HomeReviewsInterviewsStoreABlogsOn Writing

I didn’t find the guy who threw the shoe at President Bush amusing in the slightest. I’m sure there will be Democrats all over the US, who think he got his just desserts, but I thought the so-called journalist who threw the shoes, was utterly pathetic. Fortunately for him, he was able to make his protest, without fear of torture and death hanging over his head.

I’m not a George Bush fan, far from it, but I don’t believe he’s an evil man. I think he fucked up royally, but I do believe he thought he was doing the best thing for his country, when he took you guys into war, just as I believe that Tony Blair thought he was doing the right thing also.

Dubya deserves to be verbally pilloried for his catastrophically bad political choices, but throwing shoes at him, says more about the dickhead journalist, than George Bush in my opinion. Besides, I suspect that the man just wanted to make a name for himself.

OK, who thinks he deserved to get the shoes thrown at him?

15 Comments »

  • I understand that in the Middle Eastern culture, that was a huge cut-down. There is about nothing worse that can be done. And as rude as it was, I still think it wasn’t that bad. Hell, it could have been much worse. As much as I hate the a**hole, if getting a couple of shoes thrown at him is the worse he has had to deal with as far as public outcry, then he got off easy. Anything that is said about the man, he laughs off. And it appears that he laughed this off, too.

    But you are right. I don’t condone violence. And even though it was a weak display of violence, I don’t think he deserved it.

    ReplyReply

  • Strikes me as a waste of a good shoe.

    ReplyReply


  • Throwmearope
    December 22
    4:23 pm

    He started this stupid war for one reason only–because Sadaam tried to kill his daddy. Stupidity, even as profound as Duh-duh-duh-dubya’s, is no excuse. I hope the French persecute (er, prosecute) his flaming hiney.

    ReplyReply

  • Frankly, I thought it was funny when I first saw the event on the news, but only because I have felt like doing the same thing so many times when I’ve seen his smug face on TV.

    Later, I realized how alarming it was that the reporter was even able to do that. What if it had been grenades?

    ReplyReply


  • Las
    December 22
    4:59 pm

    It was funny in a “WTF?!” way, especially seeing Bush duck. Good reflexes, there. But really, it wasn’t funny at all. Not because of Bush, because he deserves so much worse. This is a man who loves torture–he picked Alberto Gonzalez as AG specifically for his ability to legally defend the death penalty and torture, so fuck him. And, no I don’t believe for a second that he was trying to do right by his country. I don’t think he deliberately set out to fuck up so badly, but he just did what he wanted to do without giving a damn for the consequences. The reason I am so sure about that is because he STILL can’t admit he was wrong about anything. At least Nixon was human enough to actually feel ashamed of himself. Change the person in your moral dilemma question from a pedophile to a Bush, and I wouldn’t bother to call 911. I might even kick him as I walk past.

    No, this story doesn’t anger me because of Bush. It saddens me to think of what that journalist must have gone through for him to do something like that. How drastically did his life change? How many of his loved ones were falsely imprisoned and tortured? What horrors has he witnessed since his country was invaded?

    ReplyReply


  • joanne
    December 22
    6:11 pm

    I’m with you, Karen. I loathe Bush and HATE the Iraq War, but he’s still the POTUS. He is (for better or worse) a representative of the American people, whether we like it or not, and, as such, should be treated respectfully. I don’t find the shoe-thrower’s actions to be brave or heroic at all. I find them self-indulgent, reckless, and disrespectful. He’s supposed to be a journalist. He’s supposed to be a professional adult. He’s supposed to report the story, not be the story.

    I don’t think that’s any more excusable than if journalists in the USA flung stuff at Hugo Chavez, Putin, Castro, or the leaders of Hamas or Hizbullah. It’s juvenile and unprofessional.

    ReplyReply

  • ROFL at the prospect that anyone believes Nixon felt ashamed of himself for his choices or that it would be a mark of his humanity if he did or didn’t.

    Nixon, like Bush, was slapped with a bucket full of arrogance and he truly felt that the choices he made were the right ones at the time. Maybe he regretted methods, maybe he regretted what getting caught did to the office of the presidency in the long run. Or maybe he died knowing that he did the best he could with the info he had.

    Thirty years from now, Bush will have to look back and see if anything he did turned out as he hoped and if the choices were worth the cost. And just like we don’t know–no matter how much we’d like to pretend and say what he should have known or should have considered–exactly what happened to cause him to make the decisions he made, we’ll never find out for real if he’ll be satisfied with the outcome.

    So, do I think he deserved the shoes? Probably, as shoes are really not the worst thing one can do to a person.

    Should the shoes have been thrown? Hell no. He holds an office that requires respect, even if you don’t hold any for the man in it. And there is a such thing as professionalism.

    Should the shoes have been able to get anywhere near any world leader, ESPECIALLY hell no. But that’s on security and on the guys who are probably either fired or wishing they were.

    ReplyReply

  • Sorry Karen – my hand is up on the shoe throwing thing. As Scott mentioned, it is a huge insult in their culture to do such a thing and considering what Bush has done to the country of Iraq and the world in general, he deserved it – and so much more. And sorry but I disagree with you that Bush was doing what he thought best for the country. I strongly disagree. There was NO evidence to support the invasion of Iraq – only manufactured evidence that he KNEW was false but he went in anyway. And I blame him personally for each and every single American soldier that has died and for the countless Iraquis that have also been killed needlessly. He had a personal agenda – to stick it to his daddy – and he used American lives to do it with.
    In my opinion, if there were any justice in the world he would be charged with war crimes.
    So no, I don’t think a reporter from the country Bush has helped destroy, a reporter who has probably lost countless family members, seen his country destroyed is out of line in throwing his shoes.
    The hypocrisy out Bush outrages me. Yes Iraq had an evil dictator as it’s leader – but whose business was it of the US???? I see the US has done NOTHING about other dictators who prey upon their own people.
    (*g* you’ve obviously hit a hot button with me on this topic. I could go on and on but I’ll spare everyone)
    And – by coincidence – I just heard on the radio as I was typing this – the reporter was tortured to make and apology.)

    ReplyReply

  • I don’t think he deserved having shoes thrown at him. I don’t hate him and I don’t think he’s evil. I think in his first term he originally did what he thought was best for all of us after a horrific tragedy. I don’t care for the decisions he has made in the second term, but I still don’t think he’s a bad or evil person.

    I think people forget he hasn’t made all the bad decisions on his own.

    ReplyReply


  • West
    December 22
    11:04 pm

    I’m with the shoe-thrower. He was angry, and expressing an opinion in a way that matters to his people. And I don’t care, POTUS or not, respect has to be earned, and Bush hasn’t done anything to earn it. He invaded Iraq with a personal agenda, lied about both why and the evidence supporting the move, and completely fucked up the country. Is it a good thing a man as evil as Hussein is no longer in power? Yes. Is the country any better off now? Not really. The lawlessness and anarchy reigning over there is just as-if not more-dangerous. Which is what happens when you go in and destroy a goverment without a plan for a new one. And while Bush may not have made all the bad decisions on his own, as POTUS, he does own the mistakes.

    So yeah, he threw his shoes. He was angry, and used a time-honored tradition on his people to do it. Just because it’s not something we’d do doesn’t technically make it wrong. We see it as a petty, petulant temper-tantrum. But to them, it’s a way of expressing insult. I’m good with that.

    ReplyReply

  • I don’t actually know the background on any particular cultural meaning of throwing shoes, but it was a security breach, for sure.

    GWB deserves life in Leavenworth, as far I’m concerned, so as to the question of whether he, personally, deserves insult, I’d say hell yeah.

    ReplyReply


  • Karmyn
    December 24
    11:42 pm

    I think Bush did what he thought was best. It just didn’t work completely as he thought it would. But at least he got rid of Saddam.
    What tickles me is people acting like this has never happened before. Spanish-American War ring a bell?
    Plus, if Bush is personally responible for every war death, does that mean President Lincoln is the worst mass murderer in American history?

    ReplyReply

  • And I don’t believe for ONE MOMENT that Bush did what he did because of 9/11!!!!! Not ONE MOMENT. He had proof that Iraq had nothing to do with it, but he ignored and used manufactured, untrue intelligence – that he KNEW wasn’t true. Yet because he had his own reasons, he ignored it and went ahead and invaded anyways.
    Yes – Saddam was an insane butcher of his own people, though that didn’t seem to matter years before when the US worked WITH him. But wasn’t it up to the people of Iraq to take care of it? What business was it of the US to play God and decide which ‘head of state’ to topple. Why not the head of North Korea? He starves his people. Why not the heads of some African nations who commit genocide on their own people? Why not them? Because they don’t have something the US government wants. And just to be totally clear – it’s the US government I hold responsible – not the people of the US. As for the other examples you’ve used – I don’t know enough about it. I wasn’t alive then to watch things play out. But in this case I can see what’s happened. I don’t live in the US so I’ve seen the world media – not just the US version.
    If Bush REALLY cared about the perpetrators of 9/11 why didn’t he concentrate in Afghanistan? Instead, Canada has picked up the burden and our troops are dying there. Is that even being reported in the US media? I highly doubt it. What about the British soldiers who have died?
    And if he’s so damned concerned, why are returning soldiers being treated like dirt in army hospitals? Why are families living in severely reduced circumstances because their loved ones who are in the army RESERVES being sent to fight a war? Why are rules being rewritten to keep them there when their time of duty should be up?
    So please – don’t tell me Bush was doing what he thought was right ’cause that’s a load of crap!

    ReplyReply


  • Sheila
    December 26
    5:58 pm

    I’m not a GWB fan. My first thought when he went into Iraq was that he was doing it for his daddy. I’m also of the opinion that he needs some criminal charges brought against him and the vice-president, but we all know that will never happen.
    As for the shoe event it was good for a few laughs but I couldn’t help but point out to a friend just how slowly the President’s Secret Service men reacted.

    ReplyReply


  • Julia
    December 26
    6:19 pm

    Fortunately for him, he was able to make his protest, without fear of torture and death hanging over his head.

    AH HA HA HA HA HA Oh, wait, you weren’t trying to be funny.

    The current Iraqi police and military aren’t much better, in the opinion of the average Iraqi, than they were in the days of Saddam Hussein.

    That said, I found it to be an odd and violent protest. And I’m a bit concerned with the level of security that enabled the man to throw a second shoe at a head of state. In general, I think that any security arrangements that result in people throwing things, twice, at a head of state aren’t up to snuff.

    ReplyReply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment