Bush Listens as Iraqi Journalist is Beaten

This is where we differ from the third world (4.00 / 2)

However, I will say that no one deserves to be beaten or tortured for committing a crime.

In America, prison is your punishment.  In the Middle East, however, prison is where you await your punishment.  The IIP originated in Saudi.  Every other political party currently serving as part of the Iraqi government originated in Iran.  You can bet dollars to dinars that the judicial processes and facilities of Iraq will closely model those two countries.  

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

---

by: Chris LeJeune @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 15:00:52 PM CST

You'd think though (4.00 / 2)

that an American President could say something critical about it when he is a direct witness.

I'm on twitter.

---

by: Richard Allen Smith @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 15:12:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

One Big Thing (0.00 / 0)

Never understood nor even mentioned was the Extreme Punishment for Crimes or Criminal acts under that regions laws, based on the religious ideology and just the leaders whims, many of which we supported and in Saddams case helped into power.

'Hearts and Minds, "The ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live there." -- President Lyndon Johnson

---

by: jimstaro @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 17:01:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ridiculous! (0.00 / 0)

I don't get it.  What the Hell was Bush to do?  We're constantly being accused of forcing ourselves (the USA) on Iraqi sovereignty -- they want their country back!  Imagine if Bush had intervened in any way with Maliki present.  Now THAT would have been a slap in the face for Maliki!  What is it with these "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenarios around here!  WTF?  Help me out, Chris....

---

by: E. Redding @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 15:34:27 PM CST

I don't think (4.00 / 3)

anyone would have criticized Bush for that. Besides, its not like it had to be a public gesture like grabbing the mic and saying something. A simple nod to the Secret Service detail which was present would have been sufficient. He hasn't even ventured to condemn the act, a condemnation which could literally save this man's life.

I'm on twitter.

---

by: Richard Allen Smith @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 15:40:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This Could (4.00 / 1)

Be the bush, "I'm a uniter" moment, as many are starting to feel it's leading to.

This could bring the sects together, not only in Iraq but the Region, and if so the troops, your brothers and sisters and many probably still good friends who you served with, Are Smack Dab In The Middle!!

bush Still doesn't understand the region nor it's people and frankly he and cheney are showing they just don't give a shit what happens Now!!!!

'Hearts and Minds, "The ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live there." -- President Lyndon Johnson

---

by: jimstaro @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 17:06:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ernliz (4.00 / 2)

I don't think it was Bush's place to jump in and intervene at the time.  However, there were two options he did have.  One, he could have said something.  Two, he could have admonished the act after the fact.  With respect to Iraq's sovereignty, I would be happy with the latter.  The problem we have here is just how far can we go?  Do we say something every time Saudi has a public beheading or stoning of a woman who was raped? Is it our place to jump in when India executes homosexuals?  According to their constitution, Iraq adheres to Islamic law.  That is their way.  But I do believe it would have been proper for Bush to say something at the time, or at the very least condemn the act afterwards.  

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

---

by: Chris LeJeune @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 15:54:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Whence cometh the problem for Bush... (4.00 / 1)

White House responsible for torture policy:
http://vetvoice.com/showDiary....

The Woo memos about 'torture' and the denial of the Geneva Convention. Rendition.

The hiring of both Blackwater and Aegis Defense Systems that have links to the old Apartheid folks in South Africa. [Afrikaner's Dutch Reformed Church and that which morfed into Sandline before it became Aegis]

The continuing support of Israel's treatment of the residents of the Gaza.

---

by: deMeme @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 16:27:14 PM CST

Holy Shi'ite! (4.00 / 1)

The court decided to keep Zaidi in custody. After the judge has completed his investigation the court may send him for trial under a clause in the Iraqi penal code that makes it an offense to attempt to murder Iraqi or foreign presidents. The sentence for such a crime could be up to 15 years in prison, Birqadr said.

Murder?  15 years?  A bit much?

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

---

by: Chris LeJeune @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 16:28:32 PM CST

This incident should be a warning to all US (4.00 / 1)

 Troops who will now come under Iraq jurisdiction in certain circumstances with the signing of SOFA.

---

by: deMeme @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 17:11:44 PM CST

Suing rummy: Torture (0.00 / 0)

Iraqi group sues Rumsfeld for torture

AMMAN: A Jordan-based Iraqi rights group said on Monday it has filed 200 lawsuits against US former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and American security firms for their alleged role in torturing Iraqis.

In the recent months, except for the bombings seemingly not as numerous as before, abit cooler heads are searching out avenues of accountability besides destructive blowback, that could change on a dime, with the incident of the shoes and the trower being tortured because of, or accountability isn't forth coming by Law, than the Unlawful will take the reigns!!  

'Hearts and Minds, "The ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live there." -- President Lyndon Johnson

---

by: jimstaro @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 17:12:08 PM CST

Bush can laugh this off, Maliki can't (4.00 / 1)

From what I've read, under Iraqi law President Bush could get al-Zaidi off if he is charged with insulting a foreign leader.  But it looks like the charge will be the more serious one of assaulting Prime Minister Maliki.  

Either to minimize the symbolism or possibly just clueless, Bush has tried to laugh off the insult.  But Maliki (though he'd probably like to hit Bush with his own shoes) can't afford to laugh.  This is a serious challenge to his authority because he was standing right next to Bush.

Remember that Saddam is still the benchmark for Iraqi strongmen.  Hence the brutal beating of al-Zaiidi and a possible sentence of up to 15 years in prison.      

---

by: rmwarnick @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 17:50:42 PM CST

It's not surprising that Bush could give a shit ... (0.00 / 0)

about the guy getting beaten on his way out the door ... or what punishments he might face for doing what millions of Iraqis (and Americans) would dearly love to do and more.  Be realistic, folks.

What I wanna know is what the frack the Secret Service was doing allowing the guy to get off the second shoe shot.  That's worrisome (only because I care what happens to his successor, not that I care what happens to George the Monkey).  One of them didn't even bother to jump in front of the guy after the first shoe?  The guy has time to bend down, take off the second shoe and take aim?  Not good.

I see they've had a PR person make half-baked rationalizations for why this couldn't be avoided.  First shoe, okay -- I can kinda understand that.  Second shoe?  What the hell?  

... and I sure hope they were only giving us a small part of the story saying folks are run through a magnetometer and given a pat-down.  They'd better be doing more than that and just not telling us (e.g., chemical- and bio-sniffing scan and the like).  Otherwise, they are seriously failing in their mission.  

---

by: Fxston @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 18:17:15 PM CST

I Keep Seeing (0.00 / 0)

Secret Service was doing allowing the guy to get off the second shoe shot.

Others ask the same thing, and if you watch Maliki you might have the answer, I Think They Didn't mind It At All Neither, knowing the security has to be checking them extensively for explosives I get the feeling they might have been hoping one of the shoes connected!

Even though he's the pRes. cheney/bush haven't made friends with the likes of most of the CIA and I'll bet the Secret Service as well, they did seem to move slow towards the shooter after that second shoe!

Just sayin.

'Hearts and Minds, "The ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live there." -- President Lyndon Johnson

---

by: jimstaro @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 19:00:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If you watch the vid of the incident, it looked like (0.00 / 0)

the actual security forces were out side of the small room that Bush, Maliki and the press were in. Whether this was because of space or the need to not 'show' security that was needed or both is not clear. [like when they showed McCain-Lieberman-Graham in the Iraqi Market without showing the massive security that surrounded that Market, as in see the Surge is Working]

Another reporter tackled the 'thrower' as security entered the door at the right and behind the podiums.

The room was small and it looked like the reporters' chairs were arranged with little 'space'. It was in a 'secure' space inside of Maliki's offices.

NOTE: Following the Iraq thing Bush went to Afghanistan and at that presser with Bush and Karzai the press had to remove their shoes to attend.

---

by: deMeme @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 19:29:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What (0.00 / 0)

are we talking about? Whether President Bush said anything or not, it's not as if it would have done any good because....

-We like extreme versions of religious apartheid.

-We like public executions of individuals, often for very trivial offenses.

-We absolutely love it when women's rights do not exist.

-We think it is morally acceptable when 15 school girls are forced back into a burning building due to lack of appropriate headgear.

- We find it absolutely reprehensible when anyone challenges the almighty supremacy of the UN/NATO, but sure don't seem to mind when certain other parties crash planes into buildings and actually kill American citizens on American soil.

-We just love to preach about the wonders of secularism. Yet we show indifference or outright hostility towards secular dictatorships whom generally mind their own business,while at the same time coddling religious tyrants intent on actually exporting their totalitarian ideology worldwide.

-We simply love to to talk about the need to spread democracy around the World, and most certainly do not mind criticizing certain democratically elected leaders whom we do not view as democratic enough. However, we seem to be even more infatuated with forging close, unbreakable ties with autocratic tyrants whom have never been elected in their lives.

Now, are we in any position to lecture either the Afghans or the Iraqis on the rule of law or democracy? I don't think so. We should probably stop now.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 21:16:38 PM CST

What are you talking about? (0.00 / 0)

and who are you including in we?

I'm on twitter.

---

by: Richard Allen Smith @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 21:44:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

In (0.00 / 0)

a slightly over the top manner, I was simply pointing out certain hypocrises in our current foreign policy, most of them dealing with Saudi Arabia. By we, I was referring to the US and allies as a whole. I was not implying that either of us necessarily like the Saudis.

---

by: FredUSMC @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 22:12:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's not completely clear to me that Bush was completely (0.00 / 0)

clear on the concept of having shoes pitched at him.  A true-to- meaning precis of his comments lateris   -- So a guy threw a couple of shoes at me.  Big deal --  (similar words to that effect).

Either Bush is incredibly ignorant of that particular cultural item, or he's not.  If he is, he's incredibly ignorant.  If he's not, he trivialized Iraqi culture.

To not do anything when he heard the guy being beaten pretty much illustrates his total lack of moral fiber.  After all, it was no big deal, right? Or, the guy insulted him.  What does the U.S.-written Iraqi Constitution say about the expression of personal opinions?  

Either way, Bush tacitly ok'd the beating of a guy who didn't do any bodily harm; missed him when he pitched a pair of shoes; expressed a personal opinion; hadn't been processed, indicted, given a trial, been convicted or not.  What a surprise.

What an A#1 puke our president  is.

---

by: boadicaea @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 21:28:08 PM CST