[krb]

Newt does have a point.

[Eagle Eye]

That is a simple and common practice in the mideast to show friendship; nothing more, nothing less.

[Above My Pay Grade]

I don’t like the hand holding either, but it is not the same as bowing. Bowing implies submission.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

He has no point. Men walking hand in hand is a sign of friendship. Bowing is a sign of subservience and subordination.

They’re completely different gestures with completely different meanings.

Besides, Newt said nothing of the hand-holding. He said Bush bowed. It never happened. Newt is flat wrong.

[Larry Lucido]

I have my issues with GWB, but there is no comparison in this case.

[mmichaels1970]

From what I understand, holding one's hand or greeting one with a kiss implies a partnership. Not to say it isn't a mistake or a bad move.

To my knowledge, bowing before a monarch implies subservience.

I know our country and President Bush may have had some crappy "partners" throughout history, but I don't think we've ever bowed to acknowledge their superiority over us.

O'Reilly sort of equated the bow with the hand-holding and generally brushed the issue away. I think there is a distinct difference.

[TankerKC]

Newt does have a point.

But, if he combs his hair just right, we won't be able to see it.

[SolidWood]

Going hand in hand is done among friends, at best equals.
Bowing down is a sign of submission.
Furthermore Newt wasn’t referring to the hand in hand, but suggested that Bush was bowing down when lowering his head to receive an award.

[MortMan]

Actually, I have read that holding hands in this context is respect between equals. Bowing is a sign of fealty.