I admit that I'm not a huge fan of President Bush, but I was very uncomfortable watching this video and I'm glad he was not hurt. What is your opinion? Should George Bush just stay here in the United States and fade away into the sunset like the cowboy he professes to be? (Lloyd)
Man throws shoes at President Bush during farewell trip to Iraq
Updated Sunday, December 14th 2008, 11:34 PM
Loeb/Getty Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki attempts to protect President Bush from a flying shoe during a press conference.
Vucci/AP Muntathar al-Zaidi throws a shoe at President Bush.
WASHINGTON - So much for victory laps.
President Bush's farewell visit to Iraq degenerated into embarrassment and chaos Sunday when a disgruntled Iraqi newsman hurled his shoes and spewed insults at the lame-duck leader.
"This is a gift from the Iraqis. This is the farewell kiss, you dog!" the man cried in Arabic, leaping to his feet and flinging a shoe at Bush during a Baghdad news conference with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Then he threw a second shoe and yelled: "This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq."
The size 10s narrowly missed the leader of the free world, who ducked twice to avoid being nailed from about 12 feet away.
A chagrined Maliki, standing to Bush's left, tried to fend off the second shoe with his arm.
In Iraqi culture, shoe-tossing is considered a consummate insult. Iraqis famously celebrated the fall of Saddam Hussein by using their footwear to whack a toppled statue of the dictator as U.S. troops rolled into Baghdad.
Secret Service and Iraqi security officials promptly engulfed the shrieking assailant and hustled him from the ornate room.
He was later identified as Muntathar al-Zaidi, 29, a correspondent for Cairo-based Al-Baghdadia television.
Friends described him as having been upset by a U.S. bombing in Baghdad's Sadr City that he covered earlier in the year. They also said he had been kidnapped and held for three days last year by Shiite gunmen.
Bush was not hurt, but press secretary Dana Perino suffered an eye injury in the melee.
The President did his best to brush off the humiliation.
"It doesn't bother me," he said. "If you want the facts, it's a size-10 shoe that he threw."
"It's like going to a political rally and having people yell at you," the President added. "It's like driving down the street and having people not gesture with all five fingers. I didn't feel the least bit threatened by it."
Government officials said normal security procedures, which include screening reporters for explosives and weapons with magnetometers and bomb-sniffing dogs, were in effect.
"The protocols were in place," one official told the Daily News. "The only danger to anyone was from a shoe."
Still, the incident - quickly dubbed a shoe-icide attack - was an unwelcome metaphor for a President whose legacy in large measure will be defined by the unpopular war, now in its sixth year.
The ostensible purpose of the visit was to celebrate the completion of a status-of-forces agreement that calls for most U.S. troops to be out of Iraq by 2011.
Bush friends said the emotional element was even more important to a President who leaves office in less than six weeks.
"He wants to say goodbye to the troops who have fought and died for him," a friend said.
Bush later met with 1,000 soldiers at Camp Victory.
Standing in the rotunda of one of Saddam's palaces, beneath a massive American flag, the commander in chief lauded the troops for "one of the greatest successes in the history of the United States military."
Hours later, Bush made a surprise stop in Afghanistan, where he addressed a predawn rally of American troops before meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 154
I get the chills every time I see this video and I'm glad the President was not hurt.
This statement is why we should throw shoes (or anything else) at him:
"He wants to say goodbye to the troops who have fought and died for him," a friend said.
So is that the truth? I thought they were fighting for Iraqi freedom, but it turns out they were actually fighting for bush and his buddies to get richer.
But at least now that guy can throw his shoes at a leader and just be arrested, instead of shot on sight or tortured, as he would have been before Saddam was brought down.
As we speak, there are huge demonstrations going on in Iraq, demanding the release, from custody, of Muntathar al-Zaidi, 29, a correspondent for Cairo-based Al-Baghdadia television.
There is deep resentment of our actions in Iraq over the last 7 years.
As for it being effective, I suppose that depends on what he was trying to prove. Keep in mind that this was an Iraqi man obviously unhappy that the US had invaded his country (though as a journalist, he clearly has more freedom of press than he would have had under Saddam Hussein). His actions, however boorish and potentially dangerous to himself (did you see the number of security guys who jumped him) refocused the photo op from being merely a propaganda show to one that has people talking about this man's actions (for better or worse).
Just think how it would look if an American reporter took off his shoes and threw them at another world leader that they happen to disagree with.
If someone had invaded us, would we be repectful of the leader? I respect the fact this individual expressed his opinion with minimal violence, rather than with bombs that killed more innocent people. Having seen so much suffering and suffering abuse himself (wanna bet he got more than shoes chucked at him when he was kidnaped?), I can't blame him for his anger and am grateful he saved it for the right target.
You make a good point. If he had even gave Saddam Hussein the middle finger, he would have been a goner by now.
"I agree that we should respect the President. And I don't condone the journalist who threw the shoes (and marvel at how quickly President Bush reacted to avoid them - the man still has great reaction time."
I was really impressed with how quickly the President reacted. It was almost as if he were playing dodge ball.
Anyone have statistics (verifiable) on how many Iraqis Saddam killed compared to us?
"If someone had invaded us, would we be repectful of the leader? I respect the fact this individual expressed his opinion with minimal violence, rather than with bombs that killed more innocent people. Having seen so much suffering and suffering abuse himself (wanna bet he got more than shoes chucked at him when he was kidnaped?), I can't blame him for his anger and am grateful he saved it for the right target."
You sure make a lot of sense. I wouldn't be to happy if someone invaded our country, however Muntathar al-Zaidi, 29, a correspondent for Cairo-based Al-Baghdadia television, should have found another way to express his anger at President Bush.
Again, it's only my opinion. I don't condone violence, but, there's been a lot of violence. If this was Hitler and the member was someone from the French underground, how would we see it?
NYT Bhagdad Bureau
I see that he believes he's done a wonderful thing for Iraq and Iraqis, but that's just because he bought the line and lies of the Neo-Con warmongers (Chaney, Wolfiwitz, Rumsfeldt) who believe the USA has a right to rule the world and plunder its riches with impunity.
I was glad to see the truth stated so clearly by a very brave man on the ground who has seen the suffering and unnecessary violence first hand. I hope Iraqi public opinion will keep him from being jailed and tortured as we have allowed in Iraq since we arrived. Did I say allowed, no we have taught and encouraged torture and this is another reason why Bush is a hated figure there. We have shrugged off the deaths of innocents as collateral damage and "worth it" for far too long.
We should be ashamed, since we have not formed a massive grass roots effort to stop this abuse of other countries and get back to persuing, capturing, and prosecuting as a world criminal the original leader of terrorism, bin Laden. In 2001 we had the concern and support of the entire world, now Bush stands as proxy for the American people in the eyes of the world. We have spread terrorism by hopeless desperate people.
That shoe was aimmed right at our collective head and we deserved it.
Now we know what it takes to get his attention. I'm with Jane. I'm sorry the man's point wasn't driven home with a knot on the forehead.
If the shoe was on your foot and it was the custom to throw it here, would you not take the chance to hurl it at the one person who destroyed that which you hold close to your heart? Would you not take action against the person who brought suffering, death, and destruction into your home? I'd sacrifice my steel toed boots for that.
It was stupid and ineffective, but how do you expect people to express their anger and frustration when they have seen their families and other innocents killed and maimed and their homes destroyed. We are just lucky that he was not able to smuggle a gun or bomb into the room. Violence begets violence. When will we learn. What lessons have this generation of Iraqi children learned from this war?
Duane B., Dec 15, 2008, 8:59am EST
I agree with Duane . . . it could have been worse. I know that I would be upset, too, it my family were killed. This gesture is considered a major insult in the Iraqi culture, but at least he only threw shoes. The worst that could have happened would have been a bruise.
Maybe George Bush conveniently doesn't want to see how he's destabilized the Middle East, therefore accelerating the sectarian violence between the different sects.
Or maybe George Bush finally thought he would be greeted as a liberator with flowers and candy being thrown at him instead of a pair of shoes.
Whatever the case may be, it shows that George Bush is out of touch with the feelings of the Iraqi people and that of the American people.
Dodging a pair of shoes is nothing compared to what he deserves for his depredations, on both Iraq and the U.S. Constitution. He is not, in fact, all that different from Saddam--an imperious, heartless, egotistical tyrant--and he deserves exactly the same fate for the crimes against humanity he has committed.
I believe that he just wants to spy on everyday Americans who opposed his policies.
Take care.
Gonna be some smelly press conferences from now on.
I believe Dick Cheney had a huge influence on George Bush's policies and should be considered the worse Vice President in the history of the United States of America.
We all know that George Bush is in the running for the worse President in the history of the United States of America.
I doubt it. Nor was it what they had in mind when they promised they'd greet us with flowers.
This is what happens when you mistreat people long enough.
As far as the shoes...well, it was disrespectful, but the people there are fed up with war, death and destruction. Their country is a mess. They have lost loved ones. This man was frustrated and expressed himself in perhaps an inappropriate way. Bush's response showed that he didn't have any understanding of what this man was upset about. Bush was calm in his demeanor, but didn't have a clue about this man's frustration.
All you hick wanks sitting here saying how it was innappropriate and how Bush should be respected just because he's a leader (screw the whole IDIOT part right?).
How innappropriate is it to wage war on an innocent nation based on LIES?
Dont answer, because I dont care what you think.
Too bad the shoes missed.
Seems that a number of people think that Egyptian TV reporter is a hero. As I understand the explanations aired on NPR: throwing the shoes was a serious insult, not an attempt to physically harm "W." Based on this, why is the reporter still in custody 24 hours later with people in Sadr City marching and protesting to set him free? He exercised the right to make a symbolic protest -- we cherish that here in the United States don't we?
No doubt about it. George Bush is out of touch.
But then so is most of the Arab world and all of the left.
Folks, when people blow up school buses full of children, you don't toss the blame on the American president. You blame the people who set the bomb that blew up the school bus full of children. And you blame the people who put car bombs in the market place, and people who slaughter people of another faith.
The Moslem world has some serious problems and the biggest problem is pointing fingers at everyone one else for their problems. It's Bush, it's Israel, it's oil, it's the Shia, it's the Sunni's, it's colonialism, it's the Turks. it's, it's, it's, it's.........it's the failure of a culture to get a grip.
As for the left.......Saddam Hussien was a Socialist and Socialists have always stuck with Socialists - no matter what.
That is why the largest demonstration in world history was in Europe to protest the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and no one, but no one protested the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
I thought it was a patriotic basic to respect the position, regardless of whoever is president. That does not mean I respect the man in this particular case; Bush has done more, and worse, harm than I would have thought possible. He is a disaster and an embarrassment, and the sooner his term is done, the better.
when he ordered the war that made them do that, yes we do. Bush ordered this war. We have blown up school buses, houses, streets, and hospitals full of children.
I just finished reading Zainab Salbi's bio (Between Two Worlds) of growing up in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The man was no socialist, that's for damn sure. He was a cruel, twisted man ruling as a dictator.
The White House has been La La Land for the past 8 years. And darn if he didn't send some of his la la land residents here to Gather to annoy us with false information and large flashy pictures.
Sandy, the US military does not target school buses full of children. Suggesting otherwise take rhectoric beyond reason - a place where the left, but few others, are comfortable.
Nothing the United States, nor anyone else, did "made" anyone deliberately massacre civilians.
Bush is leaving office next month, the Democrats have won majorites in both houses, it is no longer necessary to say stupid and morally outrageous things.
You are a writer, think about what your words mean.
No argument there, but there is a vast moral distinction between TARGETING children and accidents of war. There is also a vast moral difference between tactic designed to avoid civilian deaths versus tactics crafted to maximize civilian deaths.
Not being able or willing to make those distinctions demonstrates a finely honed political sense and a complete moral void.
No one "made" Hutu kill Tutsi in Rwanda, nor did anyone "make" the Nazis kill jews in Europe. Nor did Bush "make" Sunni kill Shia, nor did he "make" Shia massacre Sunni.
The fact that they did this on their own and the Moslem and leftist world has not owned up to it....screams volumes about both.
No Stephanie, what is outrageous is that we live in a world where so many people believe that deposing someone like Saddam - was immoral.
We can argue about the politics of Bush, or the wisdom of invading Iraq with so little international support, but to even remotely suggest that leaving Saddam and his boyz in power was the "moral" thing to do - devalues morality out of existance.
The fault in this fiasco is the moral failure of France, Germany, the Socialist left and the Moslem world to end the reign of Saddam.
WWI - 9.7 million dead (soldiers). 8.86 million dead (civilians)
Vietnam - 1.463 million dead (soldiers, less than 20% UN forces), 5.331 million dead civilians
Iraq war - 13,362 Coalition forces killed in combat or through hostile attack. 18-24,000 insurgents killed. 50,000-1,033,000 civilians killed.
Wars can be fought to minimize civilian casualties but WE sure as hell aren't doing it or we wouldn't be dying at a rate at less than 5:1. Perhaps we don't care because they're not our civilians, but they belong on everyone's consciences. And we can't blame Hitler and we can't blame Saddam. We did it.
You want my respect for your moral stance, don't pretty it up with BS. We killed families under false pretences.
EVERY civilian casualty, as far as I'm concerned, is a war crime.
So, following that to the logical end point, nothing we do, if our desire was to do good, can ever be wrong. I can't bring myself to believe that Bush and his cronies desired to make a mess or do wrong; I think they intended to make a better world.
But their lack of any sense that undesired outcomes are possible, made bad outcomes almost inevitable. They seem bafflingly incurious about the societies they are throwing into chaos, and impervious to any sense of caution about less that the dreamed for outcomes.
There is a naive lack of any sense of possible unintended consequenses. Add to that a belief that all societies want a democracy just like ours. Just that I love our democracy doesn't mean others want to emulate it. Time after time the white house bases policy on the idea that if you creat a place for change, it will be the change we want. Every time, what we get falls short of our hopes, but they don't seem to have any kind of learning curve. They just keep repeating the same set of errors and making more problems.
For my two cents, Bush is the worst president we've ever had. Were it not so close to the end of his sad term, I'd beg for impeachment or indictment. I wouldn't care which. He's a disaster, an embarrasment, an ugly caraciture.
Maybe he didn't intend to cause massive death and destruction, but he caused it and is responsible. It is the same sort of resonsibility as that of a drunk who causes a traffic accident. He didn't seem aware of what the consequenses are of what he did, but he initiated the chain of events that led to problems, and could have avoided the problems with simple prudence and forbearance. Bush is as culpable as the drunk. Maybe more so, since Bush was sober.
Just shut up now. . . .seriously. . .Shut up now before I make a fool out of you like I have every other apologist for this war.
You sicken me and should be struck by a bus instead of a shoe.
"The fault in this fiasco is the moral failure of France, Germany, the Socialist left and the Moslem world to end the reign of Saddam. "
Yeah cause the whole bullshit about fake WMD's, links to AQ and 9/11 hahaha yeah they surely had NOTHING to do with this.
Here's a big F U to you Greg, from all of the dead iraqi's scumbags like you are responsible for killing.
ESAD dirtbag.
What you deliberately failed to mention was that the vast majority of civilian deaths were at the hands of terrorists, not the American military.
The United State Military does make every effort to minimize civilian casualties. Unfortunately there were too many people in Iraq whose intent was to maximize civilian casualties.
One has to question why people like you refuse to acknowlege that fact. Perhaps it is because terror has alway gone hand in hand with leftist politics.
Children can be annoying, can't they?
I love that 31% rather than 30%. :)
So what are you saying? That precisely somewhere between 15,500 and 320,230 civilians were killed by coalition forces?
Do people even re-read or edit this stuff when they assert it?
All I am suggesting here is that SOMEONE acknowledge that there is a lot ethnic and religious sickness in the Moslem world that needs to be addressed and that howling at the United States only diverts from finding a solution to the region's problems.
Bush was warned that he would destabilize the region but he truly believed that he would be greeted as a liberator once Saddam Hussein was removed from office.
Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator and did many horrible things, but the death and destruction since our invasion of Iraq is nothing compared to his time at the helm.
It's a very difficult choice to make, but I believe we made the wrong decision.
Terrorists that didnt exist until puny scum like you decided it was a good idea to invade a country that had nothing we claimed and did nothing we claimed.
If you think this is such a swell idea, Gregory, why isn't it a good idea for terrorists to attack us for apparently "no good reaons"?
I mean, if you can justify attacking an innocent nation, then surely you have no problem with terrorists attacking your own country.
Well, its not your country. Clearly real Americans dont believe in murdering innocent ppl for no reason. Only the dwindling scum like your kind do that and there is nothing American about that.
Now, you'll either try and justify your stupidity, or you'll make another dumbass juvenile remark to evade answering with a reasonable logical response on why attacking innocent countries is a good idea.
We'll be waiting Greg. My money says you dont have it in you and you'll merely pull another 3rd grader remark instead of putting up.
Such is the way of cowards.
Osama Bin Laden couldn't have done a better recruiting job.
I beg to differ, as does Paul Bremer, you might remember him, he was Bush's man to fix everything in Iraq after our illegal invasion.
Paul Bremer stated that, "Saddam "killed more Muslims than any man in modern history" and may have killed as many as 300,000 Iraqis during his 35 years in power, Bremer said."
There are many reports, surveys, etc from reputable sources that suggest the civilian deaths in Iraq are upwards if not beyond 1mill.
You can call Saddam a bad man, and he WAS, one installed by YOUR government and given WMD during the 80's by YOUR government who did NOTHING when he killed his own ppl in kurd territory in the late 80s. The same man that killed a great majority of those he's responsible for in a 1994 crackdown in Sadr City, yet another time YOUR government turned a blind eye.
Yes he did those things. He raped and tortured his own ppl (So says the Bush Admin, who's lied about so much else, any reasonable person would take any other accussations with a grain of salt).
What did the Bush Administration do?
Illegaly invaded a country (i challenge you to read international law/treaties, etc and show us where its NOT illegal), lied about EVERY REASON for that invasion and who has since lorded over the decimation of the Iraqi population. A military force that did NOTHING to stop the violence until Bush's presidency was challenged in 2004. It wasn't until that October that Bush finally stopped saying "we're making good progress" and finally admitted that things were bad and along came the "surge" (that the Iraqi ppl are responsible for more than the American Government).
In all the time since this invasion, millions possibly have been killed as a result. COUNTLESS have been tortured by YOUR United States Forces. There are people being tortured RIGHT NOW in your name.
So, what we have is 2 wrongs, doing the same crap, trying to make a 'right'. The only difference in Saddam and Bush is, Bush has a truckload of hick rednecks that couldn't see past the end of their nose defending him. Oh wait, Saddam had that, it was called the Baathist Party. My bad. In America, we call that party the "Uneducated Hick Jethro" party.
You can preach all day long, and the only difference you'll find in Bush and Saddam is the color of their skin.
But then Bush is YOUR Tyrant right? that makes it ok to illegaly attack countries that have done nothing to you and torture ppl from many nations based on willynilly allegations and skin color.
As stated, Such is the way of cowards.
I'd go run through hell with an exposed tank of gasoline to see this man extradited to The Hague and prosecuted for warcrimes. . .Then hanged for them.
But things can change and hopefully Barack Obama can help restore America's prestige around the world once again.
If we had/have proof of this, what is it? Why wasn't it provided at Saddam's trial (given that they didn't pin more than a few hundred deaths on him). I'm not saying he was a good person or that he didn't do horrible things. But, my understanding is that one has to be proven guilty before we get to state it as fact. I have yet to see any objective evidence that Hussein did a fraction of the damage to his country we've done.
But I'm open to it.
Hmm...This means that there are only two choices, Saddam Hussein or our puppet government. Pretty sorry pair of alternatives if you ask me.
Exactly! And in the last few days, Bush and Cheney both admitted (publicly) that they knew there were no WMDs, that they know Al-Queda wasn't in Iraq before we invaded, that they were going to start this war anyway, and that they don't care. One said, "So?" and the other, "So what?" like a bit middle finger in our faces. Greg, I can't believe you continue to support this stuff.
Obviously some people here are not familiar with the fundamentals of modern regional history. The Iran-Iraq War alone caused more than one million casualties.
Please get the basics correct.
Saddam was a Soviet client, not a U.S. client. The Soviet Union supplied 80% of Saddam's military material with most of the rest supplied by France and China - in that order.
The U.S. supplied less material to Saddam than did Denmark. We also supplied material to BOTH Iran and Iraq in the 1980's to achieve the strategic goal of stalemate. The Soviets, France, Germany, Britain, the Saudis and most of the Middle-East shared that same goal.
As for WMD, the world court caught and convicted the man who supplied Saddam with WMD. His name was Frans van Anraat and he is Dutch.
No rational or moral argument can be made for attacking Bush for his actions while remaining silent against the people who massacred civilians in Iraq.
Not ironically, the people who massacred the most civilians in Iraq were the Sunni fascists who supported Saddam. There people were angry because the invasion ended their privileged status.
To suggest that Bush "made" these people kill civilians is as absurd as claiming that Lincoln "made" the KKK lynch black people by illegally invading the south.
I have seen some odd groups leap into bed with each other over the situation in Iraq - none more bizarre than Liberal Progressive Americans and Europeans embracing racist religious fanatics.
But then politics always makes strange bedfellows.
If you want a more articulate summation of my position - read anything by Christopher Hitchens.
Nice ducking by Bush... I had to laugh watching it.
Uh... did you actually pay attention. He said they knew AFTER the fact. Duh... that was never in dispute. He was making the point that he was sad that the intelligence was incorrect -- and he clearly made the point that many intelligence agencies in the world believed Saddam did have WMD's.
Lastly, Saddam always had the capability to produce the weapons in short time, so couple that with other things going on such as Saddam being evasive, the Iraq Liberation Act, 911 and a need to change the political culture in the Middle East... Bush did the right thing. Kudos to Bush!
What is also ironic is the fact that the Arabic press didn't press that point. In the Middle-East, only in Iraq does the media have the right to criticize the government
Greg this is the destabilization of the region that George Bush was warned against, yet he did not heed the advice of not only his father, but that of many Middle East experts.
The "no-fly" zone that was put in place after Gulf War I was working fine. There were no more aerial attacks against Iraqi citizens by Saddam's air force.
Sure he found loopholes in the Oil For Food program and brushed off George Bush's threats, but this was hardly worth the loss of so many Iraqi people and coalition forces along with the expenditure of 10 to 12 billion dollars per month.
You can say what you want, but this war was unjustified, badly planned and badly managed.
Good grief. The man loss the popular vote.
I respect that.
Two questions remain:
1) How should the world have ended Saddam's regime?
2) More importantly, what are the reasons for not ending Saddam's regime?
Going back to 2003, the reasons for not going to war were more morally reprehensible than the reasons for war.
Here is a quick rundown for the reasons not to go to war.
1) Most of the world's regimes were/still are violent and corrupt. Why would the majority of countries in the United Nations vote to end a regime when they might be next on the list? Case in point, why would anyone like Robert Mugabe vote to end the regime of Saddam?
2) The United Nations itself was pilfering funds from the "Oil for Food" program.
3) The French, Germans, Russians and Chinese were having a good time doing business with Saddam.
4) Shroeder and Chirac felt that France and Germany could dominate the European Union by ending the long standing alliance with America and forcing a split with the British.
The war was justified, but I will agree it was badly planed and managed.
However Bush did not destablize Iraq. Iraq was already unstable. It had been unstable for generations and its instability was a constant threat to the region.
Ultimately, the region is far more stable now than it ever has been.......which is not saying much, but that none the less is a fact.
That can be said of the first term, not the second.
It is more significant that George Bush won after more than a year of war. It is also significant that John Kerry lost. I mean, how exactly does one go about losing to George Bush?
I think the lies and smears propagated by the Texas based political committee, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, put the nail in John Kerry's political coffin.
This is untrue. Children are targeted and thought of as future terrorists. Having seen their parents killed...that's probably accurate.
"What you deliberately failed to mention was that the vast majority of civilian deaths were at the hands of terrorists, not the American military."
Before The Jackass-in-Chief invaded, there were no terrorists there. We OWN that problem and every death that came from it lies on the conscience of those not in denial.
"we are a Christian family, and I have ALWAYS taught my son that no matter WHO is president, we are to respect the person and the position"
Seriously? So, as a Christian, you'd STILL respect "the person and the positon" if he decided to kill innocent people, drink the blood of Christian babies...burn down churches and piss on crucifixes? Good for you! What happened to God's law outranking man's law?
"Saddam was a Soviet client, not a U.S. client. The Soviet Union supplied 80% of Saddam's military material with most of the rest supplied by France and Ch