Iraqi Shoe-Gate: al-Maliki Lets Muntazar al-Zaidi Dangle

Public Relations Act of the Day: the release of a letter to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, purportedly from Muntazar al-Zaidi asking for a pardon for his "big and ugly act". Al-Maliki's spokesman was far from subtle in his presentation of the letter, which has not actually been seen by anyone: it seems that Yaseen Majid spoke "exclusively" to almost every major American and British news outlet.



Doing this, the al-Maliki Government has given itself flexibility in its handling of al-Zaidi. It can now claim kindness and compassion by approving a lenient sentence for assault by deadly shoes. On the other hand, as Majid make clear al-Maliki was "leaning toward allowing the Iraqi judicial system to determine [al-Zaidi's] fate", the Government can also watch as the journalist gets a long term in prison.

And there's a bonus. With its dramatic release of the "letter", the Government could get rid of those troubling allegations that al-Zaidi, who has still not been seen by family, friends, or lawyers, was beaten by Iraqi security forces. I could not find any mention this morning of al-Zaidi's isolation and possible injuries.

Breaking News: Letter from Muntazar al-Zaidi Asks for Leniency

See updates --- "Al-Maliki Lets Al-Zaidi Dangle" and "Iraqi Judge Says Muntazar Al-Zaidi Beaten"

CNN reports that Muntazar al-Zaidi has written to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to ask leniency for "the great ugly act I perpetrated" in throwing his shoes at President George Bush. According to the press spokesman for al-Maliki, al-Zaidi asked for the Prime Minister's "fatherly compassion".

According to al-Zaidi's brother, the case will come to trial next week.

*TRAGIC COMIC FOOTNOTE: Living up to its journalistic high standards, Fox News headlines the story, "Shoe-Tosser's Sole-Ful Apology".

Bush's Successful War on Terror: The Elephant Story

Speaking at the US Army War College yesterday, President Bush declared:

While there's room for an honest and healthy debate about the decisions I made -- and there's plenty of debate -- there can be no debate about the results in keeping America safe. Here at home, we've prevented numerous terrorist attacks.

That keep-the-faith statement reminds me of an incident a few years ago:

I was walking on the High Street in Birmingham, and I noticed a fellow, seated on the ground, snapping his fingers. I had to ask him why.

"Keeping. The. Elephants Away. Keeping the Elephants. Away," he said in time to his snapping.

"But," I interjected, "there aren't any elephants within a 1000 miles."

He kept snapping, "See. It. Works. See. It. Works."

One could put the point that there are other reasons why there hasn't been a repeat of 11 September 2001. For example, it might be that Al Qa'eda --- given the massive upsure in US security measures --- went for "softer" targets from Indonesia to Morocco to Kenya. It might be that "terrorists" had far more lucrative campaigns, in publicity and in targets, in the US-fostered turmoil in Iraq. It might be that "terrorism", far from being a centrally-directed campaign against the US, was more a case of local and regional movements pursuing local and regional operations. And it might be because, with a range of co-operative measures --- measures that weren't necessarily led by the Bushian approach of rendition and torture --- other countries were able to curb terrorist planning.

Indeed, one might consider that Spain hasn't had a significant terrorist attack since March 2004: was this because Spain pursued illegal surveillance, detention, and torture? Or how about the UK since 7 July 2005? France, Holland, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, etc., etc. haven't had an attack at all during the Bush years: was this because they accepted his extra-legal  methods?

I doubt, however, that any of this will concern the President. Because the way he's framed his cause-and-effect argument, he's in a no-lose situation. Consider: if there was a terrorist attack on the US in the next 35 days, would Bush follow his logic and say that it was because his "any means necessary" approach had failed? Or would he and his remaining supporters simply assert that, in the wake of such an attack, the need for surveillance/detention/torture is only reinforced?

A Farewell Song for George Bush: "You Took Advantage of a World That Loved You Well"

For a long time, this was the unofficial anthem of our big-sibling website, Libertas. It's not as well-known as the artist's "Hallelujah" or his tribute to Judy Garland, but it's just as powerful:

[youtube]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dUIsQo4K70Y[/youtube]

See all the Farewell Song contest entrants

Iraqi Ambassador Reassures Muntazar al-Zaidi: "These are the Fruits of Freedom"

The Iraqi Ambassador to the US, Samir Sumaida'ie, encounters CODEPINK activists and their signs ("Free al-Zaidi" and "Al-Zaidi Speaks for Me") during a presentation. He explains to them why the treatment and possible 15-year jail sentence of Al-Zaidi is justified.

It is because Al-Zaidi insulted George Bush. (No word from the Ambassador on whether any Iraqis might have felt "insulted" by George Bush over the last 5 1/2 years.) Thank goodness, the Ambassador added, he didn't do this when Saddam Hussein was around:

Everybody gets the fruits of freedom. Even those who don't know how to handle them.

[youtube]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ElEN4i2V9v8[/youtube]