Evidently, it's more than just a peculiar form of tantrum in Iraq. Throwing shoes is, symbolically, a large gesture of displeasure. Disgust. All those *Dis-* words . I will say this for President Bush, though. He handled the incident rather skillfully - even getting a spin in there on how a democracy works, as evidenced by airborne loafers (or whatever they were). Clearly, however, he was very lucky that nothing worse was hurled in his direction than footwear?!

Story here ...

10/10 to Bush for smart footwork or is it head work !? Interestingly, he anticipated the second missile and was ready for that too .

But on a serious note, this was a serious security lapse, the first shoe was unexpected, but he should not have been allowed to throw the second one! All politicians should now watch out for shoes !

I have to admit I initially found this simply amusing. I think it would have been just that, I mean, no one got hurt right? Wrong.
I am wondering what will happen to the shoe tosser, Mr. Zaidi? The article said that (Iraqi) security agents kicked and beat him until "he was crying like a woman." It also says that later the tv channel broadcast a request for Mr. Zaidi's release, "in the name of democracy and free speech."
Obviously assaulting the President is, to put it lightly, a lousy idea, but so is kicking and beating someone for throwing a couple of shoes. Clearly there is some serious confusion about what Democracy and free speech give a person the right to do. As far as I know, Democracy and free speech do not make it acceptable to act violently, or beat anyone, with either end of the stick.

Anyone out there remember Khrushchev pounding on the table in UN with his shoe? Shoes are apparently an important instrument of political expression, in several cultures.

What a very immature act! That's what hatred will do for you - make you act like an undisciplined child. In no way does that ever get ones' point "well taken."

In comparison to what Bush does in the name of the "democracy" he claims to preside over and the "democracy" the people believe they live in, throwing him shoes is like caressing him. I do not stand for violence but take one thing into consideration: "subversive" they call the peoples when they demand what others got accustomed to not having (but should have just for being human beings). Subversive should be the name given to the State when it does not secure food, home, health and peace to its citizens.
I am utterly disgusted

Just a bit o' follow-up on this one. Naturally, the appraisal(s) of this situation vary a great deal, depending upon how one looks upon/feels about the war, Mr. Bush, civil disobedience, journalists or shoes (in general?) .

But the throwing of a shoe, for any reason and at anybody, truly IS an especial "statement" in some cultures. This article looks at some of the reactions and/or aftermaths, globally, of the incident.

It's rather amazing the coverage this fellow and his "shoe missile(s)" have received !

It's important to note that this wasn't an outdoor demonstration that got out of hand and someone nearly got hit with a shoe. This was a news conference with a visiting head of state who became the literal target of an outrageous act of insolence.

International relationships, fragile and volatile that they are, matter so much in our world that they must be guarded with the utmost diplomacy and respect.

Granted, it was no assassination, and the man is understandably a hero to those who despise Pres. Bush and the United States, but it is no light matter. Did he have a right as a person to so express himself? Possibly. Was it a wise move? Not unless the Arab world has the will and the way to turn its concerted economic and/or military force against what, despite its present difficulties, is still the mightiest nation on earth.

Should Muntadar al-Zaidi have triggered a chain of events such as Gavrilo Princip did a century ago, heaven help us.

It seems this topic lends itself to much discussion but I just wanted to leave a “word of thought”. I cannot but disagree with those who keep focusing on the anecdotal, expressing their disgust at this incident as honorable citizens. That’s a touch of tunnel vision, I’m afraid. We express disapproval when a civilian misbehaves in this way but we seem to forget, putting first decorum and respect, that the international relations’ arena is a battle field (literally and figuratively), it is closer to the Italian mafia than to what we are shown on TV, it is a fight for plunder and resources. “International relations” is not only what happens at press conferences, presidential meetings and heads of state gatherings, “international relations” also sit at the table of those families whose quiet dinner is interrupted by the explosion of a bomb… the bomb thrown by someone who came to their land to deplete it of resources and kill its civilians (something cheerfully referred to as “collateral damage”). In comparison, the shoe thrown by someone who chose to express his feelings and in them the feelings of a nation seems to be the sting of a mosquito in the neck of a giant. As you very well said, this giant is the mightiest nation on earth, the same that, as any other nation, should serve as an example for those who work, study and live everyday to pay their taxes.

I keep being disgusted, and not precisely at the one who threw the shoes.

Ralph Peters in the "New York Post" posed the thought, "Imagine if someone had dared throw a shoe at Saddam Hussein....that al-Zaidi knew he could pull this stunt without being tortured and killed.....proves what a great thing has been accomplished in Iraq..."

Think about it!

Who assures us he is not being tortured while held in custody? If that is the case, no one will know because no one will let it be known. This discussion could be endless, and it isn't just about the shoe. Why don't we reflect ALSO on the fact that the body that "governs the governments" and has been established to secure international peace (the UN) is ruled on a permanent basis (the Security Council, the only one that makes decisions)by the five most powerful nations in the world... guess what? those five are the biggest manufacturers and sellers of war armament in the world. Hence I wonder what can be expected from that. So, to cut a long story short, unfortunately, those of us with totally different structures of though think that the world of today is definitely not as the papers tell us (including the journalists of course) neither it is as the box shows us.

One more thing... don't trust so much in the press, they are the big, powerful conglomerates allied to the interests of the establishment. Try finding out how many real independent media are in the US, and the world. Those monsters are the "builders" of public opinion.
We should revise what we think we think for ourselves. Freedom doesn't only mean physical freedom.

Ok, I'm locking this thread as it's become more heated than a simple discussion about a news story.