2008 7:26 AM
mayhempix, you seem to think you know everything about the subject. But consider for the moment the possibility that I have read and learned and but more emphasis on other information than you do.
Would that make me a "moralizing prude"? Where is the moralizing part, and what about putting weight on different information makes one a prude?
You seem absolutely certain that pot is not addicitive. Yet you claim to know people who use this "every night". To me this seems contradictory. To me using something "every night" strongly indicates some kind of addiction or dependence. Does thinking that make me a "moralizing prude"?
But as I said in my original answer to your claim, I hope it's not actually "every night".
Posted by: SC, OM | December 15, 2008 7:40 AM
I'm appalled that you're appalled. Seriously. Get a fucking sense of global reality and proportion.
I don't know which disturbs me more: the smug, immoral naïveté resulting from centuries of imperialism that allows so many Europeans and Americans to be blind to the human suffering caused by their governments and corporations and from which they benefit ("Let them eat cake! I mean, let them try civility and dialogue!"); or the worship of the (real or imagined) Leviathan and apparent loss of any ability even to conceive of fighting back against oppression and violence through direct, even largely symbolic, action. I'm really hoping that some of the people condemning this act are hypocrites. I'm starting to wonder if they would do anything to resist if their country were criminally invaded and occupied. I'm happy to see some of the unions waking from that kind of stupor, but it looks like a long road ahead...
Posted by: dean | December 15, 2008 7:43 AM
@jb: "Detaining for short while som people who were present and showing support for the shoe thrower is sensisble until the situation is fully under control and it is clear that there is nothing more to the situation."
Yes, because detaining people who voice support for unpopular actions is a great way to show people how democracy operates. What a comically stupid statement you made. The men were arrested after the press conference, not during it.
What a maroon.
Posted by: Emma | December 15, 2008 7:46 AM
Gleaner63 @281
Pelosi et al aren't pushing for investigation or prosecution because complicit in this whole damned thing. There's a grand tradition of presidents pardoning their predecessors for their crimes, as not doing so would set a nasty precedent for holding the political class accountable.
And, what? There's no evidence that Bush invaded Iraq? There's no evidence that the (un)intelligence he used to make his case was crap? There's no evidence that his own damned intelligence suggested that more terrorism and wreckage would result from this war? Do you just mindlessly defend everything Bush does? If so, why?
Posted by: Kitty | December 15, 2008 7:56 AM
Sven DiMilo
I'm with you, see your 35 years and raise you another 7:).
Walton
He sent troops into Iraq to remove a mass murderer and gang of violent thugs from power; he succeeded in doing that, but, unfortunately, caused a complete breakdown of stability in that part of the Middle East in the process.
unfortunately is that all you can say? Whatever happened to planning and procedure? Good grief boy I planned baking my xmas cake better than these fools planned their war. It would have been unfortunate if my cake burnt to a crisp in the oven but at least I could have started again. The people who have died in Iraq have no such luxury. The fallout from the destabilisation of the middle east will be with us for a long time.
The beast of Jihad has been well fed by Bush and his cronies and they in turn are well fed on the profits of their crimes.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 7:59 AM
Paleotn,
Posted by: Dave | December 15, 2008 8:03 AM
I've only just heard about this incident and I'm quite disgusted by it. Does this journalist not reflect on the fact that he's now living in an Iraq where he can throw something at a president and live to tell the tale? How long would he and his family have lived if he'd thrown a shoe at Saddam Hussein? George Bush, and my own former Prime Minister Tony Blair are not "war criminals", they are liberators. Together they did more to free muslims from oppression in five years than muslims have done for themselves in five hundred. The subsequent and continuing bloodshed in Afghanistan and Iraq is not the fault of the so-called "occupation", it is solely down to the fact that middle eastern muslims are for the most part, barbarian savages who'd rather live in mediaeval squalor and slaughter each other rather than take the opportunity to rebuild their countries. I supported the liberation of both Afghanistan and Iraq but I'm having second thoughts now. Not because I think the campaigns themselves were wrong, but simply because the inhabitants of those countries aren't worth the lives of any more British or American troops.
Posted by: Frederik Rosenkjær | December 15, 2008 8:13 AM
SC, OM #443: "I'm appalled that you're appalled. Seriously. Get a fucking sense of global reality and proportion."
It doesn't sound like you've read my statements that I do not blame the guy for acting the way he did. And I don't sympathize with Bush. I just think that encouraging this act publicly is a mistake.
Two wrongs still do not make a right.
Posted by: pauly | December 15, 2008 8:14 AM
What on earth are you prattling about, Kellog? I haven't ever been to Detroit either, but I still think it's a shitty idea to give billions of dollars to auto execs. One hardly needs to have "been there" to see that the US unleashed obscene devastation on the country and that it would be better off today if we hadn't invaded.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 8:21 AM
I found the usage of the term "uncivilized" by some in this thread to describe this Shoe throwing act, rather Victorian, Napoleonian, Conquistadorean or maybe Roman ?
Posted by: Spiro Keat | December 15, 2008 8:29 AM
BTW, the guy is still in custody.
Posted by: JB | December 15, 2008 8:37 AM
Dave,
most of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan is not part of the ongoing problems. Most people just want peace and to get on with their lives. It is, as always, the few who make problems for the many.
Also I think that the real reason for the current problems is the result of a long history of lacking democracy and freedom. There are now many who fear western democracy for religious reasons (many view us as amoral and godless, and they don't want their children to be corrupted and driven away from god in the same way), and many who use the opportunity to try to gain wealth and power for themselves.
But what we need to remember is that most of them are decent people who most of all want to live in peace and take care of their families and their lives. And they deserve the basic human rights as all other people do. And that is in my oppinion worth fighting for.
And unfortunately I don't belive in just leaving everything to just fix itself.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 15, 2008 8:37 AM
Who cares? Your reiterating that has no practical effect whatsoever. This "PS. Oh, and sincerely: fuck Bush. (Just to avoid the knee-jerk responses)." You're quite the internet freedom fighter. Hope Denmark won't need a resistance movement any time soon.
And I just think that you're a foolish dupe who worships tea-party notions of civil behavior in the face of criminal and rapacious governments and human rights violations.
That's still the most idiotic utterance I've heard in a long time, and I'm astounded that you feel no shame in repeating it. As I said above, this kind of willful ignorance is immoral.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 8:43 AM
SC, #443
I think this particular combination of immoral naïveté resulting from centuries of imperialism and inability to conceive the notion of resistance is predominantely an anglo-saxon phenomena.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 15, 2008 8:45 AM
Well I'll admit, I don't think it is very civil discourse regardless of the overwhelming dumbfuckery of our soon to be gone president. I'm sure it is possible that it may be acceptable in Iraq but here (the US) it usually is not.
However, this in no way lessens the hilarity of the moment for me and I laughed my ass off at the very thought of it well before I saw the video.
The video nearly destroyed me.
Posted by: clinteas | December 15, 2008 8:46 AM
Sven @ 439 ,
This blog and SIWOTI will be the end of my social life someday soon LOL
This was effectively refuted upthread already,I cant be bothered to repeat it,read the posts !
The guy threw a shoe at Bush,who invaded his country.Finding this a rather appropriate and understandable reaction in the context of this man's cultural background does not equal condoning violence in public discourse in general,when will people get their head around that?
The guy made a point,and it was a point well made ! In 5 years,when you think of the Bush years,thats whats going to come into your mind first.Brilliant !
Posted by: SC, OM | December 15, 2008 8:50 AM
Gosh, I wonder if that has anything to do with the US and British governments orchestrating coups to oust democratically-elected leaders like Mossadeq, putting dictatorial puppets in their place, and propping up those brutal regimes for decades; helping to bring Saddam Hussein and others to power and then excusing their crimes for years while they were considered allies; assisting in the murder of leftists and dissenters; invading a country illegally using the rhetoric of Western democracy and then violating human rights and leaving in place laws against union rights;...
Nah.
Posted by: Logicel | December 15, 2008 8:51 AM
In Canada, we throw cream pies at our leaders.
_______
Where's a Shoo Fly pie when you need one?
http://www.cdkitchen.com/recipes/recs/38/Shoo_Fly_Pie419.shtml
I am in complete agreement with #216, Clinteas:
This is essentially a gesture,a non-violent demonstration of dissent.
If either the Pope or Bush was within spitting distance of me, they would be covered with spittle to the point that they would not be able to breathe.
Some years ago, someone spat at Chirac and the spitter was not arrested; my French neighbor said that if something similar was done to Bush, the protester would have been arrested. I did not want to accept that truth at that time, but she was right.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 15, 2008 8:55 AM
neg @ #455,
Of course you do.
(phenomenon)
Posted by: bunnycatch3r | December 15, 2008 8:56 AM
Congratulations to the pitcher and to President Bush. Those shoes were thrown very hard and with an accuracy better than I could accomplish. However, it was undone by our president's quickness and agility. I doubt any other of our recent presidents (including Kennedy) could have dodged those shoes.
Posted by: ianimaru | December 15, 2008 8:57 AM
he throw both of his shoes :D
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 15, 2008 9:02 AM
Just imagine if that was Ford up there
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 9:11 AM
Frederik Rosenkjær,
I certainly would like to encourage it, but I'd like to be quite specific about the "act" :"Throwing a shoe from a distance of minimum 5 meters in order to insult the leader of a nation that illegally invaded another country, causing several hundred thousand unnecessary deaths, and destroying that country's infrastructure and economy."
Posted by: Randy | December 15, 2008 9:24 AM
I have to say this shows your hypocritical side PZ. Your current post complains about "evil" thugs but here you are endorsing an attack on the President of the US. I guess all those angry Catholics should take this as an "open season" on PZ then? I guess you should watch out for flying shoes (or roary?).
Posted by: clinteas | December 15, 2008 9:28 AM
Retard
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 15, 2008 9:30 AM
Yes, they're exactly the same.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 15, 2008 9:32 AM
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 15, 2008 7:10 AM
"I've smoked pot for 35 years and I'm far more seriously addicted to this damn blog."
I'm in the same predicament. I can stop smoking as needed for family, travel, work, etc. and never even notice the difference. I've gone years without it. The only ill effects I have experienced are falling asleep during a bad movie, the cravings for chocolate and a desire for hot sex with my wife... um , wait... that's not "ill"... it's what I call enjoying the great sensual pleasures of life and making the most of my time by catching up on some zzzzz.
On the other hand I'm on this site until way past bedtime. Especially considering it's 3 hours later here than NYC and 6 more than LA. Even now I should be buried deep in research on some new projects.
Must. Tear. Myself. Away. Now.
Maybe if I smoke a joint it will help...
Posted by: Graculus | December 15, 2008 9:34 AM
Not too many descendants of Tories around these days.
Well, quite a few of them became refugees, and settled in Canada. Which is one of main reasons the US propaganda effort failed so miserably in 1812. That and the French. Quebec may be a very large pain in the ass, but it's *our* pain in the ass.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 9:36 AM
SC,
Because it's true!
Nah, just felt like pulling the legs of a few Brits and Americans who've demonstrated that phenomenon. Some of us frogs can be pretty good at it too, and that makes me particularly angry.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 15, 2008 9:40 AM
George W. Bush was beaten to death by a gang of thugs armed with baseball bats? When did this happen? You'd think it would be on all the news shows.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 15, 2008 9:44 AM
No no no you've got it all wrong PZ. Having a shoe thrown at you is exactly the same as being beaten to death with a bat. The second shoe is like being targeted for being gay even if you aren't. Just like bush.
See, it's so simple.
Posted by: Brett | December 15, 2008 9:45 AM
I don't think it's right to use violence just because you don't agree with someone. I'm surprised you think this guy is brave.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 15, 2008 9:45 AM
Imagine the international media if the shoe had hit ... *thud* ... [rewind] ... *thud* [rewind] ... *thud* ...
Might have saved the economy, we'd have had to buy new DVRs, TIVOs, VCRs, etc., after burning them out watching it over and over again.
Anyone else see a Saturday Night Live skit in the making?
Posted by: t_p_hamilton | December 15, 2008 9:47 AM
"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!"
Dubya's skill at ducking at press conferences is from ducking so many questions.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 15, 2008 9:50 AM
With out a doubt.
May even bring Will Ferrel back to play bush.
Posted by: clinteas | December 15, 2008 9:51 AM
First part of your statement,I couldnt agree more !
However,throwing a shoe,which equals flinging an insult in this guy's culture,is not violence.
Second part of what you said...I must have missed that in the posts.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 15, 2008 9:55 AM
Possibly the moral blindness exhibited by many posters here (Oh, so uncivil to hurl a shoe at the guy who invaded and occupied your country!) is a symptom of history; neither the UK nor the US has suffered invasion for several centuries. People here in the UK still mistake "We will fight them on the beaches..." for an actual plan rather than morale-boosting rhetoric. Very few people in the anglo-saxon world have thought that hard about what your country being occupied really means.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 9:57 AM
Brett, #474
"I don't think it's right to
use violencethrow a shoe at someone just becauseyou don't agree with someone.he is the leader of a nation that illegally invaded your country, causing several hundred thousand unnecessary deaths, and destroying your country's infrastructure and economy. I'm surprised you think this guy is brave."Did I understand you correctly ?
Posted by: Catalin Sandu | December 15, 2008 9:58 AM
What can I say -- it's not that poor guy to blame; Bush started it all when he ran for president a while ago. I hope they won't make journalists take out their shoes at press conferences from now on, like in the airports.
Posted by: peter | December 15, 2008 10:00 AM
Walton @ 424
Nick Gott's mouth-foaming in this thread is known in the trade as displacement anger. In the UK, the Iraq war was Blair's war, for which all those who made him what he was must take responsibility, i.e. the Guardian, the BBC, Nick Gotts. Bush at least had the sense to get others to lie for him, whereas Blair lied personally and strongly.
But, credit where credit is due: I feel a strong sense of gratitude to people like Gotts: if a Conservative government had done what Blair and Brown did, London would have been burnt to the ground by now - we owe it to the left-wing hypocrites that their anger is so selective. So poor Bush has to take the rap, whereas Gordon Brown, much closer to home, gets off scot (ho-ho) free.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 15, 2008 10:00 AM
C'mon people, it was a SHOE
Replace it with a snowball, a bag of dog excrement, etc. You people are acting as if Bush's life was in danger, that he narrowly missed serious harm or disfigurement. He narrowly missed a "boo boo." The important thing, and what makes Zaidi brave, is the fact that, in his culture, to do this is a grave insult. He stood up, knowing that there was no way in the world he was getting away with it unharmed, made his statement, threw the shoes, and went down swinging. As has already been mentioned, the guy is likely getting the crap beaten out of him right now. The odds of him surviving this incident are relatively slim
It was a symbolic act that expressed a message without any real chance of the target of that message being hurt. Rather than the phony concern over "Bush's safety," and fake outrage over the "violence," you should have very real outrage that the office of the President has sunk so low that the current occupant has earned a symbolic poo flinging.
Posted by: BS | December 15, 2008 10:05 AM
Does throwing your shoes at someone count as civil discourse? Does it count as discourse at all? Whether it counts as a statement or an act of violence depends on the intentions of the shoe thrower, I suppose. But can't one make a statement by means of an act of violence? So (as if a series of rhetorical questions counts as an argument) no, throwing shoes at someone is not an act of civility; but it might still be the right thing to do -- or at least not the wrong thing -- all things considered.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 15, 2008 10:08 AM
But PZ, according to some here they are equivalent because "2 wrongs don't make a right." Shoes thrown across a room, baseball bat slams on the head and body at close range... what's the difference when they are both apparently "wrong?"
Posted by: culmastadm | December 15, 2008 10:08 AM
I hope that she throwing reporter feels the pain from that tackle for a long time.
If the same man would have dared to throw a shoe at Saddam, he would have been executed on the spot.
But, I'm guessing he knew that he has that "liberty" now.
That being said, how can you miss throwing a shoe at an old man. Did you see Bush dodge that first one?
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 10:10 AM
Peter #481,
Peter had a dream this morning. In it, he imagined that Gordon Brown or Tony Blair had been thrown a shoe by Al Zaidi and that PZ posted it on his blog, and that Nick Gotts and other nasty liberals were outraged at this act.
Then he came on this blog and told us about his fabulation.
Posted by: Sven DiMIlo | December 15, 2008 10:16 AM
Don't you people ever read Heathcliff? Throwing shoes is the time-honored method for asking an annoying cat to shut the fuck up.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 15, 2008 10:20 AM
Come on wingnuts...
Either Saddam was deposed and the reporter now has the right to throw the shoes, end of story. Or else he was deposed and still doesn't have the right. You can't have it both ways by claiming he has the right but deserves to be body slammed or incarcerated anyways.
Wingnut logic... there isn't any.
Posted by: karen | December 15, 2008 10:31 AM
I'm all for the campaign of sending one shoe to W. Alas, I just threw out a whole bunch of shoes that my cat had peed on in my closet! They would have been perfect!
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 10:32 AM
Culmastadm @485 would rather have this journalist tortured for a long time than executed on the spot, that would be too Saddam-the-incredibly-eeevil-man-like.
What about torturing him first, then judging him, then executing him. Would you think that is more appropriate in view of the heinous crime he has committed against your oh- so-cherished-leader ?
Posted by: TOO FUNNY | December 15, 2008 10:34 AM
It's especially ironic, since there's that funny video
"Boot to the Head"
and the Bush video seems an IRL enactment of said video. At least a little.:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFldBVWFgWo
Posted by: Adam | December 15, 2008 10:36 AM
Please, throw shoes! This is just the sort of nonviolent (or at least, nonfatal) protest and confrontation we need to see more of in the country. Pissed at the Americans, throw a shoe at them! Fighting with someone from a different religious sect? Throw a shoe at them. Just don't set off a bomb.
Although, when trying to insult someone from another culture, you might want to try an action that they actually find insulting and not vaguely amusing.
Posted by: Diagoras | December 15, 2008 10:55 AM
Civility? What does that even mean? Is it the same thing as the "respect" that the religious demand? Because if it means playing the unquestioning-deference-tea-party game - I think I'm pretty well justified in the utterence of "Aw hells, no."
In my life, I have attempted the polite manner of doing things. In first grade, for instance, I asked my teacher to use the restroom. I told her I was going to puke, and for some reason, she doubted my sincerity. So I insisted that I really, really, needed to go. Please. She told me to go back to my desk. I did. Still felt the urge to empty my stomach, so I walked to her desk and asked again, politely. Please. She didn't allow me to go. My stomach rebelled against her decision, and I threw up on her. Bits of partially digested peaches and fish sticks on her shoes.
Sometimes asking politely doesn't get you the things you need. It's a good thing to be civil. A lot of times, it does work. But when civil discourse fails - and it does fail often - there are a number of other options. I could have chosen to sit at my desk, thrown up there on my own stuff - but I will tell you, I never had to ask twice to use the restroom again.
I don't know al Zaidi's story. I don't know if civil discourse was a good choice among his many options. I know that Iraq in a civil war is no great place to live, and the US is camped out there now, and W is the president of that country. Commander in chief of country that has condoned and used torture. I am not the monarch of moral high ground mountain, judging al Zaidi's actions in absolutist terms of black and white. This was a grey decision, among other grey and darker grey options - but, it was a grey that made me laugh.
Posted by: maureen | December 15, 2008 10:55 AM
Adam,
The world does not begin and end in the US. The throwing of the shoes will be well understood by everyone over 7 in the Middle East, by quite a few in Europe and by the world news followers in the rest of the world.
George Bush was clearly not the intended audience if after more than six years of planning and fighting he still knows nothing of the country he invaded.
Don't worry, though, the people who did understand the message will be laughing about this for decades. Just go back into your burrow and pretend the rest of the world does not exist.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 15, 2008 11:01 AM
This would make great idea for a new carnival or school fundraiser game:
"Shoe Bush! Don't Bother me."
Someone in a carny booth wears a Bush mask standing at a podium. People pay a buck for 2 shots with a pair of shoes. "Bush" can dodge and duck as long as his hands don't leave their grip on the podium.
My guess is that it would raise more money than all the other booths combined.
Posted by: windy | December 15, 2008 11:02 AM
To whom? Lactose intolerants?
Posted by: Frederik Rosenkjær | December 15, 2008 11:05 AM
I would like to hear more from the people who thought this behaviour is condonable.
Where do you draw the line?
It seems to me the only reasonable place where an act of violence is not serving a "practical" purpose such as self-defense. I guess this question only applies to those who have no problem defining this act as "violence" (which I do) yet still condone it.
How much or little evil must someone have done before it's not okay to throw a shoe at them? What about a cream pie? Etc.
Posted by: Sven DiMIlo | December 15, 2008 11:09 AM
What about a baseball?
What about a tennis ball?
What about a pong-pong ball?
What about a beanbag?
What about a bean?
Etc.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | December 15, 2008 11:12 AM
Adam said:
Perhaps if he'd thrown a couple of pretzels?
Posted by: CosmicTeapot | December 15, 2008 11:12 AM
So it was Nick Gotts (along with the BBC and the Gaurdian) who made Tony Blair what he was.
Nick, you bastard. So it's all your fault.
And did peter just intimate Tony Blair was left wing?
Posted by: Randy | December 15, 2008 11:16 AM
From #471
Please PZ, my opinion of you is in a nose dive. I thought you were above this kind of sniveling.
"George W. Bush was beaten to death by a gang of thugs armed with baseball bats? When did this happen? You'd think it would be on all the news shows."
No he wasn't PZ and that wasn't the point and you know it. Lets look at your ACTUAL post and not the "qoute mining" your feebly attempting. The first and last sentences doom your argument.
"America is kind of a land of thugs, isn't it?" and, wait for it...
"If anyone wants to talk about civilized behavior, this isn't it."
Hmmm, then you screw the cephalopod by saying this:
"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?"
Throwing shoes or hitting with a baseball bat its still assault and what did you say about civilized behavior?
If anyone wants to talk about civilized behavior, this isn't it.
George W. Bush was beaten to death by a gang of thugs armed with baseball bats? When did this happen? You'd think it would be on all the news shows.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 15, 2008 11:20 AM
Surely he has the support of the Zapatistas.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 15, 2008 11:20 AM
@497: so throwing shoes = horrifying violence, not to be condoned. But invading and occupying Iraq? Bush gets a pass for that?
Posted by: mayhempix | December 15, 2008 11:22 AM
Randy | December 15, 2008 11:16 AM
"Please PZ, my opinion of you is in a nose dive."
For some reason I really don't think PZ gives a flying shoe about what Randy thinks...
not that Randy really thinks that much to begin with.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 15, 2008 11:24 AM
I'm sure he's trying to take it in stride
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | December 15, 2008 11:28 AM
Thousands of Iraqis are demonstrating for al-Zaidi's release from
torturepolice custody: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7783608.stm.Posted by: Sven DiMIlo | December 15, 2008 11:29 AM
SC: Please do not clog this thread with foreign-language shoe-puns. That kind of sabotage is not appreciated.
Posted by: MartinH | December 15, 2008 11:35 AM
I wonder if at least some of those with multiple houses keep them at rather low occupancy rates. Perhaps these houses also widely distributed in space. People with such a large footprint would understandably be horrified at the idea of throwing shoes.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 15, 2008 11:37 AM
"Surely he has the support of the Zapatistas."
And the Arch-bishop of Canterbury.
Posted by: Frederik Rosenkjær | December 15, 2008 11:40 AM
@497: so throwing shoes = horrifying violence, not to be condoned. But invading and occupying Iraq? Bush gets a pass for that?
Throwing shoe does not equal "horrifying violence", but that doesn't mean it's not wrong and not to be condoned.
When did I say Bush should get a pass for his crimes? People don't read what I write. Deal with that the right way. This is not the right way and compromising this is to disrespect the principles that have built the civil society most of us here enjoy very much.
Posted by: AJ Milne | December 15, 2008 11:42 AM
Okay. That was just awesome.
I remain impressed with the intense fear of footwear the Fighting Blogger Brigade(TM) seems to exhibit, here...
Accordingly, I'm waiting for the apologists for random warfare against tyrants of convenience to morph the justification of the war yet one more time. I figure the narrative 'll go somethin' like this, now:
a) We are invading because Saddam was involved in the September 11 attacks ... (BKSPC BKSPC BKSPC...)
b) Erm. No. Our bad. PR office fumble, y'know. Typos. What we meant to say was: we are invading because Saddam is hiding weapons of mass destruction... (BKSPC BKSPC BKSPC...)
c) Scratch that. That's 'to spread freedom'. Yeah. That's the ticket...
(BKSPC BKSPC BKSPC...)
d) Sorry. Us again. What we meant to say was: the invasion of Iraq was carried out responsibly and in good faith by a genuine international coalition of the willing because we have received reliable intelligence that a large number of Iraqis may, in fact, possess footwear of mass destruction. Currently, Operation Desert Shoehorn is underway and on track. Our plan is to reduce Iraq's growing and menacing capacity to construct and distribute shoes, boots, and other sundry leather-based threats to the peace of the civilized world by interdicting attempts by militant foreign shoemakers to enter the country--besides generally reducing the entire region to a smoking ball of rubble...
Furthermore, in a show of good faith and international solidarity, we also plan to trash our own economy to the point where it is unlikely any of our own citizenry will be able to afford shoes either.
Think of it as a bilateral deshodding. White house press office out.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 15, 2008 11:45 AM
Nike just came out with a new self-guided model.
The all-purpose Tracking Shoe.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 15, 2008 11:52 AM
He should have used wingtips. They have better lift and accuracy.
Posted by: Kemist | December 15, 2008 11:56 AM
There are two organisations which throw pies to offending politicians and public figures (see entartage. The first one is based in France, the second one in Quebec (Canada).
Among their most well known victims are Bill Gates (whom didn't sue his "attackers" by the way), Ségolène Royal (leader of the leftmost party in France; she sued), Jean Chrétien (former prime minister of Canada). Most take it quite humorously.
Is it an act of violence ? I don't think so, except so far as wounding an ego or image is an act of violence. And your image does not suffer too much if you just smile it off, rather than show yourself to be an officious prick who gets all flushed with self-importance.
How much evil to warrant that ? None as such. If you're a public figure, and you do things that some people find objectionable, it's pretty stupid to be surprised that they show their disapproval. Jean Chrétien did nothing as patently evil as start an unjustified war. We even miss him now that we're stuck with "There-no-economic-crisis" Harper.
Why not civil discourse, do you ask ? Because it simply doesn't work. We live in an image based society. People have shown, vehemently, their disapproval of the Iraq war on blogs, newspaper, public demonstrations and most importantly, vote. The war's still on, and many americans (and others) just go on to ignore it, comfortably thinking that Iraq was "liberated".
Iraqis do not even get that much. A question, or public opinion piece, can be safely ignored, and even if it is not, won't be noted because in today's media, based on fast images, it's boring. A thrown shoe (or pie), however, gets on TVs (and blogs) all around the world, and is much better that the alternative, which would have been an attempt on his life. It's an unmistakable message from the iraqi people that they don't feel "liberated" at all.
Posted by: Randy | December 15, 2008 11:59 AM
My point is simple:
If PZ were attending a talk somewhere and the enraged Catholics decidied his "desecration" had gone on long enough decided to throw shoes. What are the chances PZ would be on his blog enraged himself decrying the "uncivilized barbarism" the Catholics displayed in the "unwarrented attack on his person".
Go farther as someone earlier suggested. The shoes don't work. They aren't being listened to. PZ is continuing his dispicible acts. Hmmm, firebomb time. A stretch, probably, but look at the abortion clinic protestors. Every once in awhile one decides a bomb is a good idea "to get heard". Its called escalation. Condeming one act of violence while glorifing another (yes it was a shoe, go back to sleep mayhempix) is hypocritical. Period. The end.
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | December 15, 2008 12:07 PM
I swear, the whole "How lovely that he can throw a shoe and not be killed, which he would under Saddam! Thus, Bush is a saint!" talking point is the new "You can attack Christians because we're nice and fluffy, but you'd NEVER do that to Muslims."
The conservatives seem to be all over this new, uh, "argument" like a wet suit on an evangelist.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 15, 2008 12:08 PM
Posted by: Randy | December 15, 2008 11:59 AM
"My point is simple"
-Oh, the irony.
"Go farther as someone earlier suggested. The shoes don't work. They aren't being listened to. PZ is continuing his dispicible acts. Hmmm, firebomb time. A stretch, probably, but look at the abortion clinic protestors. Every once in awhile one decides a bomb is a good idea "to get heard". Its called escalation."
-Randy has just defined the Domino Shoe Theory...
and we all know how the true all of the past Domino theories turned out to be.
Posted by: MPhil | December 15, 2008 12:08 PM
P.Z.,
I agree with your general sentiment.
One point of critique, though:
Call me an idealist, but I still think that the life of an Iraqi person isn't worth less than the life of a US citizen, so that the tragic, unnecessary deaths of so many US soldiers still pales in comparison to the tens of thousands of deaths of people who did not sign up willingly for combat operations and knew what could happen.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 12:09 PM
Randy,
are you seriously equating PZ's cracker desecration with Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq, causing several hundred thousand unnecessary deaths, and destroying this country's infrastructure and economy ?
Posted by: mayhempix | December 15, 2008 12:10 PM
Strap Imelda Marcos to your chest and voila!
A suicide shoe bomber.
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | December 15, 2008 12:10 PM
#516
"If PZ were attending a talk somewhere and the enraged Catholics decidied his "desecration" had gone on long enough decided to throw shoes. What are the chances PZ would be on his blog enraged himself decrying the "uncivilized barbarism" the Catholics displayed in the "unwarrented attack on his person"."
Yeah, that's a great comparison, Randy. Because as we all know, PZ has also gotten us into a pointless and costly war and boned our economy. Surely he deserves a boot to the head as much as the next war criminal!
Idiot.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 15, 2008 12:11 PM
I for one am still waiting for the other shoe to drop
Posted by: Diagoras | December 15, 2008 12:11 PM
Is this where I point up to 497, Frederik Rosenkjær? It doesn't say anything like what you've quoted. I, for one, don't agree there are common rules held by the whole world as to what "civil society" entails. What is polite one place is the height of rudeness down the block. There is no one common "right way" to live. In fact, many conflicts stem from trying to impose one way - your way - on other peoples.
Bush will likely get a free pass - if you don't count his approval rating as he leaves office. So, being a person aware that Bush, in charge of a group of people who don't understand your culture, and have bombed and bungled their way into a civil war - not following any of the rules of conflict recognized by their peers in the international community - and have killed people you knew. This person, Bush, is doing a victory lap in your backyard, while playing the cutesy ignoring-the-reporters'-questions style of press conference he's so fond of - I don't think shoe-tossing is so unreasonable.
Posted by: Rúnar | December 15, 2008 12:12 PM
@511 Fredrik Rosenkjær:
I completely agree with you. Unless done in self-defense or to prevent the harming of others, violence can not be tolerated. To me it's a matter of principles. If you applaud and accept acts of violence based on the dislike of certain individuals, I feel that you are moving dangerously close to a lynch mob mentality.
Posted by: Kemist | December 15, 2008 12:15 PM
Ah, come on. It was a shoe. You think normal people often go easily from, insult, spit, shoe or pie-throwing to outright murder ?
Are you nuts ?
Let's put that whole scene in a schoolyard. A bully taunts you with insults and finally pushes you on the floor. You go to the teacher, who keeps ignoring it.
You seriously think that throwing poo to the little prick, with the intent to humiliate him into stopping his actions, is an action that will finally lead to you bashing his skull open with a baseball bat ?
Once again, are you nuts ?
Posted by: MikeM | December 15, 2008 12:24 PM
I'll say this without the slightest qualification: Muntadar al-Zeidi is solidly in my "Heroes" column.
I think he showed restraint. A million or so dead Iraqis, 4 million or so refugees, a country torn apart, and all this Iraqi did was INSULT the architect of it all. It wasn't assault; it was the moral equivalent of me flipping Bush off. That's all it was.
I think it's perfectly fine, even an understatement, to insult such leaders. Bush had it coming.
And I call bullshit on this statement: "The ratio of magnitudes of these wrongs doesn't enter into it." I think my reasons for calling bullshit on it should be evident from my comments in my preceeding paragraphs.
I went to the Sacramento Bee website to see how their readers are reacting. They think this was great. It's nearly unanimous.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 15, 2008 12:24 PM
-"I for one am still waiting for the other shoe to drop."
I'm afraid you'll have to toe the line for a long, long time.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 15, 2008 12:28 PM
I guess this means that Bush was the sole survivior of the incident.
(My apologies to anyone I may have missed who posted this earlier in the thread.)
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 12:34 PM
One more, gee :
Runár,
It's not an "act of violence", but "throwing a shoe accross a room as an insult".
It's not "dislike of certain individuals", but "the fact that an individual invaded your country, caused several hundred thousand unnecessary deaths, and destroyed your country's infrastructure and economy."
Can some people here please stop making these pathetic equations.
Posted by: Randy | December 15, 2008 12:37 PM
#520
No I wasn't. I was actually refering to the death threats PZ proudly waved around following the affair. This idiot has just one question, how many serious death threats does it take to make a corpse? Death threats are just fun and games when laughed at on a blog. I guess escalation is a concept you can't understand and easier to laugh at.
PS-ask a fanatic Catholic if the cracker is worth killing for.
Posted by: Count Nefarious | December 15, 2008 12:46 PM
ndt@317:
His whole administration is responsible. Congress is responsible. Blair and Blair's Labour cabinet are responsible. Even the US and British soldiers are in no small way responsible. ("What would happen if they called a war and nobody came?")george.w@271
Taking this reasoning to its logical conclusion:If the police went on strike, and if I were then to kill someone and steal his/her stuff, I would be only "partially responsible". The police would be "fully responsible", assuming they knew that their going on strike would result in a drastic surge in criminal activities.
You're probably going to say this is a strawman, but I honestly think this is the correct logical implication of your statement.
It just doesn't cut the mustard. People (including Iraqis) are responsible for their own actions. If the authorities are swept away, we are not suddenly less responsible for the murders we commit.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 12:49 PM
Randy,
now you're equating the shoe-throwing with a death threat or, in the case of a fanatic Catholic, actual murder.
Methinks your head is escalating a bit too much.
Posted by: Diagoras | December 15, 2008 12:52 PM
@ Negentropyeater -
You know, though, if the reporter had thrown the pretzels discussed supra, would that have been the equivalent of a death threat?
Posted by: Frederik Rosenkjær | December 15, 2008 12:53 PM
negentropyeater #520:
Randy,
are you seriously equating PZ's cracker desecration with Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq, causing several hundred thousand unnecessary deaths, and destroying this country's infrastructure and economy ?
I can't answer for Randy, but I'll offer my own answer:
You don't get it at all. We're not trying to weigh off one with the other. It doesn't matter. We're saying that certain actions are objectionable no matter what.
This I believe to be a key element the rules that have made our societies; that they must not under any circumstances be broken. You don't take matters into your own hands. Period.
Now, some people feel that these rules can be bent under the right conditions but to me that is misunderstanding an extremely important part of the rules. If the rules can be bent then all bets are off. Who gets to decide when and how to bent them? Slippery slope.
This is, however, what PZ has done, and this is what worries me. Not Zaidi. Not Iraqis. But PZ's statement. Made on American soil where American (AKA Western Civilized) rules should be observed. Not Iraqi customs and rules.
Posted by: Rúnar | December 15, 2008 12:57 PM
@530 negentropyeater:
So throwing object at someones head is equivalent with displaying your middle finger?
My main point is that it doesn't really matter if it's "justified" in the sense that Bush is an ass. It is still wrong to encourage stuff like this, because it sends the message that violence and aggresive behaviour is OK as long as it's against "bad people".
Richard Dawkins has probably turned several hundred of people into atheists. An act that to a believer means he has ensured that they will suffer an eternity of torture. Throwing a shoe at him seems like a small and justified retribution.
But of course we all know that Bush really is responsible for the war in Iraq, whereas Dawkins really have done people a favour. But others don't share our view, and by applauding violence you are contributing to a society where such things are OK as long as they are justified, giving you a harder time condemning the acts of loonies who think their views are the valid ones.
Posted by: Sven DiMIlo | December 15, 2008 12:59 PM
Suppose the guy had stood up, extended his right middle finger, and yelled, in English, "Fuck you, asshole!"
Would that have been against the rules?
What if he wrote "This is a good-bye kiss, you cur" neatly on a piece of paper, crumpled it into a wad and threw that at W?
Would that have been against the rules? (Where can I find a copy of these inviolate rules, by the way?)
Posted by: mayhempix | December 15, 2008 1:07 PM
"This is, however, what PZ has done, and this is what worries me. Not Zaidi. Not Iraqis. But PZ's statement. Made on American soil where American (AKA Western Civilized) rules should be observed. Not Iraqi customs and rules."
Yep. Concern troll.
Posted by: Kemist | December 15, 2008 1:08 PM
Slippery slope? From shoe (or pies) to murder ? From ridicule to death threats ? Is a clown act violent ?
Consider me very happy indeed that I don't live in US. I'm quite happy to live in a country where throwing a cream pie (or shoe) in somebody's face isn't considered on equal footing with lynching. It's a "civilized" (I'm actually wondering what that means, when the US considers invading another country without provocation and against international law civilized) western country, in case you're wondering.
Posted by: ndt | December 15, 2008 1:09 PM
That's not why Zaida did it. It's not that he doesn't agree with Bush, it's that Bush did evil acts to Zaida's country. Bush is the shoe-thrower's military enemy.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 15, 2008 1:11 PM
Not everything that people can agree with has to be outright heroic. I mean, please.
Does it even hurt to be hit by a shoe at such a distance? It wasn't a steel-tipped Doc Martin's, after all...
I'd have preferred a cream pie, but a shoe is within the realm of the ethically sustainable.
Evidence, please.
So what? I honestly don't see your point.
I'm not sure how much that even helped. It may, in sum, have been counterproductive.
Two crimes here: 1) packing ammo into a ship full of civilians; 2) sinking a ship full of civilians. It's an evil-against-evil situation.
I don't see why an act of war automatically can't be an act of terrorism. That doesn't make the slightest sense.
Why didn't the Busheviki bring them up a single time? Why did they make up accusations about WMD instead?
You are a strange person, Mr Kellogg, with a strange brain.
Except how to spell it, apparently. :-°
Then why didn't he officially start planning the day he was sworn in? And why hasn't he shown any sign of wanting to do the same thing to, say, North Korea?
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
When it seriously hurts or does any lasting damage (whichever comes first).
I mean... duh. :-|
Posted by: Frederik Rosenkjær | December 15, 2008 1:12 PM
@Sven DiMIlo:
Very easy. It's in this collection of rules we call the law, provided you live in any Western European country, the US, Canada and many other places. You may have heard of it.
Also defining what actions would be permissable is, ultimately, very easy: let the courts decide.
Ofcourse everyone will have their own thresholds in this regard, but I, for one, certainly think that Zaidi was doing way more than just "insulting", but this is really beside my main point.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 1:13 PM
No, one is a throwing a shoe at someone accross a room insult, the other a finger insult. Not the same level of insult.
There are different levels of insults, as there are different levels of violence and as there are different levels of crime.
I'd say Zaidi's insult is the highest level of insult, and it's in response to Bush's crime which is the highest level of crime
Posted by: Jeff | December 15, 2008 1:14 PM
I dislike Bush. I dislike policies. I hate we are in Iraq.
Still, I'm glad we have a President who can dodge a goddamn shoe. He's been an embarrassment to this country for far too long.
Finally, he's done something right.
Posted by: Lee Picton | December 15, 2008 1:21 PM
"ask a fanatic Catholic if the cracker is worth killing for"
Anyone who thinks a cracker is worth killing for is, to be polite, fucking nuts. No one has ever actually done such a thing. Oh wait...
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 15, 2008 1:23 PM
Laws and courts? Ah.
Ever hear of Martin Luther King Jr.?
Mahatma Gandhi?
Henry David Thoreau?
Or is it only laws about "violence" that must be obeyed? And who decides what constitutes "violence?" Can I throw a wad of paper at somebody? A tomato? Certainly not a shoe. A fuzzy slipper?
(Feel free to treat all this as rhetorical, since I don't really care that much.)
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 1:25 PM
Runár,
do you or anyone have any evidence that Dawkins has caused some people atrocious suffering ? Now ask yourself the same question about Bush.
And it's not because some lunatics equate the two that you need to defend them.
Posted by: Diagoras | December 15, 2008 1:25 PM
The idea that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act isn't one I, or the US legal system gets behind. Sorry Frederik Rosenkjær. In the US, certain acts aren't objectionable no matter what. Context of actions is weighed. Mens rea + actus reus. We look at the state of mind, mitigating circumstances, defenses, and exculpations. The law isn't black and white. Wishing doesn't make it so. The law recognizes the need for people to take situations into their own hands. It places limits on people's behavior, but looks at the stepping outside those limits in the context of the person's circumstances.
PZ, on American soil, is completely allowed by our societal norms to applaud a shoe or two being tossed at our lame duck. We don't live in a society that says things are "right" or "wrong" based on the action, rather than weighing the action in context.
Posted by: ndt | December 15, 2008 1:27 PM
Speaking for myself, I do consider it an act of violence - a fully justified and laudable act of violence by a citizen of an occupied country against a foreign aggressor. My only criticism of Zaida is that he threw shoes and not a grenade.
Posted by: Mikayla | December 15, 2008 1:29 PM
The more reserved part of me is saying, well, it's not right to throw things at people at news conferences or elsewhere.
The rest of me is cheering "woo-hoo!!". Sometimes words just don't cut it...the shoe got the point across nicely.
Posted by: ndt | December 15, 2008 1:30 PM
In case you missed it, the shoe-throwing incident happened in Iraq, where the laws were written by Paul Bremer for the benefit of the US oil industry. Iraqi citizens have no obligation to follow laws imposed on them by foreign powers.
Posted by: Nick | December 15, 2008 1:37 PM
The Iraqi people deserve to throw shoes at all of us. Bush is surely an idiot, but he's our idiot and we essentially rolled over while he did what he did. Bravo to the Iraqi journalist. It's unfortunate that Bush actually dodged the shoe, that would have been comedic gold.
Posted by: Kemist | December 15, 2008 1:38 PM
Ah, man, come on !
What did Zaidi intend by throwing his shoe ? Murder ? Concussion ?
Sure, when I intend to go and murder my neighbor, I go there armed with a deadly size-10 shoe.
We need to institute shoe-control laws people. No shoes for you until you go through a criminal background check. Oh, and we need to do the same for those deadly cream pies.
Will somebody think of the children !
Posted by: Dr. Strangelove | December 15, 2008 1:50 PM
I just watched some stupid woman call in to CNN Headline News to comment on this and said the reporter is "ungrateful for the american servicemen who are trying to help those people".
Yes I'm sure they enjoyed the bombings, the detaining of their loved one's in the night, the checkpoints, the american companies stealing their oil Blackwater murdering them. Yeah Bush was lucky it was just shoes. Good on the guy.
Posted by: Angel Kaida | December 15, 2008 1:51 PM
Like several of the posters here, I disagree very much with this post. I'm not going to say I lost respect for PZ because of it, because I didn't, and I'm definitely not going to defend Bush or say that he doesn't deserve to have shoes thrown at him. Sure, whatever. He's killed a lot of people. He and a lot of people in his administration should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity, and, if found guilty, jailed for life.
But I disagree with condoning violence. While al Zaidi's action was very clearly meant as a dire insult and not an assault, I consider throwing heavy things at people a violent act. Surely it's a mild one. I sympathize with his intentions, to the extent that I can (given that I, thankfully, have no experience with living in an occupied country), and I actually do think it was very brave. I also don't think his action was the right one, or that other people should do it. I think those opinions can coexist peacefully. I also think a lot of people here are allowing a very rightful and understandable hatred of Bush to supersede their more civilized and reasoned ideals (not all of the shoe-throwing-condoners, but those who are saying that it would be justice/right for Bush to be murdered horribly by x y z etc.).
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 1:52 PM
My grand-dad used to tell me sories about how during the occupation he would keep eggs for about 6 months until they got nice and smelly and then with some friends they'd go and shoot them at the heads of Germans, military and civilians.
My grand-dad actually did eventually throw more dangerous things at the German military and government officials.
For this he got the medal of the legion d'honneur.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | December 15, 2008 1:52 PM
John Scanlon FCD @ # 378: ... W. has had more practice ducking thrown objects than you might have supposed.
If you read about his upbringing by Barbara Bush, reportedly known within the dynasty as "she who must be feared", this and other aspects of Boy George's character will be clarified.
I've tried calling the White House comment line at 202-456-1111 to urge Dubious to call for the release of Muthathar al Zaidi, but get only a busy signal.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 15, 2008 2:01 PM
neg:
I evidently missed this earlier, but thanks for...
Posted by: savagemickey | December 15, 2008 2:03 PM
I can't help but think that this is the most fitting of endings to Bush's failed presidency. If he had been assassinated it would have lead to many problems, but this was just the right amount of non-violence with maximum insult. I would think that most of the world would have offered up their best patent leathers. Bush just laughed it off and said he wasn't bothered by it. I think that has been his problem from the start, he's not bothered by how his actions have affected so many people.
Posted by: Kemist | December 15, 2008 2:08 PM
That, you see, is where that so-called line is.
Grenade = death(s), real wounds = violence
I, for one, wouldn't condone that. I might have understood the reason for it (the guy invaded his country, killing thousands of people, probably some he knew), but I would find it quite sad rather than laudable.
On the other hand:
thrown shoe (or pie) = maybe slight real bruise, mostly ego bruising = ridicule
Is an acceptable way to make your disapproval heard. Nobody gets hurt except Mr. Bush's (and maybe some americans') ego. I find it laudable because it actually shows restraint while being quite efficient at showing disapproval. It's not, you will note, how the insurgents show their disapproval of the american presence in Iraq. All in all, I think most troops in Iraq would rather get a few shoes feably thrown at them by journalists and students rather than suicide bombers.
Also, I would be deeply worried if ridicule and insult suddenly become unacceptable ways of expressing your disapproval of politicians in western, so-called civilized nations.
Posted by: ndt | December 15, 2008 2:09 PM
I don't think anyone here is saying that. I don't think it would be right for Bush to be murdered. It would be right for him to be killed as an act of war by the people he made war on.
Americans should be trying to impeach and convict Bush. Iraqis should be trying to kill him.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 2:11 PM
Can all the anti-shoe-throwing people in this thread at least say as a preambule to their comments that they have no fucking clue what it feels like to live in an occupied country nor are they capable of imagining it ?
For example, they can't even imagine what the French, Belgians, Dutch, Poles, etc... must have felt like when they were occupied by the Germans. That's too difficult to imagine.
And what about the Vietnamese or Algerians when they were occupied by the French. Also too difficult.
Or the Iraqi who are still being occupied by the Americans. Also difficult.
So if you can't imagine any of this, why are you commenting about the action of this Iraqi journalist ?
Posted by: ndt | December 15, 2008 2:13 PM
That reminds me of an incident that happened after the end of the Cold War. Russia was pulling it's troops out of Czochoslovakia - and the Russian government wanted monetary compensation from Czechoslovakia for the bases they were vacating.
There are still Americans who think we did the Iraqi people a favor and that they should be grateful. It's sickening, really.
Posted by: ndt | December 15, 2008 2:15 PM
I meant its not it's. Someone throw a shoe at me, or at least a grammar reference book.
Posted by: Angel Kaida | December 15, 2008 2:21 PM
Er... negentropy eater, that would go ahead and apply to the shoe-throwing condoners too. I think everyone present is perfectly qualified to offer an opinion on the matter, and on the question of whether PZ (a person whose context a lot of us probably have a much easier time imagining) should be condoning it. I don't think that the fact that someone is in a terrible situation means that their actions are no longer subject to the moral judgment of other people.
Posted by: Anton Mates | December 15, 2008 2:23 PM
Frederik,
Well, except you're not saying that, because you already said actions like these are justifiable if for "a 'practical' purpose such as self-defense." Evidently you think there can be good reasons to lob your shoes at someone--you just disapprove of al-Zaidi's reasons.
Posted by: Ian | December 15, 2008 2:23 PM
"Two wrongs don't make a right."
But three lefts do....
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 2:24 PM
Bill,
I go even further, Bush did this war because he needed to keep the credit bubble from arriving at its Minsky moment in 2002. His economists new that, there were already dangerous signs of it exploding. He needed a war to keep it growing for at least 8 years. Too bad for him, the Minsky moment arrived just a few months before the end of his term.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 15, 2008 2:26 PM
Damn! More blockquote fail (@558)! I know I didn't leave the close tag out; must've made a typo within it. I seem to be doing that more often; I hope I haven't had some sort of intracranial event...
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 15, 2008 2:32 PM
ROTFL! There were three Trotskyist parties just a few years ago, and I see ads by at least one Revolutionary Left Party all the time... Leftmost big party, sure, but small parties can't be ignored over here the way they can be in the USA.
Small. Very small, I think.
Remember how he reacted to his unflattering portrayal in Expelled!? He laughed. He laughed and laughed and laughed...
:-D
The slippery-slope argument is a logical fallacy. It's even listed in Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit.
Posted by: Kemist | December 15, 2008 2:34 PM
But...but...but... That would be violent. I mean, those books are heavy objects with pointy corners. It might poke an eye out.
I don't think he meant that you couldn't judge the act's morality. He was talking about americans who still thought that they did iraqis a favor by invading their country.
This is what we cannot really understand without being able to imagine living in an occupied country, not the shoe-throwing per se.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 2:37 PM
Angel Kaida :
Agreed, but then those people better understand what that terrible situation is before they emit their moral jusgement. Otherwise, that judgement is not worth more than an ignorant opinion.
Please read my post #556. What's your moral judgement on my Grand-dad ?
Posted by: Kemist | December 15, 2008 2:40 PM
lol. Fair enough. It also means extreme-right parties have their importance too (I remember last french election how Le Pen's party pushed the vote towards Sarkozi. My french collegues were quite mad about that).
Here in Canada, small parties don't mean much. I mean our lefmost party of any importance is the the NDP, but we do have a Marxist-Leninist party.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | December 15, 2008 2:43 PM
Bill Dauphin # @ 558: ... I don't think the lack of any strong move to counter Bush means Dems were acting like junior warmongers; I think it has more to do with them simply not being willing to believe Bush was quite that crazy...
So how do you (how can you) account for Nancy Pelosi's consistent obstruction for the last 23 months of the obvious Constitutional responsibility of the House of Representatives in the face of "high crimes and misdemeanors"?
Posted by: Zarquon | December 15, 2008 2:44 PM
Dammit you bastards, its Doc MartEn's!
Posted by: markman | December 15, 2008 2:45 PM
Whereas, I love Pharyngula AND don't always agree with everything that is said, this time the Professor has gone too far.
Throwing a shoe reminds me of the Austin Powers movie, where Austin remarks about the shoe thrown at him, "A shoe, really?!?! Come on."
Who gets to decide when throwing a shoe is justified?
Is it justified when a Professor mocks a religion and a person's deeply held beliefs by eating a cracker?
Is it justified when a Professor does not take an active enough role in:
- helping the poor
- stopping any war
- making vague claims as to helping mankind by studying squid, when there are greater direct benefits he could give by studying mankind, itself
- perventing a student from getting a bad grade
etc ad infinitum
The point isn't that I agree with any of the above as being justifiable (I don't). The point is somebody does.
Therefore, in the spirit of the Professors cracker idea,
I propose that anytime anybody is listening to the Professor - as in a class. talk or presentation - if you personally can come up with a justification that you believe merits a shoe throw, then you should do it.
Throw your shoe in such a way that it misses. I, as opposed to the Professor, don't want anybody getting hurt by this act.
However, if the Professor on his blog admits that he was being sarcastic, or more probably, just wrong, then please call off the attack of the shoes.
If the Professor does not, then I, at least, promise to use soft fuzzy slippers when I lob them at his ivory tower, so as not to hurt the man. I really like the blog.
Posted by: Angel Kaida | December 15, 2008 2:46 PM
@572,
Shooting things at the heads of civilians because they are of the wrong nationality is shitty teenage behavior, and you didn't explain too clearly about the more dangerous things he was throwing but it sounds like it was an act of war? Acts of war are also shitty, but that's because war is, and I wouldn't blame your grandfather for that. *shrug* And there are a lot of situations that I find unimaginable, other than living in an occupied country. Sometimes we have to do the best we can with the data we have.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 15, 2008 2:48 PM
Thread, meet winner.
:-D
Yeah, right.*
* Thus proving, as first observed by the linguist John C. Wells, that two positives make a negative.
Probably you're just more tired than usual. Also, "blockquote" is an astonishingly hard word to type.
Posted by: Angel Kaida | December 15, 2008 2:51 PM
"shitty teenage behavior"
I can't read. For some reason I had the impression that your grandfather was 16 and I missed the eggs being held for 6 months. I have no idea what got those two things mixed up.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 15, 2008 2:51 PM
My righteous indignation meter just exploded.
Posted by: bernard quatermass | December 15, 2008 2:51 PM
"making vague claims as to helping mankind by studying squid, when there are greater direct benefits he could give by studying mankind, itself"
... possibly the biggest turd in that post, though there are many competing.
Yes, let all biologists who dare to study "lower" forms of life just about face and do something else that is vaguely claimed to be superior.
Posted by: Peter | December 15, 2008 2:57 PM
Very interesting comments... Maybe we should ask: was the action of this journalist a violent act or a (culturally appropriate) act of protest? It was most likely a heartfelt act. In the last five years he must have seen a of of pain and agony in his country. Yes, most deaths were by the hand of fellow Iraqi's, but without Washington's decision to invade Iraq this civil war would not have been fought. Bush can joke about this protest - how distasteful! - but that man probably lost colleagues and relatives in this war. I know I would be pissed if people died around me.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 15, 2008 3:03 PM
Ouch. I committed a hypercorrectivism against my own memory. :-( I thought "'marten', as in 'cable-eating mustelid'?" and concluded that was unlikely...
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 15, 2008 3:07 PM
If you don't understand a squid, how can you ever hope to understand a mammal?
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | December 15, 2008 3:09 PM
This shoe thrower was a hero. Anyone conscious during the last 5 years, with an an ounce of human empathy, would see that. If you can't see it, you've absolutely lost all sense of proportion. Depend on it.
If I got within 20 feet of Bush ... I'd likely do nothing, despite my strong feelings. That guy had guts I just don't have. What a gloriously quixotic act! Respect.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 15, 2008 3:12 PM
Come on, how could Zaidi had thrown the second shoe? There had to be a second shoeman!!!
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 3:16 PM
Kemist,
It's not that they think that they are doing Iraqis a favour, it's that they don't seem to understand that many in an occupied country consider resitance to the occupying force a moral duty.
Maybe this shoe-throwing act is a polite way of reminding them. It could have been much worse.
Posted by: Kemist | December 15, 2008 3:17 PM
We science types would much rather have fun with human experimental subjects, but because of this pesky "ethics" stuff, we have to study boring things like rats and squids. [/pouts]
[disclaimer : I do not think squids are boring. Don't throw shoes at me !]
Where did Pr. Myers say that he wished for Mr. Bush to get hurt by the shoe ? I rather think he thought it right for Mr. Bush to get the insults he so richly deserves rather than be considered the good guy. Insult != violence
Good on you. Or, you could just come here and express your disappointment. See if that works.
Because you see, Mr. Bush doesn't have a blog on which Mr. al-Zaida could go and be heard expressing his contempt for Mr. Bush. Mr. Bush, and most americans, think they were right invading Mr. al-Zaida's country, and indeed that Mr. al-Zaida should be happy about it.
Posted by: Diagoras | December 15, 2008 3:18 PM
@ #572 negentropyeater
The problem with people like Angel Kaida is that context is not a consideration for them. They are creatures of moral absolutes.
For illustrative purposes - the notion that lying is wrong. For the moral absolutist - lying is wrong, regardless of context. No situation allows for a mistruth to be told without it being "bad." For those who don't subscribe to this mentality- lying is an acceptable response depending on the context. In the context of the law - lying under oath is punishable. Lying under oath because someone is compelling your testimony by threatening to kill your husband is duress, and is a mitigating factor, if not completely exculpatory. The absolutist would want both lying under oath sorts to face the same punishment, because both are "wrong" because lying is "bad."
Posted by: Angel Kaida | December 15, 2008 3:23 PM
@589,
What? Fuck off. I am absolutely not a moral absolutist.
Posted by: Kemist | December 15, 2008 3:30 PM
rofl. Pun or bad choice of words ? ;)
Posted by: Angel Kaida | December 15, 2008 3:33 PM
@591,
Bad joke to mitigate the tone of indignation...
Er, Kemist, while I'm talking to you, could you either go back on your claim that most Americans think we did the right thing in Iraq or (the much less desirable option) cite? Because ... I desperately want that not to be true.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 15, 2008 3:41 PM
In 1835, Richard Lawrence attempted to assainiate Andrew Jackson. He drew up a gun, pointed at Jackson and it misfired. The drew up second gun, pulled the trigger and it mifired. Legend has it Jackson began to beat his assialiant with his cane and his aides had to restrain him. Represntative Davy Crockett then helped restrain Lawrence.
In 2008, George W. Bush dodged two shoes.
Posted by: Diagoras | December 15, 2008 3:44 PM
Sorry cupcake. You are a moral absolutist on the subject of 'condoning violence.' If you get to say that someone's act is 'bad' because it was violent without regard to the circumstance - well - fuck you right back, princess. We, as a society, pardon a lot of violence based on the context. Sure - you're all manner of "sympathetic," you claim, but al Zaida is bad, and PZ is bad because he doesn't condemn the man for tossing a shoe or two at a guy.
Do you think some violence is perfectly peachy, sweetheart? Is there a circumstance where you would condone the action of one man throwing his shoe at another man?
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 3:45 PM
Angel Kaida,
yes my grand-dad enrolled in the resistance and actually killed a few German soldiers. That's how he got his medal.
And throwing eggs at German civilians ? I think that was very polite considering the gestapo was carrying "ordres de requisition" (sorry don't know the englsh term) on many small businesses, hotels, restaurants, shops, and German civilians were being put in place of French civilians.
No, you really seem to have difficulties to understand what an occupation feels like.
Posted by: Kemist | December 15, 2008 3:47 PM
Hmmm. Did some research, and actually, my spologies, that is not true anymore (although I'm finding that an over 30% approval, with the present state of things, rather disappointing...). It was true until about 2005.
source
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 15, 2008 3:50 PM
Bah, that's mainly the die hard republicans that wouldn't say a bad thing about their party or their party's people no matter what is going on.
Posted by: Rúnar | December 15, 2008 3:55 PM
negentropyeater:
"do you or anyone have any evidence that Dawkins has caused some people atrocious suffering ? Now ask yourself the same question about Bush.
And it's not because some lunatics equate the two that you need to defend them."
You're missing my point. I actually specified the difference between the two views(Dawkins, Bush). And the latter is obviously more justified.
To repeat what I actually mean: By applauding and accepting acts of violence(even if they are legit in your eyes), you are basically giving the message that violence and rudeness are ok, as long as they are "justified". What is considered justification varies from person to person, and people that think differently from you might consider it more OK to repeat such acts of violence in another setting, once the act itself has been condoned by people like yourself.
Like you I had a grandfather that was active in the resistance during ww2. He was an officer and the leader for the military opposition in the western parts of my country, while at the same time being a double agent, pretending to work for the gestapo. And like your grandfather, he certainly threw more dangerous objects than shoes at the germans. But what didn't do was engage in violent acts just for the sake of inflicting pain or injury.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 4:00 PM
Angel Kaida,
It's not that many Americans think that they are doing Iraqis a favour, most, such as yourself, don't.
It's that they don't seem to understand that many in an occupied country consider resitance to the occupying force a moral duty.
Maybe this shoe-throwing act is a polite way of reminding them. It could have been much worse.
Posted by: markman | December 15, 2008 4:02 PM
I fully admit I am trying to goad the scientists and hardline liberals with some of the comments.
I believe fully in basic science (including cephalopod research).
The point is, as a public figure, e.g. Bush, PZ, there will ALWAYS be people who are NOT crazy that will rabidly disagree with you.
The 'Shoe Thrower' was, undoubtedly, egregiously harmed by Bush's war, however, the act of courage in that room, as bitter as it is for me to say this, is for the head of the most powerful nation in the world to take questions from a free press.
The free press is Bush's blog. He has to answer to it everyday.
When we condemn the actions of the Shoe Thrower, we are protecting the role of the free press. The heads of government, professors, anybody in authority, should all have a reasonable expectation to be free from harm BUT NOT FREE FROM CRITICISM.
They should also not be free from the rule of law. Don't like what Bush did - then file a complaint for crimes against humanity. There is a system of accountability. Not a perfect system, but a reasonable one that can be modified.
Don't like the system and feel that it can't ever be modified by any other means, then declare a revolution. You could call your document the "Declaration of Independence." Just don't be surprised or indignant when well meaning people start throwing a lot more than shoes at you.
In the meantime, PZ's comments are grossly wrong, and he should retract them. Critical thinking can be a bummer.
Posted by: Angel Kaida | December 15, 2008 4:05 PM
@594,
Well, kind of, but in the situations I'd consider as justification for violence, throwing a shoe would probably be futile so I don't know how useful my condoning of it would be. There are survival situations where it's basically a question of acting now and figuring out whether what you did was moral later. And by the way, I did not say that either al-Zaidi (that's his name) or PZ was "bad." All I know about al-Zaidi is that he did a brave thing that I disagree with, and I already know PZ is awesome. I disagree with PZ's statement here because it amounts to condoning an act of violence and, in fact, encouraging future acts of violence. As a rule, I disagree with acts of violence, and it takes a lot to mitigate one - and I think that's okay. I think it's better to err on the side of nonviolence. It's not like my moral judgment is inflexible or like it's going to matter to the people involved - that's part of why it's not bothering me too terribly to discuss this without complete knowledge.
@595,
Politeness isn't the question here. Neither is sympathy. If I had the *courage* to do what the man did - to throw a shoe at an evil man who had killed people I knew, with the full knowledge that I would very likely be beaten and tortured for it - I would, and morality be damned. But I don't pretend that I'm a paragon of morality, so I don't consider the fact that *I might do the same in that situation* to make something moral. It's basically a question of what your sense of morality is based on, right? Mine's based on a certain set of principles, and when the principles conflict with each other or with emotion or (Cthulhu forbid!) with reality, I have to hack through and prioritize the best I can. That's complex reality for you, though - I think that's what we all end up doing.
Posted by: Angel Kaida | December 15, 2008 4:08 PM
Oh, and Diagoras, could you please stop calling me feminine and infantilizing names? Much as I enjoy pet names, in the context of argument I find it sort of sexist and offensive. Thanks.
Posted by: Dia | December 15, 2008 4:11 PM
Granted the reporter is not an American citizen. For those of us who are, I think the least that we can do is uphold our constitutional ideals. We don't police the content of expression, just the form it takes. If it's okay to throw shoes at Bush, it should be okay to throw shoes at anyone. That's what freedom of expression means. People do not get to decide for themselves who it is okay to throw shoes at. It's either an acceptable action or it isn't. If people feel that Bush ought to be held responsible for his actions, then, that's the reason we have courts. Punishments should be meted out in a systematic fashion by juries, not by individuals with grudges.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 15, 2008 4:18 PM
Pierce:
First, impeachment is an entirely separate question from whether the Iraq invasion can be laid at the feet of congressional Democrats. Neither Nancy Pelosi nor any other Dem was Speaker of the House in 2002, nor was any member of Congress from either party driving the invasion agenda. Even if we stipulate that the Dems are somehow culpable for failing to pursue impeachment (which they couldn't possibly have done 'til 2006), that doesn't make them culpable for the 2003 invasion, nor for the Charlie-Foxtrot that followed.
Next, impeachment is a political action, not law enforcement, and as such it must be judged according to political costs and benefits, not "justice," which is the province of some other forum. Impeachment doesn't punish crimes; all it does is remove the president from office. Even if they'd started on first working day of 2006, and even with the best possible combination of outcomes, it's unlikely they could've successfully removed Bush by any meaningful amount of time before the scheduled end of his term (Clinton's impeachment only progressed as "quickly" as it did because they knew all along they didn't have the votes to remove him). So impeachment would've accomplished the cubed root of fuck-all, while wiping out an entire session of Congress (and yes, even though they didn't meet unrealistic hopes of instantly ending the war or whistling up universal healthcare, the Congress did accomplish some good stuff). Plus which, the inevitable backlash against the attempt to summarily end Bush's second term might well have doomed Obama's campaign and ironically given us the de facto third term of the Bushmen. So tell me again why it's a bad thing Ms. Pelosi (who, after all, is a legislator, not a prosecutor) sidestepped this pyrrhic victory?
But further, it probably wouldn't have been a pyrrhic victory, but a pyrrhic defeat: Even if the Dems could somehow have scraped up enough votes in the House to bring charges, no way in Hell was there ever any hope of the Senate voting to remove Bush. With Joe LIEberman in place, the Dems probably couldn't have gotten a simple majority of guilty votes, let alone the required 2/3.
I've spoken to members of Congress who despise everything the Bush/Cheney regime stands for, but nevertheless didn't think impeachment was a prudent use of the Congress' time and political capital, and I tend to agree: I desperately hope there's some sort of justice for Bush (beyond the undying contempt in which he will certainly be held by history), but I want the federal government focused on repairing the damage he did, instead of meting out punishment while the untreated wounds go untreated.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 4:23 PM
Runár,
Do you really believe this journalist threw these shoes accross the room "just for the sake of inflicting pain or injury" ?
Posted by: Kemist | December 15, 2008 4:24 PM
But how can Mr. al-Zaida, an iraqi, ask for Mr. Bush's accountability ? He is not an american. He didn't vote that moron in. I didn't vote for that moron.
Lawyers, courts and law systems are pretty sarce when you're on the losing side of a war. You seriously think Bush and Cheney will one day get to visit the La Haie prison ? You're seriously deluded if you think so.
If I'd done what he did and the worse I got was people spitting and throwing a couple shoes at me, I'd consider myself quite lucky.
And why this level of indignation for a damn shoe thrown at a moronic president, when troops in Iraq get bombs and bullets thrown at them daily (you know, real violence), for pretty much the same reasons ?
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 15, 2008 4:28 PM
Arrgh! Another example of unfinished in-process editing (@604):
...should, of course, have been:
Posted by: Angel Kaida | December 15, 2008 4:31 PM
@606,
To be fair, I think everyone in the thread would agree in being much more indignant about bullets than about shoes. This is just interesting because a.) it's easier to make a case for either side and b.) it is possible to have kind of a proxy discussion with this. As negentropyeater has been discussing, there is the possibility to use this situation as a test case for the moral rights of the victims of warfare. Things like that.
Posted by: Richard Smith | December 15, 2008 4:31 PM
@negentropyeater (#556) For this he got the medal of the legion d'honneur.
Not the medal of the legion d'oeufeur?
Posted by: Rúnar | December 15, 2008 4:36 PM
negentropyeater:
"Do you really believe this journalist threw these shoes accross the room "just for the sake of inflicting pain or injury" ?"
(how do you make qoutes???)
Yes, I do. I think it was simply an outlet for frustation and revenge in the form of a violent act. He certainly can't have thought it would improve the situation of his people or himself in any possible way(as opposed to the real resistance of our grandfathers).
Posted by: Diagoras, the Insult-Fairy | December 15, 2008 4:42 PM
#602 - If your response to an argument that your position was that of moral absolutism, was an utterance of "fuck off" - I think it's fair to insult right back. As if you could not understand basic concepts. As per the understanding of a child. I made no assumptions about your gender (Angel being a gender-neutral name. cupcake, princess[it's the tiara that makes them silly, and the entitlement issues {unless they have majestic pants, and then the title of princess is completely an awesome bit of praise}], and sweetheart also being gender neutral.) - or the ability to argue based on that. No sexism, intended. Just the infantilization. And the assumption you wished to be insulted. A tersely phrase "fuck off" told me that. Otherwise - you'd have tossed out an argument grounded in why your argument was not a position of moral absolutism, and how your prior posts were not meant to convey such a stance.
Posted by: Nick Gotts OM | December 15, 2008 4:46 PM
Ridiculous comments advocating violence and comparing Bush to Hitler show an intolerance at the basis of their supposed tolerance. - John@219
Whereas lies about people comparing Bush to Hitler show spotless moral integrity.
Posted by: Nick Gotts OM | December 15, 2008 4:56 PM
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. - Count Nefarious
Either you make a habit of drinking and driving, or you're insane.
There's no reason to believe Bush consciously intended to kill hundreds of thousands of people. - Count Nefarious
There's absolutely no reason to believe he gave - or gives - a shit how many people died.
Posted by: Princess Kaida of the Flames | December 15, 2008 4:56 PM
@611,
Oh! That was supposed to be an argument? It looked to me like an insult underlaid by an ungrounded assumption, and so I treated it with the amount of thought such tripe merits. Hm. My mistake. I trust your confusion has been cleared up now.
(P.S. You know Princess isn't gender neutral!)
Posted by: Kemist | December 15, 2008 5:01 PM
Considering the cultural significance of hitting with shoes in the middle east described earlier, I seriously doubt there was any intent to physically hurt.
It was gesture of disrespect, like spitting. If he really wanted to hurt him, he could have picked up a rock and thrown it at him. Then we could talk about a bit of violence rather than an insult meant to show contempt.
So where do you draw the line ? Is spitting at somebody violence ? How about pointing and laughing ? Shouting booooo ?
And what if there's nothing you can possibly do to help your people ? Would you lie down and take it like a good moral citizen to obey laws that are imposed by invaders ? Or would you perhaps spit on the bastard's face to show your contempt ? And thinking you're quite in your right to do so ?
And what do you think of the iraqi insurgency ? Is it a real resistance or something else ?
Posted by: Nick Gotts OM | December 15, 2008 5:04 PM
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. - gleaner63
What garbage. According to the vast majority of international lawyers, the invasion was illegal under international law. Bush is prima facie guilty of planning and waging aggressive war, contrary to the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the Charter of the United Nations. He won't be prosecuted because of his position, and American insistence that the USA is above international law.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 5:06 PM
Of course, for the eggs.
The Iraqi people should give this journalist the medal of the legion de la chaussure (the Arabic translation I ignore) for his act of bravery.
Posted by: GrahamGirl | December 15, 2008 5:06 PM
For those who said that the Bush apologist do not understand what it is like to live in an occupied country, I disagree.
The United States was invaded by europeans. You see, native americans use to live here for thousands of years but than the europeans invaded the country, occupied it, and refuse to leave. today, they are still here.
these europeans are not even greatful for the natives assistance in helping them to understand the land and not starve.
Posted by: Nick Gotts OM | December 15, 2008 5:09 PM
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 - Moron Michael
The war involved hundreds of thousands of deaths, you stupid shit. And there is not "more peace in Iraq now than ever before", you ignorant scumbag.
Posted by: gil mann | December 15, 2008 5:10 PM
Compared to Colbert at the WHC dinner, this guy went pretty easy on Bush.
Posted by: Kemist | December 15, 2008 5:14 PM
@ 618:
But you see, Bush apologists are generally descendants of the european invaders, so they have past experience of being the occupants, not of living under occupation. I somehow do not think this contributes to give you empathy towards populations living under occupation.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 5:23 PM
Ah no ? I'm sure Obama got the message and is going to try to avoid getting a shoe thrown at him during his first press conference in Iraq.
Posted by: Nick Gotts OM | December 15, 2008 5:24 PM
Nick Gott's mouth-foaming in this thread is known in the trade as displacement anger. In the UK, the Iraq war was Blair's war, for which all those who made him what he was must take responsibility, i.e. the Guardian, the BBC, Nick Gotts. Bush at least had the sense to get others to lie for him, whereas Blair lied personally and strongly.
But, credit where credit is due: I feel a strong sense of gratitude to people like Gotts: if a Conservative government had done what Blair and Brown did, London would have been burnt to the ground by now - we owe it to the left-wing hypocrites that their anger is so selective. - peter
Peter, it's never wise to assume that others are as stupid as you are. I recognised Blair for the loathsome right-wing creep he is before he became leader of the Labour Party, and so never voted for him (in 1997 I lived in Wales and voted for a Green/Plaid Cymru candidate, in 2001 and 2005 I was in Scotland and voted SNP). Both before the invasion and after I marched, demonstrated at military bases, wrote letters, gave out leaflets from stalls, and helped organise public meetings against the war. I must admit I did not set fire to any buildings, which you seem to feel would have been the only way to show that I really did oppose the war. Your lies about left-wing selectivity and what would have happened if the government had been Conservative are absurd; opposition to the war in Britain included the largest ever demonstration in the country - but of course you find the fact that it was peaceful a damning indictment of "left-wing hypocrisy".
By the way, you semi-literate oaf, the possessive of a name that ends in "s" is not formed by placing an apostrophe before that letter.
Posted by: Anton Mates | December 15, 2008 5:43 PM
Rúnar,
You mean like this?
Evidently, like most people, you believe that violence is okay as long as it's justified. It's the validity of the justification you object to in al-Zaidi's case, not the idea of violence per se.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 5:47 PM
Very strange that the vast majority of Saddam's killings and human rights abuses was done during the time when the US was supporting the Hussein regime militarily and financially as evidenced by documents from the National Security Archive released in 2003, with full knowledge that the Hussein government was regularly using chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers and Kurdish insurgents.
And then Bush went to war because of human rights abuses more than a decade later, when all human rights groups argued that it wasn't justified on humanitarian grounds ? As Human Rights Watch's Ken Roth wrote in 2004, despite Hussein's horrific human rights record, "the killing in Iraq at the time was not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention.
It's unbelievable how some folks like Michael will parrot ignorant and stupid arguments just to defend their oh-so-cherished-leader !
Posted by: spurge | December 15, 2008 5:55 PM
"the war was justified as Saddam killed tens of thousands of his own people"
Bullshit.
Why do people keep talking about freeing the Iraqi people?
That was never the stated goal before the invasion began.
It was claimed that Iraq was in imminent threat the the world.
Only after it was clear that they had lied about pretty much everything did they try the "bringing freedom" to Iraq gambit. Which of course is also a blatant lie.
Posted by: scooter | December 15, 2008 6:10 PM
I thought everybody in that part of the Middle East was a Muslim, but al Zaidi is clearly a Bootist
Posted by: Marc Abian | December 15, 2008 6:25 PM
Looks like they're not going to toe the line anymore.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 15, 2008 6:29 PM
Covering your ass with historical revisionism has a long tradition in American Politics.
Posted by: spurge | December 15, 2008 6:33 PM
"Covering your ass with historical revisionism has a long tradition in American Politics."
Too true. The Bush admin and its apologists have made it into an art form.
Posted by: Wallace Brand | December 15, 2008 6:50 PM
Is it only by coincidence that Zaidi had been kidnapped by Islamists not long before. I suspect that he was coerced into throwing shoes and insulting Bush by threats of death by torture if he did not carry out what his kidnappers had demanded. His assault and attempted battery are hardly the stuff of the First Amendment.
In any event, more than 95% of Iraqi civilians that were killed were killed by other Muslims.
The rest were killed by Americans because the enemy wore no uniform and used innocent civilians as shields.
Posted by: ndt | December 15, 2008 6:53 PM
What enemy? Iraq never attacked us.
Posted by: Wallace Brand | December 15, 2008 7:02 PM
Is it only by coincidence that Zaidi had been kidnapped by Islamists not long before. I suspect that he was coerced into throwing shoes and insulting Bush by threats of death by torture if he did not carry out what his kidnappers had demanded. His assault and attempted battery are hardly the stuff of the First Amendment.
In any event, more than 95% of Iraqi civilians that were killed were killed by other Muslims.
The rest were killed by Americans because the enemy wore no uniform and used innocent civilians as shields.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 7:06 PM
Dec. 1994 : DJIA = 3800
Dec. 1999 : DJIA = 11500, an increase of more than 200% in 5 ys
Jan. 2001 : DJIA = 11000, Bush is PotUS
Oct. 2002 : DJIA = 7500, a decrease of 35% since Dec. 1999
At that time, the US Senate votes on the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, when about 75 senators were told in closed session that Saddam Hussein had the means of attacking the eastern seaboard of the U.S. with biological or chemical weapons delivered by unmanned aerial vehicles. War is decided.
Mar. 2003 : DJIA = 8000 Begins Invasion of Iraq
Oct. 2007 : DJIA = 14000, an increase of 100% in 5 years
Dec. 2008 : DJIA = 7800, a decrease of close to 50% in one year.
During the first 20 months of his presidency, Bush and his accolytes only have one obsession : how to reinflate the damn bubble that has already lost 35%.
They need a war, an economic stimulus. 9/11 has just provided them with a perfect excuse, the country is under shock, Americans will accept anything. So they will convince Americans that, rather than sacrifice as Churchill asked the british, they must exercise their patriotic duty by buying all they can get their hands on, houses, SUVs, electronics, etc... And the fed slashes the discount rate to 1% and Bush offers tax cuts, tax rebates, 0% auto financing, and no-doc mortgages.
The result is what they planned for, the DJIA gains 100% in the following 5 years.
Problem is of course that all this fake prosperity built on easy credit and a war was doomed from the start.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 7:10 PM
Problem is of course that all this fake prosperity built on easy credit and a completely fabricated war was doomed from the start.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 15, 2008 7:22 PM
Ugg.
Posted by: ralph137 | December 15, 2008 7:30 PM
Would have been better if the shoes were thrown at Saddam long ago.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 15, 2008 7:31 PM
So not only Bush and his accolytes illegally invaded a country, fabricating fake evidence, causing several hundred thousand unnecessary deaths, destroying this country's infrastructure and ruinng its economy, but they planned it from the begining as a way to temporarily reinflate a bubble that could no more, with no consideration whatsoever on possibly also ruining the American economy.
I think he deserves at least a shoe thrown at him.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | December 15, 2008 7:41 PM
Bill @ # 604:
Arrgh, I should've known better than to engage you about this when I have a lot of work to do - apologies in advance for inadequacies of this reply.
Pls see Nick Gotts's # 616.
Every Iraqi death attributable to the chaos of US occupation after January 2007 can be laid on Pelosi's infamous table.
Impeachment is an action of law enforcement - it's about "high crimes and misdemeanors", not about having lost enough power to be vulnerable to opponents' partisan efforts, at least in my copy of the Constitution. The only reasons the Democrats might not have been able to remove Bush in 2007 are the sheer volume of evidence for his numerous and massive crimes, and their own political disorganization and collusion in said crimes (e.g., Pelosi's assent to torture).
If I committed a murder in '03, who would accept the kind of excuses you bend over backwards to allow to the Busheviks for my local sheriff if she failed to arrest me when given a chance in '07 or '08?
The current House Speaker's gross dereliction of duty for shallow partisan (mis)calculation is a lasting shame upon the Democrats, whose dedication to the United States and its Constitution can be measured by the strength of their "Dump Pelosi" movement.
To compare the Clinton impeachment to (the first part of) what Bush deserves is to buy into the corporate media's framing of politics as formula theater. You seem to have a brain - try using it above a "pundit" level, please.
You've spoken to
members of Congresscraven political hacks who view their sworn responsibilities to America as a Monopoly game. If you had any serious patriotic impulses, you'd go throw muddy boots at each one of them.This "we've got to concentrate on healing" whine is the same sort of crap that Gerald Ford provided with his pardon of Nixon's crimes against America, duplicated when the perpetrators of Reagan-era terrorism and law-breaking were allowed to get away scot-free. Can anyone deny that this failure to uphold a minimal standard of integrity has something to do with the Republicans' continuing spree of lawlessness?
Posted by: ndt | December 15, 2008 8:13 PM
What Pierce said. And don't forget the recent FISA Amendment vote, where Democrats in both houses, including Senator Obama, voted to let Bush get away with warrantless wiretaps. Both parties were the bad guys over the last seven years, and I expect it to remain that way for the foreseeable future.
Posted by: ndt | December 15, 2008 8:16 PM
If Republican politicans are criminals, Democratic politicians are the groupies who write love letters to convicts.
Posted by: Robin | December 15, 2008 9:39 PM
When did PZ get so famous that the ratio of intelligent folks to wingnuts on his blog started to shift in favor of the wingnuts?
Posted by: B.T. Murtagh | December 15, 2008 10:08 PM
#72 Capital Dan:
No, no, no... now is the time for a heeled nation to wound.
Too bad the target had the reflexes of a cockroach.
Posted by: Zarquon | December 15, 2008 11:01 PM
Of course this means another name for GWB is Caligula
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 15, 2008 11:19 PM
to frederick, Randy, and all the other simpleminded "violence is always wrong" people:
I fully condone Piłsudski's military, terrorist thugs for turning on their leaders and taking Warsaw, thus beginning the liberation the home of one chunk of my family from occupation and continual cultural genocide at the hand of the Russian Empire
I fully condone La Resistance and their terrorist actions that successfully disrupted the Nazi-occupation-business-as-usual, and therefore helping to defeat the plague that has taken hold in the home of another chunk of my family.
When your country is occupied, the aggressor values your existence as less than that of a cockroach, and the world can't or won't help you, you're not only justified, but have the moral duty to resist by any means necessary.
Iraq has been abused by the U.S. for decades, first by building and propping up Saddam and his regime, and then by removing them and completely destroying what was left of the infrastructure. Zaidi would have been fully justified in blowing the whole entourage to bits, thus making the point that you can't enslave and murder a nation without suffering serious consequences... but he didn't. he threw a pair of shoes, knowing full well that the consequences could include being beaten/tortured and even "disappeared" (as opposed to a suicide bomber, who expects glory, fame, and paradise). for that he's a true hero in my book
Posted by: deang | December 15, 2008 11:27 PM
The sanctimonious comments here about shoe-throwing being too much like violence to approve of are sickening, especially since at this very moment the brave man who threw his shoes and yelled those perfectly apropos comments, an action the whole world (outside the US) approved of, is being tortured by the US and its puppet Iraqi police. I'm assuming the people making such comments are Americans, since Americans seem to think that actually forcing their politicians and military to quit killing people and destroying lives is "inappropriate" (what a sickeningly overused word) or "stooping to their level" or something. Just like Americans also think the Americans torturing and slaughtering Iraqis are "just doing their jobs." Absolutely sickening.
I am just glad that the rest of the world doesn't see things that way.
Posted by: Badger3k | December 16, 2008 2:38 AM
I almost got through, but had to stop a bit early, so forgive me if this was already posted. The reporter who threw the shoe certainly was brave - there may be (is?) evidence that he has been tortured (whoops - I mean he engaged in horseplay like college students): http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/15/shoe-thrower-being-tortured/
And: Real Genius - Mr Iraqi shoe-thrower guy: http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2008/12/15/loafers-and-jokers-mr-iraqi-shoe-thrower-guy-commercial-parody/
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 16, 2008 2:56 AM
I fully condone La Resistance and their terrorist actions that successfully disrupted the Nazi-occupation-business-as-usual, and therefore helping to defeat the plague that has taken hold in the home of another chunk of my family.
I always wonder why more americans don't think back to Doolittle's bombing run on Tokyo, and even though the targets were "military/industrial", realize that the purpose of that attack run was primarily psychological in nature.
or maybe think back to the firebombings later in the war of various cities both in europe and japan...
*shrug*
for those that haven't read much Steinbeck, he wrote an excellent short story on this very subject called "The Moon is Down".
what's really fun is trying to apply the story to any given "real" conflict, and deciding who plays which side.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 16, 2008 3:01 AM
Of course this means another name for GWB is Caligula
funny, I always tended to compare him to Commodus.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 16, 2008 3:21 AM
"Unpopular"? Unprovoked invasion is a war crime. Bush, Blair and the rest deserve more than shoes, they deserve hanging."- Zarquon
You're too kind. No really. Bush deserves 50 years in Iraqi prison (and, assuming it is mathematically possible for him to survive), Then execution; not quick and easy either.
We can talk bad Presidents, But Grant ain't got SHIT on this fella. I'll love to live to be 100 and read about this in my great grandchildren's history books, about this event in the president's history. But by then the shoe may have morphed into a small butter knife or something lol.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 16, 2008 5:47 AM
I have to agree with Pierce and ndt that most of the Dems acted as enablers - another reason Bush will almost certainly never face justice for his crimes. On the bright side, I expect a rash of copycat shoe-throwing whenever he dares to appear in public. Bush's swift reflexes make it a real test of skill - kudos to whoever first scores a direct hit!
The Grauniad today has a short article "How to insult George Bush wherever you are in the world". However, all the culturally-specific alternatives to shoe-throwing are mere gestures.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 16, 2008 6:00 AM
When people say "pussification of america" they most certainly mean The Dems, that much is certain. Maybe now, with the Obama Aministration, they will stop being spineless floor mats for the insane.
But honestly, that is an insult to wemon- they have vertebra collumns and intact nervous systems, for the most part. It seems that they are mutually exclusive in the political world, however- subject to change, we can hope.
"On the bright side, I expect a rash of copycat shoe-throwing whenever he dares to appear in public."-Gotts
Boy, i can't wait untill GW makes an appearance in the Netherlands *rubbing hands gleefully*
Posted by: SC, OM | December 16, 2008 6:06 AM
I couldn't watch the video on my ancient home computer (*pets computer gently in appreciation for years of service*; laptop: *chug* whir*), it had to wait till I was able to view it from my office. I may be alone, but I didn't think his reflexes were all that impressive. The shoes were thrown from far enough away, it seems to me, that someone with really good reflexes could have even caught them.
/reflex snob
Incidentally, Jerome Karabel's The Chosen has a Yale newspaper photo from when Bush was a student there. He's playing football or rugby, and the caption is something teasing like "Bush executing an illegal move." Sign of things to come.
Posted by: Frederik Rosenkjær | December 16, 2008 6:37 AM
To JadeHawk @#645:
I never said "violence is always wrong". You're addressing a strawman.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 16, 2008 6:47 AM
We're saying that certain actions are objectionable no matter what. - Frederik Rosenkjær
I never said "violence is always wrong". - Frederik Rosenkjær
So throwing shoes is always wrong, but violence isn't? What bizarre thought-processes you have.
Posted by: Nick Gotts OM | December 16, 2008 6:51 AM
For all those who denied al-Raidi's courage, and all those bleating about how the invasion has given Iraqis freedom:
Shoe thrower 'beaten in custody'
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 16, 2008 6:52 AM
Frederik #654,
Perhaps, but then can you please explain what you meant with this affirmation in your comment #535:
"We're saying that certain actions are objectionable no matter what."
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 16, 2008 6:54 AM
Gee, Nick you were quicker than me damnit ;-)
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 16, 2008 7:03 AM
#656
Do I hear G.W. saying :
"please, do not beat Zaidi up too harshly, let's be civilized, we have strong ethical principles in our country that should apply in our colonies, but if you want to give him a good waterboarding session, be my guest"
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 16, 2008 7:22 AM
No matter how much people whine about the shoe-throwing, it's still the case that Bush ordered the invasion and occupation of Iraq. That makes him a legitimate target for pretty much _anything_ that gets hurled at him if he's stupid enough to prance around Iraq and expect the locals to be glad to see him.
I admire the thrower twice over: firstly because he had the courage to take action when so many others have shown Bush unearned deference; secondly because he showed restraint and took a symbolic action to insult and humiliate Bush rather than attempting lethal violence.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled clutching of pearls. Oh, the rudeness. Tut tut.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 16, 2008 7:53 AM
I'm scared to come back to this thread as I just replaced my misplaced righteous indignation meter that blew up a few hundred comments ago.
Is it safe?
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 16, 2008 8:20 AM
@661: no, some people here still think it's shockingly wrong to hurl shoes at the guy who invaded and destroyed your country.
At least now we know who'll roll over and collaborate when their country gets invaded. We'll update the list we keep on the black helicopters.
Posted by: SteveM | December 16, 2008 9:20 AM
actually "pussy" is not a reference to women, but is short for "pusillanimous":
And while that may apply to the Dems for not standing up to the Rethuglicans, I think it really does apply to all Americans. We truly are now afraid of our own shadows, willing to be strip searched in airports and have our toothpaste confiscated based on some vague threat of being able to make a small smoke bomb. "...Home of the brave..." no longer. The terrorists won, americans are now completely terrorized.
Posted by: Chris Long | December 16, 2008 9:23 AM
I saw Bush speaking about this 'attack' on the news last night. He laughed it off, and said something like 'I don't know what the guy's beef is'.
Which pretty much summed up the whole thing for me. Bush can't think why an Iraqi might be pissed off with him. Or perhaps I should just have stopped at 'Bush can't think'.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 16, 2008 9:50 AM
Pierce (@639):
Checked that post; nothing there about Pelosi or Congress, only comments about Bush's crimes. (Though to be fair, I see that Nick expresses some passing agreement with your position in a later post.)
Not unless you can show me both that starting impeachment proceedings (or, for that matter, anything else within Pelosi's power) would have brought the war to a swifter conclusion and that a reasonable person in Pelosi's position would have been sure of that.
It's impossible to prove anything about an alternate version of history, of course, but it seems extremely more likely to me that devoting the full attention of the government to punishing past crimes would have accomplished the cubed root of fuck-all in terms of correcting the problems of the present or near future. Even though I can't prove it, it was certainly reasonable to think that impeachment would make things worse instead of better: First, unless they could've pulled off the nearly unimaginable "double" of impeaching both the president and the vice president nearly simultaneously, impeaching Bush would've left the country in the hands of Darth Cheney, who embodies all of Bush's evil and more, and is even more ruthless (and unfortunately competent) in pursuing his fell designs. Second, impeachment would've consumed all the government's attention (as it did during the much less weighty Clinton impeachment), bringing all other business to a halt... and yes, even in the face of Bush's crimes, the people's other business goes on, and it remains the duty of Congress to manage same. Third, impeachment would almost certainly have created rancor and backlash in the public, damaging Dems' electoral chances in 2008... which I mention not out of some partisan horse-race desire to win for its own sake, but because I've believed all along that the fastest way to end the war and begin undoing the damage was to make sure we elected a Democrat to the White House in 2008.
But finally, it was impossible to imagine impeachment succeeding. You have to remember how little actual power the Dems had in the current (outgoing) Congress, despite their ostensible majority: They had only a moderate majority in the House, which might not have been sufficient even to pass articles of impeachment; in the Senate, the Dem "majority" was only 50-49 (remember that one Dem senator was medically incapacitated), and one of those 50 was Joe LIEberman. Any vote on impeachment (or, for that matter on any measure intended to end the war) would've gone 50-49 against the Dems, because LIEberman would've voted with the Repubs on those issues. In short, there was no fucking chance to remove Bush from office, no matter what Pelosi did.
Even the most aggressive of prosecutors decline to prosecute cases the know in advance can't be won. (And it was never Pelosi's job to be a prosecutor anyway, about which more in a bit.)
No, you're misunderstanding your copy of the Constitution incorrectly. Although it results from "high crimes and misdemeanors" (which term, many have argued, does not necessarily precisely coincide with violations of criminal law), impeachment has the sole purpose of removing an elected official from office; it does not impose fines, imprisonment, or other punishments, and, despite the trappings of a "trial" in the Senate, is more analogous to dismissal for cause than to prosecution. These are separate functions.
As an analogy, consider a former coworker of mine who was caught defrauding the company of milliions of dollars. He was both fired and criminally prosecuted... and different people were responsible for those separate actions.
In impeachment, the Congress, as representatives of the people (which is to say, the president's bosses) fires the president for cause; prosecuting a president is left to other authorities (which, BTW, is the reason Nixon needed a pardon).
Your reference to "Busheviks" (presumably meaning Pelosi, et al.) suggests what strikes me as a false dichotomy: That anyone who refuses to hurl themselves into futile combat against a foe must therefore actually support that foe's actions. I don't buy it.
And the Speaker of the House is a legislator, not a "sheriff."
But even if she were, and even if I were to stipulate that she'd failed to prosecute the president aggressively enough, that would at worst make her a bad sheriff, not a war criminal in her own right. We hold ineffective prosecutors responsible for their own poor job performance, not for the crimes of others.
Recall that the original charge I was responding to was that the Dems were as responsible for the war as Bush, if not more so. That claim is specious bat crap, regardless of anyone's disappointment at the lack of impeachment after the fact.
I wasn't (as I think you actually know) comparing Clinton's "crimes" (which I actually believe to have been nonexistent) to Bush's; I was talking about the process of impeachment, which takes a certain amount of time and requires a certain amount of organizational effort and attention. Clinton's impeachment may define the irreducible minimums in both, precisely because the charges were so specious; an impeachment involving actual high crimes and misdemeanors and proceeding all the way to removal of the president would surely require far more of the government's time and attention... leaving far less of same for other business.
Now, perhaps you think considering the actual mechanics of impeachment rather than simply surrendering to my first emotional impulse is pundit-level thinking... but if so, the pundit you have in mind must be closer to Rachel Maddow than Hannity/O'Reilly/Limbaugh. I think I can live with that.
No, I'm telling you there are members of Congress whom I personally know NOT to be "craven political hacks," and who profoundly oppose both the war and the broader Bush/Cheney agenda — people I trust, both personally and politically — who nevertheless opposed impeachment in 2007.
You're assuming anyone who disagrees with you on this point is therefore automatically a "craven political hack"; I'm telling you it's not that simple.
Ah, right. Coopting the time-dishonored right-wing tactic of challenging the patriotism of those who disagree, are we? You'd been civil up to this point, and I've enjoyed responding in a thoughtful way, but the only possible response to this lazy, hateful comment is: Bite me, asshole!
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 16, 2008 9:58 AM
SteveM:
Didn't we have this conversation recently in another thread?
Yeah, right. Tell that to the next guy you call a "pussy"... if, that is, you can say anything at all at that point... and be sure to refer him to the wiktionary for confirmation. ;^)
An idiomatic expression means what the people who use it mean for it to mean... and I'm reasonably sure 99 out of every 100 people who use "pussy" as an insult are thinking of genitalia, not multisyllabic Victorian-sounding scorn. YMMV.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 16, 2008 10:00 AM
Shorter Bill Dauphin: There's no point bringing articles of impeachment unless they're certain to pass. [ After all, the failed impeachment of Clinton didn't have _any effect at all_ on his administration, did it? ] My Congressfriends told me so.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 16, 2008 10:00 AM
Clinton's "crimes" (which I actually believe to have been nonexistent) - Bill Dauphin
Not so: he set the precedent for Iraq with the illegal attack on Yugoslavia over Kosovo.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 16, 2008 10:03 AM
Obviously, if you spend enough time talking about Bush, you start to talk like him:
Clearly, I've misunderestimated the need to proofread. [blush]
PS: I'm intensely pleased to have posted comment #666... and especially happy that the subject of that satanic posting was "pussy." Jus' sayin'...
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 16, 2008 10:26 AM
Stephen Wells (@667):
I wouldn't go quite that far, but I would say there's no point in bringing articles of impeachment when you judge it's impossible to remove the president from office... because removing the president from office is the only purpose of impeachment.
Your example...
...actually proves my point: The effect of the Clinton impeachment was to comprehensively hose up the functioning of the government for the duration, while producing no worthwhile outcome from any point of view.
Nick Gotts (@668):
I'm sure you understand I was referring to the so-called "crimes" for which Clinton was actually impeached. Kosovo is an entirely different subject.
BTW, I don't think the Kosovo example really had anything to do with Bush's "thinking" WRT Iraq. I think Bush wanted to go to war because he believed that going to war is what presidents do to prove they have big brass balls, and I think he chose Iraq as the site of his display of presidential manhood because he perceived it as "unfinished business," in both nationalistic and personal terms. Honestly, I don't think he ever gave precedent or justification a single thought.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 16, 2008 10:37 AM
I meant to add this to my last (@670):
I should clear up that I've mentioned my acquaintance (friendship would be stretching a point) with my congressman not out of some desire to puff myself up, but to point out that members of Congress are people. If all you know about Congress comes from news reports and blog arguments, it's all too easy to reduce them to two-dimensional figures (e.g., "political hacks"). If you actually meet them and talk to them — which is not that difficult to accomplish, at least for members of the House — you can get a subtler, truer read on what motivates them.
You might still conclude, in any given case, that a congressperson is a hack, but at least you'll have some idea of what you're talking about.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 16, 2008 10:52 AM
I don't think the Kosovo example really had anything to do with Bush's "thinking" WRT Iraq. I think Bush wanted to go to war because he believed that going to war is what presidents do to prove they have big brass balls, and I think he chose Iraq as the site of his display of presidential manhood because he perceived it as "unfinished business," in both nationalistic and personal terms. Honestly, I don't think he ever gave precedent or justification a single thought. - Bill Dauphin
I did realise you were talking about the Lewinsky business. I made the point about Kosovo because when debating Iraq I've often been confronted with "Well, what about Kosovo? Ner-ner-ne-ner-nerrr!" (from people who assume no-one could possibly have been against that piece of illegality). So I know from experience that Clinton's illegal war is used to excuse Bush's.
I'm sure you're right that Bush didn't give precedent or justification a thought. I'm less sure about his neocon henchmen. Moreover Bush had already gone to war, remember, in Afghanistan, where he actually had reasonable justification and a UN mandate, so I don't think proving his manhood by launching a war could have been his reason for Iraq, although showing he was better than his Dad may have been. However, the invasion of Iraq was planned by the neocons before Bush was even appointed (I disagree with neg that 9/11 made it possible - rather, the need to deal with Afghanistan first probably delayed it).
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 16, 2008 10:56 AM
My point re. Clinton was that impeachment _does_ affect government whether it succeeds or not; that there would have been great benefit to the USA and the world, in forcing the Bush administration to focus on defending against impeachment rather than advancing their horrific policy goals; and frankly I don't see what wonderful, progressive, constructive things the House and Senate were achieving that an impeachment process would have interrupted.
Also, pronouncements from politicians that they will not pursue impeachment because it's not politically practical are a circular argument; "It's not practical because we won't do it". I honestly don't see what dire consequences could have followed from pursuing the impeachment of most of the high officers of this administration, or how they could have been worse than the visible consequences of _not_ impeaching them.
And there is a moral question; if you've taken an oath to uphold the constitution, I don't think you get to say that you had your fingers crossed and a mental reservation to defend where practical and convenient.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 16, 2008 11:41 AM
Stephen Wells:
...and I agreed with that point, as far as it goes. It's just that I don't see much chance that an unsuccessful impeachment effort could have produced a beneficial effect in this case.
The argument I was responding to was that the failure of Pelosi, et al., to bring impeachment to the table in January 2007 makes them responsible for all the war deaths since. For this argument to make sense, you must believe that bringing impeachment proceedings could have stopped the war... and I've seen no persuasive case that even a successful impeachment could've stopped the war any quicker than electing a new president would. Certainly an unsuccessful impeachment wouldn't have stopped the war.
The Constitution provides for impeachment; it does not require it.
More broadly, I'm troubled by the emerging trend I've seen in the "Grinch" thread and now here to automatically equate political disagreement with disrespect for the Constitution, if not outright treason.
Folks, it's possible for honest people of good will to disagree about even very momentous things. Treating every strategic or tactical disagreement, even with your ostensible political allies, as immoral, treasonous dereliction of duty to the Constitution is a recipe for chaos.
Nick:
I disagree with your disagreement: No doubt the need to "do" Afghanistan first did delay Iraq, but I really don't think it would've been politically possible to do Iraq without the provocation of 9/11. That's why they worked so hard to falsely connect Iraq to the attacks.
Of course, given who we're dealing with, it's possible they would've simply declared martial law, dissolved the Congress, and invaded Iraq anyway... but I'm not sure I believe Bush's balls are quite that big and brassy in real life.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 16, 2008 12:04 PM
I really don't think it would've been politically possible to do Iraq without the provocation of 9/11. - Bill Dauphin
Careful Bill - you'll turn me into a 9/11 "Truther" ;-)
Seriously, for the abundant evidence that the neocons intended to invade Iraq well before 9/11 and were working on the justifications, see:
Events Leading Up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. It was central to the neocon project for permanent global dominance - which, by the way, I fully expect Obama to pursue, although less recklessly, if he can possibly afford it. (If I'm right, all US troops will not leave Iraq unless forced out.)
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 16, 2008 1:12 PM
Nick:
Briefly, and just for the sake of clarity...
Oh, I absolutely agree that they did. I just doubt whether they'd've been able to execute that intention without 9/11 (or some similar crisis) to create the necessary FUD.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 16, 2008 1:17 PM
However, all the culturally-specific alternatives to shoe-throwing are mere gestures.
I thought reasonable people agreed that throwing shoes in this instance was too?
that's how I saw it, anyway.
I mean, surely there are a myriad number of things one COULD throw at Shrub that actually would cause some damage (including modified shoes).
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 16, 2008 1:24 PM
Not so: he set the precedent for Iraq with the illegal attack on Yugoslavia over Kosovo.
??
I must have missed something.
wasn't that a NATO approved and participated in attack?
without going into the details in this post, there were other large differences between Clinton's actions and Bush's.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 16, 2008 1:25 PM
Ichthyic@677,
Sorry: I was unclear. They all involved nothing more than putting the gesturer's hand(s) and/or arm(s) into specific configurations.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 16, 2008 1:47 PM
wasn't that a NATO approved and participated in attack? - Ichthyic
Yes, Clinton and the USA alone were not responsible. But except in cases of self-defence, only the UNSC has the right under international law to mandate military action.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 16, 2008 1:53 PM
I just doubt whether they'd've been able to execute that intention without 9/11 (or some similar crisis) to create the necessary FUD. - Bill Dauphin
FUD? Unfamiliar acronym!
However, I get the general idea. Here we're in the realm of speculation, but I think a causus belli could and would have been manufactured. After all, it was the alleged WMDs rather than the alleged link to 9/11 that were to the fore in RL.
Posted by: Endor | December 16, 2008 2:06 PM
"actually "pussy" is not a reference to women, but is short for "pusillanimous"
And if you actually buy that, I've got a tract of misogynstic land to sell you.
The equation doesn't stop there, hon.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 16, 2008 2:16 PM
Nick:
It means fear, uncertainty, and doubt... which happen to be the primary tools the Bush regime has used to advance its agenda. Agreed that they would've at least tried to manufacture a causus belli, whether they would've succeeded or not... but 9/11 meant they didn't need to try.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 16, 2008 3:04 PM
nick-
I just want to stress the point that what Bush did was unprecedented for an American administration from my recollection.
you may say groundwork was laid by previous actions of any given administration, but none have done before exactly what Bush did.
Whether THAT sets an even worse "precedent" for future administrations remains to be seen.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 16, 2008 3:38 PM
Ichthyic:
I agree. In fact (and I know in advance I'll be derided as an apologist for saying this, but what the heck), the sheer unprecedentedness of Bush's actions explains some of the Dem votes for the use-of-force authorization, which seem so strange in retrospect: In 2002, my memory is that nobody really understood quite how hell-bent on war Bush actually was, and few anticipated that he might simply ignore all the evidence, and the opinions of our allies, and just invade no matter what.
I know it seems naive in retrospect, but I think most of the Dems (maybe most members from both parties) who voted for the 2002 reolution actually expected Bush to live by its terms (as quoted by negentropyeater earlier in this thread); certainly that's what Hillary Clinton said at the time in her floor speech: That her vote was not a vote for war, unless all other options had been exhausted.
Of course, we now know that even that limited authorization was gained through a deliberate program of lies to the Congress and the people.
It's not like the executive branch hasn't lied to the Congress about wars before, but AFAIK this is the first time a president has whomped up a war entirely from scratch based solely on lies.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 16, 2008 4:20 PM
The Bush administration does other things besides invade Iraq, most of them horrible. Impeachment might have helped slow them down a bit.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 16, 2008 4:32 PM
the sheer unprecedentedness of Bush's actions explains some of the Dem votes for the use-of-force authorization,
several interviews I have seen with prominent democratic legislators tend to support what you said there.
OTOH, as was pointed out a bit earlier... it does suggest that when someone is thoughtless enough to allow themselves to be overwhelmed by such things, they are in danger of seeming more than a bit stupid.
obviously a trait that is not limited to the right side of the aisle.
that said, if we want better performance from our legislators, I sometimes tend to wonder if I can complain overly if I think I could do it better, but refuse to.
such is life in a representative democracy.
I'm going to try a smaller pond and see how that works out.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 16, 2008 4:53 PM
In 2002, my memory is that nobody really understood quite how hell-bent on war Bush actually was - Bill Dauphin
The evidence was there - see the link I posted earlier, and of course the infamous PNAC document Rebuilding America's Defences.
Ichthyic,
Consider Vietnam: a war on a far larger scale than Iraq and Afghanistan combined, similarly started on the basis of arrant lies (Gulf of Tonkin incident). Going back considerably further, there's the Spanish-American War, again started based on lies (about the USS Maine's sinking); and even the Mexican-American War, which the USA started by invading an area between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, claimed as part of Texas on patently spurious grounds. So really, pretty much SOP in a longer historical perspective.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 16, 2008 5:16 PM
"And while that may apply to the Dems for not standing up to the Rethuglicans, I think it really does apply to all Americans. We truly are now afraid of our own shadows, willing to be strip searched in airports and have our toothpaste confiscated based on some vague threat of being able to make a small smoke bomb. "...Home of the brave..." no longer. The terrorists won, americans are now completely terrorized."- SteveM #663
Sorry, but our airport security is Still a joke (example: LAX). We don't take shit seriously at all. If we did, then this War in Iraq would have been over before it began. Or we would have Osama. End of story. Really, all this wandering out in the desert for the past 6 or so years is just embarrassing the hell out of our military, as well as makethe U.S. out to be pigs and villains.
All this discussion of wars, i want to look at antiquity, back in the days of Good old Teddy Roosevelt. Didn't he essentially start a war for profit in Panama (or militarily backed the coup- which doesn't sound as straightforrward as it was)? Just askin'.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | December 16, 2008 8:49 PM
Bill D @ # 665: Don't have time to address your comments in detail; my thanks to others who pointed out many of the flaws in yr claims.
The main reason you find it "impossible to imagine" impeachment seems to exist in the limits of yr imagination, since you seem to have some knowledge of how US politics works. Pls consider the precedent of Nixon's removal: nail the obnoxious & unpopular veep first, let him be replaced by a popular but weak hack, then bring the hammer down. Pelosi & Co had a blueprint created by much more competent minds, they just lack the drive and vision to implement it.
Or is your concept of what's possible so limited by living up to the GOP stereotype of ineffectual Democrats that you don't think a groundswell of well-justified antagonism could be mustered against Dick Cheney?
Millions of us around the world knew, and hit the streets to say, that Bush's intended war on Iraq was going to be unjustified, barbaric, extreme, corrupt, and a massive failure. The hoity-toity political class continues to insist that "nobody" had any hint that the Bushkrieg was not going to be a brilliant Hollywood success.
The selective blindness exhibited by advocates of inertia and appeasement is why so many "leading" Democrats & their clue-free apologists are going to continue to be called out as craven hacks - and why they/you will react with bafflement & indignation.
I gotta get back to work. Pls go read something a little to the left of your comfort zone.
Posted by: rvrb | December 16, 2008 10:04 PM
I think the man who threw the shoes is a hero.
Those who think that it's wrong seem to live in a bubble.
This President condoned torture. The U.S.A. hanged people for water boarding our soldiers in past wars. To quote count nefarious at the top of the blog, "two wrongs don't make a right", right Count?
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 17, 2008 1:29 AM
Nick (@688):
Of course the evidence was there; my point was that it's much easier to see the pattern in that evidence — and more critically, to believe the outcome it points to — in retrospect, after the fact of the invasion, than it was at the time. I consider this (and this also responds to Ichthyic @687) our fool me once moment. The silver lining of this very dark cloud is that it'll be very difficult for any future president to pull the same shit... at least as long as the current generation is alive and voting.
As for the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, and the Gulf of Tonkin, I thought of those and actually did a little
researchGoogling before I posted (that's what my last paragraph @685 was meant to allude to), but it seems to me that all of those were different in kind from the 2003 invasion, which strikes me as a president and his administration deliberately conspiring to build a case for a war of personal preference. That said, I'm not enough of an historian to decisively support my feelings on this, so if you disagree I'll let it stand that way.Pierce (@690):
Given the pervasively presumptuous and dismissively ad hominem tone of "voice" you continue to employ, I probably ought to just leave it at bite me, asshole, but... well, "fools rush in," after all.
I'll first note that this evolution left us with the "weak hack" as a caretaker president, followed by a similarly weak (albeit brilliant) one-term Democrat and then Ronald Reagan, whose administration laid much of the political groundwork for the mess we're in today. This is really the pattern you wanted us to repeat?1
But more to the point, this "blueprint" really has very little similarity to the Bush/Cheney case:
* Agnew was never impeached, nor was he threatened with impeachment. Instead, he was criminally charged for garden-variety political corruption (i.e., bribery and such) that stretched back before he became VP, and his resignation was part of a plea bargain on those charges.
* Agnew was nowhere near the political knife-fighter that Darth Cheney is. Unlike Agnew, Cheney would, in my estimation, fight to his last drop of (no doubt coal-black) blood rather than plea-bargain his way into obscurity as Agnew did.
* Like Agnew, Nixon was guilty of concrete bad acts, mostly unrelated to policy or concerns of national security. This contrasts with Bush, who would certainly claim the accusations against him were ideological in nature. I'm not suggesting Bush's crimes weren't as bad as Nixon's — clearly they were worse — but I am suggesting that proving them would've been a subtler, more difficult task.
Now, to the practical concerns: Investigations of the Nixon administration began almost immediately after the Watergate break-in, in early summer 1972, and Nixon didn't leave office 'til late summer 1974... and that was without the impeachment process continuing all the way to its conclusion. But at least the outcome of that was removing Nixon more than 2 years before the natural end of his term. By the earliest time the Dems could've conceivably begun the impeachment of Bush/Cheney (January 2007), there was already less time remaining in Bush's term than it took to get rid of Nixon. It's highly probable... almost certain, in fact... that Bush could've "run out the clock" before any impeachment could've been concluded.
BTW, getting rid of Cheney first, even if it could've been accomplished, wouldn't have worked: Bush could then have appointed John McCain VP, leaving the Dems with the dilemma of either effectively conceding the 2008 election by allowing McCain to run as an incumbent president, on the one hand, or leaving Bush in place, on the other hand (which still would've made McCain a stronger candidate even so).
The only scenario that would've effectively removed the Bush/Cheney administration would've been the simultaneous impeachment of both the president and vice-president. This is unprecedented in our history (unlike in parliamentary systems, we have no process for throwing out the whole government at one go), and would've certainly been spun as a naked personal power grab by Pelosi, who is irrationally feared as a "San Francisco liberal", notwithstanding the disappointment actual liberals often express about her.
This is not about a failure of my imagination, nor about the insufficient leftiness of my "comfort zone." I yearn to see Bush brought to justice and his policies repudiated. My immediate reaction to Pelosi's disavowal of impeachment was deep disappointment... but then I actually thought about it, and realized that my overriding concern was that we, as a nation, stop fucking up the world and start unfucking it as quickly and effectively as possible. I judged then, and I still believe, that those goals — and the best interests of the world at large — were better served by an overwhelming Democratic electoral victory in 2008 than by a bitter and politically risky impeachment fight.
I dearly hope some avenue is found in the future to bring the Bush administration to justice. In the meantime, I'm content that we've begun the process of national atonement and repair, and proud of my (admittedly nanoscale) role in helping bring that about.
1Yes, I know there was a great deal of other stuff going on that also partially accounts for the sequence of presidents. Even so....
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | December 17, 2008 10:52 AM
Bill D @ # 692: Again, I'm rushed, so this note will be choppy and miss a few points. Deal.
Yes, the situation is not exactly the same as 35 years ago: after all, Agnew was taller than Cheney, had more hair, and was Greek. Nonetheless, Cheney was & is the more vulnerable of the Dastardly Duo. Had Pelosi and her fellow wimps really intended to do something good for the country, that's where they could have started.
Oh, but going after B&C would have been "a subtler, more difficult task". That makes everything that happened in the last two years okay, then.
... Bush could've "run out the clock" before any impeachment could've been concluded.
If it takes more than half of a president's term to impeach, then impeachment has been effectively removed from the Constitution, without an amendment or even discussion. And all because the Democrats lack the will, cohesion, and desire (though certainly not the evidence) to protect the country and steamroller a pack of lying pettifoggers. Thanks, Nancy & Harry! Please notify the Illinois legislature that they can go back to funding sewer systems, since Blagojevich has a lawyer.
... Bush could then have appointed John McCain VP...
Recall that the VP nominee must be approved by the Senate, which is not (recent history to the contrary) obligated to support anyone nominated by a venal and incompetent president.
I'm content...
Damn, you're easily satisfied. Be very very grateful that I'm not actually in a mood for ad hominem commentary at present.
... that we've begun the process of national atonement and repair...
In your dreams. We've put a bandaid on a festering wound, but the gangrene remains active in the body politic.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 17, 2008 2:59 PM
Pierce (@693):
It's becoming increasingly obvious that you and I simply have irreconcilable differences on this, so this will be my last reply to you.
Nope. Darth is more unpopular than W (as shocking as it is that such a thing is possible), but impeachment isn't a popularity contest. Assuming you want them impeached for war crimes (there are conceivably other grounds, but your comments about Pelosi and the Dems being responsible for post-2007 war deaths suggests this is what you have in mind), it's the president, not the VP, who is Commander in Chief, and thus primarily responsible for illegal use of military force. I'm not suggesting Cheney bears no responsibility, but Bush's responsibility is clearer and more explicit... making him the more vulnerable of the two to impeachment.
You seem to be making the false assumption that my disagreement with you about what consitutes effective solutions means I don't think there are any problems. Of course it's not "okay" that we've continued to be mired in an illegal and immoral occupation... but I'm reasonably certain that an impeachment attempt could not have changed that, and the failure of such an attempt might well have cost us the opportunity to do other things — like electing Barack Obama and sending a large Democratic majority to the Congress — that remain our best hope to actually end the war and begin healing.
How difficult the task of impeaching Bush/Cheney would've been doesn't bear on the moral justification of doing so, of course, but it does bear on the question of whether impeachment was the best way to address the underlying problem: A "solution" that can't be implemented is no solution at all, regardless of how just it is.
Going for impeachment would've been quixotic in the strictest sense: Tilting at that windmill might've made us feel like Glorious Defenders of Truth and Justice, but it wouldn't have gotten a damn thing done.
Yeah, due process sucks, doesn't it? Surely we ought to be able to do something simple like tossing the whole government out on its ass quicker than, for instance, sending O.J. Simpson to jail for waving guns around.
Seriously... however convenient it might have been in this case, making impeachment of the president quick and easy would be a Very Bad Thing™ in the long run.
BTW, since you insist that impeachment is law enforcement and not political, why aren't you mad at the Repubs for not beginning impeachment back in 2004, when it might've done some good? Surely law enforcement knows no party lines, right?
Under your proposed scenario, that venal and incompetent president would be the only one available to make the appointment. Do you really think the Repubs in the Senate would proceed with impeaching Bush (even stipulating that they would do so at all) before confirming a leading Repub presidential candidate as VP? Just hand the interim presidency to Pelosi? I think I need to chat with you about this bridge I have to sell....
It's pretty obvious from context that I was not saying I was broadly satisfied with the state of the world when I used that word... but then, responding to your correspondents' actual positions isn't your strong suit, is it?
Apparently you are determined to curse the things we haven't managed to do. I, by contrast, prefer to celebrate the good things we have accomplished. I don't expect to convince you, but I'm pretty sure my approach is more productive. That said, it's probably a good thing to have both sorts of voices in the conversation
Peace.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 17, 2008 6:09 PM
the 2003 invasion, which strikes me as a president and his administration deliberately conspiring to build a case for a war of personal preference. - Bill Dauphin
I think this may be the core of our disagreement - which I don't expect to resolve, only to clarify. I think that from the point of view of extending the power of the US elite, the invasion of Iraq made strategic sense, to gain control of oil supplies, and military bases in south-west Asia. The neocons' ideology quite consistently places this goal (justified in terms of American exceptionalism and Leo Strauss' version of conservatism) above everything else; so I disagree that this was a war of personal preference, any more than the intervention in Vietnam, or the earlier wars mentioned, or the Bolshevik seizure of power in 1917-18 - all of which were ideologically motivated. The neocons' great strategic error was due to over-eagerness: they neglected the principle that if at all possible an expanding power should fight one enemy at a time (as Hitler did when he attacked the USSR before defeating Britain, and for similar reasons - Afghanistan was not the war they wanted to fight, just as war with Britain was not the war Hitler wanted to fight); and they believed their own propaganda about being welcomed with open arms (just as Hitler believed his own propaganda that the USSR would swiftly collapse).
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 18, 2008 12:51 PM
Nick:
I'm not sure I agree that we have a disagreement so substantial that its core requires clarification! ;^)
I think you're describing the motivations of Darth Cheney and his neocon cronies pretty accurately, and I also stand by my own description of Bush's own (very different, IMHO) motivations... which is to say, it's more that we're coming at this from different angles than that we deeply disagree.
That, and the fact that I seem to have constitutional tendency to see things just slightly more hopefully than you, account for our apparent disagreement, I think. But at the end of the day, while you and I may not be "on the same page," I grok that we're in the same chapter.
BTW, today is my last day at work for the year: Tomorrow I'm having some very minor surgery, and then I'll have an extended break, including a number of houseguests. The point being, I may not be much in evidence here for the next couple weeks, and I wanted to wish you and everyone else a wonderful Christma-Hanu-Rama-Ka-Dona-Kwanzaa.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 18, 2008 1:05 PM
Bill,
Hope the surgery goes without a hitch - and compliments of the season - as those stridently atheist English Victorians used to say!
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | December 18, 2008 11:01 PM
Bill -
Good luck with your surgery. I still recommend you try to see what the world looks like from beyond your happy little hole in the ground.
Nick Gotts @ # 695: It wasn't just Hitler's propaganda. Reportedly, British and US military analysts all told their respective bosses that, once the Panzers rolled eastward in June '41, the Germans would own everything west of the Urals before the leaves turned.