Bush Shoe-Throwing Incident: It’s a Game

That didn’t take long…

Yesterday, an angry Iraqi journalist hurled his shoes at President George W. Bush.

Today there is a game parodying the incident.

As reported by UK newspaper the Telegraph

Television reporter Muntadar al-Zaidi was tackled to the ground by Secret Service personnel yesterday after he started to throw his shoes at Geroge W Bush during a press conference in Iraq. The footwear missed the president, who ducked just in time, but Mr Zaidi was bundled from the room yelling: "This is a farewell kiss, you dog," at the President…

 

"If you watch the video clip, the Secret Service don’t move to protect the President until the second shoe has been thrown," said Sadi Chishti, managing director of T-Enterprise, the Glasgow-based company behind the computer game. "We’re hoping the agents will use this game as a training aid for future footwear attacks on world leaders."

In the game, shoes fly at the President, while the player, apparently a Secret Service agent, is supposed to fire dual-wielded pistols at the footwear. It’s all too easy to miss the shoes and hit the President, which was likely a design feature.

Certainly not game-of-the-year material and the parody could have been more artful. The guns add a very blunt and distasteful element.

GP: Over at MTV Multiplayer, Stephen Totilo wonders whether Bush learned his shoe-dodging skills by playing Wii Fit.

I wonder if Bush will dodge the judgment of history so easily.

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone

71 comments

  1. 0
    zel says:

    Once again, Derovius is the resident i-hate-america-sooooo-much troll, don’t bother trying to reason with him.

    ————————————

    I am a signature virus, please copy and paste me into your signature to help me propagate.

  2. 0
    Bennett Beeny says:

    Bush has to be in the running for ‘worst president ever’, yet some morons still actually like him.  It just goes to show that no matter how badly you screw up, some folks will still think you’re a great guy if you’re in their political party.

  3. 0
    Bennett Beeny says:

    Erm… congress specifically allowed Bush to go to war without their say so.  The Bush administration asked congress to give them that power and congress gave it.  Bush bears all the responsibility for this debacle that is the last 8 years.  The buck doesn’t stop at congress.

  4. 0
    Bennett Beeny says:

    Bush should be happy that the worst he’s had happen due to his monumental screwing up of just about everything he’s had dealings with is to have some guy throw a shoe at him.

    If I was one of his Secret Service guys I’d feel a bit reticent to take a bullet (or even a shoe) for that bozo.

  5. 0
    Arell says:

    You have no concept of their being no "right" side, do you?  The Americans weren’t right for Iraq, but niether was Saddam Hussein.  I didn’t say the US should be the world police, but someone had to get rid of the asshole.  It would have been preferrable if the Iraqis thenselves had done it.

    Again, I’m not saying the war was good, or right, or justified.  But not everything that occurred was bad.  Most of it is very terrible, YES.  Sometimes a few positive things can happen even in the worst of situations.  Take war history as an example.  WWII.  Germany breaks their treaty with Russia and ends up killing millions of thier people.  Very terrible and tragic.  Yet it was that action that not only weakened Germany enough to be defeated in the end, but also weakened Russia’s own militaristic ambitions.  Shitty situation, but something positive can be gleened from it.

    Seriously, I’ve never seen anyone defend a militaristic dictatorship before.  I mean, I literally got my "notion" that Saddam would have killed journalists for emmbarrassing him, from an interview with an Iraqi Journalist!  They say it themselves.  They hated and feared the douche!

  6. 0
    Positive_Gamer says:

    I still support Bush.  What people would realize, if they had taken any government class in High School, is that most of this crap isn’t Bush’s fault.  He gets the blame as being the ountry’s figurehead.  Congress has backed most of what has gone on.  We can’t go to war without Congress.

  7. 0
    Derovius says:

    "We get the "notion" fromt he Iraqi people themselves.  Saddam was a tyrant and a murderer.  Yes, the country was more stable, and very safe… if you were on the Baath Party’s good side.  "Peace," as it were, was maintained through fear and force."

     Which is why they have absolutely no respect for the people who "liberated" them? People are not indignant to those who help them, look at the French when the Allies landed in Normandy. The Free French didn’t turn around and start attacking British and Canadian supply convoys or the like. Such is the difference between a freed people and an invaded people.

     Saddam was a dictator, there is no question about that. But his nation knew peace, and security. What you and your nation brought was anarchy. Oh, and as a delightful after taste, the current Iraqi administration just happens to be very pro-West in its stance. Go figure.

    "Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to say the war was right."

     Sure sounds like you’re trying to justify the murder of innocent people. Too bad we can’t hang everyone in the US military; lets start with the top and work our way down.

    "The Americans’ reason for the war were falty, and they deserve any shi…ahem, shoe that gets thrown at them.  But let’s not paint Saddam as some innocent martyr here."

     How sad is that, a sycophantic tyrant did a better job keeping law and order than the military of the self proclaimed "land of the free". What a joke.

    "If there is any bright side to be had in all this mess, it’s that Sadam is gone.  If the Iraqi people can ever figure out how to deal with their differences without killing each other or using politics for revenge, they’ll be a lot better off than they ever were with Hussien."

     Who made the US the world police? What nation is next? Iran? Russia? Oh wait, they are in a position to hurt you either economically or militarally, so thats out. I know, lets invade Venezuela next, they have oil AND bananas. Fuck ya, now lets go get those WMD.

    "Feel free to believe the information in the link or not, I don’t really care.  But from what I’ve seen from even before the first Gulf War, I believe most of it to be true."

     I prefer talking to people who’ve lived under Saddam; my buddies mother is a Chemical Engineer from the University of Baghdad. Before your nation bombed the ever loving shit out of it. Female + Professional + Saddam = common occurance.

     Lets run down all the excuses so far:

     1. WMD -> none

     2. Terrorists -> none; Saddam disliked al-Qaida, even your own CIA acknowledges this.

     3. Oil -> anti-war propeganda, don’t listen to those unpatriotic hippies. Its unAmerican to question your government.

     4. Freedom -> Iraqi’s weren’t fighting a religious civil war under Saddam.

     5. Support the lard asstastic American economy from collapsing under the weight of its own debt: oops, someone fell asleep at the wheel.

     Honestly, short of the fact that the world uses the US currency for international trade, what good is this nation?

  8. 0
    Ashkihyena says:

    Unprofessional of that guy, very unprofessional, and I’m not talking about the game creator here, though I agree, that did not take long for a game to pop up.

  9. 0
    Arell says:

    We get the "notion" fromt he Iraqi people themselves.  Saddam was a tyrant and a murderer.  Yes, the country was more stable, and very safe… if you were on the Baath Party’s good side.  "Peace," as it were, was maintained through fear and force.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to say the war was right.  The Americans’ reason for the war were falty, and they deserve any shi…ahem, shoe that gets thrown at them.  But let’s not paint Saddam as some innocent martyr here.  If there is any bright side to be had in all this mess, it’s that Sadam is gone.  If the Iraqi people can ever figure out how to deal with their differences without killing each other or using politics for revenge, they’ll be a lot better off than they ever were with Hussien.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam%27s_Iraq

    Feel free to believe the information in the link or not, I don’t really care.  But from what I’ve seen from even before the first Gulf War, I believe most of it to be true.

  10. 0
    Monte says:

    Simple, this guy lost 3 of his family members due to the fighting and quite possibly due to American attacks. Many innocent iraqi citizens lost their lives in this conflict… Do you really expect people to just ride off loss of their loved ones as a "necessary" sacrifice? cause that’s just plain not easy to do; the only thing they care about is that their loved ones were not in anyway involved and lost their lives, not the excuses behind the deaths.

  11. 0
    Derovius says:

     Nothing says "We’ll save yous guys" like bombing their civilians and making them live without power, clean water and the security to walk down the street and not get blown the fuck up.

     High five USA!

  12. 0
    Derovius says:

     And where are you getting this delightful notion that Saddam would have killed them? He targetted people who tried to kill him or the local equivalent to gypsies. Aggressive gypsies to, they had been trying to start a civil war forever before he attacked them.

     For all the bullshit that people who support the invasion of Iraq put forth, the fact remains that Iraq was a safer, mroe stable nation underneath the dictator. The region was a safer, more stable place with Iraq’s army keeping Iran in check. Israel is no more or less threatened with Iraq’s fall, so thats a moot point in and of itself.

     You fucked up America; bad. Now you’re that hole of yours deeper and deeper hoping you come out the other side instead of climbing the fuck out and walking away with what dignity you have left.

  13. 0
    Good Lord says:

    Why are they protesting? Could it be that they don’t want U.S. forces occupying their country? Could it be that they never wanted the U.S. to intervene in the first place?

    Nah…

  14. 0
    Erik says:

    Because they don’t want us in their country.  I would think that we would be able to empathize somewhat with their xenophobia seeing as we stuck Japanese-Americnans in camps during WWII.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  15. 0
    Arell says:

    That was actually a point that several people made, including Bush.  If someone had embarrassed Sadam in front of guests, they would have been exectuted without trial.  Bush likened it to any other protesting group, and that Iraq should be proud that they now have the ability to protest without fear of retribution.

    The Iraqi leader was definitely embarrassed, and even tried to confiscate the tapes of the shoe-throwing incident.  But the American envoy convinced him that it was ok, and that the journalists should be allowed to keep the tapes.  Freedom of press and all that.

    I think the levity that Bush maintained during and after the incident shows that he’s petty much checked out.  He just wants to get out the door without the world exploding, and a shoe isn’t even a concern.

  16. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    Speaking of which, when will the controversy come out about how this is an assasination simulator? After all, if Presidental Paintball is an assasination simulator, surely this is.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
    MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
    Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091


    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  17. 0
    StevoUK says:

    The worst thing I can think of about the Bush administration is that he got (some) ordinary, normally clear-thinking, Americans thinking that torture is ok.

    Please feel free to submit your own!

  18. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Actually, word association is an element of CULTURE, not language.

    As I said above, throwing his shoes was a mixture of violence and intense disdain, somewhat like a violent version of one of your retarded tirades. 

    For anyone who ever plans to travel to the muslim world, never step over someone.  Ever.  Seriously.  That’s the lesson you should take from this.

  19. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Actually, word association is an element of CULTURE, not language.

    As I said above, throwing his shoes was a mixture of violence and intense disdain, somewhat like a violent version of one of your retarded tirades. 

    For anyone who ever plans to travel to the muslim world, never step over someone.  Ever.  Seriously.  That’s the lesson you should take from this.

  20. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Actually, word association is an element of CULTURE, not language.

    As I said above, throwing his shoes was a mixture of violence and intense disdain, somewhat like a violent version of one of your retarded tirades. 

    For anyone who ever plans to travel to the muslim world, never step over someone.  Ever.  Seriously.  That’s the lesson you should take from

  21. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Actually, word association is an element of CULTURE, not language.

    As I said above, throwing his shoes was a mixture of violence and intense disdain, somewhat like a violent version of one of your retarded tirades. 

    For anyone who ever plans to travel to the muslim world, never step over someone.  Ever.  Seriously.  That’s the lesson you should take f

  22. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Actually, word association is an element of CULTURE, not language.

    As I said above, throwing his shoes was a mixture of violence and intense disdain, somewhat like a violent version of one of your retarded tirades. 

    For anyone who ever plans to travel to the muslim world, never step over someone.  Ever.  Seriously.  That’s the lesson you should

  23. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Actually, word association is an element of CULTURE, not language.

    As I said above, throwing his shoes was a mixture of violence and intense disdain, somewhat like a violent version of one of your retarded tirades. 

    For anyone who ever plans to travel to the muslim world, never step over someone.  Ever.  Seriously.  That’s the lesson you

  24. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Actually, word association is an element of CULTURE, not language.

    As I said above, throwing his shoes was a mixture of violence and intense disdain, somewhat like a violent version of one of your retarded tirades. 

    For anyone who ever plans to travel to the muslim world, never step over someone.  Ever.  Seriously.  That’s the lesson

  25. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Actually, word association is an element of CULTURE, not language.

    As I said above, throwing his shoes was a mixture of violence and intense disdain, somewhat like a violent version of one of your retarded tirades. 

    For anyone who ever plans to travel to the muslim world, never step over someone.  Ever.  Seriously.  That’s the lessone

  26. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Actually, word association is an element of CULTURE, not language.

    As I said above, throwing his shoes was a mixture of violence and intense disdain, somewhat like a violent version of one of your retarded tirades. 

    For anyone who ever plans to travel to the muslim world, never step over someone.  Ever.  Seriously.  That’s the

  27. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Actually, word association is an element of CULTURE, not language.

    As I said above, throwing his shoes was a mixture of violence and intense disdain, somewhat like a violent version of one of your retarded tirades. 

    For anyone who ever plans to travel to the muslim world, never step over someone.  Ever.  Seriously.  That’s

  28. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Actually, word association is an element of CULTURE, not language.

    As I said above, throwing his shoes was a mixture of violence and intense disdain, somewhat like a violent version of one of your retarded tirades. 

    For anyone who ever plans to travel to the muslim world, never step over someone.  Ever.  Seriously. 

  29. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Actually, word association is an element of CULTURE, not language.

    As I said above, throwing his shoes was a mixture of violence and intense disdain, somewhat like a violent version of one of your retarded tirades. 

    For anyone who ever plans to travel to the muslim world, never step over someone.  Ever.  Seriously.

  30. 0
    Derovius says:

     Its an element of their language, not their culture. Just like we call a bothersome woman a female dog, they called a murder psycopath a dog. Just as you may call someone a n****r, they call someone a donkey. And just like you or I flip someone the bird, they take off their footwear and brandish it in an aggressive fashion.

     The stupidity coming out of the mouths of many of these American posters is disheartening, but not unexpected.

  31. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    In many Muslim nations, it is considered a grave insult indeed to raise one’s foot or shoe above another’s head.  In Iraq and Somalia, when units flying in Black Hawks and Little Birds flew over more hostile areas, people would take their shoes off and show them to the soldiers who had carelessly let their feet hang over the edge of the door. 

    This is basically one of the most insulting things you can do in Iraq.

  32. 0
    JustChris says:

    I do think the shoe-throwing was in bad taste and the journalist deserved to be arrested, but they also wanted to give a mental examination according to the news I saw. I don’t know how badly shoe-throwing is looked upon in Iraq but you’re talking about a globally recognied who has made most of the civilized world mad. Shoe-throwing does not make you insane. I’m sure any Bush-hater would have done the same if they knew they could get away with it.

  33. 0
    Kincyr says:

    In Arab nations, the feet are considered very foul and dirty things.

    apparently, so are dogs. IMO, America needs to start using ‘camel’ as an insult in return

    岩「…Where do masochists go when they die?」

  34. 0
    Neeneko says:

    This is also a great example of cultural differences causing a message to be generally lost.

    The guy wanted to insult Bush and, from Bush’s perspective, completely failed in his message.  I kinda wonder if the guy even realized that such an action has a differnt meaning to an American then an Iraqi

  35. 0
    DeepThorn says:

    Too bad the guy didnt realize flipping Bush the bird would have pissed him off more than having a shoe thrown at him.  I think everyone thinks it is funny in the US…  Most of us wish the guy would have hit him with at least one of the shoes.  Of course a background check should have been required to make sure something like this wouldnt happen.

    Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
    How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls

  36. 0
    DoggySpew says:

    Okay, if this was an action of a distraught man, I kinda sympathise.

    But we in the West don’t get insulted easilly. We do however tend to overreact when actually being attacked.

    Still, a nice dive by Bush.

  37. 0
    Flamespeak says:

    I had heard about this earlier. Apparently the guy had three family members die as a result of the fighting, two of which were his brothers.

    Not exactly the kind of person I would expect to give a fair and balanced opinion on the news piece he was covering anyways.

    In Arab nations, the feet are considered very foul and dirty things. A form of extreme insult is to step on a symbol of your enemy (which is why some pictures show people stepping on the American flag) and to hit someone with a shoe is considered one of the ultimate insults in their culture.

  38. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    Yeah the guns were a bit over the top in this instance. IT would have been better if the game had you play a Secret Service agent who had to tackle shoe flinging reporters. After all the Pres can only dodge so many shoes before one lands.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
    MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
    Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091


    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  39. 0
    HungryHungryHomer says:

    Bah… My props are not so meagerly obtained. Now if he had caught the shoe, and whipped it back at the guy, ala Jack Burton, that might have been prop-worthy…

  40. 0
    Arell says:

    On one hand, he’s got his journalistic integrity to consider.  On the other, he got to throw shoes at President Bush.

    Tough call.

    A bit of Epic Fail all around here.  Background checks weren’t thurough enough, the Secret Service was a bit slow on the uptake, and really, throwing shoes to an American is kinda funny (Bush made a joke about it).  The insult loses its meaning, and he would have been better off with a simple middle finger salute (also wouldn’t have been tackled, or face assult charges).  As dumb as it sounds, only Bush came out on top of all this, for his stellar dodging skillz.  Started a war on falty intelligence, and bungled the post-war.  But our expectations for Bush are so low at this point that we’re willing to give him props for ducking a shoe!

  41. 0
    Ghede says:

     Yes, A quick background check would have fixed this. It would have revealed the intricate plans he had detailed in a previous article.[/sarcasm]

    The fact of the matter is that the only background check that would have prevented this would be to disallow ANY Iraqi, Afghani, or hell, any reporter from an arabic culture. Which would probably provoke a barrage of shoes on the Whitehouse. Their job is to sweep for weapons so the president may live, not to sweep for people who will throw shoes to protect his pride.

Leave a Reply