Boot To The Head! Shoes Thrown At Bush During Iraq News Conference

I just caught this in passing but it looks like an Iraqi reporter went apeshit during a joint news conference in Iraq with George W. Bush and Nouri Al-Maliki and threw his shoes at the President. Both shoes misssed as Bush ducked. Video to follow as soon as I can find it.

UPDATE: Here's the link to the BBC video. No embedding yet.

So, I know that lame duck Georgie has been phoning it in for the last couple of months, but where the fuck was Secret Service? The guy got two shoes off! And the President? Impressively quick for a dry drunk.

UPDATE II: You gotta love Think Progress. Looks like Dana Perino took a shot in the eye from a microphone during the melee.



UPDATE III: Here's the Fox report. Better video, although I could've done without the last line of commentary. (The best quality video for viewing is the BBC link above.)




UPDATE IV (9:10pm): George W. Bush regarding the shoe incident:

"So what if the guy threw his shoe at me?" Bush told a reporter in response to a question about the incident.

"Let me talk about the guy throwing his shoe. It's one way to gain attention. It's like going to a political rally and having people yell at you. It's like driving down the street and having people not gesturing with all five fingers.

It's a way for people to draw attention. I don't know what the guy's cause is. But one thing is for certain. He caused you to ask me a question about it. I didn't feel the least bit threatened by it."

It never occured to him that this guy might have just as easily thrown a knife or a grenade. I'm not so sure of the security of the Green Zone in Iraq, but if Secret Service agents couldn't stop this guy from throwning not one, but two shoes, I'm going to venture to guess that reporters entering the Green Zone are probably not as thoroughly screened as they should be. I'm going to assume that after they enter the borders of the zone, they're going to have a false sense of security and not be on their toes.

George W. Bush: Douchebag of epic proprotions.

Lost In Translation

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki did not back the plan of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and his comments to a German magazine on the issue were misunderstood, the government's spokesman said on Sunday.

Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement that Maliki's remarks to Der Spiegel were translated incorrectly.

Uh... yeah. Is it possible that someone got a call from the White House? I'd comment on this myself but driftglass did such a good job of it, I'll just quote her:

Yes, this could simply be a translation error.

An un-fucking-believably gargantuan translation error where the microencephalic Babelfish that is apparently now being used for all such vital, nuanced, high-level translations got knee-walking drunk and just for goofs came back with "You can haz go now! All time leave now and sooner for to leave go home! Now! Now!" when what Prime Minister al-Maliki really said was "Please keep your troops in my country until my children's children's children are as old as John McSame!"

Yes, that is one possible explanation.

UPDATE (7/21/08 11:47pm): It seems the translation was accurate after all! The New York Times confirmed the story through a recording of the interview. Not to mention the fact that it was translated by Maliki's translator and not someone from the magazine.

Maliki: “Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”

“Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”

Of course, the McCain campaign, always being one step ahead, is still going with the mistranslation story. Oops. What a bunch of buffoons.

Checkmate?

Nouri al-Maliki: "So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias."

Maliki endorsement of Obama's 16-month withdrawal proposal is an admission from the Prime Minister of Iraq that they're ready to take over. Countless times you've heard the chickenhawks in the GOP say that we should leave when they ask us to leave. Seems like it's time to go.

You have to wonder what McCain's response will be to Maliki's statement. So far, all we've been hearing from the McCain campaign are crickets.

(H/T TPM & Cesca)

Spreading "Democracy" Throughout The Middle East

de·moc·ra·cy (noun) - government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

We've finally gotten a definition of "democracy" from the Bush administration.

NY TIMES: Iraq’s negotiations with the United States on a security agreement governing America’s long-term involvement in the country are at an impasse because America’s demands infringe upon Iraq’s sovereignty, the country’s prime minister said Friday.

....In a meeting with newspaper editors in Jordan, Mr. [Nuri Kamal al-] Maliki said the current draft of the agreement was unacceptable. “The American version of the agreement infringes hugely on the sovereignty of Iraq and this is something that we cannot ever accept,” he said.

And what is it, pray tell, that Georgie Porgie Puddin' Pie is asking that's making Nuri al-Miliki cry? Well, he'll be happy to tell you himself:

Mr. Maliki said there were four areas in which proposed versions of the agreement failed to give sufficient deference to Iraqi sovereignty.

“Iraq rejects Washington’s insistence on granting their forces immunity from Iraqi laws and courts,” he said. “We reject Washington’s demand to have a free hand in undertaking military operations without cooperation with the Iraqi government.”

He added: “We cannot give permission to the American forces independent right to arrest Iraqis or execute operations against terrorism. We cannot allow them to use the Iraqi skies and waters at all times.”

And that, my friends, seems to be what a free and democratic society is to the twisted rat-bastards in the White House. For all of their hullabaloo about "spreading democracy throughout the Middle East", it is absolutely clear that it isn't the same definition of democracy that the rest of the world understands. But we already knew that.

Question Everything

“Question everything. Learn something. Answer nothing.” - Euripides

Let's see what's been happening for the last couple of days, shall we?

The new Brownie: Mine Safety Czar Richard Stickler's credentials have come into question amid the Utah mine disaster that not only has failed to reach six trapped miners in its 15th day, but has also taken the lives of three of the nine rescue workers attempting to reach them.

"After his nomination was twice rejected by [a Republican led] Senate, President Bush gave Richard Stickler the mine safety job with a recess appointment."

Should we really be surprised by yet another Bush recess appointee's lack of competence? "Stickler used to be a mining executive who - according to various media reports - ran mines which had several fatalities and '...an incident rate that was often twice the national average.'"


White House misses subpoena deadline... again!: Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) revealed that the White House had missed its 2:30 PM deadline to turn over documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding legal justifications for the National Security Agency’s eavesdropping program. The Committee had already pushed back the original July 18 deadline twice after the White House requested more time.

During questioning, Sen. Leahy revealed that during the 109th Congress, they were about to issue subpoenas but that Vice President Cheney had barred then Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter from doing so. Great separation of powers we had during the Republican led Congress, huh?

Oh, by the way, Cheney is still claiming that his office is not part of the Executive Branch.


Another Category 5 Hurricane: Hurricane Dean hit the eastern coast of Mexico's Yucatan peninsula at 165 miles per hour. But don't worry, I'm sure global warming isn't to blame for the ever increasing force of hurricanes.

Sen. Levin wants Maliki out: After a three day trip to Jordan and Iraq, to view the effects of our "successful surge" first hand, Sen. Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has apparently found his gonads and called for the ouster of Iraq Prime Minister Norui al-Maliki.

"I hope the parliament will vote the Maliki government out of office and will have the wisdom to replace it with a less sectarian and more unifying prime minister and government," Levin said.

Of course, those who continue to march in lockstep with Bush and the Republican Party, seize upon any positive statements from lawmakers returning from Iraq to portray Democratic leaders as wedded to failure there while the Democratic Party grows increasingly divided over the war's progress.

At times, such statements have been clearly taken out of context. When Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) returned from Iraq and said, "We're making some measurable progress," the GOP declared that the Democratic leadership had splintered on the war. What Republicans left out was the rest of Durbin's remarks: "We cannot win this war militarily. We just can't send enough troops."

At this point, can you trust ANY Republican in office to actually be realistic or truthful?

Hagel on Face The Nation

Look everyone, an endangered species. A Republican! No, not the ones who are currently in the party. One who actually believes in fiscal responsibility and smaller government, and doesn't just say they do.

Sen. Chuck Hagel had plenty to say on Face The Nation this past Sunday including, "The party that I first voted for on top of a tank in the Mekong Delta in 1968 is not the party I see today, Bob. Fiscal responsibility, engagement with others, pro-trade, personal responsibility, less government--that's not who we are today. Parties should be the framework of philosophies and beliefs."

You can watch the video here.

Here's part of the transcript:

SCHIEFFER: The [Washington Post today] reports that when President Bush met with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki back on November 30th that Maliki gave him the following information. It was his plan. He said that he wanted no more US troops in Iraq, he wanted US troops in Baghdad to withdraw to the outskirts of the city and let the Iraqis take over in Baghdad, and he wanted other US troops to shift to the borders with Iran and Syria so they could concentrate on tracking down al-Qaeda. The president, we are told, said that he didn't think that would work, that it would cause Baghdad to just collapse into chaos. But frankly, that sounds like the recommendations that the Baker-Hamilton Commission reported back after studying this problem for about a year. What is your reaction to that?

Senator CHUCK HAGEL (Republican, Nebraska; Foreign Relations Committee): I think you're brief analysis is correct. It does include what the prime minister framed up for the president, if that story is correct. Very much the foundation of the 79 recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton report, which I supported, which I have said publicly and privately that I thought the administration should seize upon that, build upon that. Because first, it represents a diplomatic framework for dealing with, not just with the immediate problems in Iraq, but the future. In fact, the Iraqis were already doing this, reaching out the Iranians, reaching out to the Syrians. They've been to Damascus and Tehran. That is going forward. And I'm very happy, very pleased, because I think, in the end, some of us believe, I suspect Baker-Hamilton believe, that there is going to be--have to be a diplomatic resolution. That's going to include a diplomatic accommodation, but also a political accommodation within Iraq that's going to require some shifts. And what Maliki was talking about I think makes sense. In fact, the resolution that Senators Biden and Levin and Snow and I have put forward details, in some ways, and references, in general ways, exactly what you just talked about, exactly what supposedly Maliki told the president and is incorporated in the Baker-Hamilton report.

SCHIEFFER: So you think the president made a mistake here in not accepting some of these recommendations?

Sen. HAGEL: I've said that he has made a mistake. I think, for whatever reason, the advice he got was not very solid, because I have believed from the beginning, Bob, that the future of Iraq will be determined by the Iraqi people. We can help. For example, the territorial integrity of Iraq. That is something that we could do, to start helping seal off those western borders. That's what Maliki's talked about. We had a panel of four former retired four star generals before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week, various ideas and positions. But one of those generals said that this was a fool's errand to continue to put American troops in the middle of a sectarian civil war. I think Maliki was moving in the right direction. I hope he continues to move in the right direction. The future of Iraq is not going to be determined by American military. And, by the way, Generals Casey and Abizaid said this in open hearing in November. So I too found that front page story in The Washington Post both puzzling and also encouraging.
****************

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you this, senator. Vice President Cheney says this sort of thing [Congressional resolutions] undercuts the troops. What's your response?

Sen. HAGEL: Well, let me tell you this. I served in Vietnam in 1968. Others did, too--Jim Webb, John McCain, John Kerry, other members in the House. In 1968, when I was there with my brother, worst year, deaths, I would have welcomed the Congress of the United States to pay a little attention as to what was going on. I would have welcomed that. That is complete nonsense to say we're undercutting the support of the troops. What are we about?
We're Article I of the Constitution. We're a co-equal branch of government. Are we not to participate? Are we not to say anything? Are we not to register our sense of where we're going in this country on foreign policy?
****************
SCHIEFFER: The president says if we pull out, it would be chaos there. What do you think would happen if the president took your suggestions and we began to draw down troops?

Sen. HAGEL: ...We have right now anarchy in Iraq. We have disaster in Iraq. It's not getting better; it's getting worse. So to say somehow that, if we eventually leave there, it's going to be anarchy, no one wants a defeat. No one wants to put America or the Middle East in a worse situation. I've not heard of anybody doing that or wanting to do that. What we're trying to do is come up with a relevant, realistic approach bringing the partners in, letting Maliki do what he suggested to the president he'd do, and find a way out of the militarily committed peace of this. That's what Baker-Hamilton said. That's what I believe.
***************
Not bad for a real Republican. This government could do a lot of things if more politicians were like Hagel, putting aside their partisan labels and trying to figure out what works best for the country instead of what works best for them or their party.

So Much For Listening to His Commanders

Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon told reporters in a telephone conference call after a White House meeting that the president had told him and several other senators that the plan for 20,000 additional troops had originated with Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

Maliki had made commitments that the Iraqi government and military would take steps to strengthen security in exchange for more U.S. troops, Smith said.

Meanwhile, in a sane part of the world, "Tony Blair will make clear this week that Britain is not going to send more troops to Iraq even if the US pushes ahead with a 'surge' of 20,000 extra soldiers."