I am so sick of the hypocrisy from the other side of the blogosphere. They want me to accept that it's ok to laugh at this incident.
It isn't.
First - It's not the huge big deal that some on the right want to make it. It's not a black mark on the secret service. I am sure they were there as quickly as possible. I wouldn't have wanted them to actually harm the guy. Poor bastard was brutalized by a shia militia group. He doesn't need a jail cell, he needs serious therapy. He is Iraq's version of John Hinckley. His actions do not represent a serious political view. If you see one, then I am sure that you will also find great insight watching monkeys fling their feces next time you visit the local zoo.
Next - For those on the left who say we would have laughed if it had been "The One" having footwear hurled at him........think again. Me and mine are already on record about how we feel on foreign attacks against our Presidents or Presidents-elect.
This video is from 22 NOV 2008 when Uncle J responded to Zawahiri calling Obama a "house slave". Uncle J tells the President elect "I've got your back." I agree in the comments. So we are already on record with our position.
You may disagree with "W"...after all, I have plenty of times, but he is the President of the United States. An attack on "W" is an attack on America. If you don't get that, I feel sorry for you.
There's not a whole lot in the Arab world that I agree with, but something I always got on a gut level was the proverb "Me against my brother - my brother and I against our cousin - my brother, my cousin and I against an outsider."
I will never applaud a foreign leader or citizen attacking an American president, no matter who that person is.
Well said. The turd got his butt kicked...as he deserved. The shoes hitting the US flag pissed me off as well.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if the shoe guy was Iraq's version of Hinkley: he didn't have a gun. I like the Uncle J video, Maggie. He's politically gracious and evokes integrity. I admire people who disagree with civility, and sometimes even those who don't... which is more my style.
ReplyDeleteI far more than disagree with Dub, whose policies were a terrible attack on America. He disgraced the Presidential office and attacked the American people on many levels. Yes, it's wrong to attack a head of state, whether America or other nation. Bush himself is accountable for demeaning heads of state. But, you make an excellent point: I don't need your sympathy on this incident.
I agree there was no black mark on the Secret Service. They were there in a flash. But this is priceless: I am sure that you will also find great insight watching monkeys fling their feces next time you visit the local zoo.
LMAO. That's great.
My comparison to Hinckley was based on the mental illness aspect. Hinckley should have been an inmate somewhere long before that day. The shoe thrower was also the victim of something so traumatic, he needed/needs serious help.
ReplyDeleteYes, probably the war. You think maybe PTSD? If our soldiers suffer, so do those we attack. I can't imagine the horror of living with bombs and the endless attacks. That goes for the military and the Iraqis.
ReplyDeleteI think your Hinckley comparison is apt: his actions were certainly those of someone suffering some sort of mental disturbance. I can neither criticize nor condone his actions.
Don't get me wrong: this is a great post. Your perspective is well-reasoned. I've got your back (love that...)
Any comparison of Muntadar Al-Zaidi with Hinckley is ludicrous.
ReplyDeleteIn no way could this shoeing of the drugstore cowboy who occupies the White House was a physical attack endangering his life. It would have been an attack on the prez if the objects had been hand grenades or rocks. But the throwing of shoes in the Middle East in comparable to throwing eggs, tomatoes or pies in the West. It is a physically harmless act of casting contempt on the target.
Bush fully deserves this contempt. Al-Zaidi deserves to be runner-up for Time's man-of-the-year, or Nobel Prize for Journalism. Or both!
I stand by the comparison. The two acts were from desperate, mentally disturbed men. It was not meant to compare the dangerousness of their actions.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry you don't see it, but then you are so caught up in you hate for George Bush, I'm not surprised.
Don't forget Cheney, too! It's so nice to fall into your pages once and a while, Maggie, because I'm so well known here, and understood.
ReplyDeleteBTW, Al-Zaidi's statement gave expression to a vastly held political impulse through out the Middle East and the world. Hinckley's action was that of a crazed assassin, who no one supported. He deserves to be locked up in prison until the flesh rots and falls from his bones. Al-Zaidi, OTOH, deserves to be immediately released to universal popular acclaim!
Just because there are people who agree with Al-Zaidi's actions doesn't make them right.....otherwise my agreeing with Bush on Iraq would make him right.........wouldn't it?
ReplyDeleteThis is a silly discussion. That's why the post is entitled "Enough About The Effing Shoes!" LOL
You have to learn to separate your feelings from facts. I loathe Obama, but I would have put myself between him and a shoe. And if someone threw a shoe at Obama, lot's of people would agree with the sentiment. Doesn't make it right.
Hinckley was unhinged. So is Al-Zaidi.
What Maggie?
ReplyDeleteJust because there are people who agree with Al-Zaidi's actions doesn't make them right
Is not the point.
Just because there are people who agree with Al-Zaidi's actions doesn't make them like Hinckley's actions.
Your statement that Al-Zaidi
is Iraq's version of John Hinckley. His actions do not represent a serious political view.
is a hyperbolic and inaccurate statement, putting it mildly as possible.
Al-Zaidi and Hinckley are two men who suffered severe mental disturbances and targeted politcal leaders.
ReplyDeleteThat is how there are alike.
That's what I said.
It's still true.
It will be true no matter how much you hate Bush.
Al-Zaidi was traumatized when he was kidnapped by a Shia militia, not George Bush.
I know, I know, you are going to say that without the invasion there would be no Shia militia. But we did invade.
To our everlasting infamy.
ReplyDeleteIt's an epidemic! Have you had "enough" of the "effing shoes" yet, Maggie?
Like I care how ignorant Europeans spend their day! LOL You are funny. I saw a movie once where pigmies danced around their human victim.....didn't make me through out my cookbooks.
ReplyDeleteYou do what you think is right. You do it even when it's not popular. You can't be swayed by the mob.
I am not including you (or Stella) in this statement, but one of the funniest stories I ever heard was Mark Steyn who questioned a protester who was decrying our involvement with Saudi Arabia. The poster could not answer any questions about the Kingdom. Not the capital or the form of governement or it's location. I would state with great certainty that the majority those shoe throwers understand even less about "W"s aims and hopes in Iraq. So why would I care what they think? They will all go home and become absorbed in some other trivial matter shortly.
I understand that "American Idol" returns soon to sedate the masses.
Your last point is a good one. Sad, but probably true.
ReplyDelete