Bush's Iraq-Afghan farewell tour marred by dissent

[Morgoth]

Has it even been confirmed that Saidi got these injuries in that room? What if security forces just abused him afterwards, in his cell?

no, but it wouldn't surprise me either way. you can't assault the leader of a major country and expect to not get roughed up.

Is that so? So because Bush is the president, it ought to come as natural to cripple some journalist? If he's really such a Christ he always pretends to be, then he would have given strict orders not to legitimize torture by his trigger-happy clowns. Among thousand other things. Talk about hypercrisy.... If torturing or "roughing a bit up" as you say has become the norm, then I really wonder how Bush is any better than Hussein. Oh of course I forgot, he's the president of the USA.

[taks]

Is that so? So because Bush is the president, it ought to come as natural to cripple some journalist?

are you capable of rational thought? the guy has a dozen or more secret service agents surrounding him at all times. someone assaults him and you don't expect this guy to get beat up? and crippled? give me a break and drop the freaking hyperbole.

 

If he's really such a Christ he always pretends to be

no, the media pretends, and you repeat.

 

please, morgoth, hyperbolic arguments make you look, well, like the ideologue i accuse you of being. are you capable of your own thoughts?

 

then he would have given strict orders not to legitimize torture by his trigger-happy clowns.

doesn't work that way either. at least you used the word correctly this time.

 

Among thousand other things. Talk about hypercrisy.... If torturing or "roughing a bit up" as you say has become the norm, then I really wonder how Bush is any better than Hussein. Oh of course I forgot, he's the president of the USA.

nonsense. get a clue. the way the secret service treats people that threaten the life of the president hasn't "become the norm," it has always been the norm. there's no way to know a priori if this idiot was going to do more than simply lob a shoe or two, and the fact that he kept fighting, even after being taken down, is indicative of someone that intended to do harm.

 

wow.

 

taks

[Gfted1]

Has it even been confirmed that Saidi got these injuries in that room?

 

From the first post:

 

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.

[Morgoth]

This whole thing has digressed anyway. But yeah, the US is always right. Bla Bla. There taks.

 

Point is, the US is the first one to condemn other countries even by the slightest digression of her own democratic values and views. But it seems the US is also a bit "sloppy" (no, I don't want to say they're neclecting them deliberately) to adhere to her own standards and laws that she's so furiosuly protecting and adoring. This all has been reinforced thanks to Bush and his administration. That's why he should be taken accountable for his mess. You can't then just say "We don't care what the rest of the world thinks", as the rest of the world is often harmed thanks through (in)direct US policy. I think that was how this flamewar initially started in the first place. As for the poor al-Saidi: That's a "from America with love" for you. You're not the first one for sure.

Edited December 16, 2008 by Morgoth

[Walsingham]

And what sort of dip**** security service did they have in that room anyway? He had time to throw a second shoe. Normally, he should have been pulled down after he threw his first immediately. And by pulling down, I don't mean almost killing him. What a dip**** crew.

 

Wait, I'm confused. You're saying it's wrong to wrestle him to the ground, but the mark of a professional security detail would be they shoot him instantly? What kind of freaking math is that?

 

He is indeed lucky to be alive, but it's great that he is, given his fairly simple intent.

[Gfted1]

That's a "from America with love" for you. You're not the first one for sure.

 

Im pretty sure the Iraqi Prime Ministers guards are the one to put the beatdown on him. TBH, I havent seen the U.S. Secret Service mentioned even once in any article so Im not even sure they were there.

[taks]

that's what you don't get, morgoth. it has nothing to do with "the US is always right." bush is a world leader and he got assaulted. the mere fact that this guy didn't get killed is amazing. do you think anything would have been different if it were sarkozy or putin? how about chavez? hell no.

 

this has nothing to do with a "digression of her own democratic values and views." get real man. the guy committed a crime against the POTUS. the response was completely justified. this nothing to do with policy no matter how hard you whine to the contrary. the idiot broke the law against the worst possible person to break the law.

 

you are incapable of making any legitimate argument without hyperbole, aren't you? hardly a surprise. what a joke. your "opinion" is the one that i have to fight to protect and preserve, in spite of the fact that it is rooted in nonsense and a complete disregard for rational thought.

 

taks

[Morgoth]

And what sort of dip**** security service did they have in that room anyway? He had time to throw a second shoe. Normally, he should have been pulled down after he threw his first immediately. And by pulling down, I don't mean almost killing him. What a dip**** crew.

 

Wait, I'm confused. You're saying it's wrong to wrestle him to the ground, but the mark of a professional security detail would be they shoot him instantly? What kind of freaking math is that?

 

He is indeed lucky to be alive, but it's great that he is, given his fairly simple intent.

You don't need 10 guys that throw themself on him. That's unprofessional. Quickness and efficiency is here the key, not brutish force. And they should have reacted faster. Heck, that guy was basically surrounded by security forces. Did they dream or what?

[taks]

Im pretty sure the Iraqi Prime Ministers guards are the one to put the beatdown on him. TBH, I havent seen the U.S. Secret Service mentioned even once in any article so Im not even sure they were there.

so in other words, morgoth really is speaking from a position of ignorance. hardly a surprise. so morgoth, you have a new word and a new phrase to look up: hyperbole and argumentum ad ignorantium.

 

the secret service was there, btw. any activities involving the POTUS and they're coordinating overall security.

 

taks

[Morgoth]

that's what you don't get, morgoth. it has nothing to do with "the US is always right." bush is a world leader and he got assaulted. the mere fact that this guy didn't get killed is amazing. do you think anything would have been different if it were sarkozy or putin? how about chavez? hell no.

 

this has nothing to do with a "digression of her own democratic values and views." get real man. the guy committed a crime against the POTUS. the response was completely justified. this nothing to do with policy no matter how hard you whine to the contrary. the idiot broke the law against the worst possible person to break the law.

 

you are incapable of making any legitimate argument without hyperbole, aren't you? hardly a surprise. what a joke. your "opinion" is the one that i have to fight to protect and preserve, in spite of the fact that it is rooted in nonsense and a complete disregard for rational thought.

 

taks

Of course taks, but it seems you're just too ignorant to actually see the bigger picture of my meaning.

 

Maybe some day you wake up.

[Amentep]

I'd have given props to Bush if he'd been hit by the shoe and responded by quoting Austin Powers from the first film: "That really hurt! I'm gonna have a lump there, you idiot! Who throws a shoe? Honestly! You fight like a woman!"

 

Too bad he was too quick so we'll never know what he'd have done had he been hit.

[taks]

Of course taks, but it seems you're just too ignorant to actually see the bigger picture of my meaning.

 

Maybe some day you wake up.

i fully know your meaning. like i said, look up the word hyperbole and the phrase argumentum ad ignorantium. the initial basis for your hyperbolic complaint isn't even true, it was the iraqi guards that took the guy down and everything that happened happened right there, not after the fact. you didn't even bother to fact check before making your nonsense claims.

 

i doubt you can ever wake up, quite frankly. i guess ignorance is bliss, however.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

You don't need 10 guys that throw themself on him. That's unprofessional. Quickness and efficiency is here the key, not brutish force. And they should have reacted faster. Heck, that guy was basically surrounded by security forces. Did they dream or what?

 

I genuinely don't mean this in a disrespectful way, because there's no real reason why your awareness should be any better. However, you seem to be thinking in terms more appropraite to Hollywood than real life. I've witnessed stabbings and also am fairly well aware of how the Secret Service operate (from books ). There's often a big delay while everyone tries to work out just what the hell is going on. That's going to be especially true when an attack is ambiguous as throwing a shoe. The guards will be thinking 'was that a bomb?' Then there will be apause while they work out it hasn't exploded. Then they have to work out who threw it. Then everyone jumps forward because basically everyone has similar thinking speeds, and are working off the same cues. The use of overwhelming force will be justified firstly because if you are going to act you have to be certain. It's also justified if you think the guy might be carrying a suicide device and you need to get as much meat on top of him as possible to protect the principal.

[taks]

exactly. that's why the reasoned response from us is "this guy is still alive? wow!"

 

if anyone thinks that things would have been different for any other leader in the world they are truly blinded by their ideology. it just ain't so. it's just that it is bush, and the media loves him so, and we get knee-jerk reactions from all the ideologues that simply hate bush.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

I'd like to remind everyone that I still think George Bush is a jackass. I just don't see being a jackass as being incompatible with not being satan.

[Gfted1]

I'd have given props to Bush if he'd been hit by the shoe and responded by quoting Austin Powers from the first film: "That really hurt! I'm gonna have a lump there, you idiot! Who throws a shoe? Honestly! You fight like a woman!"

 

That would have been awesome.

 

Too bad he was too quick so we'll never know what he'd have done had he been hit.

 

He does seem to have been wearing his Ring of Shoe Avoidance +5. Ive seen a still picture of him already mid-duck while the shoe has just left the reporters hand.

[SteveThaiBinh]

It seems al-Zaidi is being prepared for a criminal prosection: Link.

 

Of course, they may simply hold him for a few days and release him.

 

I wonder what would have happened if he'd thrown a shoe at Bush while in Britain. Most likely he would have been held by police overnight and questioned at the very least, but I doubt the Crown Prosecution Service would want to pursue such a divisive court case. It would be a real circus.

[Kelverin]

A world leader faces attempted assault and the assailant is hurt during the process?

 

Governments use interrogation and torture on prisoners?

 

 

[Walsingham]

It seems al-Zaidi is being prepared for a criminal prosection: Link.

 

Of course, they may simply hold him for a few days and release him.

 

I wonder what would have happened if he'd thrown a shoe at Bush while in Britain. Most likely he would have been held by police overnight and questioned at the very least, but I doubt the Crown Prosecution Service would want to pursue such a divisive court case. It would be a real circus.

 

Wasn't Prime Minister John Major hit with eggs? I think you tend to get an official caution and perhaps bound over to keep the peace (trans: don't let us catch you ****ing about for a while)

[Wrath of Dagon]

Very little of what the federal government does is actually constitutional, starting with the Supreme Soviet, er, I mean Federal Reserve as an example. Of course to decide to actually follow the constitution at this point would cause complete havoc, that's why there's a principle of stare decisis (yes, I watched the entire Robert Bork hearing). As far as foreign policy, what you have to realize is there are two overriding principles in foreign relations 1) Might makes right and 2) Whose ox got gored. You can whine and complain and bellyache all you want, but that's just a fact. The rest of the world is just lucky it's US that has the might right now, not a couple of other countries I can think of. If they did, you'd find out what murder, torture and repression really mean.

[taks]

yes, we'd all be saying either "hail, comrade" or "seig heil" a lot more often.

 

taks

[taks]

I'd like to remind everyone that I still think George Bush is a jackass. I just don't see being a jackass as being incompatible with not being satan.

i'm none too fond of him, either, and his socialist ways of dealing with the current recession have me really ticked off. if i were to look for a satan* in the world of politics, i wouldn't be looking for someone half of everyone hated. satan's gonna come across a lot more charismatic and likable than bush has ever been. i'm not even sure conservatives really like bush, they just disliked kerry and gore more.

 

taks

 

*not that i really believe in a biblical/religious satan.

[Walsingham]

You can whine and complain and bellyache all you want, but that's just a fact. The rest of the world is just lucky it's US that has the might right now, not a couple of other countries I can think of. If they did, you'd find out what murder, torture and repression really mean.

 

WTF? Surely the signal feature of succesful US foreign policy has been that might does NOT make right. Right builds might.

 

Now if you wanted to say that right without might is as pointless as a bulbless torch then I'd be right with you.

 

I think this is germaine because I think there's a lot to criticise about the Bush administration, even if you don't agree with footwear hurling. But I also think that whatever those faults there's much to be said for elements of his policy. Foremost of these is that we've seen two fascist dictatorships ousted in the face of considerable corrupt opposition. Moreover, while he's been a slow learner he has allowed institutional change in the Pentagon and State Department, changes that have seen improvements in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran.

 

As a further point, can you name me a politician in teh history of mankind who didn't have at least one person who'd be willing to chuck a sandal at him?

[taks]

WTF? Surely the signal feature of succesful US foreign policy has been that might does NOT make right. Right builds might.

i think his point was more along the lines of "he who wields the might" referring to how we would define "right" were the might in the hands of another, less benign, entity such as the former soviet union or hitler's third reich.

 

As a further point, can you name me a politician in teh history of mankind who didn't have at least one person who'd be willing to chuck a sandal at him?

hmmm... nope.

 

taks

[Wrath of Dagon]

Now if you wanted to say that right without might is as pointless as a bulbless torch then I'd be right with you.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Of course US tries to do the right thing, I didn't mean to suggest we should do whatever we feel like, but without power that would be irrelevant.

 

Edit: @taks, yes, except I had more contemporary rival powers in mind.

Edited December 16, 2008 by Wrath of Dagon