Bush in Baghdad - 2 Shoes, Size 10

  • News
  • Thread starter LowlyPion
  • Start date
In summary, the Iraqi journalist threw two shoes at President deselect George Bush at a news conference today. He adroitly ducked the shoes like he has press conference questions for years now. The remarkable thing to me was, where was the Secret Service? The journalist threw one and then had plenty of time to get off the second. No one threw their body in the path of either. Maybe he just wanted them polished. No one threw their body in the path of either.Perhaps they were really smelly? Is that where we have come as a society? Where political assassinations are done via shoes? Imagine if in the Kennedy assassination instead of getting shot twice he got two shoes thrown at him really hard. Things would have been a lot
  • #36
Cyrus said:
No, Art. A journalist does not go around trying to harm heads of state. There is no excuse for what he did. NONE. NOT ONE. NONE.
On the other hand Cyrus heads of state should not invade other people's countries killing 1000s of their citizens in the process and then expect a warm welcome. There is no excuse for what Bush did NONE. NOT ONE. NONE.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
LowlyPion said:
Apparently it was bring filmed by some guy named Abe Zapruder and it seems that there was only one hurler.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHMDdSxomcU

If you look real closely you can see Bush has a smirk on his face right as the shoe is flying at him. Maybe it gave him a flashback to his school days playing dodgeball in PE?
 
  • #38
WarPhalange said:
If you look real closely you can see Bush has a smirk on his face right as the shoe is flying at him. Maybe it gave him a flashback to his school days playing dodgeball in PE?
I suspect Bush was the sort of kid who had lots of practice dodging things thrown at him :biggrin:
 
  • #39
Art said:
On the other hand Cyrus heads of state should not invade other people's countries killing 1000s of their citizens in the process and then expect a warm welcome. There is no excuse for what Bush did NONE. NOT ONE. NONE.

Art, that does not excuse the journalist from trying to assult a head of state.


The fact that you would defend this guy throwing his shoes at the president is telling.
 
  • #40
Oh my god, it's a damn shoe. It had absolutely no chance of killing or even maiming him. A lucky hit would have given him a bloody nose or a bruised eye. And you want to kill the guy in return. What is the big deal with the shoe? Why does the president get some divine anti-shoe status? I thought "All men were created equal"?
 
  • #41
WarPhalange, does it elude you that there are certain lines you don't cross when you are a professional reporter? - I think it must. If he were in the United States he could be thrown in jail. My comments about putting him on IED detail were tongue in cheek - that should have been obvious to everyone.
 
  • #42
Cyrus said:
WarPhalange, does it elude you that there are certain lines you don't cross when you are a professional reporter?

Do you think he is going to be a reporter after this? No, he will get fired. Because he crossed the line. Where's the problem?

If he were in the United States he could be thrown in jail.

I know, thank god for democracy, because he won't get that kind of mercy over there. He's probably on a flight to Guantanamo already.

My comments about putting him on IED detail were tongue in cheek - that should have been obvious to everyone.

Sorry, it wasn't to me. You repeated it a few times and called him an MFer. That implies some kind of seriousness.
 
  • #43
WarPhalange said:
Do you think he is going to be a reporter after this? No, he will get fired. Because he crossed the line. Where's the problem?

What does it matter what I think will happen to him after this. It is irrelevant. How do you know he will get fired, are you his boss? Do you know his boss? Please stop making statements as if they were fact.

The problem is you making statements like "Why does the president get some divine anti-shoe status" which implies its no big deal about what the reporter did. It is a very big deal. It's highly disrespectful, and unprofessional and it undermines why the president is there to help the people of Iraq.

I know, thank god for democracy, because he won't get that kind of mercy over there. He's probably on a flight to Guantanamo already.

This is simply your opinion, and as such carries no factual accuracy.

Sorry, it wasn't to me. You repeated it a few times and called him an MFer. That implies some kind of seriousness.

I was serious that he is an MFer.
 
  • #44
Cyrus said:
What does it matter what I think will happen to him after this. It is irrelevant. How do you know he will get fired, are you his boss? Do you know his boss? Please stop making statements as if they were fact.

Why would you doubt that he will be fired? He disgraced himself on international TV. I can't imagine a real news station that would keep him around after that.

The problem is you making statements like "Why does the president get some divine anti-shoe status" which implies its no big deal about what the reporter did.

He threw shoes. They weren't nuclear shoes, they weren't laser shoes, or even a pair of cleats. Last I checked that's something you get sent to detention for or possibly suspended for a few days if you actually hit someone.

To summarize:



It is a very big deal.

This is simply your opinion, and as such carries no factual accuracy. In my opinion, I find it hard to believe that this will start some weird cold-war within a real war situation.

It's highly disrespectful, and unprofessional and it undermines why the president is there to help the people of Iraq.

I agree with the first two parts. It is highly disrespectful. That was his point. He wasn't trying to show Bush how much he liked him by throwing a shoe at him. Come on.

And it was unprofessional, yes. I ain't never seen no reporter throw a shoe before and it's not what's expected from them.

But it doesn't undermine anything. Only the president undermines why the president is there to help the people of Iraq.

This is simply your opinion, and as such carries no factual accuracy.

True. I find it highly unlikely he won't get punished, though.

I was serious that he is an MFer.

Okay.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
WarPhalange said:
Why would you doubt that he will be fired? He disgraced himself on international TV. I can't imagine a real news station that would keep him around after that.

What kind of news station would hire him to begin with?


He threw shoes. They weren't nuclear shoes, they weren't laser shoes, or even a pair of cleats. Last I checked that's something you get sent to detention for or possibly suspended for a few days if you actually hit someone.

Detention or suspended? Are you in high school?

This is simply your opinion, and as such carries no factual accuracy. In my opinion, I find it hard to believe that this will start some weird cold-war within a real war situation.

What I stated was not an opnion. In middle eastern culture throwing your shoe at someone is highly insulting. Stop twisting the words I am using, or I'm going to report your post (for the 3rd time in this thread already). No one's talking about 'a weird cold war within'. What does that mean? What are you talking about? Why do you KEEP bringing up things that has nothing to do with anything?

But it doesn't undermine anything. Only the president undermines why the president is there to help the people of Iraq.

When the president takes the time out of his busy schedule to go to Iraq and puts himself at big risk while doing so (very dangerous region), it looks very bad when some smuck starts throwing shoes at the president when he's there trying to get work done rebuilding the country.
 
  • #46
Cyrus said:
What kind of news station would hire him to begin with?

I doubt news stations ask people if they throw shoes at presidents in their spare time. I guess he must have slipped under their radar. :rolleyes:


Detention or suspended? Are you in high school?

That's what throwing shoes reminds me of. Being in high school. NOT some deadly assassination attempt.

What I stated was not an opnion. In middle eastern culture throwing your shoe at someone is highly insulting. Stop twisting the words I am using, or I'm going to report your post (for the 3rd time in this thread already). No one's talking about 'a weird cold war within'. What does that mean? What are you talking about? Why do you KEEP bringing up things that has nothing to do with anything?

What the hell am I twisting? Jesus Christ, calm down. "I'LL REPORT YOU I'LL REPORT YOU!" what is this, 3rd grade?

I meant this won't be a big deal because what can possibly happen? Increased tension between the US and Iraq because of a shoe? The president getting PTSD from this ordeal?

When the president takes the time out of his busy schedule to go to Iraq and puts himself at big risk while doing so (very dangerous region), it looks very bad when some smuck starts throwing shoes at the president when he's there trying to get work done rebuilding the country.

Yes, it does. So what?
 
  • #47
Cyrus said:
Art, that does not excuse the journalist from trying to assult a head of state.

The fact that you would defend this guy throwing his shoes at the president is telling.

I don't think anyone here is excusing the reporter. I'm not. I just don't see it as such a big deal. I'm sure he will have consequences from this. Who knows though but that some in Iraq might see him as a hero? But even at that... lighten up. It's only a press conference. Thankfully it was only a shoe or two.

Why you hang on some notion of required journalistic behavior in a country that has hardly had much of a tradition for an unfettered press in its entire history is a little much.
When the president takes the time out of his busy schedule to go to Iraq and puts himself at big risk while doing so (very dangerous region), it looks very bad when some smuck starts throwing shoes at the president when he's there trying to get work done rebuilding the country.
What in the h-e-double hockey sticks is he there for in the first place? The economy is melting down domestically and Dubya is jetting to Iraq? He's not rebuilding any damn country. He's grabbing a headline.

He and Cheney are the perpetrators of the adventure there, and frankly I can't say that the US has gotten out of this reckless aggression of theirs what they were representing to the American People they would get. (Not to mention casting aside 200+ years of jurisprudence and due process and soiling our own principles of human rights in the bargain.)
 
  • #48
Only 37 more days.

Obama says: There should only be one President at a time.

Barney Frank: I think Obama is overestimating the number of Presidents we have now.
 
  • #49
LowlyPion said:
Why you hang on some notion of required journalistic behavior in a country that has hardly had much of a tradition for an unfettered press in its entire history is a little much.

You can't say:

"I don't think anyone here is excusing the reporter"

and then say:

"Why you hang on some notion of required journalistic behavior in a country that has hardly had much of a tradition for an unfettered press in its entire history is a little much."

The implication of the second sentence contradicts the first sentence. So because Iraq has has unfettered press throughout its history, that means its to be expected that heads of state are assulted? Are you implying that I am being too demanding that a iraqi reporter know better than to assualt another head of state?

Are you joking me? Are you seriously going to make this argument?

As much as I don't like Bush, no one. NO ONE, is allowed to assult the president. Under no circumstancse. Ever.

If you disagree with him, voice your opinion and have protests and run against him. No one has any right to try and harm him. The president is more than just a person, he is a symbol of the nation.



I think you guys don't see why what he did is really bad because you're not middle eastern. Think of it this way, suppose he ran up to Bush and slapped him in the face, or spit in his face. It wouldn't be 'oh he just threw a shoe at him' anymore.
 
Last edited:
  • #50
Cyrus said:
The president is more than just a person, he is a symbol of the nation.

You'll find that at least half of the nation disagrees with you.

I think you guys don't see why what he did is really bad because you're not middle eastern.

Are you Middle Eastern? And you are right, we have a different perspective maybe because of our culture and probably because of recent history.

Think of it this way, suppose he ran up to Bush and slapped him in the face, or spit in his face. It wouldn't be 'oh he just threw a shoe at him' anymore.

I wouldn't have lost any sleep over it. Look, Cyrus, it's obvious that we have different views from you. Personally, hearing about this put a smile on my face because the man did what so many others could only dream of doing. I view Bush as a traitor and tyrant.

In fact, if this had happened to almost any other person -- including you -- I would have been pretty angry. But G-Bush and his NeoCon gang deserve no better in my opinion.

I view this in a similar vein to Jesse Owens sticking it to Hitler in the 1936 Olympics.
 
  • #51
cyrus, dude, just let it go. he's commander in chief, head of the military. we just stomped all over iraq and, for better or worse, there's a lot of distraught people there. he took an ineffectual symbolic shot at a guy that is a legitimate non-civilian target. and he's likely going to pay dearly for that. if it were a US reporter, i'd say it's inexcusable. but given the way the president seems to be smirking and taking it in stride, i wouldn't be surprised if he tries to work in some kind of pardon for the guy on his way out. and if he did, it's probably even strengthen relations between us and the iraqis.
 
  • #52
WarPhalange said:
You'll find that at least half of the nation disagrees with you.

Where is this magical bag that you grab all these 'facts and figures' from? Half the nation disagrees with me? Could you show me a source that says "Half the nation does not think the president symbolizes america."

Note: I didn't ask you about his approval rating. I said he symbolizes the country.

I wouldn't have lost any sleep over it. Look, Cyrus, it's obvious that we have different views from you. Personally, hearing about this put a smile on my face because the man did what so many others could only dream of doing. I view Bush as a traitor and tyrant.

You are welcome to hold those beliefs. If you're happy the president was assulted, that's your own right -albeit rather unfortunate.

In fact, if this had happened to almost any other person -- including you -- I would have been pretty angry. But G-Bush and his NeoCon gang deserve no better in my opinion.

They will be gone in about a month. Wishing and praising violence does no one any good.

I view this in a similar vein to Jesse Owens sticking it to Hitler in the 1936 Olympics.

I don't recall Owens attacking anyone. The way in which he made his point was honorable. The analogy is meaningless.

If you want to use that analogy you would have to say something to the effect: I really admire that reporter because he busted Bush's chops with some hard questions infront of the whole world.
 
  • #53
Cyrus said:
Where is this magical bag that you grab all these 'facts and figures' from? Half the nation disagrees with me? Could you show me a source that says "Half the nation does not think the president symbolizes america."

Note: I didn't ask you about his approval rating. I said he symbolizes the country.

The people who think he's doing a really bad job do not think he symbolizes America. Hell, other countries don't think he symbolizes America. And no, these aren't cold hard facts, these are educated guesses.

You are welcome to hold those beliefs. If you're happy the president was assulted, that's your own right -albeit rather unfortunate.

For him. It's fortunate for me because it put a smile on my face.

They will be gone in about a month. Wishing and praising violence does no one any good.
Gone isn't enough in my opinion. They did a lot of damage to this country and its reputation as well as decimating another.

I don't recall Owens attacking anyone. The way in which he made his point was honorable. The analogy is meaningless.

I find meaning in it, so I don't know what to tell you.

If you want to use that analogy you would have to say something to the effect: I really admire that reporter because he busted Bush's chops with some hard questions infront of the whole world.

That would only have worked if Hitler had completely ignored Owens's victory and given the medal to someone else, since Bush would have just dodged those questions.
 
  • #54
WarPhalange said:
The people who think he's doing a really bad job do not think he symbolizes America. Hell, other countries don't think he symbolizes America. And no, these aren't cold hard facts, these are educated guesses.

I think you don't understand what a president represents. He is an ambassador. We voted for him, so when he goes to another country he speaks 'for us'. He is a symbol of the United States as a whole.

For example, let's say you win the American Award for Physics (I Just made that award title up). And you are invited to the white house by none-other than Bush himself to accept the award. When he hands it to you, its not President Bush that gave you the award. Its president Bush giving you the award on the behalf of the AMERICAN PEOPLE. This is what a president stands for. A symbol of the collective whole.
 
  • #55
Cyrus said:
What kind of news station would hire him to begin with?
When the president takes the time out of his busy schedule to go to Iraq and puts himself at big risk while doing so (very dangerous region), it looks very bad when some smuck starts throwing shoes at the president when he's there trying to get work done rebuilding the country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/world/middleeast/14reconstruct.html?_r=1&hp

The bitterest message of all for the reconstruction program may be the way the history ends. The hard figures on basic services and industrial production compiled for the report reveal that for all the money spent and promises made, the rebuilding effort never did much more than restore what was destroyed during the invasion and the convulsive looting that followed.

By mid-2008, the history says, $117 billion had been spent on the reconstruction of Iraq, including some $50 billion in United States taxpayer money.
 
  • #57
Bush wouldn't have answered them anyway.
 
  • #58
Vid said:
Bush wouldn't have answered them anyway.

Did Bush personally tell you this?

Folks: Please stop making statements as if they were matter of fact.
 
  • #59
Cyrus said:
For example, let's say you win the American Award for Physics (I Just made that award title up). And you are invited to the white house by none-other than Bush himself to accept the award. When he hands it to you, its not President Bush that gave you the award. Its president Bush giving you the award on the behalf of the AMERICAN PEOPLE. This is what a president stands for. A symbol of the collective whole.

That's not how I view it. I can easily separate Bush the President of America from Bush the Ruiner of America.

Considering that Bush's approval rating is so abysmal I don't think the population at large will be outraged over this.

And no, this isn't a fact, but it doesn't take a huge leap in logic to make that kind of educated guess.
 
  • #60
As Middle Eastern, I can say that throwing the shoes is worse than spitting on, or slapping.

This journalist is leftist. He was kidnapped in Iraq a few months ago and he was tortured severely.
 
  • #61
Yeah, noone's defending the reporter here... He isn't even an American... who cares? I understand your point, Cyrus, but why are your panties in a bunch over some random Iraqi journalist?

I mean to some this may be funny, others will shake their heads... but I doubt anything of real consequence will come from this. It's a sign of the times, not a part of the problem.
 
  • #62
tchitt said:
Yeah, noone's defending the reporter here... He isn't even an American... who cares? I understand your point, Cyrus, but why are your panties in a bunch over some random Iraqi journalist?

I mean to some this may be funny, others will shake their heads... but I doubt anything of real consequence will come from this. It's a sign of the times, not a part of the problem.

Edit: Misread what you wrote.
 
  • #63
Proton Soup said:
but given the way the president seems to be smirking and taking it in stride, i wouldn't be surprised if he tries to work in some kind of pardon for the guy on his way out.

What do you mean "work in some kind of pardon"? I wasn't aware that this incident happened on US soil, where the president has power.
 
  • #64
lisab said:
:rofl:^2

That post floored me, jimmy!
Thanks. I'm never too proud to steal other peoples' ideas and so I will add that witnesses (nose-witnesses?) said they smelled an odor coming from the sandy dune.
 
  • #65
The controversy won't start till it gets leaked that they're both left foot shoes. ;)Unprofessional or not, I'm glad somebody did something to demonstrate the dislike for Bush.
I for one, would like to see a war crimes court held for Bush and Cheney.
Throw a book at em instead of shoes.
 
  • #66
Alfi said:
I for one, would like to see a war crimes court held for Bush and Cheney.

You could never get such a thing passed. What "crimes" were comitted?

Are you going to argue he lied by taking us into war? After almost every other country provided intel that said similar things and Iraq had broken UN violations for nearly 30 years.

The court will throw the book right back at you and say have a nice day.
 
  • #67
I also note that the Ibrahim Zapr U'dir film has been edited. You can see evidence of artificial lighting in many of the frames.
 
  • #68
Cyrus said:
The US troops should put this guy on IED detection detail. MF'er.
I take it that we cannot count on your support for http://www.cals.wisc.edu/ecals/2007/04/26/shoes-for-iraq/".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #69
jimmysnyder said:
I also note that the Ibrahim Zapr U'dir film has been edited. You can see evidence of artificial lighting in many of the frames.

I think a couple of frames have been redacted. Convene a commission to study it I say.

Meanwhile poor George. He goes to take a victory lap around the green zone ... just looking for a positive note for his recessional in 37 days and his meander into history and he just gets no respect - surrounded by a 100,000 US troops in a country he wants to think he has liberated and rebuilt - whether they like it or not.

I think about the only person he could beat in an election right now is this Blagofavitch in Illinois.
 
  • #70
I think this incident will be THE defining moment for the Bush legacy and the Iraq war, similar to way the image of the helicopters taking off from the roof of the US Embassy in Saigon back in 1975 defined the Vietnam war. The image of GWB ducking from shoes thrown by an irate Iraqi just sums it all up: failure.
 
<h2>1. What is the significance of the "2 Shoes" in the title?</h2><p>The "2 Shoes" refers to the two shoes that were thrown at former US President George W. Bush during a press conference in Baghdad, Iraq in 2008. The incident gained international attention and became a symbol of the Iraqi people's anger towards the US invasion and occupation of their country.</p><h2>2. Why is the size of the shoes mentioned?</h2><p>The size of the shoes, which were size 10, is significant because it was seen as a symbolic insult towards Bush. In Arab culture, throwing shoes at someone is considered a major insult and the size of the shoes is seen as a reflection of the person's stature and importance.</p><h2>3. Was anyone harmed during the incident?</h2><p>No, neither of the shoes thrown at Bush hit him. However, the shoe thrower, journalist Muntadhar al-Zaidi, was tackled and arrested by security forces and later sentenced to three years in prison for assaulting a foreign leader. He was released after nine months due to widespread protests and international pressure.</p><h2>4. Has this type of protest happened before?</h2><p>Yes, throwing shoes as a form of protest has a long history in many cultures, including the Middle East. In 2003, Iraqi protesters threw shoes at a statue of Saddam Hussein after the US-led invasion. In 2010, a man threw a shoe at Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao during a speech in Cambridge University. And in 2016, a protester threw a shoe at former US President Bill Clinton during a campaign rally.</p><h2>5. What impact did the "2 Shoes" incident have?</h2><p>The incident received widespread media coverage and sparked debates about the US involvement in Iraq and the treatment of Iraqi civilians. It also became a symbol of resistance and defiance for many Iraqis. The shoe thrower, Muntadhar al-Zaidi, gained celebrity status and was hailed as a hero by some. However, it also led to increased security measures and stricter restrictions for journalists in Iraq.</p>

1. What is the significance of the "2 Shoes" in the title?

The "2 Shoes" refers to the two shoes that were thrown at former US President George W. Bush during a press conference in Baghdad, Iraq in 2008. The incident gained international attention and became a symbol of the Iraqi people's anger towards the US invasion and occupation of their country.

2. Why is the size of the shoes mentioned?

The size of the shoes, which were size 10, is significant because it was seen as a symbolic insult towards Bush. In Arab culture, throwing shoes at someone is considered a major insult and the size of the shoes is seen as a reflection of the person's stature and importance.

3. Was anyone harmed during the incident?

No, neither of the shoes thrown at Bush hit him. However, the shoe thrower, journalist Muntadhar al-Zaidi, was tackled and arrested by security forces and later sentenced to three years in prison for assaulting a foreign leader. He was released after nine months due to widespread protests and international pressure.

4. Has this type of protest happened before?

Yes, throwing shoes as a form of protest has a long history in many cultures, including the Middle East. In 2003, Iraqi protesters threw shoes at a statue of Saddam Hussein after the US-led invasion. In 2010, a man threw a shoe at Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao during a speech in Cambridge University. And in 2016, a protester threw a shoe at former US President Bill Clinton during a campaign rally.

5. What impact did the "2 Shoes" incident have?

The incident received widespread media coverage and sparked debates about the US involvement in Iraq and the treatment of Iraqi civilians. It also became a symbol of resistance and defiance for many Iraqis. The shoe thrower, Muntadhar al-Zaidi, gained celebrity status and was hailed as a hero by some. However, it also led to increased security measures and stricter restrictions for journalists in Iraq.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
2
Replies
56
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
63
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top