Unsavory and Shifty Ingrates

by Eric Martin

In response to the recent shoe-throwing incident in Iraq, many Iraq war supporters - and the President himself - will attempt to dismiss the thrower, Muntazer al-Zaidi, as an outlier, an exception, an "attention" seeker (to paraphrase Bush), with the rule being a generally grateful Iraqi populace.  Jonah Goldberg called al-Zaidi, an "unsavory Muslim or Arab." 

Kathryn Jean Lopez quotes Michael Totten, who sought to set the record straight: "I have briefly met many Iraqi journalists in Baghdad. They seem like decent people, for the most part, and are not as shifty as many other civilians I encounter."  What effusive praise.  Iraq journalists: not as shifty as most Iraqi civilians.  With the exception of Zaidi, of course.

However, as news reports confirm that al-Zaidi has become a cause celebre in Iraq - and the wider Muslim world - by virtue of his defiance of Bush, it will be harder and harder to paint him as some lone slinger.  At that point, the mood in Iraq war/Bush booster circles will most likely shift to Andy McCarthy-type outrage at the lack of appreciation for all that Bush has done to help the Iraqi people.  Already, there is a popular meme cropping up that al-Zaidi only enjoyed the freedom to hurl his shoe by virtue of America's invasion, and that under Saddam al-Zaidi would have been executed for this act.

This bit of gloss on America's neo-imperial endeavor is little more than a thinly applied sheen on an otherwise grotesque affair.  The sentimentalists insisting that US policy in Iraq has been guided by some altruistic democratization impulses should cease the self-delusion or, if they be more cynical, the attempt to delude others about the driving forces of our foreign policy.  Rather, it is essential to the crafting of future policy that we make an honest, full reckoning of our past policies vis-a-vis Iraq. In this way, we can begin to appreciate the sentiment behind al-Zaidi's act, his act's popularity and the continuing resentment of all those "ingrates" in Iraq.  And elsewhere.  And how to begin the long process of attempting to repair the damage. 

First, we must appreciate why it is we are in Iraq, and what led us there.  Alan Greenspan summed it up rather succinctly in a rare moment of honesty, stating "the Iraq War is largely about oil."  Oil and, importantly, the ability to establish a large and "enduring" (not permanent!) American military presence in the middle of the largest oil producing region in the world (and the relocation of certain military assets outside of Saudi Arabia).  Ted Koppel appealed to a brand of common sense that conflicts with romanticized notions of American excetionalism:

Keeping oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf and through the Strait of Hormuz has been bedrock American foreign policy for more than a half-century. [...]

If those considerations did not enter into the Bush administration's calculations when the president ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2003, it would have been the first time in more than 50 years that the uninterrupted flow of Persian Gulf oil was not a central element of American foreign policy. 

For some, also, there was the need to show the world after 9/11 that we were still a force to be reckoned with.  Jonah Goldberg termed it the "Ledeen Doctrine":

Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business. 

Or as Thomas Friedman put it, the need to attack some Muslim country (Iraq mostly because it was easiest) in order to tell the Muslim world to "Suck. On. This."  For others still, removing Saddam was seen as an important step in ensuring Israel's security for decades to come (a long held goal for the PNAC crowd that only morphed into concern about WMD and al-Qaeda after 9/11). 

While there was a conscious decision to use the vague term "WMD" (backed up with blatant "mushroom cloud" and al-Qaeda links duplicity), as the means to sell the war to the public, the record shows that the Bush administration showed far less interest in gauging Iraq's actual WMD capacity or ties to al-Qaeda as it did in hyping what little evidence there was.  The decision to invade was made early on, regardless of the potential findings of inspectors on the ground in Iraq. Upon finding no WMD in Iraq despite following every lead provided by the US government, those inspectors were removed from the theater to clear the way for shock and awe.

Those that supported the Iraq war for democratization purposes were certainly the minority in the Bush administration, and even many of the supposed proponents conceived of democracy very narrowly: government by US viceroy for many years, followed by - or in conjunction with - the installation of US friendly clients such as Ahmad Chalabi.  Even to this day, declarations by the democratically elected, and ostensibly "sovereign" Iraqi government, are dismissed cavaliarly by many in the democratization set.

Whether or not the flypaper theory was part of the calculus before the invasion, or just a convenient ex post facto rationalization, war supporters from the President and Vice President down have repeated the argument that by virtue of the invasion, and maintenance of troops in Iraq, we can attract al-Qaeda and other extremists to Iraq and "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here."  Just today Bush reiterated this point:

Bush: There have been no attacks since I have been president, since 9/11. One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take ...

Raddatz: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

Bush: Yeah, that's right. So what?

So what?  Really?  I imagine some Iraqis might, you know, care that their country was turned into bait to lure combatants.  Maybe anger at this was part of what led al-Zaidi to make his protest, the same way such anger led this Iraqi to vent at one of Bush's earlier recitations of this rationle:

There was one sentence in what [Bush] said that really provoked me and made me feel disgusted. I was about to throw the ash tray at the TV when he said "to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy." how dare he say that? He brought these enemies to our country and now he wants to fight them there? to keep Americans safe?!! Is it on the expense of innocent people?! Is it on the expense of destroying and dividing an entire country to make Americans safe?! I consider every American supporting him in that is selfish and mean and blood thirsty. Think of the bread you are eating and compare it to the blood-mixed bread Iraqis are eating. Think of the children crying when they hear an explosion. Think of the pregnant who lost their babies because they were unable to reach the hospital. Think of those deprived from their education. All of this is happening because his majesty believes in "taking the fight to the enemy" so that you become safe and we become the bait in which he could catch "terrorists" with.

Ah, but he wouldn't have been able to write about such callousness in Saddam's Iraq!

Which of these rationales does the reader suppose most Iraqis put stock in?  Are there not valid reasons for Iraqis to doubt the selflessness of our motives?

Regardless of the motivation for our invasion of Iraq, the fact remains that we have either wrought, or set in motion a series of events that have led to, immense destruction and loss of life.  Aside from the loss/disruption of vital services, enormous psychological trauma, 2 million internal and 2 million external refugees created, and countless maiming injuries, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have lost their lives as a result of the invasion. 

In large part due to dearth of images of Iraqi dead appearing in our media, the number of dead retreats to the realm of sterile abstraction for many Americans.  It is hard to grasp just what that body count entails.  But if we do not confront the full breadth of the carnage, we will not understand the anger represented by al-Zaidi's acts.  A story about body parts to help those incapable of empathy:

At the morgue.

We were asked to send the next of kin to whom the remains of my nephew, killed on Monday in a horrific explosion downtown, can be handed over. [...]

When we got there, we were given his remains. And remains they were. From the waist down was all they could give us. “We identified him by the cell phone in his pants’ pocket. If you want the rest, you will just have to look for yourselves. We don’t know what he looks like.”

Now begins a horror that surpasses anything I could have possibly envisioned. We were led away, and before long a foul stench clogged my nose and I retched. With no more warning we came to a clearing that was probably an inside garden at one time; all round it were patios and rooms with large-pane windows to catch the evening breeze Baghdad is renowned for. But now it had become a slaughterhouse, only instead of cattle, all around were human bodies. On this side; complete bodies; on that side halves; and EVERYWHERE body parts.

We were asked what we were looking for, “upper half” replied my companion, for I was rendered speechless. “Over there.” We looked for our boy’s broken body between tens of other boys’ remains’; with our bare hands sifting them and turning them.

We found him millennia later, took both parts home, and began the mourning ceremony.

For those that still insist that Iraqis are insufficiently greatful for our magnanimity, I would suggest a brief perusal of this miniscule sampling of images of dead and injured Iraqi children.  Now multiply that by the thousands.  Perhaps those images of children in various states of violence will help to inform those that think that al-Zaidi should just be thankful that he lives in a country in which he can throw a shoe at the leader that unleashed such unthinkable bloodshed on his country in the name of narrow US interests. 

Even if Bush's intentions were entirely noble (for the sake of a tenuous argument), it should be easy to understand why al-Zaidi would want to assail the bricklayer that paved the road to hell.

Comments

[russell]

That's the basic fact an the sooner certain people accept that the better.

Yes, it is a basic fact. I'm not sure anyone was arguing to the contrary.

This post is just one big red herring, you think by invoking the hated names of McCarthy, Lopez and Goldberg you can negate the fact that Saddam would have had Zaidi taken out back and shot?

Do you think that, because al Zaidi can throw his shoes at George Bush without automatically facing a painful death, that Iraqis are therefore not going to be bloody pissed off because their country was invaded, occupied, and reduced to rubble?

Half my family's dead and the other half have fled the country, my cousin had holes drilled in his head, and for the last six years I've been afraid to go buy a loaf of bread because I could be blown up, grabbed off the street and murdered, or shot by a Blackwater security detail for not stopping my car quickly enough.

But hooray, I can throw my shoes at George Bush, and only have the shit beaten out of me for it.

The point of the post is that, Saddam or no Saddam, many Iraqis are really angry that we invaded their country. Further, they have many good reasons to be.

That's a basic fact, and the sooner certain people accept it the better.

Thanks -

[russell]

Yglesias gets it.

h/t Atrios.

Thanks -

[bc]

(OTTH, while I admire your stamina Dave – you’re tilting at windmills on this site.)

Can I make one more call for a conservative poster . . . :) The need for one is directly proportional, IMHO, to the number of "great post" comments to any particular post here at ObWi.

If you'd told me that his actions would get two thirds of a million more Iraquis killed (by the estimate of the Lancet) than leaving Saddam Hussein in power

While I agree with many of the arguments in the post and comments here, this cause and effect argument is where I diverge. How does one explain Iraqi Kurdistan? If Bush is the sole cause of death post-Hussein, why didn't it happen in all of Iraq?

I understand the argument that Hussein was the bulwark against the simmering hatred between Shia and Sunni. And I get that it's not that simple and third parties came in as a result of U.S. presence, etc. etc. And I am sensitive to the death and destruction that happened post-invasion and it influences my opinion greatly.

But I don't see placing the entire blame on Bush for the consequences of actions that were motivated primarily, IMHO, by ages-old hatred. And that's why I think a discussion of why Iraqi Kurdistan is different is helpful. I don't think the shoe thrower was representative of that part of Iraq. And if not, it says a lot about the causes and effect of the death and destruction in the rest of Iraq.

That being said, I can see why an Iraqi reporter would be upset at the U.S. While I have my doubts about whether this particular reporter is representative, I get that.

[Eric Martin]

But I don't see placing the entire blame on Bush for the consequences

That's why I don't.

[Jesurgislac]

Do you think that, because al Zaidi can throw his shoes at George Bush without automatically facing a painful death

Do you think al Zaidi does not face a painful death? He has been sent to Camp Cropper, where Iraqis are still being tortured to death.

It's possible he has become so high-profile a prisoner that he may have to be released - but given the continuity planned for US military authority in Iraq even after Bush ceases to be President, and given that even high profile prisoners have been murdered in the US gulags, I think that while he may get away with what he did - it's entirely possible that he won't.

[Tony P.]

Can I make one more call for a conservative poster . . . :)

I will second that, in the hope that I can finally figure out
what "conservative" means.

--TP

[russell]

Do you think al Zaidi does not face a painful death?

I was extending the benefit of the doubt.

I agree that, whatever might have happened otherwise, he's so visible at this point that they'll have to release him. Or at least limit his punishment to reasonable jail time.

But we'll see.

Thanks -

[bc]

Tony P.:

And thus the need for a conservative poster! (err, or was that a comment on my comments? Am I too obtuse, nonsensical, etc.?)

[Eric Martin]

bc, Tony, ddddave:

Do you have any suggestions?

We've reached out to some already, with little success.

Seems most are either too busy or drifting away from blogs altogether.

That being said, I think I speak for the posters here when I say that we would like to add such a conservative voice.

[cleek]

what kind of conservative ?

you've got the
Rockefellers,
DixieCrats,
no-taxers,
libertarians

and then the
social- and fiscal- and
classic liberal,
and schmibertarians

don't miss the:
Randians,
and Burkeans,
Norquistas,
and invisible-handians,

authoritarians,
Republicanists,
movementarians and
fundamentalists!

[Eric Martin]

Norquistadors!

[Tony P.]

bc:

No, absolutely not a comment on your comments. More a snark at the notion that "conservative" is any more coherent a label than "liberal" is.

I mean, people who call themselves conservative tend to oppose both gay marriage and the estate tax. What's the unifying theme there?

--TP

[cleek]

Norquistadors

and Burkezerkers!

[Laura Vivanco]

The most recent update I've seen reports the following:

The Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at George Bush has been beaten in custody, his brother said today.

Muntadhar al-Zaidi suffered a broken hand, broken ribs, internal bleeding and an eye injury, his older brother, Dargham, told the BBC. He has since been handed over to the Iraqi judiciary, a step that normally heralds a criminal case. [...]

He could face charges of insulting a foreign leader and the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, who was standing next to Bush. The offence carries a maximum penalty of two years in jail. [...]

Dargham al-Zaidi said he believed his brother had been taken to a US military hospital in Baghdad. Despite many offers, his brother had not been given access to any lawyers since being arrested by forces under the command of Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, Iraq's national security adviser. (The Guardian)

[cleek]

here, let me fix that one up. it needs to scan a little better...

you've got the...

Rockefellers,
DixieCrats,
no-taxers,
libertarians

classical liberal,
social, fiscal,
religious,
schmibertarians

Randians,
and Burkeans,
Norquistas,
movementarians

Reaganites,
Birchers,
and Smith's invisible-handians!

(better)

[Eric Martin]

Norquistadors

and Burkezerkers

and Randanistas!

[bedtimeforbonzo]

For what it's worth, I think d'd'd'dave has engaged here and in other posts in good faith.

Expressing a minority or even mixed-up view does not make one a troll.

Also, I am fine with the Iraqi citizen's act of civil disobedience. It's sad that Bush can't see that he is unpopular in Iraq (he'd have to see that first before he could even begin to understand why), but 43 may be the least sophisticated president we have ever had.

What I am not fine with is condoning this guy's action in a press-conference setting where, presumably, he was a credentialed journalist; as such, he broke one of the profession's most basic tenets, becoming the story and, obviously, shedding whatever hint of objectivity he had.

One other thing I have not seen much talk of here is what seemed to be very lax security.

I laughed the first time I saw the video replay yesterday morning. But the more I saw it when I got home from work I saw nothing funny about the incident: George Bush may be our worst president ever, but he is our president, and his safety is still important.

(Thullen: Anthony Quinn chewed up so much scenery in "Lawrence," my favorite movie ever, that there wasn't any left by the end. The scene he has with the idealist Shariff in the legislative building when he lets young Omar know what's what in the real world is very poignant. Nevertheless, I'd like to think Shariff's character went on to be a good pol.)

[bedtimeforbonzo]

It was hard to make the remark about the U.S. president's safety without sounding pollyannish, but I thought it should be made.

[bc]

As opposed to:

Kennedys,
Obamabots,
Pacifists,
Unitarians,

Flaming liberal,
social, fiscal,
religious,
contravertarians,

Trotskyites,
and Leninites,
Sandinistas,
communitarians

Clintonites,
Muirers,
and Marxist firm-handians!

[bedtimeforbonzo]

bc: I never thought Clintonites were as liberal as they were made out to be.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

As opposed to:

Emma Goldman.

[Hob]

Well, if nearly everyone else sees good faith in d'd'd'd's comments, I guess there must be something of value there for nearly everyone else and I'll stop complaining about him - right after I finish this comment.

I still don't see how a good-faith argument can include repeatedly saying that all the other commenters think George Bush is to blame for everything in the world, etc... let alone his first comment on this thread, a sarcastic tirade about what he thinks liberals think, which ended with "...those %&*#ing americans...why don't they just die." I've read this whole thread, and the others where he jumped in at the beginning with similar cheerful buckets of urine, and I haven't seen anything like an apology or backing down, or acknowledging that the motives of the other commenters might be what they say they are and not what he says they are. He just changes the subject at intervals, while everyone scrambles after the next straw man and tries really really hard to explain how they don't hate America. I understand the desire to have more people to disagree with here, but this kind of thing isn't a debate, it's more like Hannity vs. Colmes. It's a waste of time and there's an unpleasant edge to it.

Now I'll stop complaining, and y'all can go back to arguing with Dave.

[cleek]

As opposed to:...

right!

except that it's pretty tough to find (in real life, where Google isn't there to help) actual Trotskyites, Leninites, Sandinistas, communitarians, or Marxists in the US. nearly all of the critters in my version - with the possible exception of card-carrying Birchers - can be found in the current GOP congressional delegation.

[bc]

Cleek:

Point taken. But I was just having fun (as I assume you were) and "Howard Deanians" just sounded dorky.

And I don't think you can have Trotskyites without Leninites. Some rule there.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

Hob: "Good faith" may have been the wrong phrase. But if he believes what he believes, well, he believes it. Or something like that.

[Nell]

it's pretty tough to find ... actual Trotskyites, Leninites, Sandinistas, communitarians, or Marxists in the US.

Much less to find them in positions of influence in the Democratic Party, media, issue advocacy nonprofits, or even blogs.

Face it, bc, about the furthest point on the left side of center in the U.S. is sympathizers (of Sandinistas and some Marxists).

[Hogan]

One other thing I have not seen much talk of here is what seemed to be very lax security.

Because he got in with shoes on his feet?

I keep hearing this, but I haven't seen any evidence that the reporters didn't have to go through metal detectors, patdowns, and/or other kinds of screening before they got into this room; and I haven't seen any indoor presidential press conference where there were Secret Service agents among the reporters, poised to bring down anyone who made a funny move, which is what it would have taken to stop al-Zaidi in the act.

(In any case, I would think this is a situation where Bush doesn't want heavy and obvious security around him, since it undercuts the message he went all the way to Iraq to deliver: the Iraqis are in charge and everything's fine.)

[bedtimeforbonzo]

Hogan: Watching CNN last night, their security expert, Mike Brooks, said a Secret Service agent would normally be seated in the aisle on the right (why the right I don't know, and he did not say) in the second or third row.

If you watch the tape, the reaction time of the Iraqi reporter sitting in from of the shoe-thrower was faster than the agent near the front of the stage.

[d'd'd'dave]

//people who call themselves conservative tend to oppose both gay marriage and the estate tax.//

I guess I don't qualify. I'm for gay marriage and the estate tax.

[russell]

"Howard Deanians" just sounded dorky.

I believe the proper term is "Yeeaarghers".

Thanks -

[Jesurgislac]

I'm for gay marriage and the estate tax.

Damn you for not being a conservative stereotype. *makes tea*

[cleek]

Point taken. But I was just having fun...

do i need to turn down my defense-o-matic ?

gulp. scary things could get in!

[The Crafty Trilobite]

There's a point when it becomes difficult to separate the message from the messenger.

Or, apparently, one messenger from another. Even if they're from different countries, or some are imaginary.

At the top of this thread, for example, you conjoined an actual quote from an Iraqi about recovering half of his nephew from a mound of body parts, with strawman liberal rants.

I wouldn't have thought it was hard not to confuse the two. I also disagree that it is at all difficult to refrain from random accusations, or putting words in peoples' mouths. It takes very little effort or thought. If you could not manage it in daily life, you would probably have been beaten to death long since. But you don't do it here. Why that is, I don't know, nor do I care. But if you do, you might try harder. Or, you know, at all.

Alternatively, if you just want to yell at imaginary librul voices in your head, could you kindly do it somewhere else?

[bedtimeforbonzo]

Eric:

I don't know if you could get him. But I think Philadelphia's Michael Smerconish is an open-minded conservative voice who might work well here.

Since you live in the Philadelphia media market, too, hairshirthedontist, what do you think?

[bedtimeforbonzo]

More Smerconish.

[KCinDC]

I think Smerconish's full-throated defense of torture -- including things beyond waterboarding -- on "Hardball" today would put him beyond the pale for discussions here. He was absolutely disgusting, specifically disclaiming any need to be bound by the Geneva Conventions, and essentially agreed with Chris Matthews's characterization of his position as "Any goes as long as you're American."

[bedtimeforbonzo]

Did not see that, KC.

I wanted to at least throw a name out there -- since Eric asked for suggestions.

I think that would be one of the problems finding a so-called conservative voice -- namely, would he or she "fit in" here?

Or should that be a qualifier?

Anyhow, the more I thought about it, the more I saw Smerconish as too "commercial" for our little piece of the internet here.

FWIW, I think those folks who don't think waterboarding is torture should try it themselves. Saw the movie "Rendition" the other night -- and, yes, it was just a movie -- but the whole thing was quite jarring.

[Eric Martin]

btfb:

We'd be looking for conservatives like Larison, Joyner, Djerejian, Drezner and Douthat.

But none of them are on the market as it were.

But using those as a guide, that's the type of outlook we'd be gunning for.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

Speaking of conservative commentators, I just read this link over at Balloon Juice.

[OCSteve]

But none of them are on the market as it were.

Certainly not if they spent 10 minutes reading comments… I can’t imagine why anyone would want to argue for days with 99% of the commentariot after every single post.

It’s probably up to us handful of rightwing death mongers who hang around here to recruit more conservative commenters first. Get the ratio up to something like 90/10 and maybe someone would take it on.

But otherwise let’s just all face it – ObWi has become (almost) strictly a left of center community.

[Slartibartfast]

people who call themselves conservative tend to oppose both gay marriage and the estate tax

I'm conservative, but I voted against the Florida constitutional marriage amendment, even if you might think that I did so for the wrong reasons. I tend to oppose social-justice taxes, though. IMPLODE, UNIVERSE!

I don't think you'll find that all conservatives are against ALL estate taxes; some simply have a different default setting in mind than you do.

Shorter me: we tend to be more complex than is convenient for stereotyping, pretty much like members of any other group.

[Tony P.]

It’s probably up to us handful of rightwing death mongers who hang around here to recruit more conservative commenters first. Get the ratio up to something like 90/10 and maybe someone would take it on.

For some reason, I am reminded of the only marketing joke I ever heard.

Two shoe manufacturers each send a trade rep to a poor, backward country. Company A's rep sends back a telegram: "Nobody here wears shoes. Am coming home." Company B's rep sends back a telegram: "Nobody here wears shoes. Send more samples."

--TP

[Jadegold]

There should be plenty of conservative commentators available after 20 Jan 09. I'm sure they'd be eager to polish up the legacy of Republican hero, George Bush.

Then we'd really get the scoop on Obama's birth certificate and issues that concern GOPers.

[russell]

ObWi has become (almost) strictly a left of center community.

You, triple-d, slarti, bc, seb, von. That's six.

Did I miss anyone?

So, if there are sixty regular commenters here (which is possible), that ratio is about right.

I'd say you all more than make up for your short numbers with the quality of your work.

Thanks -

[Slartibartfast]

russell, thanks, but...um...I think you unfairly underestimate yourself and and the rest of the regulars that are not part of the Dirty Half-Dozen.

[russell]

I think you unfairly underestimate yourself

I was trying to think of regulars who are more or less conservative.

Am I on that list now? Some days I can't figure it out myself. :0

Thanks -

[Jesurgislac]

russell: I'd say you all more than make up for your short numbers with the quality of your work.

I'd agree to that.

[243]

OCSteve: I can’t imagine why anyone would want to argue for days with 99% of the commentariot after every single post.

I've been reading this blog since its inception, and I rarely direct my occasional comments towards the conservative posters because enough other people do, and often more succinctly, and because they just don't need the piling on that results. I truly appreciate the effort that is expended even if I fail to fully understand the viewpoints expressed

It’s probably up to us handful of rightwing death mongers who hang around here to recruit more conservative commenters first. Get the ratio up to something like 90/10 and maybe someone would take it on.

How about posting a want ad on the front page:

Wanted: Conservative commentator to engage with largely liberal audience. This is your chance to show them the error of their ways. Thick skin required!

[Gary Farber]

"The security detail should have cut him down in a hail of lead regardless of whomever else got caught in the crossfire. That's the way it's supposed to work."

This is complete nonsense. No attempted presidential assassin has ever been "cut... down... in a hail of lead." Neither should security agents be firing weapons into a crowd of people. This is only the way it's supposed to work on tv.

"...because next time it might be a shoe bomb, grenade, god knows what sort of lethal concealed weapon."

All the people in the room were screened. The best I can figure the guy might have had was a plastic knife in his show; he might have been able to stab Bush, perhaps in the eye, if he had comic-book level aim and ability. In real life, the odds of this happening are... well, we've all seen the video.

[Gary Farber]

"I conclude based on news reports that downtown bombs are generally land based on aerial."

I can't figure out what this is intended to mean; sorry.

"So, yeah, i'm fairly confident that my statement, 'Most downtown explosions in Baghdad have been suicide bombings by arabs against arabs rather than bombings from american aircraft', is true."

Sorry, I'm not following: where are you getting your figures on numbers of suicide bombings vs. number of aerial bombs from? Even approximately? Even for a vague guess, what's your source for how many bombs we've dropped in the city of Baghdad since, say, 2004?

"A farrago of half-literate strawmen, ending with the insulting insinuation that critics of American foreign policy wish Americans dead. If anything, troll' is a bit kind."

"Troll" does not, in fact, mean "someone I completely disagree with" or "someone I think is ignorant."

"This post is just one big red herring, you think by invoking the hated names of McCarthy, Lopez and Goldberg you can negate the fact that Saddam would have had Zaidi taken out back and shot?"

No, the point is that since when does America care to judge itself against the standard of what someone like Saddam Hussein would do? This is the "at least we're better than Hitler/Stalin/Mao!" argument, when the point is that of course we're not. Or supposed to be not. What is this supposed to prove? That we're not that evil? Aren't we supposed to have just slightly higher benchmarks?

"He's clearly playing 'come see the liberals and poke them with a stick and watch them argue with me,' and y'all are obliging."

That's up to individual choices, innit?

"If Bush is the sole cause of death post-Hussein, why didn't it happen in all of Iraq?"

Did someone make this claim in this thread?

"...but 43 may be the least sophisticated president we have ever had"

I have to speak up for, for instance, Andrew Jackson, and Warren Harding, among others. In the modern age one can't help but be far more worldly and sophisticated than Warren bloody Harding.

"Nevertheless, I'd like to think Shariff's character went on to be a good pol"

For the record, Faisal, Alec Guiness's character, was real, but he didn't make it for very long as first King of Syria and then King of Iraq.

The Ali character, on the other hand, was a composite; there was no single Arab leader friend who hung out with Lawrence that consistently.

Incidentally, thy mother mated with a scorpion.

"I still don't see how a good-faith argument can include repeatedly saying that all the other commenters think George Bush is to blame for everything in the world, etc..."

There's no contradiction between being dopey and acting in good faith.