Bush's Iraq-Afghan farewell tour marred by dissent

[Gfted1]

Dec 15, 12:42 PM (ET)

 

By JENNIFER LOVEN

 

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - President George W. Bush wrapped up a whirlwind trip to two war zones Monday that in many ways was a victory lap without a clear victory. A signature event occurred when an Iraqi reporter hurled two shoes at Bush, an incident the president called "a bizarre moment."

 

Bush visited the Iraqi capital just 37 days before he hands the war off to his successor, Barack Obama, who has pledged to end it. The president wanted to highlight a drop in violence and to celebrate a recent U.S.-Iraq security agreement, which calls for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2011.

 

"The war is not over," Bush said, but "it is decisively on its way to being won."

 

Bush then traveled to Afghanistan where he spoke to U.S. soldiers and Marines at a hangar on the tarmac at Bagram Air Base. The rally for over a thousand military personnel took place in the dark, cold pre-dawn hours. Bush was greeted by loud cheers from the troops.

 

 

"Afghanistan is a dramatically different country than it was eight years ago," he said. "We are making hopeful gains."

 

But the president's message on progress in the region was having trouble competing with the videotaped image of the angry Iraqi who hurled his shoes at Bush in a near-miss, shouting in Arabic, "This is your farewell kiss, you dog!" The reporter was later identified as Muntadar al-Zeidi, a correspondent for Al-Baghdadia television, an Iraqi-owned station based in Cairo, Egypt.

 

In Iraqi culture, throwing shoes at someone is a sign of contempt. Iraqis whacked a statue of Saddam with their shoes after U.S. Marines toppled it to the ground following the 2003 invasion.

 

Bush told reporters later that he didn't think "you can take one guy throwing shoes and say this represents a broad movement in Iraq. You can try to do that if you want but I don't think that would be accurate."

 

Reaction in Iraq was swift but mixed, with some condemning the act and others applauding it. Television news stations throughout Iraq repeatedly showed footage of the incident, and newspapers carried headline stories.

 

In Baghdad's Shiite slum of Sadr City, supporters of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called for protests against Bush and demanded the release of the reporter. Thousands took to the streets Monday, chanting, "Bush, Bush, listen well: Two shoes on your head."

 

Talking to a small group of reporters after the incident, Bush said, "I didn't know what the guy said, but I saw his sole." He told the reporters that "you were more concerned than I was. I was watching your faces."

 

"I'm pretty good at ducking, as most of you know," Bush joked, adding quickly that "I'm talking about ducking your questions."

 

On a more serious note, he said, "I mean, it was just a bizarre moment, but I've had other bizarre moments in the presidency. I remember when Hu Jintao was here. Remember? We had the big event? He's speaking, and all of a sudden I hear this noise - had no earthly idea what was taking place, but it was the Falun Gong woman screaming at the top of her lungs (near the ceremony on the White House lawn). It was kind of an odd moment."

 

The Iraqi government condemned the act and demanded an on-air apology from Al-Baghdadia television, the Iraqi-owned station that employs Muntadar al-Zeidi.

 

Several people descended on the man immediately after, wrestling him to the ground, and it took a minute or two for security agents to clear the crowd and start hauling him out. As they dragged him off, he was moaning and screaming as if in pain. Later, a large blood trail could be seen on the carpet where he was dragged out of the room.

 

He was taken into custody and reportedly was being held for questioning by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's guards and is being tested for alcohol and drugs.

 

Other Arab journalists and commentators, fed up with U.S. policy in the Middle East and Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 to topple Saddam, echoed al-Zeidi's sentiments Monday. Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor of the influential London-based newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi, wrote on the newspaper's Web site that the incident was "a proper goodbye for a war criminal."

 

After a meeting with Hamid Karzai in the capital of Kabul, Bush said he told the president of Afghanistan: "You can count on the United States. Just like you've been able to count on this administration, you'll be able to count on the next administration as well."

 

After a brief refueling stop in England, Bush headed back to the United States.

 

The mixed reactions to Bush in both countries emphasized the uncertain situations Bush is leaving behind in the region.

 

In Iraq, nearly 150,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq, protecting the fragile democracy. More than 4,209 members of the U.S. military have died and $576 billion has been spent since the war began five years and nine months ago.

 

In Afghanistan, there are about 31,000 U.S. troops and commanders have called for up to 20,000 more. The fight is especially difficult in southern Afghanistan, a stronghold of the Taliban where violence has risen sharply this year.

 

 

The delicious irony of this is being if we were never there this clown would have never had this "right". Well, not lived to tell about it anyway.

[Kelverin]

Well, not lived to tell about it anyway.

The piece of **** should have been dropped as soon as he threw something, much less be able to throw 2 objects at the president. Way to be on top of it secret service.

[Wrath of Dagon]

If he did this to Saddam, they'd stick him into an industrial paper shredder.

[SteveThaiBinh]

It's a shame he missed. A shoe in the face is the least Bush deserves. A jail cell in the Hague would be my vote.

 

Not long now.

[taks]

good thing we don't have to listen to your ideological nonsense, nor the whines of the rest of the world that thinks we are subject to international law.

 

taks

[Killian Kalthorne]

Yeah, why should the self appointed world police be subject to international law? Doesn't the world know that is "do as we say, not as we do" here in the U.S.?

Edited December 15, 2008 by Killian Kalthorne

[Morgoth]

Exactly! The mighty US of A doesn't have to adhere to international law, because it is the law!

[Killian Kalthorne]

Exactly!

[Rosbjerg]

good thing we don't have to listen to your ideological nonsense, nor the whines of the rest of the world that thinks we are subject to international law.

 

taks

 

Are we suffering from megalomania there taks? Just because Steve wants Bush in jail doesn't mean the whole world is out to get you.

[taks]

um, killian, you of all people should understand the Constitution of the US and a little thing known as sovereignty. we, including our government, cannot give away our authority over ourselves without changing that little document.

 

that you would make such a comment is a shameful slap in the face of education in the US.

 

that the Eurosnobs and others think otherwise: boohoo. go cry on someone's should that gives a damn. we don't answer to you or anyone else, nor will we as long as the US Constitution rules our land. your envy becomes pathetically obvious every time you think one of our people should be subject to your ideological beliefs.

 

^kelverin: agreed. what on earth was his security detail doing while this joker was taking off his shoes?

 

taks

[samm]

indoctrination is powerful - I'd say that was a serious remark.

 

The problem here is that this constitution makes you think you can do what you like in the world, a world which obviously has to answer to the USA, but not the other way around. Powerful little document you got there.

 

[edit]Ah well, if anyone cares to figure out which comment is directed to whom, I trust you can find that out alone. People are writing too fast here

Edited December 15, 2008 by samm

[taks]

Are we suffering from megalomania there taks? Just because Steve wants Bush in jail doesn't mean the whole world is out to get you.

oh for god's sake (expression) rosbjerg, please don't try to argue that stevethaibinh's ideology (edit: regarding bush) is not held by at least a majority of the world's population. c'mon man. even in here you got US natives that think that way.

 

taks

Edited December 15, 2008 by taks

[Gorgon]

Well, not lived to tell about it anyway.

The piece of **** should have been dropped as soon as he threw something, much less be able to throw 2 objects at the president. Way to be on top of it secret service.

I think Bush is rather relieved his security were experienced enough to see the situation for what it was. 'dropped as soon as he threw something'.. .lols, you have been watching too many movies.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Taks, our sovereignty ends at our border. Why should the world respect our sovereignty when we don't respect the sovereignty of others? The Constitution was written in a world 200 years ago. Things are different now. Perhaps it is time for a new Constitution, one that is more with the times.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Killian Kalthorne

[Morgoth]

um, killian, you of all people should understand the Constitution of the US and a little thing known as sovereignty. we, including our government, cannot give away our authority over ourselves without changing that little document.

 

that you would make such a comment is a shameful slap in the face of education in the US.

 

that the Eurosnobs and others think otherwise: boohoo. go cry on someone's should that gives a damn. we don't answer to you or anyone else, nor will we as long as the US Constitution rules our land. your envy becomes pathetically obvious every time you think one of our people should be subject to your ideological beliefs.

 

^kelverin: agreed. what on earth was his security detail doing while this joker was taking off his shoes?

 

taks

Right. Those damn Eurosnobs who came up with these Geneva conventions don't need to tell US what is good or bad. Let's break them, crap on human rights, because US don't need to listen to anyone.

[taks]

Taks, our sovereignty ends at our border. Why should the world respect our sovereignty when we don't respect the sovereignty of others?

'scuse me? sorry, but as soon as saddam violated treaty he signed, he gave up his right to sovereignty.

 

The Constitution was written in a world 200 years ago. Things are different now. Perhaps it is time for a new Constitution, one that is more with the times.

sorry, but it was written as a timeless document, rightfully so. you sir, are a disgrace if you think something "more with the times" is a good idea. shame on you.

 

^morgoth: i'm not sure what the geneva convention or human rights has to do with bush. perhaps you meant something else, or do you just not understand the argument? either way, those are signed treaties, but in no way offer up the ability of any court outside of the US to deal with our own people.

 

i couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks about us, either. they can suck on their **** envy all they want, ain't gonna change things.

 

taks

Edited December 15, 2008 by taks

[Morgoth]

Sure, but if the US government promotes torturing and violence against people as something positive (War on Terror), then keep the rest of the world out of it.

[Enoch]

um, killian, you of all people should understand the Constitution of the US and a little thing known as sovereignty. we, including our government, cannot give away our authority over ourselves without changing that little document.

Well, the Constitution does specifically direct that any treaties signed by the executive and ratified by the Senate are the supreme law of the land, absent a direct conflict with a latter-enacted federal law or with the Constitution itself. Thus, for example, the decisions of WTO boards regarding trade practices are binding on American policymakers and companies. So international law is not wholly toothless in America.

 

But, ultimately, for criminal matters, taks is correct. The 6th Amendment (guaranteeing all criminal defendants trial by "an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed") almost certainly provides some protection for U.S. citizens from criminal proceedings conducted by non-U.S. bodies (e.g., any international court certainly couldn't prosecute a U.S. citizen for supposed crimes committed solely within the U.S.). And that's all academic at this point, anyway, since there has been no Senate ratification of any treaty that would subject U.S. citizens to an international court. Yeah, it would be nice if the world were free of hypocrisies like the U.S.'s rhetoric in favor of justice for international criminals and its refusal to subject itself to any binding authority in that matter. But that ain't the world we live in. If it were, well, there wouldn't be much point in America maintaining it's enormous lead in the "capacity to kick ass" department, which woud ultimately create a much less stable international environment.

 

There is understandably a lot of frustration outside the U.S. (and within) over the actions of the Bush Administration. Those who attribute these actions to malice rather than mistake are looking for some way to make these leaders accountable beyond simple electoral defeat, but I do not share that view-- there have undeniably been plenty of poor policy decisions, lack of foresight, and devotion to misguided ideological principles even in the face of contrary facts, but I don't see anything that convinces me that they did what they did for any reason other than the belief that they were working toward what they thought was a greater good.

[taks]

The problem here is that this constitution makes you think you can do what you like in the world, a world which obviously has to answer to the USA, but not the other way around. Powerful little document you got there.

nonsense. complete and utter nonsense.

 

we do exactly what we need to do to protect our interests. the world cries to us whenever they perceive their interests as being slighted, then in an about face, refuses to acknowledge when our interests are being slighted. the world is complicit with US actions, yet gets to sit by with their noses in the air condemning us for doing what we do. that's about the best definition of hypocrisy one can ever hope to offer.

 

taks

[Enoch]

The Constitution was written in a world 200 years ago. Things are different now. Perhaps it is time for a new Constitution, one that is more with the times.

sorry, but it was written as a timeless document, rightfully so. you sir, are a disgrace if you think something "more with the times" is a good idea. shame on you.

If there was one common spirit that motivated the entirety of the 1787 Constitutional Convention it was that the people should be actively engaged in questioning the nature of their government, and, when appropriate, assertive in taking action to change it. They included Article V for a reason, you know.

[Guard Dog]

Taks, our sovereignty ends at our border. Why should the world respect our sovereignty when we don't respect the sovereignty of others? The Constitution was written in a world 200 years ago. Things are different now. Perhaps it is time for a new Constitution, one that is more with the times.

 

Ha! You DO realize a Constitutional Convention now would lead the the break up of the USA don't you? Think that one through. You may believe it would be a good thing, I do not.

 

As to the subject at hand, the US in not subject to the caprice of the World (kangaroo) Court. If such a body ever tried to seize a US citizen for prosecution even I would be ready to take up arms and fight.

 

Another thought, the ingratitude of the Iraqis, Afghans, and for that matter the "allies" of Europe and Asia whose freedom was won and defended with American blood and treasure these last eighty or so years just drives home the wisdom of the Monroe Doctrine, and the warning of our Founding Fathers to avoid "foreign entanglements". Once the Republican Party stood firmly for a strong national defense and a non interventionist foreign policy. Nixon was the one who put an end to that. I wish they would find their way back to it. I think they would find the voters amenable to it.

[taks]

And that's all academic at this point, anyway, since there has been no Senate ratification of any treaty that would subject U.S. citizens to an international court.

my point, actually. and treaties are US law, not international law.

 

Yeah, it would be nice if the world were free of hypocrisies like the U.S.'s rhetoric in favor of justice for international criminals and its refusal to subject itself to any binding authority in that matter.

personally, i favor this version of hypocrisy to the one in which countries sign up, but ultimately refuse to follow such authority. the US hardly has a bad human rights record compared to the rest of the world, either.

 

there have undeniably been plenty of poor policy decisions, lack of foresight, and devotion to misguided ideological principles even in the face of contrary facts, but I don't see anything that convinces me that they did what they did for any reason other than the belief that they were working toward what they thought was a greater good.

misguided, but so was the rest of the world. the difference is that the rest of the world wanted us to continue to appease. ultimately, i think we would have been better off just telling the rest of the world to deal with iraq. suffer the consequences.

 

taks

[Guard Dog]

There is understandably a lot of frustration outside the U.S. (and within) over the actions of the Bush Administration. Those who attribute these actions to malice rather than mistake are looking for some way to make these leaders accountable beyond simple electoral defeat, but I do not share that view-- there have undeniably been plenty of poor policy decisions, lack of foresight, and devotion to misguided ideological principles even in the face of contrary facts, but I don't see anything that convinces me that they did what they did for any reason other than the belief that they were working toward what they thought was a greater good.

 

Excellent point, very well stated, and I agree 100%

[taks]

If there was one common spirit that motivated the entirety of the 1787 Constitutional Convention it was that the people should be actively engaged in questioning the nature of their government, and, when appropriate, assertive in taking action to change it. They included Article V for a reason, you know.

there's a difference between questioning/changing our government and changing the Constitution. much of what our government does, domestically and abroad, is not Constitutional anyway. perhaps we simply need to abide by the document rather than paying it lip service?

 

taks

[Guard Dog]

If there was one common spirit that motivated the entirety of the 1787 Constitutional Convention it was that the people should be actively engaged in questioning the nature of their government, and, when appropriate, assertive in taking action to change it. They included Article V for a reason, you know.

there's a difference between questioning/changing our government and changing the Constitution. much of what our government does, domestically and abroad, is not Constitutional anyway. perhaps we simply need to abide by the document rather than paying it lip service?

 

taks

 

There was a bill in Congress back in the late 90's that would have required the legislature to cite the Constitutional authority on every bill it passed. The honorable gentlemen on the hill allowed it to expire of course. Too bad we don't have that law today now that the government is using tax money to buy stakes in private businesses.