Muntadhar al-Zeidi, the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at former President George W. Bush, has been sentenced to three years in prison — sixteen months per shoe. The decision has already produced protests in Iraq where the vast majority of citizens view him as a hero for his act.
Al-Zeidi claimed a type of private necessity in claiming his innocence, explaining that p”what I did was a natural response to the occupation.” When he was hit with the lengthy sentence, al-Zeidi reportedly shouted “long live Iraq.”
This was actually the minimum sentence for the assault charge — a far shot from the 15 years in prison that he could have received.
He has now inspired not just a fashion craze but copycats who have thrown shoes at both the Chinese and Iranian leaders.
For the full story, click here.
Maybe this is what he was thinking:
” I will not let anyone walk through my mind with their dirty feet.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
I wonder if the time given was because he missed.
As I wrote at my blog, a turd would have been much more offensive (and apt). Hell, my mother threw thousands of shoes at me as a child (I was fast) and I was never offended.
In this country what would he have gotten if he threw his shoe at a speaker at a college lecture for instance? Is it a case of attempted asolelt?
Medal of Freedom would have been more appropriate…
He should have gotten 10 years for attacking a foreign head of state.
The only reason he didn’t is because of the generosity of the new Democratic Iraqi government.
Saddam would have had him strung up by his neck and strangled slowly and his wife & children removed from their homes and thrown into the street to beg for food and shelter.
I am ashamed of those that think this man some type of hero, because he is not.
OBAMA HAS TO BE THE BIGGEST DOOFUS WE HAVE EVER ELECTED PRESIDENT!
WE PROVED TO THE WORLD LAST NOVEMBER THAT WE REALLY ARE STUPID AMERICANS.
And George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzalez, John Ashcroft, John Yoo, David Addington, and many more remain — war criminals all — remain free.
a year seems incredibly stiff for assault. he certainly never threatened the president’s life. absurd.
oops…meant to say three years, not a year. even one year would seem to much. i do not condone assault in any form, even though i loathe bush. punishment is necessary but this i cruel and unusual. guess iraq has not adopted that standard yet…
Bush missed his last opportunity to be a stand up guy. He should have asked the Iraqi government to pardon the guy.
Muntadhar al-Zeidi is a hero.
Bush is LUCKY that shoes were the only objects headed his way.
I wonder if people would cry for mercy if a man threw shoes at President Obama. Justice is justice whether a president is perceived as a good one or a bad one.
MikeS:
you disappeared? where is the mug shot?
Clint has a very strange sense of what “justice” means.
The way Obama is still sending unmanned drones to illegally attack other countries, I would give the shoe thrower from that country the same support.
Perceiving as “good or bad” is not the issue. Understanding that we had a so-called leader who intentionally lied and fixed facts to lead us into an illegal invasion and occupation and that this constitutes war crimes is far different than “perceiving” if one is good or bad.
Stop defending the assholes, Sheople. Have you no sense of decency or compassion for those that we have ravaged? Have you no sense of shame for what has been done in your name?
bimbo,
“OBAMA HAS TO BE THE BIGGEST DOOFUS WE HAVE EVER ELECTED PRESIDENT!
WE PROVED TO THE WORLD LAST NOVEMBER THAT WE REALLY ARE STUPID AMERICANS.”
Drive-by insults, cheesy bumper stickers, and Rush Limbaugh sound bites are probably the only interaction many of these commenters have with conservative thought. If you demand respect for the President when he is a republican, the least you can do is honor the current one.
BuelahMan,
I fought in Iraq and I saw many good things that we did there. I’m sorry you have chalked it up to nothing but evil. I am not defending anyone. “Attacking” a foreign leader demands some form of justice or everybody would do it. Should I throw shoes at President Obama because I don’t agree with some of his policies…no.
If Obama illegally invades and causes the death of so many hundreds of thousands, then as I said before, you have no sense of justice. Do you really think 3 years for throwing a shoe is “justice”?
Really?
Stop equating that asswipe to Obama. Its a Strawman. And you know it. Even though I think Obama is little better than W.
I thank you for your service, but they sent you for bullshit reasons and I would rather you have stayed here. I hope you don’t have to go back because the place you went and the reason you were sent were not noble nor necessary.
I hope you didn’t go because you fell for the lies, as so many others did. That would mean you were used. To me, I would be pissed and sure as hell wouldn’t even remotely defend the lying assholes that sent me.
(And yes, I served, but am much older than you, apparently)
Good day.
I am emphasizing civil justice not ultimate justice. Civil justice is upheld by us. Ultimate justice is carried out by God. I have already said once that I am not defending anyone. And I am equating Bush with Obama in the sense that they have both held the highest position in our country. The position should be honored and that is what I’m referring to. If a country allows a person to assault the President of the US, then what happens when someone doesn’t agree with President Obama? If we gloss over the assault of a President that is not liked, then who will prevent the assault of a President that is liked?
More mumbo jumbo.
Again, Is Obama a war criminal? W is.
There is no comparison in the eyes of Zaidi and THAT is the point. Your perspective is meaningless in this scope.
What would your idea of “justice” be for Zaidi? Is Three years enough for his “attack” with a shoe (and as I have previously stated, I have been hit with a shoe so many times I cannot count). How does the torture he has received thus far play in to it?
How about 50 years, just because W could make claim to being the POTUS? Would that be “justice” enough for you?
There is still a moral issue here that you, as a soldier that served in an illegally invading force, seems to NOT be able to grasp. I don’t know where you are from, but way down here in TN, we would probably be much more vicious as “insurgents” if the shoe (sorry for the pun) were on the other foot. Would I have the guts that Zaidi had? Would you?
You want justice? Then help make sure that W is prosecuted for his crimes and then line up at the firing squad to contribute your skill set.
I will give you some credit then.
As for holding respect for the “position”: Do you think Zaidi was throwing the shoe at the position or the idiot who was instrumental in killing all his friends and family?
Why do you think that Canada is even debating bringing charges against him, if he weren’t a worthless, torturing POS?
And I have not glossed over anything. Surely there is a penalty for throwing a shoe at a head of state (and maybe anyone else). Should it be for three years after being tortured?
Is THAT your sense of “justice”?
W deserves nothing but scorn and total disdain. No respect for him. No respect for his cabal. No respect for those who defend their indefensible actions and deeds. He made respect for the position moot, when he, as a sickening war criminal, did what he did in our name.
I hold immensely more respect for Zaidi than I do W. Any day. All day.
He’s a hero to me.
Clint,
Should George W. Bush be investigated for war crimes?
Clint,
I have to ask as well what CCD and others above have said: should bush be investigated for war crimes? I also don’t understand how a position confers respect on a man. A position confers power. Respect is earned. Authorizing torture, illegally invading another nation, slaughtering their people and killing/maiming our people in the process, “justified” by proven lies, suspending our Constitution and spying on our people. What part of those actions do you respect?
I understand your point that he threw a shoe at someone so he should be punished. Punishment should fit the crime and I’m certain there is a punishment that fits the circumstances of this crime. Now I am hoping you will answer our questions on bush.
Bron,
That’s a different Mike S. I think.
Clint,
Please keep your religion out of my justice, and I’ll keep my justice out of your religion. Making claims about God’s Justice adds nothing to the conversation unless everyone agrees on which God and which Justice. If you want to speak of your beliefs as having informed your view, say that they’re your beliefs. Please don’t state them as some truism that we all must accept.
I think that being conditioned to automatically honoring a person just because of their position can be a very important step to establishing a tyranny. I understand that sometimes it’s necessary, but I for one refuse to show an elected official a shred more respect than they have earned.
Gyges,
“but I for one refuse to show an elected official a shred more respect than they have earned.”
Are you the ultimate authority of determining who deserves respect? It seems your “truisms” are bit more acceptable than mine.
Jill/CCD,
Yes, investigate Bush for war crimes. That is fine. He isn’t above the law. That is unrelated to the crime of attacking a foreign leader. If al-Zeidi is okay to issue out justice based on his opinion then how can we draw the line when someone feels strongly against President Obama?
Clint,
I’m the ultimate authority as to how much of my respect a person has earned. Since any show of Respect is ultimately personal, any measure of how much respect is earned must be determined by on a personal level as well. I’ll never tell you that you shouldn’t show someone respect (although I might point out why I think he doesn’t deserve it), and for the same reason I’ll never tell you to show someone respect.
My truism is more acceptable because it’s my prediction about my actions based on my opinions. Your truism is your opinion on the nature of a somewhat abstract idea (Justice) based on your religious beliefs.
Gyges
“I’m the ultimate authority as to how much of my respect a person has earned. Since any show of Respect is ultimately personal, any measure of how much respect is earned must be determined by on a personal level as well.”
Multiply that statement by several million and you have anarchy. Just to let you know, someone else who is far more zealous about his own “truisms” may attack our current President one day. Justice wouldn’t be too abstract on that day, would it?
Also….
“Your truism is your opinion on the nature of a somewhat abstract idea (Justice) based on your religious beliefs.”
And your truism is based on pure, unbridled objectivity?
Clint,
Why does a lack of respect automatically turn into the will to commit violence? Lack of respect is, in my opinion, warranted beacuse bush committed war crimes. There is no anarchy in having a lack of respect for someone who doesn’t deserve it. Anarchy results when your govt. ignores your Constitution.
Jill,
I think I’m referring specifically to the kind of respect that prevents us from doing criminal activity. I realize there are degrees of respect. I believe that the office of a President, whether it is filled by Bush or Obama, should be respected to that degree.
Also Jill, I appreciate your comments.
Clint,
Since you’re making a claim (individuals having the right to determine who they respect leads to anarchy), you’ve got the burden of proof… or at least explanation.
Jill,
Well said.
Friends’ shoes and subpoenas can be sent to:
George Bush
10141 Daria Place
Dallas, TX 75229
I’ve got to dash over to the Post Office with my p a c k a g e.
Gyges,
I think that you completely understand my definition of respect in this instance being one that keeps us from assaulting a President. If I felt strongly that Obama’s policies were destructive, would that give me the right to assault him? Are your principles purely based on political loyalties?
Clint,
I was assuming we both were using respect in the manner that everyone else does. My mistake.
Since I try and avoid arguing semantics, I’m just going to admit that we have VASTLY different definitions of the word respect. If you’re curious as to mine, I suggest Merriam Webster online.
Gyges,
Since the foundation of the dialogue about “respect” was the assault of a President, I assumed that you would make the connection without having to preface the word each time. It seems that this slip completely prevented you from explaining your reasoning or answering simple questions. My apologies for the confusion. I’ll try to be more clear next time.