Iraqi Shoe-Thrower's Brother Alleges Beatings in Custody

The brother of Muntadar al-Zaidi, the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at President Bush says he's been beaten in custody, a charge denied by the Iraqis.

Muntadar al-Zaidi has allegedly suffered a broken arm, broken ribs and internal bleeding, his older brother, Dargham, told the BBC.....Earlier, Dargham al-Zaidi told the BBC's Caroline Wyatt in Baghdad he believed his brother had been taken to a US military hospital in the Iraqi capital.

Demonstrations in support of al-Zaidi continue and huge amounts of money are being offered for the shoes.

Here at home, the National Lawyers Guild has started a campaign to support him through charitable giving to Americans: [More...]

December 15, 2008


In light of the recent shoe-throwing incident in Baghdad, the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) urges Americans to show their opposition to the
policies of the Bush administration by donating pairs of shoes to their local homeless shelters and other organizations serving the needy. The gesture is also intended as a show of support for Iraqi reporter Muntazer al-Zaidi who remains in detention, accused by the Iraqi government of a “barbaric act.” Al-Zaidi threw his shoes at George W. Bush during his recent surprise visit to Iraq. Al-Zaidi has been hailed as a hero in the Arab world as thousands marched today to demand his release. A spokesman for the prime minister said that al-Zaidi may be sent for trial on charges of insulting the Iraqi state.

In a news conference with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Baghdad yesterday, Mr. al-Zaidi shouted “this is a goodbye kiss from the Iraqi people, dog,” then flung one shoe at Bush—the worst insult in the Arab world—forcing him to duck. A second shoe flew over Bush's head and hit the wall behind him.

“With that single brave act, Mr. al-Zaidi has inspired the Guild to transform one country’s negative symbol into a gesture of goodwill,” says Heidi Boghosian, NLG Executive Director.

NLG President Marjorie Cohn says, “The support for al-Zaidi shown by many Iraqis demonstrates the depth of opposition to Bush’s war and occupation of Iraq. We call on all Americans to join in this campaign as we urge the Iraqi government to afford al-Zaidi his full due process rights.”

The shoe drive will run until January 19, 2009, President Bush’s last full day in office. The NLG asks you to visit here to show your support for this drive.

To find a Salvation Army by entering your zip code.

To find a Goodwill location. To find locations of churches or other facilities that provide clothing free-of-charge to the needy, please call the NLG National Office at

< Rezko Sentencing Postponed Indefinitely | Using Facebook to Serve Legal Documents >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Wow, demonstrations supporting him (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 02:22:30 PM EST
    and someone for a price will get the priviledge of displaying and caressing his shoes the same that Dubya does Saddam's pistol.  Sorry, but I'm luvin it.  Not the beating though and not the hospitalization.  Looks like some posters who commented on the new Iraqi tolerance of dissent were ummmm WRONG about that.

    You define yourself (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 04:07:03 PM EST
    when you write such as:

    and someone for a price will get the priviledge of displaying and caressing his shoes the same that Dubya does Saddam's pistol.

    How do I define myself with that? (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 04:30:22 PM EST
    As usual most of your postings to me are mysterious, like only you know the secret code to the super duper special club.  It has been written about several times how that thug Dubya adores to display and hold Saddams pistol, like it is some sort of grand symbolic prize that affirms his manhood or something.  Why shouldn't someone belonging to the country and culture he raped not enjoy something similar with their own symbols.

    Who has written it? (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 04:52:34 PM EST
    Your total like of knowledge and respect for not only Bush, but the culture itself shines through like sunlight through glass. Yet you, I am sure, are among those who beseech them for love and respect.

    It doesn't work that way, MT. You get what you send out.

    I say again. Let's have some links.


    Which culture do I show no respect for? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 05:04:07 PM EST
    and so what if I show no respect for Dubya Bush, I have none.  I'm an American though and he still can't torture me for disrespecting him like he can torture Iraqis or anybody else he cares to rendition.  And link since your google doesn't work as well as your selective memory.


    "He really liked showing it off," says a recent visitor to the White House who has seen the gun. "He was really proud of it."

    The pistol's new place of residence is in the small study next to the Oval Office where Bush takes select visitors after pointing out better-known White House pieces like the busts of Winston Churchill and Dwight D. Eisenhower and a watercolor called A Charge to Keep, which gets its name from a Methodist hymn.

    by the way (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Nasarius on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 05:31:23 PM EST
    It's not just you. jimakaPPJ's posts read like a bad Lewis Carroll nonsense poem.

    They've apparently sent the low grade troll-rejects to TalkLeft. These ones can't even write coherent English.


    I think he gets you and I mixed up (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 06:24:20 PM EST
    and replies to your comments on my comments and my comments on your comments.

    If you want an echo chamber (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 05:51:46 PM EST
    I suggest speaking into a barrel.

    As for being compared to even a bad Lewis Carrol poem, I could never even dream of such.


    gag (2.00 / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 05:49:48 PM EST
    Matt Cooper of Time?


    And he shows it as part of a WH walk around?


    Please, be serious.


    If Time mag isn't serious I'm not (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 06:12:18 PM EST
    sure what is.  Perhaps if Fox News reported it then it would be serious huh?

    Oh yeah (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 06:31:44 PM EST
    So? Fox reported that the (2.00 / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 07:17:31 PM EST
    military gave it to him.

    It is you and Time who dive into the tank of BDS.

    It has been written about several times how that thug Dubya adores to display and hold Saddams pistol, like it is some sort of grand symbolic prize that affirms his manhood or something.  

    All of that just drips venom has not factual basis. Now. Read what you said.


    So what if I drip venom? (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:01:45 AM EST
    I can drip venom if I want to and if a person has been lied to, cheated, abused, etc........to not drip venom is unhealthy and a symptom of a defective organism on the planet.  It is a free country and my venom is credible whether you like it or not too.  The majority of this democratic republic agrees fully with me and it is unlikely that anytime soon or even in the next decade they will stray elsewhere.  So yada yada yada.  Patience is not always easy, but almost all is known in due time and Bush's time and Conservative insanity time has now come due.

    Yes, they are seriously funny, (1.00 / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 07:13:39 PM EST
    that's "lack of knowledge" (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 04:53:30 PM EST
    Am am part of several groups (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 02:27:44 PM EST
    that have for decades quietly collected shoes, especially, and given them to the homeless on LA's skid row.

    Thanks to the NLG that act will now be politicized.

    What a wonderful world.

    No good deed goes unpunished. (2.00 / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 04:04:52 PM EST
    Definitely a downer...n/t (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 05:20:49 PM EST
    I am sorry that this creates this conflict (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 04:43:29 PM EST
    Bush missed a chance (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 03:29:45 PM EST
    to make the lemon into lemonade.  He could have hailed the achievement of democracy (such as it is) in Iraq as demonstrated by dissent, albeit a rather aggressive symbolic dissent.  He could have invited the shoe-thrower for tea and an interview, and asked that the man be released.  

    Oh...various blogs (2.00 / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 03:44:27 PM EST
    have pointed out that under Saddam he would have been tortured and then killed, maybe with some friends and relatives thrown in for good measure..
    and that he wasn't demonstrates the changes in Iraqi. I hope the reports of his injuries are wrong and if not I hope Iraq investigates and charges those who beat him.... while charging and trying him for, at least, assault.

    But the MSM was/is too busy dissing Bush to even think about that point. The glee expressed has been disgusting to the max.

    You know, in the weeks after Obama's election there were thousands of comments that we should respect the office and support the new President.

    I will be happy to give Obama the same respect and support the Left and its minions in the MSM and various blogs have given Bush.


    Why can't Obama destroy what is feebly (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 04:47:26 PM EST
    left of the world's economy through outrageous negligence and then preform America's second full scale military act of aggression before you so willfully show him such disrespect?  It would only be fair

    I see you still don't get (2.00 / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 06:00:26 PM EST
    cause and effect.

    Carter's CRA in '76 and Clinton's Fannie and Freddie expansion in '99 are the cause of the bubble.

    The effect was the wall street sharks who made the various phony investment packages that blew up the economy.

    Remember. I have shown you twice already. Bush tried to clamp down in '03 and McCain in '05 nut Frank opposed it.

    Actually neither Bush or Obama had much to do with it.

    Can Obama fix it? No, but he will most likely make it worse through his energy policies.


    What bubble? (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 06:13:13 PM EST
    Good grief. (2.00 / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 07:18:28 PM EST
    MT you are truly hopeless.

    I can have a conversation with you (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:44:12 AM EST
    but we need to make sure we are talking about the same things. There are many kinds of bubbles.  Define the bubble you are talking about or don't bring it up for cripes sake.

    Holding a Particular Office (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CDN Ctzn on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 04:53:48 PM EST
    doesn't automatically warrent respect. If it did, then the title of Chancellor of Germany would warrent respect to the likes of Hitler. The title of Pope would warrent respect to the cruel pontiffs of the Holy Roman Empire. The title of President would warrent respect to the likes of Idi Amine or other thinly veiled dictators.

    History will show, if it hasn't already, that George Bush has almost single handedly dismantled our civil libeties to such an extent that we may never again see many of them fully restored. That type of brazen irresponsibility to the Constitution he pledged to uphold and defend deserves no respect.

    And, if President elect Obama continues the same policies, he too will deserve no respect.


    Name me the civil liberties (2.00 / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 05:54:00 PM EST
    or rights you have lost.

    Your turn.


    Since You Seem to Enjoy Links (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by CDN Ctzn on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 09:41:26 PM EST
    Chuck Bladwin of the Baltimore Chronicle itemizes them in the follwing article:

    For a quick summary:

    FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.

    FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.

    FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

    RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

    FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

    RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

    RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

    I hope that helps you in your research!


    Perals?? Heh (2.00 / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 08:47:57 AM EST
    You listed some claims but provided no proof. I at first just laughed it off. But if I have hurt your feelings I will try to respond.

    Let us examine each, one by one.

    1. The Constitution says that you have the right to peacefully assemble. No one has taken that right.

    If you do things in a public arena, you have no right to expect privacy. If you do things in private and the government listens they have to meet various criteria. There is nothing new in that.

    2. I know of no hearings that have been closed. As I noted, specifics are needed. But I also know of no right that says any hearing must be open. That would include immigration hearings in which national security matters are discussed.

    I suspect that he is referring to the round up, after 9/11 of people, mostly Muslim, who had over stayed their Visa. In other words they have no right to be here and having broken the law they may be held and deported.

    1. Freedom of speech is not absolute. You are not protected if you are doing things that harm others. The government says that they may have an interest in people who check out certain books and/or other information. They have went to a judge and obtained a subpoena. Do you think someone has the right to hamper the investigation?

    2. You refer to the famous case in which an attorney, I can't remember her name, was accused and convicted of passing information from her jailhouse client to others.

    The issue here is simple. Suppose a terrorist has a WMD hidden in a certain location, but has been captured. Should a terrorist be allowed to pass the location information to his attorney who can then pass it to another person who can use the WMD? Do you have no problem with this?

    I do. I have a right to be protected from attack.

    So an attorney has not been denied, just the right of privacy.

    1. Probable cause protects against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. If the police act without a search warrant you have the right to claim that their actions were unreasonable and have the evidence tossed.

    2. The right to a speedy trial.... Based on when your examples were written I assume you are referring to Padilla.

    Padilla was arrested and first held as a material witness. I hate to tell you this, but that has been around for years and years. He was then designated as an enemy combatant and as such he was denied a full up US citizen trial. The government finally, under pressure, rescinded the enemy combatant designation and tried/convicted him.

    This one I will half way give you. But the question becomes, how do we hold such people long enough to obtain/vet information necessary to protect us?

    What I will not give you is that the enemy combatants in GITMO have the same rights as a US citizen and a full up US criminal justice trial.

    That is madness.

    Of course, since you disagree, I suggest that we can send you a half dozen. You can house three each in your time shares. Undoubtedly they will be fascinating tenants.

    6. Right to Liberty?? I have no idea as to what he basis his claims on.

    All of these complaints have been driven by the Left's deep hatred of Bush.

    It will be interesting to see if they hold Obama to such standards. They might demonstrate their good intentions by joining in the various legal actions attempting to force Obama to prove that he was born in the US and meets all the qualifications to be President. (I think he was and does but it would certainly shut up a lot of howls and claims.)


    What nonsense. (1.00 / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:52:36 PM EST
    I take it that you haven't actually read the Constitution.

    Freedom of speech is not absolute. You may not cause harm when speaking.

    etc., etc.

    And please provide links of these actually happening.

    Use a link that is not three plus years old..


    In The Past (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by CDN Ctzn on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 11:29:36 PM EST
    I've seen debates between you and others on this site and have thought that maybe there was a problem with semantics. Maybe people didn't understand where you were coming from.

    Now I realize that you aren't interested in facts at all. You repeatedly question information by asking for links and then when they are provided you dispense with them because they may actually shine some light on the subject. While I will not criticize someone who is ignorant of the facts, I have little respect for those who choose to remain willfully ignorant. You have done little to convince me that you are anything but willfully ignorant.

    As a result, I will heed the words of Jesus "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces."(Matthew 7:6)

    Note: I even included the text reference (link)so you can look it up!!!

    Case Closed


    silly (none / 0) (#40)
    by Salo on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 05:50:25 PM EST
    I think teh shoe throw was dangerous.

    however if the guy is getting beaten up in jail...his fate ain't much better than the poor buggers in Dujail.


    So, (none / 0) (#4)
    by bocajeff on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 03:37:17 PM EST
    The National Lawyers Guild is supporting a man who threw an object at the President of the United States?

    While one may disagree, hate, or abhor any President of the United States, support of someone like this is truly disgusting.

    I disagree boca... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 03:45:11 PM EST
    you're ignoring the cultural differences...throwing a shoe in Iraq is like throwing a pie in America.

    Do you feel the same about protest by pastry?  That it is truly disgusting?

    It ain't just the NLG...this guy has lots of fans all over the world.  More fans than detractors.  Locking him up for 2 years, nevermind the beating(s), is gonna be a pr disaster.  All we've got going for us in Iraq is the fact that Saddam is gone and dissent is allowed...with this guy locked it looks like the new boss is the same as the old boss to the world at large.  That can't be good for America.

    I'm with Keysdan...Bush could be a hero for speech and dissent, and salvage some legacy, if he will pull some strings and get this guy released.


    kdog (2.00 / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 04:14:28 PM EST
    the point is that the Prez represents all Americans, especially when he is off shore....

    I think the first political comment that really made me think was said by a guy who really disliked Kennedy...

    "G...D.. it," he said, "he was MY president. No one should get to even touch him."

    That may have been in a kinder and gentler world, but it sure was a better belief system that this generation has brought us.


    I can understand and respect... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 05:05:58 PM EST
    that position my friend, I just don't share it.

    Call it childish rebellion...but no president in my lifetime has ever represented me and mine. I will afford the office respect when it is given to me and mine. You know my radical views on inalienable rights...:)

    You may find it contradictory, but I can love my country and its people while having a teeming disrespect for our presidents, senators, reps, judges, prosecutors, agents, and bueracrats.  It doesn't bother me that an Iraqi disrespected our president...as long as he is disrespected as per local custom, I'm good.  I share the same bond with that brave Iraqi man that I share with you and all my friends on TL...the bond of sovereign free individual human beings.  


    I understand (2.00 / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 05:18:01 PM EST
    and have no problem with you expressing those feelings.

    But the Pres does represent the country that does have a culture and a government that allows you to do that.

    If WE want to complain about him, then that's our business. But having some dumb a** Iraqi do it and then be called a hero by some in the US is disgusting.


    Free speech is beautiful.... (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 05:28:58 PM EST
    though if an American threw a coconut creme at the pres in the US, he'd probably get a beat down amd more than 2 years.  

    I get it, you can't just throw things at people... but that's why they say rules are meant to be broken.


    Just so everyone knows right here and (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 05:08:42 PM EST
    now, Dubya Bush does not represent me in any way, shape, or form.  He only thinks he does.  He's just some dumba$$ I got stuck with having to put up with for a short time.  I can wear the not representing me statement on a T-shirt everyday too to make certain that that remains crystal clear to everyone who comes in contact with me.

    Gosh (2.00 / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 05:43:41 PM EST
    And here I thought you were a secret Bush person.

    Nobody in the world (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 04:42:26 PM EST
    is willing to stand up to Dubya or even make a meaningful gesture towards Dubya's own acts of aggression other than this shoe thrower.  If there was some form of justice that would/could ever find George W. Bush for what he has done to the citizens/children of Iraq I could agree with you.  There will be no justice though outside of this rather harmless shoe throwing thug justice because the Dubya is the biggest thug in the world and is governed or checked by no authority other than his own.

    I bleieve that it was Bush's Karma (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Amiss on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 11:26:43 PM EST
    coming to "boot" him in the ass as it were. They say Karma is a b**ch!

    Really? (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 03:39:35 PM EST
    Is Bush your god? Would you feel the same if your country was destroyed, occupied and your people tortured for six years?

    The man is a hero.


    Iraq was attacked (2.00 / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 04:02:14 PM EST
    because they allowed a leader named Saddam to remain in power.

    His actions and his statements are the focal point of why the war was launched.

    If the Iraqi people had removed him, none of what happened would have followed,

    You may argue that the Iraqi populace could not have removed him without great sacrifice.


    Truth be known a large percentage of the population was quite happy with Saddam, so it took external force to remove him.

    If you want to argue that his removal coupled with an attempt to establish a democracy was bad, please be my guest.


    Oh please (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 04:35:46 PM EST
    For me this is a new level of gross and disgusting coming from you.  First you heartily and repeatedly admit that Saddam tortured, raped, and murdered those who displayed dissent and then you proceed to blame the Iraqi people for their own rape, murder, and pillage done to them at George Dubya Bush's hands because they were unwilling to be raped, tortured, and murdered by Saddam instead.  Talk about being unable to lose for losing........

    Your inability to understand cause and effect (2.00 / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 05:09:36 PM EST
    is well known and demonstrated again.

    First, your personal attack that I "heartily" admitted that Saddam killed, etc., is nonsense. As for repeatedly, well, so??? His actions are well known.

    That the Iraqi people did not throw him out is also well known. That is called a fact, not a "blame." If they had, nothing further would have happened from the US. They did not and it did. People would have died doing the former, people died as the US did the latter.

    I wish it had been the former because Americans wouldn't have died in the latter.

    Of course if no one had done anything, Iraqis would have died in the various usual methods and eventually Americans would have died due to Saddam's associations with al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.


    How exactly is my inability to understand (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 05:12:36 PM EST
    cause and effect well known and demonstrated again?

    How do I know??? (2.00 / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 05:47:03 PM EST
    Let me count the ways..

    Read some of your comments and my responses.


    Once again my comments (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 06:16:28 PM EST
    and your responses don't seem congruent in any discernable way.  I think many times you are intending to reply to a different comment than the one your reply ends up on.  That's okay though, nobody's perfect.

    Tracy when you blame (2.00 / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 07:23:04 PM EST
    the economic problems on wall street thieves  without mentioning the CRA, Fannie/Freddie expansion...

    Well it is like talking about a fire without mentioning who stacked the wood and provided the matches...

    I believe you truly don't understand, but your willful actions in refusing to learn is sad.


    So That's The Reason (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by CDN Ctzn on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 05:05:54 PM EST
    we blew the hell out of Iraq. I was confused, because we have been lied to about the reason for so long. I just wish those ungrateful Iraqi's would realize that we're killing them because we love them.

    Furthermore, what makes Iraq warrent our intervention as opposed to Darfur, Rhawanda, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia...? Where does the list end?

    If you're seriously buying that line, then I have a Timeshare you might be interested in.


    I thought it was WMDs (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 05:17:07 PM EST
    Then I heard it was to liberate the people of Iraq. This is the first time I heard that Iraqis were getting the crap stomped out of them daily because of their failure to do whatever it is that Jim says they should have done with Saddam.  It is hard to keep up though with the daily reason of why Iraq is being sacked today.

    No Tracy (2.00 / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 05:25:22 PM EST
    Please act like you have been around and that you have some awareness.

    First it was WMD's, and then, with the country's government defeated, it was necessary to establish a government that would be a bulwark against Iran and Syria taking over the country.

    Go back and read Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech in which he clearly defines what he is going to do and why.


    Why don't you put it up here with link (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 06:17:33 PM EST
    instead of just making stuff up again.

    You actually want me to give a link to (2.00 / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 07:36:15 PM EST
    Bush's '03 STOTU? Wow. I know you have trouble with Google, but this is a new low. Here you go.

    This is the link to Bush's SOTU speech. Click here.

    Some selected items:

    There are days when our fellow citizens do not hear news about the war on terror. There's never a day when I do not learn of another threat, or receive reports of operations in progress, or give an order in this global war against a scattered network of killers. The war goes on, and we are winning. (Applause.)

    To date, we've arrested or otherwise dealt with many key commanders of al Qaeda. They include a man who directed logistics and funding for the September the 11th attacks; the chief of al Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf, who planned the bombings of our embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole; an al Qaeda operations chief from Southeast Asia; a former director of al Qaeda's training camps in Afghanistan; a key al Qaeda operative in Europe; a major al Qaeda leader in Yemen. All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies. (Applause.)

    The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

    Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

    Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

    With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

    Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

    Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

    The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

    And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

    The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

    We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)

    Saddam had already disarmed though (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 10:42:49 AM EST
    What was Dubya conservative dogmaing about?  He was talking out his perceptive a$$ as usual,  going with his gut, conversing with the magic curveball eightball for answers.  Dubya thought he could get away with all of his bull too because the country was traumatized after 9/11.  He never counted on its capacity to heal and recover and begin to live functionally again because he's never been able to do that himself.

    Actually I doubt you own a timeshare (2.00 / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 05:13:28 PM EST
    We attacked Iraqi because, based on the best information available, it was believed that Saddam had WMD's.

    I do not think anyone is claiming that the countries on your list is a threat to the US.


    And Iraq was a threat to us (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 05:18:25 PM EST

    Yes, we thought so. (2.00 / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 05:41:40 PM EST
    Perception is everything.

    Remember the Clinton DOJ had indicted him.

    And then Fitzgerald said this:

    FIELDING: This is before the U.S. Embassy bombings in East Africa and the administration indicted Osama bin Laden. And the indictment, which was unsealed a few months later, reads, "al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government, and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

    So my question to you is what evidence was that indictment based upon and what was this understanding that's referenced in it?

    FITZGERALD: And the question of relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda is an interesting one. I don't have information post-2001 when I got involved in a trial, and I don't have information post-September 11th. I can tell you what led to that inclusion in that sealed indictment in May and then when we superseded, which meant we broadened the charges in the Fall, we dropped that language.

    We also understood that there had been antipathy between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein because Saddam Hussein was not viewed as being religious.

    We did understand from people, including al-Fadl -- and my recollection is that he would have described this most likely in public at the trial that we had, but I can't tell you that for sure; that was a few years ago -- that at a certain point they decided that they wouldn't work against each other and that we believed a fellow in al Qaeda named Mondu Saleem (ph), Abu Harzai (ph) the Iraqi, tried to reach a, sort of, understanding where they wouldn't work against each other. Sort of, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.


    And did I mention every major intelligence agency in the whole world thought Iraq had WMD's?

    That was what Bush knew in '02 and early/mid '03.

    Being Pres he couldn't vote "present." He had to decide if he wanted to protect the US or do nothing and put us at risk.

    But I wouldn't want you to study and understand this. It would undermine your whole reason for being.


    No dear, perception is everything to YOU (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 06:22:21 PM EST
    Some of us understand that perception and reality are often not the same thing, and then we tend to ask really really hard questions of many many sources while simultaneously tending to avoid sources going by the name "curveball" before we pound a nation and its people and the children of those people to blood dripping dust.  You and I, we handle just about every challenge that life throws at us completely differently.

    I aint your dear (2.00 / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 07:26:44 PM EST
    Quit dodging. Bush believed his intelligence agencies as did 99.9% of Congress. Thus his perception was that Iraq had WMD's.

    Based on his knowledge at that time he took reasonable and prudent actions.


    Define Bush knowledge please (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 10:52:46 AM EST
    AND 99.9% of the Congress did not believe Bush's intelligence was all that accurate either. You had better listen to some of the speeches delivered with those AUMF votes though.  America was traumatized and nobody on the Hill dared to be a legislator that could be "perceived" as not caring enough about that.  Get real with real life.

    Actually, I Own Two (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by CDN Ctzn on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 09:26:47 PM EST
    but for a scholarly tome on the topic, I would strongly encourage you to read "Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein. It is extremely well written and extremely well documented. I think it would prove enlightening!

    The thought of reading anything by Namoi (2.00 / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:55:36 PM EST
    sends me into convulsions.

    The issue really is simple.

    Bush acted on what he thought to be true.

    You, MT, Namoi et al don't like that.

    I would say I am sorry about that but I'm not.


    Thank-you For Answering (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by CDN Ctzn on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 11:10:45 PM EST
    my unspoken question: "Is this person seriously searching for the truth?"

    Obviously NOT!

    Now I know to take your remarks for what they are, simply the product of the school of, "Don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind"



    Fine (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 10:55:33 AM EST
    Just know that until you and others of your ilk can embrace reality, the party you feel most aligned with will remain virtually powerless because the democracy of this republic is awake.

    Which is it? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Amiss on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 11:29:53 PM EST
    Iraq was attacked because they allowed a leader named Saddam to remain in power.

    And I thought we had been fed all this time that Iraq was attacked because they had WMD!


    NOT a HERO (none / 0) (#8)
    by DaveCal on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 03:57:38 PM EST
    This man is NOT a Hero.  He doesn't have to be happy about GWB, but he's not a HERO.  

    The heroes are the military Joes and Janes that liberated his country from its rotten dictator.  Many of them also lost their lives to make his better.  

    If he threw his shoes at Saddam, nobody would be praising him, because he'd be dead, and they'd all be too scared they'd end up dead too.  

    In fact, even with his new and more free government, I bet he's still praying that it adopts more "U.S.-like" tolerance for dissent and free speech.    


    Liberated??? (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 04:38:16 PM EST
    Did you miss the last six years?

    I agree... (none / 0) (#66)
    by laila on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 08:56:52 AM EST
    This man was not a hero, he threw a shoe.  And furthermore if he is being beaten, he should have known that the Iraqi police would do that.  Just because Iraq has democracy now doesn't mean that things are suddenly liberal.  Women there still die, children still die, and not every death is at the hands of the evil Americans.
    I am going out on a limb and saying I don't understand this man's disregard for his own life, he could have had his head blown off by the secret service.  But then again I don't understand a fatalistic culture where men will take their lives and murder hundreds in suicidal bombing either.  To me these type of things go hand in hand.  What if it had been a grenade he threw?  Would he be a hero then?  

    When I was in school the day I heard about the 9/11 I will never forget that the Muslim students threw a party that same night, and I remember how they kept saying every great nation must come to an end and acting as if they were sad and they weren't.  I will never ever forget that.  And as a Minority African American student I knew these people hate our country, they always have...even the non-terrorist.  Of course America is free to parasite at will.  


    Thanks For Making My Case (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 12:25:41 PM EST
    And furthermore if he is being beaten, he should have known that the Iraqi police would do that.


    ...I don't understand this man's disregard for his own life, he could have had his head blown off by the secret service.


    2. A man of distinguished valor or enterprise in danger, or
          fortitude in suffering; a prominent or central personage
          in any remarkable action or event; hence, a great or
          illustrious person.
          [1913 Webster]

    Thousands Protest For His Release (none / 0) (#75)
    by squeaky on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 07:49:58 PM EST
    He is by now probably aware that he has become an unlikely hero to thousands of Iraqis and Arabs across the region who are proud of him for insulting the man they cannot forgive for invading and occupying a country in this region.


    "Millions of Iraqis, or rather millions of people in the world, wish to do what Muntadhir did, or something similar. Thank God he has got the courage to do it, and to avenge the Iraqi people and the country, and to stand up to those who plunder it and have killed its people," Uday al-Zaidi said.

    "More than 5 million people were orphaned by Bush and his aides. We thank God for everything that might happen to Muntadhir. We say thank God because Muntadhir has raised our head and the heads of the Iraqi people high.

    link via Juan Cole


    15 Years Prison Sentence? (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 05:15:53 PM EST
    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.

    Dheyaa Saadi, head of the Union of Lawyers in Iraq and one of
    "I will introduce myself as his lawyer and demand the case be closed and Muntader be released because he did not commit a crime," said Saadi.