WTF??? Reporter Throws Shoes At Bush

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Bush, Iraq, Video, WTF?

I’m sure you’ve seen this by now, but if not…it’s a must watch. If only Bush’s reaction time to our economic crisis was this quick.



Here’s more about the reporter and what he said…

“This is a gift from the Iraqis. This is the farewell kiss, you dog,” the journalist shouted (in Arabic), Steven Lee Myers of The New York Times reported in a pool report to the White House press corps.

Myers reported that the man threw the second shoe and added: “This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq.”

Journalists at the scene said the hurler was Muntadar al-Zaidi, a reporter for Al-Baghdadia TV, an independent satellite channel based in Cairo.

A producer for the channel was murdered in Baghdad last year.

My question: why did Bush pop back up after the first shoe was thrown? Aren’t Presidents taught to hit the ground if somebody attacks them?

By the way, isn’t smacking people with your shoe a particularly demeaning insult in the Middle East? Because if I remember correctly, the Iraqis who were riding the statue of Saddam’s through Baghdad were hitting it with their shoes.

Moving on…


This entry was posted on Sunday, December 14th, 2008 and is filed under Bush, Iraq, Video, WTF?. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

35 Responses to “WTF??? Reporter Throws Shoes At Bush”

  1. Bush’s reaction to shoe-toss reveals his lack of cultural understanding « Christopher Schwartz’s Weblog Says:

    [...] Donklephant [...]

  2. mw Says:

    I like it. I think we should adopt this protocol here for all Presidential Press Conferences. I can’t wait to see Andrea Mitchell throwing her pumps at Obama.

  3. Jeremy from Oregon Says:

    As usual Bush is completely oblivious to the underlying reality. If you listen to his remarks about the incident you see the same rationalizing he has used throughout his presidency. Almost making it appear as though the man that threw the shoe did so for “attention” mush as a child seeks attention.

    Perhaps, just perhaps! this man was talking for the hundreds of thousands of people which no longer have a voice. That is of course because they are dead. For what? Surely not “freedom and democracy” as Bush harps on. More like Haliburton.

    A pair of shoes seems unjust really. Bush should be serving the rest of his life behind bars. Not jet-setting to countries he’s helped destroy and then try to convince them it was all for the better.

    Are we without Saddam Hussein? Yeah, we are. Does that justify an unjust war? Not as far as I am concerned.

  4. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    He probably works for MSNBC.

  5. Chris Says:

    I’d love to get a chance to throw shoes at him, maybe he can do that after he retires? do fundraisers for halliburton by letting people throw shoes covered in the blood of the innocent at him?

  6. mw Says:

    @Jimmy
    Now that you mention it… He does look kind of like Chris Matthews. Apparently Chris colored his hair as a disguise.

  7. TerenceC Says:

    It’s too bad the reporter was such a noodle arm – seeing Bush get one in the puss would have been priceless. Jeezuz – that’s the President of the United States being treated like that…….nice legacy junior.

  8. kranky kritter Says:

    Right, some tragic weak-armed deranger gets the final word on whether or not Iraq is on a better path now that Saddam Hussein has been deposed. This is what passes for discourse?

    I didn’t support Bush or his policy of preemption, but I never thought it was indefensible. What really frosts me is that even though I questioned the policy, I’m stuck making the obvious defenses based on simple facts because so many doves will remain unhinged about bush until death.

    Here’s the short story. Hussein killed untold thousands of Iraqis for decades. We finally deposed him based on a suspect rationale that proved mistaken. During the course of this, thousands of Iraqis and several thousand Americans died. While it’s accurate to point out that these folks died in part because of events that America put in motion, most of the folks who died were killed by people with motives far worse than America’s mixed motives. Anti-coalition forces were (and are) composed of folks with motives that are variously venal, misguided, opportunistic, and downright evil.

    That’s the long and the short of it. And as simple as that tale is, it’s not simple enough to correspond to the naive narrative of purity that doves continually put forth. War is always deeply regrettable. Sometimes it is necessary. You can argue that this war was, strictly speaking, not necessary. What you can’t argue conclusively is that Iraq will be worse off over the long-term, That’s the inconvenient truth for ideologues.

    The final judgement on the Iraq war is going to be made by the next 2 or 3 generations of Iraqis, not some tragic shoe thrower. It will be up to the whole of the Iraqi populace to make the tragic sacrifices of the last 5 years mean something.

    I know that the peace movement will do its best to turn the shoe thrower into an iconic figure. It’s clear to me that doves feel the shoe-thrower somehow proves that they have been right all along. So let me just say that I’ve got a whole box of shoes, and I’m not afraid to use them.

    If a chubby guy shows up at one of your peace rallies and interupts a speaker by yelling

    I’ll cheerfully concede that the Iraq war could have been avoided at the simple cost of allowing a brutal dictator to remain in charge of Iraq while continuing to try to develop a nuclear weapon.

    well get ready to duck, because a high hard one is about to be launched. Croc or Herman’s Survivor? Depends on my mood.

  9. Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Quote Of The Day Says:

    [...] a comment to a post at Donklephant about the guy who threw his shoes at President Bush: I like it. I think we should adopt this protocol here for all Presidential Press Conferences. I [...]

  10. Mike A. Says:

    Yes Kranky Kitty, we “finally deposed him based on a suspect rationale that proved mistaken”. Now you’re frosted because you’re “stuck making the obvious defenses based on simple facts because so many doves will remain unhinged about bush until death.” Simple facts such as:
    - 4209 American deaths to date.
    - 30,852 American wounded to date.
    - Anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. Hard to get official numbers.
    - Approximately $580,000,000,000 spent on the war.

    You would state the numbers above reflect the “naive narrative of purity” put forth by doves. These numbers alone are legitimate reasons people are “unhinged”.

    Based on your response to this article, you must consider the dead and wounded numbers above to be acceptable and appropriate for this war. At what volume of deaths do you consider the war to be unacceptable?

    We invaded a nation on the bedrock of poor information, not out of necessity. That’s the short of it.

  11. George Mauer Says:

    Kranky, I would add to that narrative is “occasional yet willful hypocrisy as far as our own standards of decency” and “shocking incompetence and ignorance on behalf of our leaders” – your simple story is really not complete without those two.

    And as far as our shoe thrower, I don’t think this was any attempt at discourse, it was an emotional expression pure and simple. But look at all the support the man’s getting, I would say this is representative of the emotions of a huge subsection of the world’s population. That is certainly significant.

    Incidentally, I wonder what’s happened to those shoes…

  12. J. Harden Says:

    If A is true then B is true.
    If A is not true then B may or may not be true.
    (WRONG = If A is not true then B is not true.)

    Statement #1: If Iraq had weapons of mass destruction then US’s interests would have been served by our invasion and the war would have been justified.

    Statement #2: Since Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction then US interests have not been served by our invasion and the war is not justified.

    Statement #3: Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, so the US’s interest may or may not have been served by our invasion and the war may or may not have been justified.

    Statement #3 is correct. Statement #1&#2 are bullshit in my opinion. It is all arguable and anyone who tries to assert a catagorical moral superiority with regards to their Iraqi OPINION is merely demonstrating their vocal flatulence and keen desire to feel all goodie-goodie.

    Yes, a lot of people die and are injured in war — that is another way of saying that war is a horrible thing — but it says absolutely nothing about whether or not we should have invaded Iraq.

  13. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    - 4209 American deaths to date.
    - 30,852 American wounded to date.
    - Anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. Hard to get official numbers.

    All murdered personally by president Bush. Man, that guy must be like Chuck Norris on Crack.

    First of all, the vast majority of those tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians (as well as all of the American soldiers KIA) were actually killed by Islamic terrorists – you know, the ones who plant truck bombs in crowded marketplaces. I suppose they are not morally responsible for their actions since they are Arabs and other dark skinned races, who according to Jeremy, Terrence, George et al, have insect brains and can only react to stimuli while lacking the intellectual capacity to hedge their passions with reason. Its like a dog pissing on your carpet. Its your fault; you must have done something wrong because it is just a dog.

    Second, of the Iraqis who have been killed by American bullets and bombs fired by our troops, someone is pulling the triggers and launching the missiles, and it ain’t president Bush. Are American troops volunteer hatchet men for the Bush-Cheney regime? Most Iraq war veterans are re-enlisters or signed up after the Iraq war started. Should we hold them responsible for their actions, since this war is supposedly a crime against humanity, and our troops were following orders like the Nazi guards at Auschwitz (remember Nuremburg)?

    No, I guess not, because again according to Jeremy, Terrence, George et al, our soldiers are just children who were “sent to war” by their redneck and ghetto parents who are too economically dispossessed to find other more socially meaningful jobs for their kids. Soldiers aren’t brave men and women who stand up to fight for their country, they are victims of predation by our fascist military recruiters (who themselves are mostly veterans, as well). Lets hold them in our prayers as we “support the troops.”

  14. glorfindel87 Says:

    I wonder if that reporter would have thrown his shoe at Hussein for all he did. Oh wait, probably not because he would have been beheaded if he had done that. How soon they forget where they’ve come from……

  15. Georgia Boy Says:

    I like you Jimmy. There is hope for America yet.

  16. bill breeden Says:

    What is the world coming to when the emperor cannot run around naked without someone making an ass of himself? Maybe it is the beginning of a free press the likes of which our country lost a long time ago. I think we should cover the White House lawn with shoes. I also think Bush should award a medal of freedom to the journalist. I gotta go mail my shoes to Bush.
    bill breeden

  17. George Mauer Says:

    Jimmy, I resent being lumped up like that. A very very small subset of troops should of course be hold for actions that were indeed criminal. I’m talking the Lindsey Englands here though, I don’t think anyone disagrees, the rest of them I don’t have any problem with.

    As a matter of fact I have far fewer problems with our initial entrance into this war than with the incompetence, anti-intellectualism and moral bankruptcy which has followed. It is flat out intellectually dishonest to lump the people who are making this argument into the same group with the people insisting that the war had no justification at all.

  18. ExiledIndependent Says:

    I absolutely loved the fact that this free journalist had the ability to express his distaste so openly. It’s a clear sign of how much has changed in Iraq; I can only imagine what would have happened to this journalist if it was Saddam on the stage, and a reporter had thrown a couple of shoes at one of his military allies. What an ironic and wonderful example of liberty replacing tyranny.

  19. Michael S. Atlanta Says:

    If he had thrown his shoes at Saddam it would have been a little different story.

    First Saddam would have had every member of the reporters family gathered and imprisoned. Then they would have all been killed – women and children alike – one by one in front of him. When finshed with his family they would have skinned him alive in the middle of a soccer stadium and then beheaded him. When finished Saddam would have sent a few more bomb vests off to Palestine so they could kill a few more Isreali kids at school bus stops.

    Yeah Iraq is better off. So is America. The rest of the world doesn’t hate us – just the Islamic Terrorists and the blind Doves who won’t believe in war until terrorists hit their own kids school bus stop…..

    GW kept us safe for 7 years now it’s Chicago’s finest turn.

    When he resinds the ability of law enforcement to wiretap and surveil suspected terrorists and then the nearby shopping mall blows up – maybe then you will remember and respect the tough decisions GW made.

    God help us all.

  20. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    My apologies, George. If I could edit my comments, I would. I hereby declare you de-lumped.

  21. kranky kritter Says:

    Mike,

    I notice that you didn’t address the point that the vast majority of the deaths and injuries you so painstakingly account were caused by (as I characterized them anyway) folks with motives worse than ours. I’d look more favorably on your characterizations if you had taken care to incorporate such details. I have trouble respecting any PoV about war which simply assumes that whoever “started it” ought to be stuck with most of the blame. A parent wisely won’t accept such an argument from a small child, and I won’t accept it from any adult who wants rational discourse.

    You would state the numbers above reflect the “naive narrative of purity” put forth by doves. These numbers alone are legitimate reasons people are “unhinged”.

    No, actually I would not state this. These numbers are legitimate reason for people to be troubled and concerned. But a statistical account about the numbers of deaths is simply that…a death toll. It tells us how many we ought to mourn. But it doesn’t speak to whether or we have achieved anything worthwhile.

    Based on your response to this article, you must consider the dead and wounded numbers above to be acceptable and appropriate for this war. At what volume of deaths do you consider the war to be unacceptable?

    No, I don’t consider the number of deaths to be acceptable. Every death is to be regretted and respected as a sacrifice. I simply don’t view war in terms of the type of calculus you suggest. I believe that war ought to be avoided, and I viewed invading Iraq as an expensive and risky endeavor that I personally wanted us to avoid. Once undertaken, however, I am willing to support some sort of outcome that means that those who die don’t die for nothing. There is no number of deaths at which I would be able to judge any war as either acceptable or unacceptable unless I had a good idea of what the alternative outcome would be had that given war been avoided.

    We invaded a nation on the bedrock of poor information, not out of necessity. That’s the short of it.

    Since I’ve already stated this, I am not sure why you repeated it.

  22. kranky kritter Says:

    George,

    I would add to that narrative is “occasional yet willful hypocrisy as far as our own standards of decency” and “shocking incompetence and ignorance on behalf of our leaders” – your simple story is really not complete without those two.

    Even though there are some subjective judgments mixed in there, I am willing to basically agree. Ignorance and incompetence seldom shock me, though. :-)

    And as far as our shoe thrower, I don’t think this was any attempt at discourse, it was an emotional expression pure and simple. But look at all the support the man’s getting, I would say this is representative of the emotions of a huge subsection of the world’s population. That is certainly significant.

    What kind of evidence do we have that this was spontaneous, as opposed to premeditated? I honestly don’t know, but it’s worth asking. A premeditated stunt cannot IMO be pure, simple, emotional expression. Expression yes, pure or simple, no.

    I have no doubt that some subset of folks sympathizes with this. How big a subset, I dunno. And while I am happy to note that, and even to note that it’s probably a substantial subset, that still leaves aside any consideration of the worthiness of those feelings and what they are connected to. When we first invaded Iraq (against my hopes), I went ahead and predicted right away that the best possible outcome, whatever that was, would NOT include any outpouring of gratitude, or even grudging thanks. America, as Goliath, is globally unloved. Folks worldwide are eager to resent and even despise the one nation that is the wealthiest and most powerful and thus the most able to indulge the various human appetites. So I know that whatever global resonance the shoe thrower is enjoying, that resonance rest on an underlying bedrock of generalized and long-standing antipathy towards America.

    The most optimistic I can be about the American misadventure in Iraq is to hope that Iraq takes a path that makes our rash actions feel defensible given hindsight. If the next generation bring us an Iraq with a comparatively stable representative democracy, and if representative democracy manages to spread in the wake of our efforts, then it will be defensible to believe that the many deaths Mikes tabulates were not in vain.

    I consciously avoid using a phrase like “worth it” here. I am not eager to work in the calculus of death. I’m willing to go so far as to notice both that as the number of deaths goes up and as the number of positive enduring achievements goes down, any given war is more regrettable. But they are all regrettable, because they are all manifestations of human failure to communicate and to treat one another with decency.

  23. C. Bass Says:

    We had to go to war because we were angry about being attacked and lacked the “intellectual capacity to hedge their passions with reason”. Thats the short of it!

  24. sanjosemike Says:

    WHAT IF A REPORTER HAD THROWN A SHOE AT SADDAM?

    First of all, no reporter or his/her family would have survived the episode, for very long.

    It’s “fun” to throw shoes at your savior and benefactor, especially when he laughs at it.

    How short is the memory of Iraqis….

    sanjosemike

  25. John Says:

    My question is where is the diving Secret Service agent trying to protect the President of the United States, during this attack. Not one seemed to move to get in front of that shoe!

  26. Just a thought Says:

    QUOTE:
    Naturally, the common people don’t want war … but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

    Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.
    -Hermann Goering

  27. Jeremy from Oregon Says:

    I love the apologetics of the Flat-Earthers in here.

    “WHAT IF A REPORTER HAD THROWN A SHOE AT SADDAM?

    First of all, no reporter or his/her family would have survived the episode, for very long.” – sanjosemike

    Oh, I see. So if you espouse “freedom” and “democracy” and don’t outright kill your political opponents then you must be on the right side right?

    Because Bush didn’t have this guy and his family killed for throwing a shoe at him? But he will have you killed if you oppose an invading army “America” in a sovereign country “Iraq.”

    sanjosemike, your point means nothing. People never contended that Suddam Hussein wasn’t a very evil person. What people do contend is that there are many more evil people in the world whom the United States doesn’t give two-shits about opposing. What people do contend is that America initiated a uni-lateral illegal war. All for what appears to be profit under the guise of the “War on Terrorism.”

    The hypocrisy is numbing. All of this further exacerbated by the fact that America was perfectly fine with this tyrants murderous rampage when it suited the United States interests. We, America were the ones that sold him the chemical weapons of which he used on his own people.

    I’m so sick of ignorant people like you that continue to support a factually indefensible position. We America are the enemy we speak of. Pretty words and empty truisms do not make us good. Actions have the last say on the matter and that being the case. The spin is over buddy. We aren’t the shining white knights we continually try to sell to the world while we rape it blind.

    You don’t munch on the cookie while you swear straight-faced to man in front of you that you didn’t eat any cookies.

  28. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    The hypocrisy is numbing. All of this further exacerbated by the fact that America was perfectly fine with this tyrants murderous rampage when it suited the United States interests.

    Don’t worry, Jeremy. Obama is now president and there are plenty of fascist dictators left in the world that we can support going forward. We know how itchy you get with this whole “American hypocrisy” thing. We are on track for the old realplitik days of Henry Kissinger and George H.W. Bush. I’m sure the thought of that makes you optimistic indeed.

  29. kranky kritter Says:

    Oh, I see. So if you espouse “freedom” and “democracy” and don’t outright kill your political opponents then you must be on the right side right?

    Because Bush didn’t have this guy and his family killed for throwing a shoe at him? But he will have you killed if you oppose an invading army “America” in a sovereign country “Iraq.”

    Jeremy, either there’s a substantial difference between the actions of the American government and folks like Saddam Hussein, or there isn’t. Why insist on obscuring, explaining away, or dismissing this point? You can’t answer that, can you?

    sanjosemike, your point means nothing. People never contended that Suddam Hussein wasn’t a very evil person. What people do contend is that there are many more evil people in the world whom the United States doesn’t give two-shits about opposing. What people do contend is that America initiated a uni-lateral illegal war. All for what appears to be profit under the guise of the “War on Terrorism.”

    Right, and all these “contenders” repeatedly choose to eschew addressing the issue of whether or not deposing Saddam Hussein was a worthwhile achievement, usually by claiming it’s not relevant. I find this absurd. Judging the merits of an action based on the before and after conditions is an approach most sane folks appreciate. It may not tell the entire story, but it’s most definitely relevant.

    What I question the relevance of is your consistency argument. I agree that ideally the same standard would apply across all situations. But that’s unrealistic. When the entire host of real-world variables related to any given situation are considered(I could give you a list of 3 or 5 or maybe even 10 basic questions you have to ask), one realizes that you must pick your battles. I’ll cheerfully acknowledge that America’s motives were mixed here, and that we often fail to live up to our ideals. But those are extraordinarily crappy points to cite when arguing against actions that DO try to live up to those ideals. Even if such ideals are only one motive cited publicly while other less publicly prominent ones are certainly part of the equation. That’s politics and diplomacy. Grow up.

    The “unilateral illegal” argument is IMO beneath contempt. And here I’ll cheerfully acknowledge that the effort was not as multilateral as many folks wanted, and that the approval process was not as drawn out as many had hoped. But in the end it was neither unilateral nor illegal. We were joined by other nations, most notably Australia and Great Britain. One can cite troop numbers in an attempt to suggest that this multilateralism was merely cosmetic, but the basic fact is that America has so many more soldiers than most other nations. So one could conjure this statistical argument for almost any international military effort. It’s a misleading argument when decontextualized from the reality of the numbers of troops various nations actually have available.

    And Congress authorized Bush. A vote was held. [It wasn't close, BTW.] Here, the folks unhappy with that fact can split procedural hairs and cite narrow readings of text, but the route that was followed here cby Bush with Congress compares QUITE favorably with the way other wars have unfolded, wars which no one (ok maybe a few fringers here and there) claimed were “illegal.”

  30. Jeremy from Oregon Says:

    “We were joined by other nations, most notably Australia and Great Britain.” – kranky kritter

    Yes, and we would be “joined” by Australia and Great Britain if it were to hell and back. Both are quasi/defacto American poodles. They have been since the cessation of WWII. Largely to do with postwar debts and economic restructuring with America calling the shots.

    You can pretend that the “Coalition of the Willing” was a construct of some international community consensus. I myself prefer reality.

    “And yes, the Iraq was and still is illegal. We helped charter the U.N. We agreed to abide by it. And we did all the way up until Bush Juniors administration.

    There were also serious legal questions surrounding the launching of the war against Iraq and the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war. On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, said of the invasion, “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the U.N. charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.”"[91]

    “In November 2008 Lord Bingham, the former UK Law Lord, described the war a serious violation of international law, and accused Britain and the US of acting like a “world vigilante”. He also criticized the post-invasion record of Britain as “an occupying power in Iraq”. Regarding the treatment of Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib, Bingham said: “Particularly disturbing to proponents of the rule of law is the cynical lack of concern for international legality among some top officials in the Bush administration.”"

  31. kranky kritter Says:

    You can pretend that the “Coalition of the Willing” was a construct of some international community consensus. I myself prefer reality.

    How can one even have a reasonable discussion with someone who says things like that? Britain and Australia are powerful wealthy sovereign nations, and they joined us in forming a coalition, along with a few other smaller nations who only have token armed forces and who thus only sent token numbers of forces. That’s reality. The best you can do is call them “poodles?” Pretty lame.

    I never said that there was an ” international community consensus.” But here again, the facts are on my side as they relate to the strands of our conversation. “Unilateral action” means action by one, not by several. An action can be multilateral without being a result of a widespread consensus. You moved the goal-line, like a jerk, because you KNOW I’m right about this. I

    It’s a simple equation. 3 is not one, and 8 is not one, and 3 big and 24 small is not 1. If you were honest, you’d simply acknowledge this. Instead, you responded with an argument which amounted to claiming that I had suggested that 27 was the same as 70 or 80 or 90. Even though I had previously explicitly stated otherwise.

    And here’s the thing. You could easily avoid foolish arguments simply by being accurate with your words. But no, you have to have the whole ball of wax and say “unilateral” even though that description is demonstrably inaccurate. Why be such a twit? How hard is it to say that the coalition of forces was composed of a few close allies and a couple dozen nations who went along but supplied little substantive support.

  32. Robert Says:

    You gotta love the way this journalist reacted! Now, I’m not a fan of bush, but think about it – he stood only three meters or so from Bush, and he missed his target not once, but TWICE.

    If anything, this confirms everything the west knows about the Muslim world, that it is impulsive, and its people never learn to stop to think (in this case, take aim!) before they act. This is why impulsive Muslims turn to Jihad and terrorism, when there are far more productive avenues of getting their political objectives if they learned to THINK.

    And they wonder why their socieites so s^&*?

  33. TerenceC Says:

    Robert – That’s pretty lame. The truth is that now everybody in the West knows Iraqi’s throw like girls. The only thing missing in the “clip” would have been Junior grabbing Maliki and pushing him in front to catch the size 10′s in the chops.

  34. Ahmed Says:

    Robert, you say that the reporter cannot aim, watch the video again and then you’ll see that the reporters sitting next to him pulled him from his jacket!

    Robert – If you say that Muslims don’t think, you’re wrong. If you want an evidence just google this “Muslim Scientists”. If you need an immediate example, you need to know that the inventor of algebra Al-Khwarizmi, is a MUSLIM scientist.

    Others say that if he had threw it on Saddam he would have been killed. Well, that’s true but the case isn’t different now. He is now imprisoned in Abu Gharieb Prison (nicknamed Arab Guantanamo). Then he’ll get killed. Tada! Same result!

    And would you people STOP calling Muslims terrorists?! Islam does NOT stimulate Muslims to turn to terrorism. If you knew some knowlege of the Quran (Muslims Holy Book), you will know that Islam forbids killing of women, children, old men, and more surprisingly trees! It ONLY allows fighting soldiers. I agree that some Muslims have extreme beliefs but not the majority. Additionally, Muslims do NOT hate the West or Americans. On the other side, Bush is the most brutal terrorist!!!

    If you need any knowledge of the miracles of the Quran go to
    http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/

  35. La Martina Says:

    “We were joined by other nations, most notably Australia and Great Britain.” – kranky kritter

    Yes, and we would be “joined” by Australia and Great Britain if it were to hell and back. Both are quasi/defacto American poodles. They have been since the cessation of WWII. Largely to do with postwar debts and economic restructuring with America calling the shots.

    You can pretend that the “Coalition of the Willing” was a construct of some international community consensus. I myself prefer reality.

    “And yes, the Iraq was and still is illegal. We helped charter the U.N. We agreed to abide by it. And we did all the way up until Bush Juniors administration.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: