December 9, 2009

Fellow Iraqi turns tables on Bush shoe-thrower

Zaidi’s own outburst summed up the feelings of many Iraqis about the U.S. military invasion of their country and the ensuing bloodshed and sectarian killing.


You’re supposed to be impartial journalists, and this is the the way you describe the Iraq war?

Describing it as an “invasion” invokes very obvious partisan bias. Most of the U.S. considered it a liberation from the brutal dictatorship of Hussein. Even if you personally disagree, the tenets of basic journalism call for you to withhold your opinion from “news.”

Your blatant liberal bias makes you unfit to report the news. I recommend an swift dismissal of the editor who allowed this garbage in favor of one who actually understands the concept of objective journalism.

Very Angry

Sorry, but I disagree. No matter what your opinion of the action itself, it’s difficult to argue that it wasn’t an invasion: GBU Editor

U.S. President George W. Bush (L) ducks after a man threw a shoe at him during a joint statement with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (R) in Baghdad, December 14, 2008.
REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Join the Good, Bad, Ugly Facebook Blog Network


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

Invasion would be the correct term for U.S. troop movement into Afghanistan and Iraq. D-Day was the code name for the “Invasion of Normandy” in WW II. No one cried bias or foul in 1944 about such language. It would appear “Very Angry” that you should consult a dictionary and thesaurus before you write about something you have read.

Posted by eddieblack | Report as abusive

Get off it Reuters! Every decent American knows what your side is and what you mean. You’d rather see Sadam still in charge murdering and raping just like he always did. The overwhelming majority of the deaths in Iraq since our attempt to liberate those worthless Muslims is by other Muslims themselves. This is a preview of the future Europe. Bowing to Islamofacists like cowards.

Posted by ericthebarbaric | Report as abusive

1. “Most of the U.S. considered it a liberation from the brutal dictatorship of Hussein.”

If that were true – millions of Americans wouldn’t have marched on all the major cities to protest the bombing of Iraq and continued to protest through the 8 years of the Bush administration.

2. There is no such creature as ‘objective’ journalism. And if there were, we wouldn’t want it. Would you want ‘objective’ journalism reporting during WWII on the horrors of the death camps without any emotional bias?

Posted by MOR | Report as abusive

Did Iraq attack the United States? No. Did they have weapons of mass destruction? No. Were the attackers of 911 Iraqis? No. They were Arab.

So if Iraq`did not commit to any action against the United States that could be construed as an attack, then that means we invaded them when we decided we needed to wage that war. It was only after we invaded their country that our leadership termed it a “liberation” from the cruelty of Hussein. Bin-Laden was in Afghanistan but we killed Hussein in Iraq. And we let Bin-Laden escape.

Iraq was invaded pure and simple. And we started the war with them over false pretenses. “Never let a good crisis go to waste” right?

Posted by Benny_Acosta | Report as abusive