Now that we’ve all had a few days to digest the shoe-throwing incident with Bush, here are my responses to the burning questions of the week:

 

1. Is it true that Bush played Keanu’s double in the Matrix?

Actually, no. He was in the Matrix – not as Keanu’s double, but rather he played Mr Smith’s Dad. Unfortunately, he wasn’t very telegenic and he kept forgetting what to say when the auto-cue wasn’t available thus his scenes have been relegated to the outtakes of the boxset.

2. Is it true that this isn’t Bush’s first time pulling off such moves?

Yes, it is well known that other than being a real shaker in his heyday, his dodgeball move first came into use during his shooting trips with Dick Cheney. Shooting with someone as rubbish as Dick kind of forces you to learn such moves. If you want to avoid getting shot by your own man that is.

3. So is it true then that Bush can dodge more than just the truth?

Clearly so. And very good at both I say.

4. Wasn’t this an own-goal by al-Zaidi?

I sadly agree. Although we all had a good laugh at how humiliating it was for Bush and his failed policies, it has kind of spoiled the last eight years which has seen a ground-swelling of support from the American public against this incompetent waste of space murderer. Now, they’ll forget all his crimes and just remember him as “that guy with the mad moves!”. Zaidi has actually done the impossible: he’s made Bush a hero! 

5. Is it true that Bush’s bodyguards were waiting for al-Zaidi to throw something less deadly before they got in the way ?

Well either that, or they took the “take a bullet for him” part of their contract just a bit too literally.

6. So are American politicians the hardest then?

Don’t be silly. Bush responded well but the Brits do it better. “2 Jags” Prescott: take a bow son

 

And now on a more serious note:

7. Would the Prophet (s) have approved of such an action?

Actually that depends completely on the legal status of the journalist al-Zaidi. If he was under a covenant of security to President Bush, then probably not. That is, if he recognised and accepted the pledge of security given to Bush by President Maliki then Islamically this is a doubtful action to many scholars. I have written about this correct position in detail in “Islam and the Sanctity of Human Life.”

But if there was no pledge of security and the journalist was acting in his own capacity as a defender of his land that has been raped and plundered, and defending his own life, family and wealth as an Iraqi against an illegal invasion of his land for which Bush is chief architect and person responsible, then as all international codes of law including Islamic law and the rules of Jihad would dictate, lawmakers would deem him to be a legitimate target who I guess should feel himself very fortunate to get away with just a few crinkles in his suit, a twinge in the back and being laughed at about 600 million times over the next week or two.

And Allah knows best.