Why I’ve no regrets about throwing my shoes at George W Bush and would do it again
The article centres on the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at then US President George W Bush and says he has no regrets about the act. He presents it as a protest against the Iraq war and US policy, arguing that he would repeat it because he believes the underlying grievances remain unresolved.
The incident took place during a Baghdad press conference in 2008, when the journalist hurled both shoes at Mr Bush and insulted him. Shoe-throwing is widely regarded in the region as a serious expression of contempt, and the episode became an enduring symbol of anger over the US-led invasion of Iraq.
- Iraqi journalist still defends shoe protest against George W Bush.
- He links the act to opposition to the Iraq war.
- The 2008 incident became a symbol of anti-war anger.
New here? Start with this
The US-led invasion of Iraq began in 2003, after the administration of President George W Bush said Iraq posed a threat because of alleged weapons of mass destruction. No such weapons were found, and the invasion was followed by years of conflict, political instability and a large loss of life.
George W Bush was US president from 2001 to 2009 and ordered the invasion alongside allies including the UK. Many Iraqis and critics elsewhere held the US and its partners responsible for the consequences of the war, while supporters said the invasion removed Saddam Hussein’s authoritarian government.
In 2008, Mr Bush made a farewell visit to Iraq while US forces were still based there. The journalist’s act at a Baghdad press conference drew attention because throwing shoes is a particularly strong insult in many Arab societies, and it came to represent wider public anger about the war.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters may view the shoe-throwing as a powerful act of political protest by an Iraqi journalist confronting a leader whose decisions had contributed to war, civilian suffering and long-lasting instability in his country. They may argue that conventional channels had failed to give Iraqis meaningful accountability or voice, making the gesture an understandable expression of grief and outrage rather than a serious attempt to harm. Its symbolic force, on this view, drew attention to unresolved consequences of the invasion that might otherwise have been minimised or ignored.
The case against
Critics may accept the depth and legitimacy of anger over the Iraq war while arguing that throwing objects at a political leader crosses a necessary line against physical intimidation. They may contend that journalists have a particular responsibility to ask searching questions and document power rather than disrupt events through aggressive acts, which can endanger others and weaken the perceived credibility of their profession. On this view, protest is most persuasive when it seeks accountability without normalising assaults or treating political opponents as acceptable targets.