Sunday, December 14, 2008


"Good night, good night! parting is such sweet sorrow . . . "

~ Juliet, Romeo and Juliet, Act 2, Scene 2.

Remember all thos photos from 2003, in which Iraqis beat statues and photos of Saddam with their shoes? It looks like it's a political tradition:

And dumbbell Dana Perino got a black eye out of it? PRICELESS!

If it had been a Kurdish mother launching the shoes, Bush would have easily had one shoe firmly lodged in each nostril at that close distance. When you need something done right, better ask a Kurdish woman to gt it done instead of screwing around with amateurs.


Anonymous said...

i'm not defending anyone here but the guy who threw the shoe is a baathist and deserves to have the living shit beat out of him in the jail he now rots in with the very shoe he threw.

and i guess this is what they all get for pardoning former baathists in the new iraq. a little case of blowback

Anonymous said...

He's not exactly a baathist is he? He's a Sadrist (which isnt much better). But anyways, I think the satellite company - al-Baghdadiya - he works for is pro-baathist. In any case, I guess it's the same thing.

Mizgîn said...

Oh, you're not defending anyone? Mm hmm.

The only problem with the shoe launch is that the target, along with his ENTIRE administration, deserves to be tried for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and gross conflict of interest.

And I haven't even gotten into all the intel sharing with Turkey that enables Turkish bombing operations and a land invasion last February.

But I guess your rage at a "Baathist" made you forget all this.

Anonymous said...

So we accept that the loser did not throw his shoe for the "Iraqi widows and children who were killed in Iraq." He is disgruntled because the Sadrists don't have a monopoly over the government. He is upset that the tyranny enjoyed by the Baathists cannot be enjoyed by the Sadrist Shiites.

And why did he throw his shoe at Bush?

He didn't throw it at the American flag or an army official; he didn't rip up the American declaration of independence; he didn't denounce the American administration's crimes against humanity. It was to denounce America's role in Iraq.

Bush is the greatest symbol of America's "colonization" of Iraq. Yet, Bush is seen to be rejected by the American people. He no longer is a symbol of the American administration.

And if, apart from his role as representing the American administration, Bush also represents turning the Iraqi regime upside down and inside out, then by all means, my conscience will not allow some tyranny-seeking low life who is a bad shot to have a laugh at the expense of Bush.