Should Bush ask Maliki to pardon the shoe-thrower?
posted at 2:28 pm on December 24, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Mark “Black Hawk Down” Bowden says yes. I think it’s a no-brainer, but for different reasons:
The stunt was rude and no doubt embarrassing to the Iraqi authorities, but it is hardly a high crime. For Americans, the only serious issue raised by the shoe-throwing episode is how Mr. Zaidi was able to throw the second one. With its national pride at stake, the Iraqi government is unlikely to cut the journalist a break. If a gesture is to be made, it has to come from Mr. Bush…
It would also be a small way of acknowledging that Iraqis have borne by far the greatest measure of pain in this war, and that America’s handling of the country since chasing Saddam Hussein from power, while trending in the right direction currently, has not been a singular and shining success. Many Iraqis have come by their anger toward the U.S. honestly…
As the video now plays, and plays, and plays, with just the action sequence of hurled shoes and the ducking president, Mr. Bush appears ridiculous. It will stay that way and is certain to become, with several other unfortunate tableaus (“Mission Accomplished” comes to mind), an iconic moment in the Bush presidency. With a simple gesture of reprieve, he could completely rise above it. Mr. Zaidi would be nothing more than a rude prankster. The president would be the story’s hero.
Good points, although I’d argue it’s because the Iraqis are likely to cut Zaidi a break that Bush should climb aboard. Like I said last week, if Maliki makes an example of the Arabs’ new hero, he’ll be hammered for it before the next elections and lose credibility in the region. Whereas if he pardons him, it’s an insult to Bush, but Bush is on his way out and no one much likes him anymore anyway. What’s a beleaguered prime minister — who’s already taking heat for the beating the IP allegedly laid on Zaidi in jail — to do? By requesting the pardon, Bush would eliminate both the insult and, more importantly, the perception of Iraq as an anti-American state that would arise if Maliki pardoned Zaidi anyway. It’d also help get the Iraqi parliament back on track: Political nonsense over this incident has already led to the resignation of the speaker, a Sunni, who calls Zaidi “brave” and is angry that more MPs don’t feel the same way. I don’t know sectarian politics well enough to guess whether most Sunnis agree, but if so, that’s an even bigger problem for Maliki than his Shiite rivals hassling him during a campaign.
Dubya’s in a pardon-y mood anyway these days, so why not? While you ponder, here’s a clip of Iranians finding inspiration in Zaidi’s glorious Payless jihad.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
No….
sven10077 on December 24, 2008 at 2:29 PM
I disagree. I thought it was one of his better moments. He took it all quite well. I wonder if The One would be so cool in the same situation.
Disturb the Universe on December 24, 2008 at 2:32 PM
No.
Iraqi’s need to understand the rule of law and that it will be fairly and justly administered.
Now, if the guy gets a large jail sentence, than it might make good political sense to commute a large portion of that sentence.
But we can not continue Saddam’s way of doing justice wherein some people could get away with anything.
A small jail sentence (even probation) will show two things:
1) It doesn’t matter who you are, if you break the law you WILL be held accountable.
2) Iraq is long past the days where such actions would have resulted in the torture and death of the man and his family.
Religious_Zealot on December 24, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Good point. I wouldn’t pardon the Secret Service guy who just stood there while it happened.
Disturb the Universe on December 24, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Ducking that shoe with such speed is the only good thing Bush has done since his speech at Ground Zero
lodge on December 24, 2008 at 2:35 PM
As far as the beating in jail, Maliki needs to pursue charges against the officers and ensure that they are permanently removed from the force.
Religious_Zealot on December 24, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Hey, who knows, if the Democrats and the MSM had supported Bush rather than condemning and ridiculing his every move for the last eight years, this incident may have never occured.
Which begs the question, shouldn’t the MSM issue Bush a pardon?
fogw on December 24, 2008 at 2:39 PM
That was Tina Fey again, right?
whitetop on December 24, 2008 at 2:41 PM
No. But they need to discipline the ones that beat him in jail. That wasn’t right.
sheebe on December 24, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Which begs the question, shouldn’t the MSM issue Bush a pardon?
fogw on December 24, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Yes! MSM should pardon Bush.
sheebe on December 24, 2008 at 2:42 PM
A guy who used to own a MLB team should have caught the shoe and fired it right back at him.
OK, I take it back. I wouldn’t have wanted to actually touch that stinky sweaty leather, either.
innominatus on December 24, 2008 at 2:42 PM
NO!!!
NO!!!
NO!!!
Lynn2008 on December 24, 2008 at 2:42 PM
No.
This incident should be ignored. Westerners need to understand that an arab throwing a shoe is similar in meaning to a fat, ugly US journalist dropping his pants mooning a head of state during a formal press conference. We wouldn’t want anyone butting in to what we decided to do with such a mooner, especially if they act as if mooning is nothing and that we are weird for finding it so offensive.
This is a no-brainer. Stay out of it. There’s nothing to be gained and a lot to lose.
progressoverpeace on December 24, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Seriously? So sending troops to Afghanistan and ousting the Taliban was not a good thing. Got it!
terryannonline on December 24, 2008 at 2:46 PM
I want to clarrify that I mean that it should be ignored insofar as getting into the minutae of the legal process dealing with it to lighten the penalty. If anything, the shoe thrower needs to get a harsh sentence for embarrassing and endagering Iraq and for the major insult directed at the US. If it is supported in the streets, as we have seen in parts around the arab/muslim world, then it should be understood to be the “Death To America” call that it is, and that needs to be dealt with with the opposite of pardons.
progressoverpeace on December 24, 2008 at 2:49 PM
It is their country, let them deal with it. We should show no further reaction to the stunt.
Why let him off and let the budding Arab politicians with democratic leanings have to endure such abuse By pardoning, we are saying it is acceptable.
Limpet6 on December 24, 2008 at 2:51 PM
No, actions have consequences. He was a real tough guy making an important statement for the world when he threw them. Now the bill has come due. Libtards alway want a free pass for everything they do. It’s no wonder no one wants to pay their mortgage.
Tommy_G on December 24, 2008 at 2:52 PM
No, no a thousand times NO!
Kini on December 24, 2008 at 2:52 PM
I myself don’t know what would be the wise thing to do. I think both sides of the arguments have compelling points.
terryannonline on December 24, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Definitely no. I wouldn’t expect leniency for throwing things at a visiting dignitary, and I don’t approve of it for anyone else either.
backwoods conservative on December 24, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Going into Afghanistan was, obviously, necessary. The way it was done was less-than-optimal. The idiotic coalition of the entire world (minus Israel, of course). The restrictive ROE. The siddling up to Pakistan when we knew on 9/12 that wresting control of, or rendering impotent, Pakistani nukes was one of the next big jobs to be done …
Bush did the minimum offensive actions necessary, in my opinion, and got us locked into box with his unrealistic ROE (a bit looser than on 9/10, but not much) and defense of it. Gore, or any other dem, would have done far less, and done it far worse, of course.
progressoverpeace on December 24, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Maybe send the shoe-fly-pie man to here.
Kini on December 24, 2008 at 2:54 PM
He failed to get Bin Laden.
lodge on December 24, 2008 at 2:54 PM
So who cares about the Taliban?
terryannonline on December 24, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Give him some public lashes and let him go with probation. The main concern of that probation is that he never works for a news agency again. He’ll keep his job in Egypt, but he won’t come back to Iraq. It’s win-freakin-win.
Bo on December 24, 2008 at 3:02 PM
But he did seriously disable Al Qaeda and his merry band of Scheiße Kopf. My not be the head of the serpent, but pretty much the arms and legs
Kini on December 24, 2008 at 3:03 PM
I didn’t say it was “optimal.” Although, am curious if there was any war that fought under “optimal” circumstances. Lodge argued that Bush had done nothing “good” and argued that ousting the Taliban from power in Afghanistan was “good.” Optimal has nothing to with “good.”
terryannonline on December 24, 2008 at 3:05 PM
The Taliban have free rein everywhere outside Kabul, so he failed there as well.
lodge on December 24, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Nope
artist on December 24, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Hell, if Jorge Boosh can pardon an illegal-alien smuggler and a bunch of druggies, as he did yesterday, this dude ought to be top-of-the-list for a free pass.
After all, it’s not as if he did anything bad like p*ssing off Boosh’s compadres in Mexico City, the way Ramos and Compean did.
Their pardon is the only thing GWB can do to salvage any shred of his rapidly decaying “legacy,” IMO.
MrScribbler on December 24, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Yes, there is an insurgency of the Taliban. However, they no where near the power they did in 2000.
terryannonline on December 24, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Ah throws mah Christmas shoes at you
Kini on December 24, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Sure, let’s give in one more time to muslims. I was just reading in the Top Stories section here on Hot Air that the muslims put a sign up in Nazareth that “Allah has no son,” and another dimini response in another one. So, let’s give in to muslim sensitivities one more time, so they can take over our world.
TimothyJ on December 24, 2008 at 3:11 PM
This begs the question, why would Maliki (or anyone else, for that matter) listen to anything George W has to say?
benny shakar on December 24, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Don’t forget that Omar, Bin Laden, Zawahiri and all the other bigwigs have a safe haven in Pakistan. By ousting the Taliban we denied AQ a safe haven, yet they simply set up base camp over the border.
We should have just steamrolled in, forget the coalition, forget the RoE – blasted all the Taliban leadership and AQ, razed the training camps and then come home for the low low price of a few billion dollars.
lodge on December 24, 2008 at 3:12 PM
He should get the Saddam treatment he morally deserves.
But maybe it’s smarter to pardon him , for tactical and strategical reasons.
the_nile on December 24, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Taliban? Let’s see, if Kerry had won 4 years ago, the Taliban would still rule Kabul! Oh sure, he would have issued a special committee to see if there was a need to convene a UN special committee to see if Osama had any ties to the Taliban…because they don’t care, idiots.
kirkill on December 24, 2008 at 3:12 PM
No, don’t pardon the shoe-thrower. Take him to the highest mountain in Kurdistan, set him free, and let him walk back, barefoot. That will teach him what shoes are for.
Steve Z on December 24, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Tell that to the school girls who had acid thrown on them.
Disturb the Universe on December 24, 2008 at 3:14 PM
I’m not a Kerry voter, but nice strawman anyway.
I find it funny there are still Bush supporters out there. Even amnesty and bailouts are small potatoes to the truest neocon, I guess
lodge on December 24, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Ugh. So the Iraq war was immoral by many because we didn’t have a coalition. And now you are saying we shouldn’t have had a coalition in Afghanistan? Seriously, is there any U.S. military operation that you think was the right and correct strategy?
terryannonline on December 24, 2008 at 3:17 PM
If he can get Maliki to pardon the guy he can get him a spot at this springs Fantasy Spring Training Camp with the Rangers. While he’s there he can work on his pick-off move.
sarc/
thomasaur on December 24, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Well I’m sure the number of schools girls of getting acid thrown in their faces will triple if we leave. Is that the better solution?
terryannonline on December 24, 2008 at 3:19 PM
We should stay out of it. Isn’t the Left whining because we meddled in Iraq? Isn’t telling them how to handle their own lawbreakers just another form of meddling?
They are the ones who make such a big deal about respect and honor – why shouldn’t this man be held to their own standards? Would we want the Iraqi PM to tell us how to handle someone who did the equal to him here?
katiejane on December 24, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Nice strawman. I disagree with Iraq because the biggest reason (WMDs) has been proven false, and the other reasons (UN resolutions) are pathetic – I don’t worship at the altar of the UN. Not to mention the blood and treasure.
We shouldn’t have had a coalition because it takes too long. We needed to just give our special forces free rein and the job would have been done in a month.
lodge on December 24, 2008 at 3:26 PM
terryannonline on December 24, 2008 at 3:19 PM
I misinterpreted your post. I am not for leaving until they are all toast.
Disturb the Universe on December 24, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Pithy, but I disagree. There hasn’t been another Ground Zero. That may not count for anything with some of you, and it may not count for anything with a single Democrat, but it matters a great deal to a lot of Americans, including me.
capitalist piglet on December 24, 2008 at 3:29 PM
And that’s another thing seriously gets my blood boiling. Our news media and the American people frankly have ignored our endeavors in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have women and gay rights groups here in America whining about stuff like sexism in the ‘08 campaign or Rick Warren doing the inaugural prayer. How about the women and gays in Afghanistan and Iraq? Women and gays are treated much harsher in these parts of the world and you don’t hear a peep from women and gay/lesbian groups about our endeavors in Afghanistan and Iraq.
terryannonline on December 24, 2008 at 3:29 PM
It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers! In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late. Accordingly, I’m readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I’ll, in turn, do my best for the cause by writing editorials – after the fact.
Robert E. Lee, 1863
It fits blog commenters too I suspect…
Dawnsblood on December 24, 2008 at 3:37 PM
I’m not in the U.S. military or some type military expert or strategist so I’m not in any position really to debate if we should or shouldn’t have had a coalition going into Afghanistan. But I will say that I think going into Afghanistan was the moral and right thing to do. That’s all I can really say.
terryannonline on December 24, 2008 at 3:39 PM
I was using the phrase “less-than-optimal” just to be nice. I disagreed with Bush’s larger strategy, not because it wasn’t “optimal” but because I thought it did not address the real problem with a real solution (as is now evidenced by Iran about to nuclear, Pakistan on the edge of total chaos, Lebanon taken over by Hizbollah, …).
I just want to stress again (as I feel I always have to in these discussions) that Bush was far better than any of the Dems would have been, without any doubt. I just think he squandered the point of 9/11 to reestablish what war really involved.
I’m not arguing Lodge’s point, just where our views happen to intersect, some.
progressoverpeace on December 24, 2008 at 3:39 PM
+1
Disturb the Universe on December 24, 2008 at 3:42 PM
I would just note that the Iraq War certainly did deliver more WMD than we had ever even imagined Iraq to have. Because of Bush’s temporary forcefulness with invading Iraq, he scared the living sh!t out of the arab world, which caused Qadaffi to puke up his whole nuke program (a very serious one) which then exposed the true depths of the AQQ Khan black market nuke network. This info was far more WMD than anyone expected out of Iraq, so the lack of WMD found in Iraq became a moot point. The Iraq War, in the end, did more to stop proliferating WMD than had been hoped – though from an ancillary effect.
Further, the moment Saddam Hussein intentionally dumped 40,000,000 barrels of oil into the gulf (4 times the size of the Exxon Valdez) and lit just about every single oil well in Kuwait on fire, it was apparent that he could not be allowed to remain in control of one of the most strategic areas on Earth. Everything else justifying the Iraq War is just commentary, though many of them were also very good justifications, in and of themselves.
progressoverpeace on December 24, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Oh come on…. the media and the public were behind Bush after 9-11 and the invasion of Iraq. It wasn’t until it became obvious that Bush had no plan for after the invasion that the consensus behind him fell apart.
lexhamfox on December 24, 2008 at 3:46 PM
This guy should be pardoned after Bush frees the two border patrol officers who got railroaded in the name of political correctness. Shameful!
Dukehoopsfan on December 24, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Take a look at Robert Mugabe. Why aren’t you clamoring for us to go remove him?
lodge on December 24, 2008 at 3:48 PM
I would’a given anything to see the Secret Service guy pick up the thrown shoe and throw it back at the guy. One, two, both shoes.
I’d also have given anything to see the Secret Service man actually there and present protecting President Bush.
But Bush’s reaction was wonderfully smart. It showed how inept throwing shoes actually is.
The guy should not be pardoned, however. That part of the world needs to be persistently presented with rules of etiquette that don’t include throwing shoes at Presidents of countries, especially when they’re one’s guests.
S on December 24, 2008 at 3:49 PM
No pardon. Let him pick up soap in prison.
eaglewingz08 on December 24, 2008 at 3:51 PM
So we can’t get rid of any tyrants unless we give rid of all of them? I wonder if during WWII if people were saying we can’t remove Hitler because what about Stalin?
terryannonline on December 24, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Throw a shoe at Bruce Springsteen who apparently has a new album based on hatre for Bush. I guess his initials being B.S. muct mean something after all. Ya lost a fan here Bruce.
johnnyU on December 24, 2008 at 4:00 PM
That’s because it sucks to be there and easier to whine here.
Kini on December 24, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Not when the US has two border patrol agents thrown in jail for doing the jobs they were suppose to do!
CynicalOptimist on December 24, 2008 at 4:01 PM
That’s way too easy.
No Strategic Value
Kini on December 24, 2008 at 4:02 PM
We obviously have a clueless one here. Kabul, Afghanistan is known as the gay capital of Asia.
TTheoLogan on December 24, 2008 at 4:06 PM
NO!,…Welcome to freedom.
christene on December 24, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Are you trying to be sarcastic? Just want to be certain.
terryannonline on December 24, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Not quite the San Francisco Treat ~_^
Kini on December 24, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Pardon? Absolutely not. He should announce that he forgives him and leaves his fate to the Iraqi court.
PattyJ on December 24, 2008 at 4:25 PM
No
Nope
Nada
Nyet
Nein
If Saddam was still in power and he threw the shoes at Saddam, he would be decomposing by now, if there was anything left after the torture house got done with him.
Hog Wild on December 24, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Of course he should forgive him and ask Maliki to pardon him.
SaintOlaf on December 24, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Bingo!!
CynicalOptimist on December 24, 2008 at 4:36 PM
I don’t think it’s Bush’s place to do anything about this shoe thrower unless the Iraqi government wants him to. It’s their government, let them govern. I’m sure Bush has already forgiven the guy, maybe that’s all he should do.
scalleywag on December 24, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Why wasn’t this turd throwing his shoes at the leaders of the rape rooms, mass graves, torture chambers, multiple palaces with poverty all about, & so forth? Would the Arab world have been on his side then? No! They hate our culture, our freedom, our God, and values that made our country the greatest in the world. They are against every man and every man will eventually be against them.
wepeople on December 24, 2008 at 4:44 PM
I think Bush should challenge him to a cage match.
Say ‘Here’s your chance buddy…let’s go’.
Silliness aside…do you think he’d accept???
And who would you bet on??
I personally don’t think he would and if he did, Bush would stomp a mud hole in his ass.
BigWyo on December 24, 2008 at 5:30 PM
I never said invading Iraq was necessary to save the poor Iraqis from Saddam. I said it was because Saddam, and his crew, posed such a grave threat to us. I disagree, strongly, with Bush’s idea that self-rule with individual freedoms could work in the arab world, let alone the muslim arab world with major populations of 3 warring muslims groups packed together near some of the greatest power on Earth (the oi fields). If Bush turns out to have been correct, then the benefit reaped will be gigantic, so I give Bush the credit for making a long-odds bet that has a tremendous payout possibility – totally game-changing. But I think Iraq will descend into chaos, or worse, as soon as US pressure is sufficiently lessened. I hope I’m wrong.
From my view, one of the weakest parts of the Iraq War was not defending it on purely strategic grounds, with the idea of giving the Iraqis “democracy” (a very unfortunate concept to champion, as the US is built NOT to be a “democracy”, as I’m sure most here are well-aware) being secondary, if even that. But Bush decided to push the “democracy” point and began to try and justify the war on that account, which was wrong and confused the issue for the public.
The Iraqis showed how much trouble they were going to be, right at the beginning, when they chose a moronic Euro-style party-oriented parliamentary system instead of adopting the US Constitutional structure. They were building an entire government from scratch, and they chose an outdated, unstable, structure with the added disadvantage of having the largest powers of government being easily concentrated to the control of a very small group. At that point, it was clear that many, many people were not thinking clearly about this whole issue. At least that’s how things struck me. We’ll see how it all plays out. The next 2 years will pose serious tests of the structures built.
progressoverpeace on December 24, 2008 at 5:43 PM
I’m all for magnanimity, but the Iraqis may feel that this cannot go unpunished, so here’s my take:
Bush should request that the charges be “dropped if possible, or else reduced to disorderly conduct or a low-grade assault, and the forceful and energetic manner of the arrest be considered when sentence is passed.” The perp sits in jail for a couple of weeks while his bruises heal up and he tries not to get awarded any new ones, Bush is a good guy, the rule of law is preserved, and when the perp gets out the media will be talking about something else, so the perp doesn’t get another platform.
njcommuter on December 24, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Let the Iraq court decide!
canopfor on December 24, 2008 at 6:25 PM
I agree.
rlwo2008 on December 24, 2008 at 7:28 PM
G.W. Should have the deboned, dried (and pedicured) feet on little tasseled trimmings to put on his Christmas Tree!
heldmyw on December 24, 2008 at 8:53 PM
I read a couple of days ago that Bush was going to do just that, ask Maliki to pardon the idiot shoe thrower. I say it is up to him.
I don’t think Bush looks half as ridiculous as the shoe thrower himself. I mean, come on…throwing shoes?? Who does that?
Terrye on December 24, 2008 at 10:25 PM
“Should Bush ask Maliki to pardon the shoe-thrower?”
No.
I love easy questions.
Kevin M on December 25, 2008 at 12:54 AM
Ducking that shoe with such speed is the only good thing Bush has done since his speech at Ground Zero
lodge on December 24, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Creating a situation where Iraqis fought alongside Americans and not only defeated but humiliated al Qaeda was not a good thing?
lodge, you are a moron of the first order.
Basilsbest on December 25, 2008 at 12:54 AM
Nope. It sends a horrible message that assaulting a US president is OK. Whatever short term benefit there would be in doing this is offset by the long term downside. I have no idea why this is even being considered. The more I read AP the more I don’t understand why he is associated with a conservative site and why everyone thinks he is so intelligent. Personally I think he is a lightweight.
echosyst on December 25, 2008 at 1:49 AM
Yes. Provided that the shoe thrower apologizes to Bush by name without any other “but” statements, rather than apologizing to Maliki, who was not the target of his shoes.
Think about it. Bush gets obeisance from a hero of the Muslim world. It doesn’t get any better.
Even better would be a penance in which a representative of Bush gets to throw two shoes at al-Zaidi [al-Zaidi gets to duck, and, if we are to be truly sporting, also gets a goalee to fend off the shoes].
The guy can always recant afterward, but, in recanting, he shows that he’s a liar, and that will certainly take his shine off.
So, with an apology, Bush is victorious, in a way that’s got to resonate in the Muslim world.
unclesmrgol on December 25, 2008 at 1:51 AM
Bush will not be victorious in the Muslim world if the shoe thrower is pardoned, it will only be seen as a sign of weakness and an implicit admission that we were wrong to invade Iraq. It is unacceptable to attack a head of state, or anyone for that matter. Let the asshole rot.
echosyst on December 25, 2008 at 2:12 AM
Yes. Not because it’s the right thing to do; because it’s the Christian thing to do.
tgillian on December 25, 2008 at 7:49 AM
I’m not big on forgiveness, I’m a firm believer in an eye for an eye. Hang this bastard from the neck until dead. The USSS should have put a few rounds into him at the press conference.
Mooseman on December 25, 2008 at 9:22 AM
Had I been President Bush, I would have picked up both shoes, thanked the guy for giving them to me, then sold them on E-bay and gave the money to charity!
steelman on December 25, 2008 at 1:04 PM
WOW you have a different idea of an eye for an eye than most.
Jamson64 on December 25, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Bush should ask for a pardon. This is phase two of the war in Iraq. And war involves personal sacrifice.
The entire incident is a youtube generation endorsement of the war, and how we can determine it’s success. It’s laughably obvious that this man would have had his own head handed back to him on a platter, to say nothing of his family, if he had done this to one of the foreign guests of Saddam. Why lose the opportunity to put that reality in ink?
By pardoning this man, Bush extends Christ to him. And gives this man and his muslim supporters something else to think about besides their own totally misguided anger. In a muslim world, a man gets 15 years in prison for throwing a shoe. In a Christian world, our judicial system reflects the forgiveness with a sense of balance. We don’t need to send someone away for throwing a shoe. It’s a petty act. We get that. They don’t. To them, it’s all about Ego, and being humiliated. Jesus was humiliated. He was also King. – “Forgive them Father, they know not what they do”. Luke 23:34
It’s good to see this here on Christmas Day. I’m struggling with my own Christianity today because of my seeming unwillingness to forgive on a personal issue. But Christ asks me to forgive 77 times. How do I celebrate His Birth today and reject what He has asked me to do? I struggle. Following Christ is easy except when it’s difficult.
tartan on December 25, 2008 at 6:12 PM
I should mention that I’m not knowledgeable about the relationship between law and religion in muslim countries. I was just really surprised to hear that the shoe thrower was facing 15 years according to the wsj article.
tartan on December 25, 2008 at 6:17 PM
Took a shower, did some thinking, and realized how hypocritical it is for me to give my President advice that I myself find difficult to follow. I’m eating crow tonight for Christmas dinner.
tartan on December 25, 2008 at 8:03 PM
It is instructive that the shoe thrower is still alive. If he had thrown a shoe at Saddam he wouldnt have gotten out of the room alive. Try doing that in any other arab country for that matter and see what happens.
Lunkinator on December 25, 2008 at 8:26 PM
No offense to my fellow Christians, but Muslim show throwers and shoe bombers for that matter don’t care about Jesus Christ. I would think that would be obvious by now. We gain nothing by “turning the other cheek” when it comes to Islamic radicals.
echosyst on December 26, 2008 at 1:29 AM
Was HA always so full of strange, angry people?
Yeesh.
VolMagic on December 26, 2008 at 1:31 AM
I do SO like the way you think.
__________
RJGatorEsq. on December 26, 2008 at 9:12 AM
If this guy were on Obama’s team they would simply open their own investigation and then march out their own lawyer and claim that everything is kopesetic and the media would agree and the guy would go free…
sabbott on December 26, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Comment pages: