MY NEW HERO: MUNTADAR AL-ZAIDI
"I don't know what his beef is."
President George W. Bush, in an ABC News interview with Martha Radditz
I really can't imagine what it must be like to go through life so innocent, so untouched and unsullied by one's own mistakes and decisions and the devastating consequences that have resulted from those mistakes and decisions. It would be like walking down the street, pressing numbers on a cellphone, while behind you, explosives blast streets and buildings each time you press a number, and yet you continue walking with nary a flinch or blink of an eye, while in your wake, people wail and weep.
Then, one of those people calls you a "dog" and hurls a shoe at your head--which, in his culture, is the worst, most disrespectful insult one can give--and you tell reporters that you figure he's just looking to get attention and that you don't know "what his beef is."
After all, you were just pressing numbers.
But while Martha Radditz was asking poor little Bush what he thought and how he felt about this terrible thing, NBC's Brian Williams was asking Richard Engel what he knew about the man who threw the shoe.
Now, through the years, I have come to know the war correspondents by name, both the print journalists and the TV people. And I've come to know the ones whom I can trust, the ones who put their lives on the line not just with the troops, but with the civilians who have been effected by war. The New York Times had Dexter Filkins, for one. The Washington Post had Sudarsan Raghavan. CBS News had Lara Logan. And NBC had Richard Engels.
Richard Engels was the only news guy on the ground in Iraq BEFORE the war began who stayed there all the way until last year. In the early days of the war, he was in great personal danger, and as the war dragged on, continued to put himself in harm's way many many times in order to report the truth. (He is now doing the same thing in Afghanistan, and has filed riveting reports while ducking bullets with Marines on the mountainous Pakistan border.) He speaks fluent Arabic and is highly respected in the area.
And it was Richard Engels who explained that the al-Baghdadia correspondent, Muntadar al-Zaidi, had not only had numerous family members killed in the war and kidnapped in the unrest that followed the invasion, but that he, himself, had been kidnapped by Shiite militiamen last year, held for three days, and tortured.
He comes from the volitile area famous for followers of Muktada al-Sadr, where there is indeed great hostility toward not just Bush, but Americans in general.
Understand that I'm not saying I'm a big supporter of the kinds of people who have killed American troops. Insurgents tried to kill my son, nephews, and their buddies and team members many times, so believe me, I am no Jane Fonda.
I also realize that, for better or worse, George W. Bush IS the commander-in-chief of our troops and that, as such, they are duty-bound to offer him respect and to obey the orders he hands down through the chain of command. They will do the same for Barack Obama even if they privately supported and voted for John McCain.
But this whole incident is instructive because it is a perfect illustration of the total obliviousness of Bush toward the forces he has unleashed.
The very reason that the conditions deteriorated on the ground as badly as they did is that Bush and his lieutenants--Cheney and Rumsfeld--deliberately sent in too few troops to secure the country following the invasion, then stood back when chaos erupted, saying merely, "Stuff happens."
THEN, they completely threw out the country's government, replaced it with young, inexperienced political hacks who could be reliably trusted to oppose abortion and vote for Bush, and paid no attention when massive civil war erupted.
In my memory, I have never, ever, in my entire life, seen a commander-in-chief who cares LESS for the troops in his care. The debacle at Walter Reed is just the tip of the iceberg. National Guard troops who never dreamed they'd be doing anything more than rescuing hurricane victims have been shoved into war ill-trained, unprepared, and underfunded, and underequipped. Their casualty rates have been the highest of all the branches, as well as their levels of post traumatic stress.
Stop-loss--the back-door draft--that has forced men and women to remain past retirements and past their contracted active-duty status has been a TRAVESTY.
And active-duty troops, sent back and back and back again, then yanked out and sent to Afghanistan again and again and again--this is abuse, pure and simple.
ABUSE.
This president and his chickenhawk cohorts have taken their own military for granted, forced them into situations before they were fully equipped and trained, and then posed in front of them for campaign photo ops. THEN attacked anyone who dared oppose their tactics by accusing them of hating the troops.
Oh, the irony.
These young people, these nameless faceless "troops," they stepped up when nobody else would--less than ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT of our nation's population. They stepped up, they volunteered, they were and are proud to wear their country's uniform, and they have performed splendidly.
But Bush doesn't care. Oh, he gets all weepy when he's around grieving mothers or cheering troops, but truthfully, if he really did care, if he REALLY DID CARE, he would not have insulted them the way he has with this dismal endless miserable constant war that has eroded morale, destroyed marriages, and sent rates of domestic violence, alcoholism, and other signs of severe stress skyrocketing.
And that does not even TOUCH what has happened to the country of Iraq and its people during six years of war. It took this administration FOUR YEARS and AN ELECTION to wake up and realize how badly they had screwed up. Thousands of military dead and horrifically wounded and a nation torn apart and bleeding.
I can tell you right now that if the Democrats had not taken over congress in 2006, Donald Rumsfeld would STILL be the secretary of state.
Muntadar al-Zaidi is one of hundreds of thousands of victims of Bush's war.
So when that Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at the head of George W. Bush and screamed, "This is your good-bye kiss, dog, dog!"--my only regret was that I could not have done it myself.
President George W. Bush, in an ABC News interview with Martha Radditz
I really can't imagine what it must be like to go through life so innocent, so untouched and unsullied by one's own mistakes and decisions and the devastating consequences that have resulted from those mistakes and decisions. It would be like walking down the street, pressing numbers on a cellphone, while behind you, explosives blast streets and buildings each time you press a number, and yet you continue walking with nary a flinch or blink of an eye, while in your wake, people wail and weep.
Then, one of those people calls you a "dog" and hurls a shoe at your head--which, in his culture, is the worst, most disrespectful insult one can give--and you tell reporters that you figure he's just looking to get attention and that you don't know "what his beef is."
After all, you were just pressing numbers.
But while Martha Radditz was asking poor little Bush what he thought and how he felt about this terrible thing, NBC's Brian Williams was asking Richard Engel what he knew about the man who threw the shoe.
Now, through the years, I have come to know the war correspondents by name, both the print journalists and the TV people. And I've come to know the ones whom I can trust, the ones who put their lives on the line not just with the troops, but with the civilians who have been effected by war. The New York Times had Dexter Filkins, for one. The Washington Post had Sudarsan Raghavan. CBS News had Lara Logan. And NBC had Richard Engels.
Richard Engels was the only news guy on the ground in Iraq BEFORE the war began who stayed there all the way until last year. In the early days of the war, he was in great personal danger, and as the war dragged on, continued to put himself in harm's way many many times in order to report the truth. (He is now doing the same thing in Afghanistan, and has filed riveting reports while ducking bullets with Marines on the mountainous Pakistan border.) He speaks fluent Arabic and is highly respected in the area.
And it was Richard Engels who explained that the al-Baghdadia correspondent, Muntadar al-Zaidi, had not only had numerous family members killed in the war and kidnapped in the unrest that followed the invasion, but that he, himself, had been kidnapped by Shiite militiamen last year, held for three days, and tortured.
He comes from the volitile area famous for followers of Muktada al-Sadr, where there is indeed great hostility toward not just Bush, but Americans in general.
Understand that I'm not saying I'm a big supporter of the kinds of people who have killed American troops. Insurgents tried to kill my son, nephews, and their buddies and team members many times, so believe me, I am no Jane Fonda.
I also realize that, for better or worse, George W. Bush IS the commander-in-chief of our troops and that, as such, they are duty-bound to offer him respect and to obey the orders he hands down through the chain of command. They will do the same for Barack Obama even if they privately supported and voted for John McCain.
But this whole incident is instructive because it is a perfect illustration of the total obliviousness of Bush toward the forces he has unleashed.
The very reason that the conditions deteriorated on the ground as badly as they did is that Bush and his lieutenants--Cheney and Rumsfeld--deliberately sent in too few troops to secure the country following the invasion, then stood back when chaos erupted, saying merely, "Stuff happens."
THEN, they completely threw out the country's government, replaced it with young, inexperienced political hacks who could be reliably trusted to oppose abortion and vote for Bush, and paid no attention when massive civil war erupted.
In my memory, I have never, ever, in my entire life, seen a commander-in-chief who cares LESS for the troops in his care. The debacle at Walter Reed is just the tip of the iceberg. National Guard troops who never dreamed they'd be doing anything more than rescuing hurricane victims have been shoved into war ill-trained, unprepared, and underfunded, and underequipped. Their casualty rates have been the highest of all the branches, as well as their levels of post traumatic stress.
Stop-loss--the back-door draft--that has forced men and women to remain past retirements and past their contracted active-duty status has been a TRAVESTY.
And active-duty troops, sent back and back and back again, then yanked out and sent to Afghanistan again and again and again--this is abuse, pure and simple.
ABUSE.
This president and his chickenhawk cohorts have taken their own military for granted, forced them into situations before they were fully equipped and trained, and then posed in front of them for campaign photo ops. THEN attacked anyone who dared oppose their tactics by accusing them of hating the troops.
Oh, the irony.
These young people, these nameless faceless "troops," they stepped up when nobody else would--less than ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT of our nation's population. They stepped up, they volunteered, they were and are proud to wear their country's uniform, and they have performed splendidly.
But Bush doesn't care. Oh, he gets all weepy when he's around grieving mothers or cheering troops, but truthfully, if he really did care, if he REALLY DID CARE, he would not have insulted them the way he has with this dismal endless miserable constant war that has eroded morale, destroyed marriages, and sent rates of domestic violence, alcoholism, and other signs of severe stress skyrocketing.
And that does not even TOUCH what has happened to the country of Iraq and its people during six years of war. It took this administration FOUR YEARS and AN ELECTION to wake up and realize how badly they had screwed up. Thousands of military dead and horrifically wounded and a nation torn apart and bleeding.
I can tell you right now that if the Democrats had not taken over congress in 2006, Donald Rumsfeld would STILL be the secretary of state.
Muntadar al-Zaidi is one of hundreds of thousands of victims of Bush's war.
So when that Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at the head of George W. Bush and screamed, "This is your good-bye kiss, dog, dog!"--my only regret was that I could not have done it myself.
Advertisement
Woops.
OBVIOUSLY I meant, "Secretary of Defense," not State.
D'oh!
December 15, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can go back in and change it, Deanie! Go to "blog now" Then look for "manage" and click on "entries." Then you can go back into your post and make any changes you want. Then click save and presto!
December 15, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Shaming of America - Brought to you by GWB.
Fabulous post, Deanie!
And let me say here and now, to whoever is likely to complain that such a thing could happen to bush, when the secret service should have been protecting him:
Consider this. Bushco was desperate to negotiate a status of forces agreement before the end of 2008. Why? Because the UN mandate was ending. So all troops and everyone would have had to leave there - without this agreement. Mind you, the bush people touted what a great thing it was that the agreement (signed yesterday by bush and Malaki) had been debated by the Iraqi parliament. But the same bush people prevented any such debate by our own Senate - which is supposed to do that with treaties. In any case, they "got" an agreement with the Iraqis. But to get it, they had to concede a lot. They had to concede that Iraqis, naturally, are in charge of police work and military decisions and so on. They had to concede that they could not arrest or detain anyone on their own anymore. They gave up a lot.
So.... once that agreement was signed, bush was a "sitting duck" - not just a lame duck. Due to the very agreement they would not let our Senate debate!
It may have been a stupid thing to have bush go there and sign this treaty and then hold a presser. In all likelihood the journalist who threw the shoe knew that once that agreement was signed, no US authority could take him into custody if he choose to throw a shoe - or two. He likely knew he was "untouchable" except by Iraqi hands. And he must have known, as well, that in Iraqi hands, his action would be viewed as heroic and justifiable. Like an act of honor.
In a culture of honor, actions such as this are seen as taking back one's honor. He did it for his nation, I'd wager.
December 15, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just left a post with a similar title. I did not bother to read the other posts before seeing Deanie's post.
I apologize for using the similar title. Deanie was first.
And she wrote a good post!!
December 15, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can go back and delete your if you want. And post it as a comment here. (use the same method that I told Deanie about above if you want to delete or whatever)
December 15, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS, I just read your blog - I love your idea about sending old shoes to the new gwb "liberry.'
December 15, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reminds me of the 'Wag the Dog' this old boot campaign - throw shoes over traffic light stanchions.
December 15, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Add another unique and memorable first to the long list of 'never happened before in the history of America' moments of the Bush administration.
December 15, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
yes... who could have predicted this?
December 15, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
NobleCommentDecider--thanks for making me laugh!
Also, wvbiker--not to worry. Happens all the time. I once saw a book entitled FREEFALL by the author Kyle Mills.
I was interested in that because my own book, FREEFALL, published under my own name, (which, you may have noticed, is also "Mills" but no relation) had been released a few years before--by the same publisher!
December 15, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Truly a fitting end to W's final visit to Iraq. This image will not go away, and will stay with people far longer than any revisionist spin.
December 15, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Iraqis are all outside demonstrating and burning our flag and protesting the internment of the guy who threw the shoe.
For five years, the Iraqis have wanted us out of there. I still do not know how they can do a poll in the midst of Armageddon but evidently, they do.
I concur in everything you have written. But mostly, w is the definition of a sociopath. He cannot really sympathize or empathize with others.
He cannot grasp that he has responsibilities for his sins and his negligence and his intentional conduct. And you are so right, he has never had to pay for his mistakes.
I think that Cheney and Rummy really comprehend their own evil. But not w.
But we must accept that the American People actually voted this guy in for a second time and I will never forgive them for that. They did not do it in ignorance like they did the first time.
Therefore, as part of the electorate, even though I never voted for the bastard, I share some of the responsibility.
December 15, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dickday, the way I saw it was that the entire country was suffering from post traumatic stress after 9/11, and this administration deliberately played on that, exaggerating their fears and egging them on so that they could be re-elected, and it worked.
I hope they all burn in hell, for that reason and for many many more.
December 15, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here! Here!
I was reading headlines today that he was a hero throughout the middle east and I thought 'hey, he's a hero, in the US too.' How many people in the world would like to do as much? ... that just gave me the image of a dunking booth... but what I'd really love to see is Bush and Cheney behind bars... perhaps we should keep Guantanamo open just for them?
December 15, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes!
December 15, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely, Synchonicity. Three cheers for MUNTADAR AL-ZAIDI!
Josh’s response to the Baghdad shoe-throwing incident is very bad, I think. As you say, the entire Arab world, not to mention a very large part of the American public, shrieked for joy at this protest against Bush and his policies in Iraq. But Josh just fretted about presidential security and marveled at Bush’s ability to dodge the shoes. Who’s side are you on, Josh? Peter Miller.
December 16, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
As usual Deanie, spot on. A few things crossed my mind when I watched that footage. First, you couldn't make this stuff up if you tried. Second, it is not a secret that throwing your shoes is a cultural sign of extreme ultra hatred and disrespect in that region--remember the Iraquis beat the fallen statue of Saddam with their shoes. So, Bush making a wise ass crack about size 10 is so cringe-inducing I almost vomited. Yes he is the commander in chief but in name only and it's bad enough our war fighters have to fight these wrongheaded wars but to be led by him in addition is the greatest insult to our Service members.
As for your comments on war reporting, I agree totally that there is not much good reporting going on anymore. Few members of the media will put themselves in harms way--they would rather be cavorting on Rockefeller Plaza with the news muppets cooking pasta and telling us how to raise our children or find good deals on pet clothing. I'm not sure whether some of them are trying but just can't get through the Pentagon's closed doors or whether they have just stopped trying. Not good for ratings, no one really cares anymore.
December 15, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking truth to Power sometimes is throwing a shoe or two.
Free the guy.
December 15, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
God, I wish our lapdog WH press corps could have seen how this all came out 7 years ago and held the monster to account.
They didn't have a thousandth of the spine, all of them together, that this guy has.
December 15, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
As soon as he started talking about Saddam in '01, Helen Thomas should have whacked W upside the head with her handbag.
December 15, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that had happened post Patriot Act, I shudder to think of poor Helen. But I love your image!
December 15, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was sorry that he didn't hit him, there weren't a hundred of him, and they didn't all wear size 14s....
December 15, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
you can help the brother out here:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/iwffomuntatharalzaidi/?e
December 15, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link. I signed!
December 15, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I for one do not favor throwing shoes at the President.
The book, yes. Shoes, no.
December 15, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dave, I miss these red tags all the time. The book is the best to date.
December 15, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree Dave Adams. I wouldn't throw the first, but if Deanie Mills beans him with a good one, I might join in.
December 15, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quoting from the first paragraph that that link takes you to, "Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, has dropped the first impeachment shoe..."
What a straight line! I can't stop laughing long enough to write the next line.
December 16, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Deanie, you already touched on this but CNN had one of those'experts' on underlining the differences in cultural perspectives on shoes. It is like throwing dirty underwear at w. But Dave Adams here has the best note. THE BOOK is Kucinich's bill of impeachment--you got to read it.
December 15, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deanie,
Great post as always. I've never read one of yours I didn't like. However, as far as this quote:
"Understand that I'm not saying I'm a big supporter of the kinds of people who have killed American troops. Insurgents tried to kill my son, nephews, and their buddies and team members many times, so believe me, I am no Jane Fonda."
I think Jane Fonda made a horrendous mistake posing for that picture with the North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun. However, Ho Chi Minh's people were victim of LBJ's & RMN's deceptive imperialist policies just as Muntadar AL-Zaida has been. To be against the Iraq war is not to be in favor of Al-Qaeda as you have said. To want to end the killing in Vietnam as Jane Fonda was trying to do was not to be in favor of anyone's death in spite of Jane's disastrous pictorial blunder.
December 15, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for bringing that up. I read Jane Fonda's most recent book about a year ago, and she struck me as being very gutsy and brave in her attempt to stop the war. She was naive and was used in those photos, but she did more than most of us did to stop that war, and a hell of a lot more than most are doing to stop this one.
December 15, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a God (or at least a guy with cojones).
December 15, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well tlees2, I think I understand what Fonda was trying to do, but the way in which she went about it--which as you said, was a horrendous mistake--what that did was deeply hurt the troops who were over there fighting. To this day my husband won't watch Jane Fonda movies.
Now, I'm a big fan of Jane Fonda's work, BTW, but what I meant by that reference is that I would never do or say anything that I thought would hurt these men and women who have sacrificed so much.
My husband said he thought I'd gone too far with the title, but that he agreed with what I said. I told him that I just resent so much, Bush shoving this force agreement through--which the Iraqis get to read about and vote on but we don't--and going over there for some kind of grand Victory Tour. I couldn't stomach it. I'm just all out of put-up-with-ability.
December 15, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deanie, I am so proud of you for this title! I was surprised that you could do it because I know it must have felt like a risk to put this out there. You were right, and the truth is that only Bush misses the significance of this act; only he thinks this was just an attention-grabbing event; only he doesn't get that the whole world sees him as a murderous boob.
George Bush may never be brought to trial, but when brave people like you who have a lot to lose (as a writer, and as a resident of Texas, and as a mother of veterans) can stand up and say that this man, Montadar Al-Zaida spoke for many of us; it helps me believe the spin won't win. Bush's clueless grin, even after the second shoe was appalling.
(But I'm with tlees on the Jane Fonda thing. You should read her book, My Life So Far ; it is great. Yes, what she did bothered the troops, but you could say the same about people protesting now. The troops are in an impossible position -- they have a mission to accomplish regardless if the mission is totally bogus. If we, and the Jane Fondas of the world don't do outrageous acts to stop the madness it simply won't stop.)
December 15, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
This piece of crap that bush signed isn't a valid treaty for the US until and unless the US senate ratifies it. I doubt that happening with the current senate, since it seems to have shut down operations. And, I will be greatly surprised if Obama even submits it for ratification next year. Our country is, therefore, not committed to any part of that piece of crap.
Darn shoe laces, I probably couldn't even get my shoes off quickly enough to toss them if I have the misfortune to see bush at any time.
December 16, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hoppy, you got that right. We tend to forget after the last eight years, the decider needs some advice and consent.
December 16, 2008 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't know what his beef is."
Probably a camel...
I wonder if the shoes came from China?
December 15, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
CVille Dem, bless you, dear.
I agree that sometimes "outrageous" measures must be taken to draw attention to an immoral war, and again, I've always been a big fan of Jane Fonda's.
But you must take her actions in context. Say, during the Battle of Fallujah, when more Marines died than at any time during the war, and my own son was in the mix. Say, Rumer Willis showed up in Fallujah, a scarf over her head, posing and laughing in, oh say, an IED factory (they found and destroyed many), or a grenade launcher. Posing and laughing while at that same time, those same insurgents were killing our guys.
That kind of an action TOTALLY DETRACTS FROM THE MESSAGE, and is so upsetting and disturbing to the men and women who are dying and getting blown up and shot daily, and their families, that the POINT of the protest is lost.
That's when you've gone too far. You don't dance around with the enemy. Understand, I realize she was drawing attention to the carpet bombing and many dead Vietnamese civilians, but there were better ways to do that than post on a weapon of destruction during the war, and laugh for the cameras. That's all I'm sayin'.
Hoppycalif2--I've missed you! So good to see you and LAUGH again!
December 16, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Deannie, I get what you're saying; what happened in that incident was terrible, and I can understand anyone not being able to forgive her for that; it just amazes me that the instigators of the whole thing get forgiven over time. Bush will get off and live a quiet (wealthy) and boring life; something he denied hundreds of thousands of people.
December 16, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink