Fifty years from now, American kids with some sense of history (and of justice) will be hanging smelly, used sneakers on George Burh's tomb. With one stroke, he has been unalterably linked with a symbol of contempt which needs no translation. It was an astoundingly elegant intervention.

I do hope the guy had athelete's foot.

So you think it's okay for the highest elected American official to be insulted on worldwide television by a piece of trash from a backwater barbarian totalitarian state that we had liberated from a brutal tyrant? If the psycho had done this to Saddam Hussein or one of his cronies, there would be a fresh plot of sand for him to lie under somewhere out in the desert, rather than just a couple of boo-boos.

So you're either whining about an Iraqi exercising his free speech, which we spent buckets of blood and money providing, or you're pining away for the return of Saddam and his indelicate ways of handling dissent.

Man, you just can't make this stuff up.

I can certainly understand a guy protesting the man who invaded his country.

But keep in mind:

AFP reports that "Saddam Hussein's former lawyer Khalil al-Dulaimi said he was forming a team to defend Zaidi.."

Liberals are cheering a little too loudly for this guy. They so often seem to end up on the same side as America's enemies.

Yes, categorically, I think its is OK for an American president to be insulted. In some places,though, it is illegal. The crime is called lese majeste in France. But that crime sort of went out when the First Amendment came in. Do you think Presidents should be protected from insults? Flying shoes, yes - but insults?

You keep harping on the fact that Saddam's 'former lawyer' is representing this guy. That does not mean there was a political connection. After we invaded there weren't a hell of a lot of professionals of any sort left to represent anybody, they mostly fled Iraq into Syria etc.. So if this lawyer was competent enough to defend Sadam after his capture, then he's going to be one of the few left that can defend this guy. Professionals are not returning to the homeland in droves.

Maybe you just have a problem with defense lawyers in general?

Cerulean_Mutt:

So you're either whining about an Iraqi exercising his free speech, which we spent buckets of blood and money providing, or you're pining away for the return of Saddam and his indelicate ways of handling dissent.

Man, you just can't make this stuff up.

Now there's a laugh. What this guy did is called "assault" which is against the law in just about ANY country. It is a prosecutable offense. Added to the fact that the victim is the President of the United States, and the words "international incident" are all over the place. If a crazy ultra right-wing conservative had done the same thing to Obama at a press conference, he would be lying in the morgue right now.

Yes, his freedom of speech was bought with the blood of our soldiers. And yes, he's entitled to his opinion. But if I think that someone is a war-mongering nincompoop, does that give me the right to assault them? NO!

"Harping"? I think I posted it all of two times.

My only point was the one I stated, that it's interesting that you folks find yourselves on the same side as America's enemies so often.

Hell, you can even BOMB our government and abitious Democrats, like our next president, will come to your house to pay homage. It's just interesting.

I never said this Iraqi gentlemen should be immune from the consequences of his actions / speech.

Hope that clears up your confusion.

Cerulean_Mutt:

I never said this Iraqi gentlemen should be immune from the consequences of his actions / speech.

Hope that clears up your confusion.

Methinks you are the one who is confused...

Why else would you be fondly reminiscing about how Saddam treated dissenters when he was in power when that very behaviour was one of the proffered reasons for the war?

Stand on your head so you'll spin like a top!

Cerulean_Mutt:

Why else would you be fondly reminiscing about how Saddam treated dissenters when he was in power when that very behaviour was one of the proffered reasons for the war?

Stand on your head so you'll spin like a top!

If you think I was "fond" of Saddam Hussein and all the crap he was doing, you are obviously in more need of medical attention than I first suspected... Now just lie down somewhere and don't move, while I call the nice man in the pretty white coat to take you to a nice room with soft covered walls...

And that you have personal experience with that situation. Sorry for you.

Anyway, glad to hear you're not fond of Saddam or his actions - there is hope after all. Yet, it is puzzling that you would disparage an Iraqi for expressing himself when that freedom to express himself is something he never would have done under Saddam, and which we purchased for him at great cost. It's almost as if you freed him from Saddam, but don't expect or want him to exercise that freedom. If that's the case, why'd we even bother?

Again, the problem is that this guy committed a CRIME. He ASSAULTED a FOREIGN HEAD OF STATE. He is a JOURNALIST and should act as one. Hurling accusations, epithets and insults at someone he is indignant about is one thing... People do it all the time, and God bless them... But this guy committed an act of aggression, and in so doing, violated the law... His country's, our country's, and most other country's laws... And for that he should be punished. Period. End of story.

Gee, you seem a bit unnerved. Let's try this another way.

The guy committed a crime: Yes? Before our invasion of his country, he most likely would not have committed this crime out of fear for his own life: Yes? Now that we've established that bit of common ground, there won't be any need for you to restate it endlessly.

That he felt free enough to committ a crime during an act of civil disobedience should be cause for rejoicing among supporters of the war. Instead, we get some posters (not you) suggesting he be treated the same way Saddam would have. You yourself opined that he never would have done that under Saddam, as if stiffling of dissent and liberty was a good thing.

That a war supporter would be lamenting someone who (granted, inappropriately) was exercising their freedom is quite simply, irony of the highest order - hence my original post.