Bush Shoe Thrower: Press Asserts al-Zaidi Had Saddam, Baathist Connections

It seems to be emerging as an accepted fact that Muntather al-Zaidi, the reporter who threw both his shoes at President George W. Bush this weekend, had specific ideological connections to Saddam Hussein and/or the Ba'ath Party, a pleasing conceit that seems intended to isolate al-Zaidi from an Iraqi populace who have, by and large, soured on the U.S. occupation. The most commonly cited source would appear to be this blog post from the New York Times "Baghdad Bureau," which notes that al-Zaidi -- in addition to having a rather commonplace "long-building anger towards the United States military presence in Iraq" -- also had "ties to Saddam Hussein's Baath Party," and was "head of the student union under Saddam Hussein."

Absent from this account is any indication that al-Zaidi pursued either his fealty to Saddam or the Ba'ath Party with any particular zeal. While several people are quoted in the article describing al-Zaidi's politics and positions -- and not always in a positive light -- none attest to any particular love for Saddam Hussein or his ruling party. In a thoughtful piece from the Washington Independent, Spencer Ackerman explains that this is an example of the press jumping to an untenable conclusion:

First of all, Iraqis under Saddam did whatever they had to do to survive given the reality of a totalitarian regime. Baghdad metal band Acrassicauda wrote a song praising Saddam so they could get some funding for equipment. Did al-Zaidi head his student union because he wanted to head a student union or because he believes deeply in the glory of Saddam Hussein? I don't know and you don't either.

And it's completely irrelevant. al-Zaidi has become a symbol in Iraq and the Middle East because the occupation of Iraq is an unwelcome intrusion. Calling al-Zaidi a Baathist is a particularly pathetic way to put one's head in the sand instead of confronting this simple reality. (You know who were also Baathists? Thousands of the so-called Sons of Iraq.)

The Times has abundant evidence that al-Zaidi detested President Bush, took the occupation personally, and had planned to make a symbolic, attention-seeking statement to that effect. But nowhere is it conclusively proven that he was motivated by anything having to do with Saddam Hussein or the Ba'ath Party. Indeed, based upon the extent to which al-Zaidi has been exalted in Iraq, I'd say it's fair to note that al-Zaidi was expressing a very mainstream dissatisfaction.

Comments

[vtlt8]

So, you would ok with someone throwing a shoe at Obama because at least 58 million other people don't like him?

[BannedInBoston]

The point is, nobody would want to. But approximately 58 million Iraqis were throwing shoes at Bush in this one gesture. I cannot understand how people like you can be so dense. Bush is the man primarily responsible for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraqi. Iraqis were supposed to regard us somehow as "liberators"? Oh, please....

[vtlt8]

58 million Americans. Who cares about the Iraqis anymore?

[wmfor]

If Obama invades another country on false pretenses, destroys their infrastructure, kills hundreds of thousands of their citizens, dispossesses millions, rounds up groups of random citizens with no charges and tortures them... YES I WOULD! I WOULD THROW THE SHOE MYSELF.

[BannedInBoston]

Idea for a Demonstration

Let's all gather on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House -- tens of thousands of us -- and throw our shoes over the fence! ("OK, everybody, on the count of four!") Solidarity with the Iraqi people....

[citygal]

terrific!!!
I know many people who actually are planning to do this!

[Wilson201]

I was under the impression that the new Iraqi society was democratic. A new free society?

[AliMB]

being a free and democratic society does not mean you are allowed to throw your shoe at a foreign dignitary... throw a shoe at the Chinese Premier or the President of Guatemala and you will likely go to jail and pay a fine

[cobobs]

There are consequences for throwing things at people, including presidents. People protest with understanding that there could be hell to pay.

[Truthosaurus]

A news report showed what was described as this guys family members watching a replay of the shoe throwing incident. The women were wrapped head to toe in black fabric. I would like to see him go throw a shoe at the clerics pushing that misogyny, then he might be a hero.

[AliMB]

the concept that Mr. Al-Zaidi is a “hero” does not resonate with an extraordinary definition of the word, chiefly an individual who exhibits courage or bravery. By “extraordinary” I mean that he has to do something exhibit such bravery so as to merit praise at a national, regional, or international level. Mr. Al-Zaidi’s physical self was never at risk and his act was by no means conducive to producing any tangible result. Finally, I could argue that it would have been more “heroic” for Mr. Al-Zaidi to take up arms against US Marines, heroic in a purely impassive sense meaning exhibiting physical and mental courage. Of course, doing so might entail costs that Mr. Al-Zaidi wasn’t prepared to face.

[BannedInBoston]

Facing fifteen years in slam isn't "putting yourself at risk"? Where do you guys get off....

[Jetling]

I believe Mr. Al-Zaidi quickly was beaten and suffered a broken arm, along with various other injuries.

While I've never been beaten to that extent, I feel confident that I believe his life was at risk.

Heroism doesn't require you be armed.

Sometimes, you just have to be mad as hell and not want to take it anymore.

And if you don't think Bush know it was coming, I heard they confiscated his bag of tomatoes before he went in.

[Bellanova]

"That misogyny" did not exist in Iraq under Saddam. During Saddam's rule, Iraqi women had unprecedented in the Middle East (save Israel) freedoms: they had free and open access to education, employment and political process. They could choose their mates, walk alone on the streets, and did not have to cover up from head to toe. One of the consequences of the US invasion is religious radicalization of the Iraqi society with the associated and inevitable return of misogyny and oppression of women. Al-Zaidi was throwing his shoes at Bush also on behalf of these terrified, covered-up women sitting at his house. For them, like for the majority of Iraqis, the Bush's botched experiment in spreading "freedom and democracy" has meant a drastic change for the worse, much worse, in all aspects of life.

So that misogyny you refer to here is also part of the Bush's shameful legacy. There aren't enough shoes to "thank" him for it.

[Saifi]

The role of the mainstream media in spreading the story of this shoe-thrower is just absurd. It was this same media that hailed the war against Irak at the time. So, I would suggest that the media position themselves in an even-handed position and report the news as they are and let the viewers judge for themselves instead of spinning them the way they like.

Claiming that this Iraqi guy is related in one way or another to Saddam is a pure lie and an unproven allegation; because the anger at Bush's Administration is so high that people all over the world and particularly in the Arab world hate everything that represents America.

[AliMB]

i think the shoe-throwing incident is valid not because of the act but because the reactions it elicits in iraqis and in the arab world in general... it is no surprise that bush is deeply unpopular, but i think the media is overlooking a significant percentage of iraqis who disagreed with Mr. Al-Zaidi. I wouldn't find it that shockng or suprising that Mr. Al-Zaidi is connected to the baath party; afterall, in the saddam era political conncections were extremely important for professional advancement. I also disagree that he Arab world hates everything that represents america... in fact, there are many aspects of American that many Arabs like.

[wmfor]

Wasn't it reported on Hannity that Al-Zaidi used to pal around with Bill Ayres?

[SheikPA]

They Should free this man Muntather al-Zaidi. They beat the crap out of him while questioning him. Whats the difference between this IRAQ abd Saddam Iraq?

[AliMB]

im not sure they beat the crap out of him... they restrained him and dragged him out of the room. i think they should release but after he is given some punishment... if I were to throw my shoe at the Chinese Premier because i feel strongly about tibet, i would be arrested and likely fined... there are many difference between contemporary iraq and the saddam era. one big difference is if Mr. Al-Zaidi had done this to a president while saddam was to his side, he would have been shot within the week (if he was lucky).

[wmfor]

Actually, Al-Zaidi broke his own arm and then he slipped and fell down the stairs, breaking three ribs. Prisoners in Iraqi custody are very accident prone.

[SheikPA]

Free Muntather al-Zaidi

Free Muntather al-Zaidi

Free Muntather al-Zaidi

Free Muntather al-Zaidi

[plumnelly]

The iraqi reporter has every right to have done what he did. Bush and his neocons lied to take us all to war and has destroyed that country. Lives have been sacrificed for Bush and Cheney's lies. Yes, his dissatisfaction is very mainstream. Bush and Cheney aren't leaders they're WAR CRIMINALS! Our country is facing depression and yet we're spending 5 billion a week on this unjust and bloody war. I wish the shoes had steel plated toes and they had hit their mark. I know I'm not alone in this sentiment.

[Ginger5]

Was the shoe edible cuz Bush et al. told us that the iraqis would be throwing sweets.

[AliMB]

some iraqis did offer sweets and water and tea to invading american forces... the majority did not.

[JessWonderin]

others offered high speed metal . . . .

[Balzac]

Bush's activities have been an affront to justice for decades. All of his cruel executions as Texas governor were only a prelude to the mass death he inflicted on Iraq, and the grisly, extra-legal hanging of Saddam Hussein.

Bush has insulted lady justice for decades, and for this, I hope her double-edged sword will finally come down on his neck.

[AliMB]

i am a bit perplexed by this coment. you seem to be aginst captial punishment, but then hope bush to executed for his alleged crimes in iraq (in the manner that they carry it out in saudi arabia). Also, Pres. Bush or the US had nothing to do with the hanging of Saddam. That was carried out by the Shiite-led government

[ErikW65]

Wait- they turned him over to his political enemies when they should have tried him for his crimes in a world court! They are in deep with that gruesome hanging!

[JessWonderin]

You seem to have missed the content of Balzac's message . . . no mention of objection to capital punishment, merely the FACT that Bush ignored Appeal Facts and ENJOYED the process . . . . and it was the U.S. that "captured" Suedamn and ALLOWED the trial and punishment in a U.S. created court system . . . unlike the Serbian leadership's INTERNATIONAL trials . . . . .

but you just keep re-writtn' and hope the Internets tube will empty out all those "facts" that just don't support your reich wing precepts . . . .

[Yermammy]

Well said, Balzac! Hear! Hear!

[gorideabike]

Dubya finally gets a sole.

[plumnelly]

Oh Yeah!

[Wilson201]

My new favorite!

[gorideabike]

And the second shoe was an effort to reboot him.

[wmfor]

He looked into Al-Zaidi's eyes and saw his sole.

[brooklyncitizen]

This article is dishonest.

It's like claiming people that were in the Nazi youth were the Gestapo or SS; in fact one of the gravest errors that US made in the invasion of Iraq was to fire people from govt because they were Batthists...well of course they were...how were you suppose to survive and feed your family? So an employee base of trained, knowledgeable Iraquis were dismissed- left to unemployment and all the problems that followed.

THe US cannot have it both ways. THe opposition is Shiite (who last year tortured and captured Al-Zaidid) yet the Shiites are Iranians and Iran is a sworn enemy of US. So the US ousts the Sunni because they are Batthists and is forced to play footsies with Shia because they are against the Sunnis.... ? or is the US playing footsies with the Sunnis/Batthists because they are against the Iranian Shiites?

Dishonest.

[AliMB]

i dont think the article is dishonest, but i agree it would be unfair to draw conclusions i.e. that Al-Zaidi is a hardcore baathist simply because of his membership in some student party (remember, baath connections were important during the Saddam era). Firing Baath party members was indeed a huge error, as well as dismantiling the iraqi army. Most people recognize that today. The iraqi opposition is not Shiite... the party in power is a religious Shiite party. The US plays "footsie" with whatever sect, group, or tribe that predominates each particular AO. in anbar int the west, sunnis. in the south, shiites, in the north kurds, etc. its only logical

[rooks]

You mean the Article he is referring to.

[blueleaf]

"...in fact one of the gravest errors that US made..."
Hello! It was no errors. The chaos that ensued was wanted. It allowed those monsters to plunder
the (future) US treasury and steal Iraq resources (the twelve to fifteen billions of Iraqui oil money in hard
cash that vanished, anybody?). Probably some of it laying in secret bank accounts, awaiting to be used to steal future elections.

[ErikW65]

Oooo, he was a BAATHIST! The Baathists were purged from Iraqi government after we invaded. This is seen as a huge mistake by Paul Bremmer, appointed ruler of Iraq at that time. Now we're trying to allow Baathists who did nothing wrong back in to Iraq government, in an effort to quell sectarianism. (Google re-Baathification...) So why go back to demonizing Baathists generally again, when the fact all along was that you had to join Saddam's party to be a success in Iraq at that time?

[AliMB]

i agree, and you are right... the de-baathification policy by Bremer, coupled with the dismantling of the Iraqi Army, have proven to be colossal mistakes. i think this post makes a valid argument that it is impossible to tell what kind of sympathies for the Baathists Mr. Al-Zaidi had because of the extenuating circumstances in which he lived.

[Helzapoppin]

It is beyond sad and disgusting that after everything that has happened in the last 8 years, prominent members of traditional media continue to fall over themselves in an effort to carry water for Bush. What part of "Bush is reviled the world over" do they just not get?? This incident had nothing to do with Saddam, nothing to do with the Ba'ath Party. It was no deep, dark conspiracy by a Saddam loyalist. It was about an Iraqi citizen sick to the teeth of the rampant death and destruction directly attributable to George W. Bush, and who, unlike our cowering domestic media, treated Bush exactly as he deserves to be treated.

[AliMB]

i disagree that the media has been bending over to please bush. on the contrary, the media is measureably anti-bush. Everyone understands that Bush is very unpopular in the war, even Bush himself. But he is still the president and has to carry out his functions. I don't think it would be productive for the media to start throwing shoes at Bush, regardless of how they feel about him. It would make press conferences unproductive and not help the media do their job

[Rosanneofpgh]

hahahahahahahaha.. Thats a good one, ali!! You crack me up!!

LISTEN, SPARKY, THE MEDIA HASNT BEEN DOING ITS JOB FOR THE LAST 8 YEARS!!

At this late date, they wouldnt even know HOW to do a good job.

[Johnagain]

al-Zaidi will become the Prime Minister of Iraq some day. Just watch.

[AliMB]

No he won't because the fledgling Iraqi Democratic system (which btw was brought about by the Bush-led war) is heavily based on party machine politics, and if you're outside of any strong party then you have no chance of becoming prime minister (remember, Iraq has a parlimentary system). From what I have read of Mr. Al-Zaidi, his only political connections are to the old Baathist Party, which is definitely not a resume booster in contemporary Iraq. He may be popular in Iraq, but without being an important person in a strong party he has no political future. Likewise, I don't know where he would fit in. The only party that would accept (being an Anti-American Shiite, according to his own words) would be the Al-Sadr party, yet he also has railed (according to second hand testimony) against the influence of the Iranian Governemnt.