"Look at the National Endowment for the Arts as a prototype," he told the Los Angeles Times. "Here's a piddling little organization -- about $100 million budget out of a $2 trillion budget -- and rather inconsequential in national significance. Republicans surely could have been able to shut that down given the fact that it had offended many, many people with the kind of art it had subsidized.Actually, he was pretty successful by Washington standards. Congress voted to zero out the NEA...and even George Bush hasn't dared try to restore NEA appropriations to the high levels of the 1990s. That's thanks to Weyrich, I'm sure.
"But the culture overwhelmed the political process," he added. "Why? Because upper-crust, suburban Republican women in the districts of Republican congressmen defended the filth."
Paul Weyrich's impact on the national stage is well known. In 2007 when I was doing research on the so-called "Christianists" for my book Religion of Peace?, I found paranoid Leftist writers referring to him as the "most powerful man in America." He wasn't, but his influence in advancing the wisdom of protecting individual freedom and limited government in an age of encroaching statism and collectivism cannot be calculated.I think one reason the Post gave Weyrich good play was that he was what he was...he was also good copy. Washington will miss him.
Paul Weyrich was also one of the first and foremost American public figures to see through the "Islam is a Religion of Peace" deception that spread through the nation from President Bush and others after 9/11. In 2002 he named me an Adjunct Fellow of the Free Congress Foundation and asked me to write a series of monographs on Islam: An Introduction to the Qur'an; Women and Islam; An Islamic Primer; Islam and the West; The Islamic Disinformation Lobby; Islam vs. Christianity; and Jihad in Context. The perspective I expounded in them was just as unpopular with the conservative (and of course liberal) mainstream then as it is now, but Paul was undeterred by that; he was determined to defend the West and present the truth. He even arranged for me to address the Council for National Policy in New York, where fantasies and deceptions arising from political correctness and realpolitik usually rule the day.
Paul Weyrich taught me a great deal, by word and by example -- about how to deal both personally and professionally with the slanders and smears that are a daily aspect of this work (although I've not always lived up to his example in this); about how to avoid discouragement and keep on fighting no matter what the odds are, and about much more. He was an extraordinarily kind and genial man, a stark contrast in person to the vicious caricatures of him purveyed by those who feared and hated him.
Dec. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Canadian investor Victor Dahdaleh, facing a U.S. federal probe of allegations that he helped Alcoa Inc. defraud a Bahrain government-controlled metals company, is among donors who gave as much as $5 million to former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation.
The U.S. Justice Department in March said it was investigating claims in a lawsuit by Aluminum Bahrain BSC, which said Dahdaleh acted as a middleman for bribes that helped Alcoa overcharge the Bahrain company by as much as $975 million for alumina, used in aluminum manufacturing.
Dahdaleh’s dispute with Bahrain -- home of the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet and an anti-terrorism ally -- shows how entanglements by Bill Clinton’s financial backers may pose headaches for Hillary Clinton as the New York senator seeks confirmation as President-elect Barack Obama’s secretary of state.
“It certainly creates a couple of extra hurdles for the Obama administration,” said Joel Rosenthal, president of New York’s Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs.
The administrations of George W. Bush have virtually assured such a displacement by catastrophically throwing the country off balance, both politically and financially, while breaking the nation's sword in an inconclusive seven-year struggle against a ragtag enemy in two small bankrupt states. Their one great accomplishment -- no subsequent attacks on American soil thus far -- has been offset by the stunningly incompetent prosecution of the war. It could be no other way, with war aims that inexplicably danced up and down the scale, from "ending tyranny in the world," to reforging in a matter of months (with 130,000 troops) the political culture of the Arabs, to establishing a democracy in Iraq, to only reducing violence, to merely holding on in our cantonments until we withdraw.
This confusion has come at the price of transforming the military into a light and hollow semi-gendarmerie focused on irregular warfare and ill-equipped to deter the development and resurgence of the conventional and strategic forces of China and Russia, while begging challenges from rivals or enemies no longer constrained by our former reserves of strength. For seven years we failed to devise effective policy or make intelligent arguments for policies that were worth pursuing. Thus we capriciously forfeited the domestic and international political equilibrium without which alliances break apart and wars are seldom won.
The pity is that the war could have been successful and this equilibrium sustained had we struck immediately, preserving the link with September 11th; had we disciplined our objective to forcing upon regimes that nurture terrorism the choice of routing it out with their ruthless secret services or suffering the destruction of the means to power for which they live; had we husbanded our forces in the highly developed military areas of northern Saudi Arabia after deposing Saddam Hussein, where as a fleet in being they would suffer no casualties and remain at the ready to reach Baghdad, Damascus, or Riyadh in three days; and had we taken strong and effective measures for our domestic protection while striving to stay within constitutional limits and eloquently explaining the necessity -- as has always been the case in war -- for sometimes exceeding them. Today's progressives apologize to the world for America's treatment of terrorists (not a single one of whom has been executed). Franklin Roosevelt, when faced with German saboteurs (who had caused not a single casualty), had them electrocuted and buried in numbered graves next to a sewage plant.
KARL: What did you think when you saw that shoe flying at the President?Here's a link to some recent significance in Latin America: Latin Leaders Joke About Bush Shoe Attack:
CHENEY: I thought the President handled it rather well. He had some good moves, the way he ducked and avoided the shoe. And then what was his response -- that it was a size 10. I guess he could see that as it went by. No, I think it was an incident where an Iraqi reporter threw shoes at the President -- I don’t attribute any special significance to it.
COSTA DO SAUIPE, Brazil (Reuters) - Latin American leaders meeting in Brazil this week couldn't resist poking fun at U.S. President George W. Bush over his recent shoe-throwing incident in Iraq.
"Please, nobody take off your shoes," Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva joked to reporters at the start of a news conference on Wednesday.
An Iraqi journalist had hurled his shoes at Bush at a news conference in Baghdad on Sunday, calling him a dog.
A Saudi Arabian man has offered $10 million for the shoes of an Iraqi journalist hurled at U.S. President George Bush in Baghdad Sunday.
Middle Eastern news agencies reported on Mohamed Makhafa's offer Wednesday. He is quoted telling Cairo's al-Safwa Television that the footwear hurled at the U.S. president's head is the "shoe of dignity" with high "moral value."
Meanwhile, Reuters news agency reports that an Egyptian man is offering his 20-year-old daughter in marriage to the shoe-thrower, Muntazer al-Zaidi.
Reuters reports the young woman Amal Saad Gumaa said she likes the idea of being attached to a man she finds so honorable.
Thousands of Iraqis have taken to the streets in support of Zaidi, who has achieved something of a folk hero status since the incident.
The shoe-tossing has also inspired an online game (www.SockAndAwe.com) that lets players throw brown laced-loafers at Mr. Bush. The site says more than 17 million cyber-shoes have struck the president's virtual head as of Wednesday.
Presented by the Federal Election Commission
Individual Contributions Arranged By Type, Giver, Then Recipient
Contributions to Political Committees
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10021
SCHUMER, CHARLES E
VIA SCHUMER '98
06/29/1998 -300.00 20020161719
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD MADOFF INVESTMENTS
LAUTENBERG, FRANK R
VIA LAUTENBERG FOR SENATE
02/18/2004 1000.00 24020260913
WYDEN, RONALD LEE
VIA WYDEN FOR SENATE
03/25/2003 2000.00 23020191985
03/25/2003 2000.00 23020191985
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10021
MADOFF INVESTMENTS/CHAIRMAN
MATHESON, JAMES
VIA MATHESON FOR CONGRESS
10/18/2004 250.00 24991330031
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10021
MADOFF SECURITIES
CORZINE, JON S
VIA CORZINE 2000 INC
08/24/1999 1000.00 20020031614
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10021
SELF-EMPLOYED/BANKER
HOOLEY, DARLENE
VIA HOOLEY FOR CONGRESS
10/15/2004 250.00 24981483366
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10022
CROWLEY, JOSEPH
VIA CROWLEY FOR CONGRESS
08/26/1998 -500.00 98033513368
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT SECUR
SCHUMER, CHARLES E
VIA SCHUMER '98
03/31/1998 300.00 98020080361
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION FUND A
12/20/1999 2000.00 20035043217
12/20/1999 2000.00 20035342406
11/03/2000 2000.00 20036554275
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BOND BROKER
CROWLEY, JOSEPH
VIA CROWLEY FOR CONGRESS
08/04/1998 500.00 98033513348
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10022
CHAIRMAN
CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM
VIA HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR US SENATE COMMITTEE INC
01/13/2000 1000.00 20020140293
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10022
SELF EMPLOYED/INVESTOR
MERKLEY, JEFFREY ALAN
VIA JEFF MERKLEY FOR OREGON
04/24/2008 2300.00 28020233434
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
FROST, MARTIN
VIA MARTIN FROST CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
10/15/2004 250.00 24981593976
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L MADOFF INVEST SEC
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
05/09/2005 25000.00 25020223064
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENTS
SCHUMER, CHARLES E
VIA FRIENDS OF SCHUMER
04/08/2002 1000.00 22020572030
04/08/2002 1000.00 22020572029
08/18/2004 1000.00 24020682386
08/18/2004 1000.00 24020682387
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L MADOFF/CHAIRMAN
GEPHARDT, RICHARD A
VIA GEPHARDT FOR PRESIDENT INC.
09/23/2003 2000.00 23992120817
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD MADOFF INC
OBEY, DAVID R
VIA A LOT OF PEOPLE FOR DAVE OBEY
03/10/2000 1000.00 20035482353
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD MADOFF INVESTMENT SEC
FOSSELLA, VITO
VIA COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT VITO FOSSELLA
04/20/2000 1000.00 20035843717
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
MADOFF INVESTMENTS
MARKEY, EDWARD J MR.
VIA MARKEY COMMITTEE, THE
05/15/1998 1000.00 98033264489
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
MADOFF INVESTMENTS/CHAIRMAN
MARKEY, EDWARD J MR.
VIA MARKEY COMMITTEE, THE
06/17/2004 2000.00 24961871421
06/17/2004 2000.00 24961871421
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
SELF-EMPLOYED
D'AMATO, ALFONSE M
VIA FRIENDS OF SENATOR D'AMATO (1998 COMMITTEE)
09/21/1998 1000.00 98020221244
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT
TAUZIN, WILBERT J II
VIA BILLY TAUZIN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE THE
05/05/1998 1000.00 98033280117
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT SECUR
SCHUMER, CHARLES E
VIA SCHUMER '98
05/22/1998 1000.00 98020153371
05/22/1998 1000.00 98020153371
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L MADOFF PC
RANGEL, CHARLES B
VIA RANGEL FOR CONGRESS
10/23/1998 1000.00 98034023088
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L. MADOFF INVEST. SEC./CH
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
09/30/2006 25000.00 26020872891
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L. MADOFF INVEST.-SEC./CH
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
05/04/2007 25000.00 27020190980
09/12/2008 25000.00 28020611133
MADOFF, BERNARD L MR.
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT SECU
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION FUND A
09/22/2005 5000.00 25971371439
10/17/2006 5000.00 26950709195
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
05/24/2007 5000.00 27990166821
MADOFF, BERNARD L MR.
NEW YORK, NY 10021
MADOFF (BERNARD L.) INVESTMENT SE
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION FUND A
07/08/2004 5000.00 24962139131
MADOFF, BERNARD L.
NEW YORK, NY 10021
SAUL, ANDREW MARSHALL
VIA SAUL FOR CONGRESS INC
12/05/2007 -2300.00 28990305541
MADOFF, BERNARD L.
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT/CHAI
SAUL, ANDREW MARSHALL
VIA SAUL FOR CONGRESS INC
07/10/2007 2300.00 27931355510
MADOFF, BERNARD L.
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L. MADOFF P.C./CHAIRMAN
RANGEL, CHARLES B
VIA RANGEL FOR CONGRESS
08/30/2001 1000.00 22991228121
MADOFF, BERNARD L. MR.
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT SECU
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
08/20/2008 5000.00 28933110755
MADOFF, BERNARD MR.
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURIT
BRADLEY, BILL
VIA BILL BRADLEY FOR PRESIDENT INC
04/26/1999 1000.00 20990130846
Total Contributions: 161050.00
Joint Fundraising Contributions
These are contributions to committees who are raising funds to be distributed to other committees. The breakdown of these contributions to their final recipients may appear below
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT SECUR
VICTORY IN NEW YORK
10/30/1998 1000.00 98020270881
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD MADOFF INVESTMENT/CHAIRMA
LAUTENBERG NJ VICTORY COMMITTEE
07/20/2007 300.00 27931343375
07/20/2007 2300.00 27931343375
07/20/2007 5000.00 27931343376
Total Joint Fundraising: 8600.00
Recipient of Joint Fundraiser Contributions
These are the Final Recipients of Joint Fundraising Contributions
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L MADOFF INVEST SEC
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
10/30/1998 1000.00 98020270462
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD MADOFF INVESTMENT
LAUTENBERG, FRANK R
VIA LAUTENBERG FOR SENATE
07/20/2007 300.00 27020400524
07/20/2007 2300.00 27020400525
Recipient Total: 3600.00
TRY A: NEW QUERY
RETURN TO: FEC HOME PAGE
Today's Chicago Sun-Times reports 21 contacts between Rahm Emanuel and Blagojevich over Valerie Jarrett as well as other candidates for Barack Obama's Senate seat. They also ran this photo of Blago with Rahm. Which means Rahm Emanuel is now on the "hot seat."President-elect Barack Obama's incoming chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was pushing for Obama's successor just days after the Nov. 4 election, sources told the Chicago Sun-Times.
Emanuel privately urged Gov. Blagojevich's administration to appoint Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett, and the Sun-Times learned Tuesday that he also pressed that it be done by a certain deadline.
Jarrett was initially interested in the U.S. Senate post before Obama tapped her to be a White House senior adviser, sources say.
The disclosure comes days after Obama's camp downplayed Jarrett's interest in the post.
If the Iraqi man who threw his shoes at US President George W Bush on Sunday was just an ordinary citizen who took such action on one of Baghdad’s streets then perhaps it could be argued that he simply has no decency. But for a television reporter to take such action is a matter that should be condemned.
The reporter could have asked the American president a difficult or uncomfortable question as Bush stood next to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, but instead he chose to use shoes over words, forgetting that journalism does not debate and communicate using violence and vulgarity.
What we saw in the press conference was nothing but an insult to the profession of journalism and an indicator that the nature of journalism has been misunderstood. A journalist is not a Mujahid nor is he a fighter; he is the one who communicates information...
On Sunday, as everyone in the world now knows, a young Iraqi TV reporter named Muntander (sic) al-Zaidi took the opportunity of a press conference to throw his shoes at George W. Bush and call the President a "dog." Congratulations, Iraq: You really are a free country...Earth to Paul Gigot, Bill McGurn, James Taranto and other Journal editors: Throwing shoes at people is not a sign of freedom, any more than rioting or looting.
Alternatively described by sources as a leftist, and a nationalist, his brother said, “Muntazer is a nervous guy especially, whenever he sees violence and Iraqi people dying, but he calms down very fast afterwards. “We as a family hate occupation in all of its forms. And Muntazer hates it too. We all have the same attitude regarding the American forces occupying Iraq. I think that Bush did destroy Iraq and he did kill Iraqis.”
With pictures of Che Guevara hanging in his bedroom, Al-Zaidi’s mom told France24 that it was always her son’s dream to hit Bush with a shoe, “and he did fulfill his dream in the end,” she said.
Dirgham says that what his brother did gave back a sense of dignity to all Iraqis who had been affected by the U.S. occupation. “The behaviour of my brother was very spontaneous. It reveals what all the Iraqi people want, which is to humiliate the tyrant. My brother hates everything that has to do with American occupation as a fact and the Iranian occupation as a concept.”
Another source that did not want to reveal his name, and worked with Muntazer at a local Iraqi channel called Al Diar, said that Zaidi promised a lot of journalist friends that he was going to throw a show at Bush when he had a chance. But no one believed him.
In 2005, shortly after her husband became a U.S. Senator, Michelle Obama was promoted to vice-president of the University of Chicago Hospitals, with a salary increase from $121,910 to $316,962. One of her bosses said she was "worth her weight in gold." In 2006, Obama requested a $1 million earmark for his wife's employer. How upset have people got about this? But take away the explicit exchange and the crass language and she and her husband did what he Illinois Governor did. Yet where's the outrage?
Tutors at the university in northwest Siberia where the new Miss World studies praised her academic record on Monday, happily complaining that the news of her victory almost disrupted classes.
Sukhinova is a fifth-year student studying cybernetic systems in the Oil and Gas University in Tyumen, a center of the region's oil and gas industry located over 2,000 kilometers from Moscow. She is one of only five women in the 27-student group.
"It is a very difficult discipline, but Sukhinova's grades are all A's and B's," university deputy president Veronika Yefremova said.
Ignoring warning after warning is an essential element of the "Who Could Have Known?" excuse, as are rewriting history and shamelessly disregarding the foresight shown by those who sounded the alarm bells.
We're seeing the same ingredients in the Madoff affair. "We have worked with Madoff for nearly 20 years," said Jeffrey Tucker, a former federal regulator and the head of an investment firm facing losses of $7.5 billion. "We had no indication that we...were the victims of such a highly sophisticated, massive fraudulent scheme." It's a sentiment echoed by Arthur Levitt, the former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission: "I've known [Madoff] for nearly 35 years, and I'm absolutely astonished."
Who Could Have Known?
Well, Harry Markopolos, for one. In 1999, after researching Madoff's methods, Markopolos wrote a letter to the SEC saying, "Madoff Securities is the world's largest Ponzi Scheme." He pursued his claims with the feds for the next nine years, with little result.
Jim Vos, another investment adviser who had examined Madoff's firm, says: "There's no smoking gun, but if you added it all up you wonder why people either did not get it or chose to ignore the red flags."
The answer comes from Vos's cohort Jake Walthour Jr., who told HuffPost blogger Vicky Ward: "In a bull market no one bothers to ask how the returns are met, they just like the returns."
Hasn't the "Who Could Have Known?" excuse been exposed as a sham enough times to render it obsolete?
Apparently not. Here come the Bush Legacy Project's revisionists expecting us to believe that everyone thought Saddam had WMD -- even though many were on record saying he didn't.
In the wake of 9/11, Condi Rice assured us nobody "could have predicted" that someone "would try to use an airplane as a missile." Except, of course, the government report that in 1999 said, "Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House."
The Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation in Salem, Massachusetts discontinued operations on Friday because it invested with Madoff. This year the nonprofit sent 124 local teens to Israel.
Elie Wiesel’s Foundation
Madoff appeared to handle all the investments of the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, the foundation of the 80-year-old Nobel Prize winner and Auschwitz survivor, according its 2006 tax return. The foundation sponsors an annual ethics contest and after-school programs for Ethiopian Jews in Israel, among other programs. Treasurer Elisha Wiesel, Wiesel’s son, didn’t return a call.
The Madoff fiasco will pummel Jewish causes and education. Yet all nonprofit sectors may feel the strain. Last year, the $19 million Madoff Family Foundation donated $50,000 to New York’s Public Theater, where Madoff’s 44-year-old son, Mark, is a trustee. The year before, it gave $30,000 to the Robin Hood Foundation, a charity popular on Wall Street, according to the Madoff’s foundation tax return.
A Public Theater spokesman didn’t return an e-mail from Bloomberg News. Mark Madoff didn’t return a call or respond to an e-mail. Robin Hood Executive Director David Saltzman declined to comment.
Less to Give
“Will it affect my philanthropy?” said Joyce Z. Greenberg, a retired financial adviser in Houston who had money with Madoff for two decades. “It will.”
Greenberg is a donor to the Jewish Heritage Program of the World Monuments Fund, which has supported conservation in 20 countries. Greenberg and others are waiting for an accounting of how much, if any, of their investments they’ll salvage.
SAR Academy, an orthodox Jewish school in Riverdale, New York, which extends from kindergarten through high school, had over a third of its $3.7 million endowment with Madoff, according to an e-mail circulated by the school.
“He is serving the parochial interest of a very small group of financial people, bankers, investment bankers, fund managers, private equity firms, rather than serving the general public,” said John C. Bogle, the founder and former chairman of the Vanguard Group, the giant mutual fund house. “It has hurt the American investor first and the average American taxpayer.”As Reverend Jeremiah Wright once said, "America's chickens...are coming home to roost."
"Bush hails shoe attack as win for democracy"Bush's first reaction to the Iraqi journalist's assault upon him--and the USA he represents--reminds one of Donald Rumsfeld's response to the looting of Baghdad in 2003:
"...recognize that you pass through a transition period like this and accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."Rumsfeld's statement was symptomatic of a misunderstanding of the nature of freedom and transition--since neither the US nor any civilized country permits rioting as a price of freedom.
The US President laughed off an incident in Baghdad on Sunday when he was nearly hit by an angry Iraqi reporter's shoes.Bush is wrong about both the principle and the facts at issue. People in a free society--such as the USA--are not permitted to throw shoes at the President. In the USA, assaults on the President are a federal crime under US Code, Title 18, Ch. 84, Sec. 1751:
The journalist, Muntather al-Zaidi, 28, a correspondent for the Iraqi station al-Baghdadia, shouted in Arabic: "This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog!" He then threw a shoe at Mr Bush, who ducked and narrowly avoided it.
Zaidi then threw his other shoe, shouting in Arabic: "This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq!" Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's security agents jumped on Zaidi and hustled him out of the room. He was detained on unspecified charges.
Mr Bush tried to brush off the incident. "All I can report is it is a size 10," he said. He also called the incident a sign of democracy in the country, saying, "that's what people do in a free society, draw attention to themselves", as Zaidi's screaming was heard outside.
(e) Whoever assaults any person designated in subsection (a)(1) [the President or Vice-President] shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years,Bush's feckless and thoughtless response to the Iraq attack reveals, as did Rumsfeld's 2003 remarks, the underlying conceptual failures that have doomed his "democracy promotion" efforts around the world. For, unfortunately, President Bush himself clearly does not understand that the journalist who threw his shoes at Bush had also attacked democracy.
or both.
Officials at the Iraqi-owned TV station, al-Baghdadiya, called for the release of their journalist, saying he was exercising freedom of expression.
“This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq,” shouted the man, later identified by the Associated Press as Muntadar al-Zeidi, a correspondent for Al-Baghdadia television, an Iraqi- owned station based in Cairo, Egypt....And according to TBS Journal:"Baghdadia TV is considered a moderate Sunni channel..."
Al-BaghdadiyaThe official mission statement I found via LinkTV's website makes Al-Baghdadiya sound like something that a US government agency or supported NGO might be funding:
Today, there are over a dozen Iraqi sattelite channels that are broadcasting from inside and outside Iraq. We have all sorts of channels, some that broadcast only a few hours a day, others 24/7. Some that are funded by the US, others that condemn American presence and even show footage of attacks on American soldiers. Some that represent ethnic groups in Iraq, others sects. Some broadcast from Iraq, others from outside.
I dont generally spend much time watching most of these channels, but i do flick through them every now and then. The other day I was watching the "news" on Al-Baghdadiya, a channel that broadcasts from Egypt. It was showing Iraqi's in Ramadi complaining about the American seige on the city (that started about 3 weeks ago). It was the funniest thing i have ever seen on an Iraqi channel, of course the conditions that the people in that city are living in are nothing to laugh about, but what was comic was the fact that the people being interviewed were being coached to say what the reporter wanted them to say. You can even hear the reporter saying "say there is no government" and an old women then says "There is no government here, they dont care about us", then the reporter says "petrol"...and the women says "we dont have petrol here in the city, its hard to get around'. The reporter then says "American occupation" and the women than rants about the Americans who are besieging the city.
In addition the channel aims at: Educating tolerance, helping to re-establish a healthy Iraqi society and environment, emphasizing the Iraqi identity through the cultural and social heritage, helping to improve and modernize Iraqi society besides respecting spiritual and social values, staying up to date with scientific developments worldwide, and improving the aesthetical values of broadcasting.Inquiring media studies scholars want to know: How does throwing shoes at President Bush "improve the aesthetical values of broadcasting?"
Kidnapped. Muntadhar Al Zaidi, correspondent for the independent Al Baghdadiya television station, said he spent more than two days blindfolded, barely eating and drinking, after armed men forced him into a car as he walked to work in an area of central Baghdad. He never learned the identity of the kidnappers, who beat him until he lost consciousness – and then questioned him closely about his work, but did not demand a ransom. Al Baghdadiya broadcasts from Cairo and is often critical of the government and U.S. military presence in the country.
I think the biggest mistakes took place in the broader Middle East region. I was at first very confused about some of the policies; now I understand that the US simply does not understand Islamism, even though it has been an active and increasingly powerful counter-ideology over at least three decades. Islamism is not compatible with democracy; Muslims can be democrats. There is a huge difference.Shilbey Telhami also made a clear point:
The prevailing view—that Islamists should be co-opted into existing political systems—simply will not work. The fallacy in this policy of appeasement lies in assuming that an individual or group that sounds moderate in fact is moderate. Often, Islamists are willing to make superficial concessions while continuing to hold an uncompromising worldview.
The academics, analysts and policy makers who argue that a movement like the Muslim Brotherhood today is “moderate” seem to disregard its ideology, history, and long-term strategy. They even seem to disregard the Brotherhood’s own statements. It is true that most affiliates of this movement do not directly call for terrorist acts, are open to dialogue with the West, and participate in democratic elections. Yet this is not sufficient
for them to qualify as “moderate,” especially when their ideology is so extreme. Turning a blind eye to the Brotherhood and its ideological extremism—even if done for the sake of combating violent extremism and terrorism—is a direct threat to the democratic order.
Unfortunately, since 9/11, the US has alienated many of its allies and strengthened enemies in the Muslim world. This is one of the reasons why the US lost the support of the secular movement within Turkey, which is traditionally the domestic constituency most closely allied to the West. It (correctly) perceives US policy as promoting a “moderate Islamist” government in their country—one that can serve as a model for the Muslim world. Yet even the current political leadership coming from an Islamist past opposes to be called “moderate Islamist” and instead prefers “Muslim
democrat” as a description.
One would think that since we have so much power and influence to persuade governments in the region even to go along with wars they don’t like, we can also persuade them to reform themselves out of power. This is a naive view. First, for us, the promotion of democracy will always be only a part-time job; for the regimes in the region, staying in power is their full time job—and they know far more about their surroundings than we will ever be able to learn. That alone is a challenge. But there is a far bigger challenge when we are engaged in two demanding wars for the conduct of which we need all the help we can get.I had to chuckle when moderator George Stephanopolous asked McFaul and others what the US should do if Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak (characterized by Larry Diamond with the Islamist epithet "Pharonic") placed his son into the Egyptian presidency--during the reign of George Bush the Second, while Joseph Biden has admitted placing a temporary replacement into his Senate seat to keep it warm for his son, after Barack Obama has nominated Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State (not to mention Chicago's current Blagojevich scandal)...as NY sportscaster Warner Wolf used to say: "Give me a break..."
When you are at war, your military and intelligence considerations trump the aid that USAID provides, or the talking points about democracy that your Ambassadors will go through with usually un-empowered subordinates of powerful autocratic rulers. In the war on terrorism, for which good intelligence is paramount and our own capabilities have been demonstrably low, cooperating with the intelligence services in the countries we are trying to reform is essential. Sometimes we can tell good intelligence form bad, but at other times we cannot see that regimes use the relationship to target their own opposition groups. Our military needs the cooperation of the regional military forces for transit, special operations, and basing of forces. In other words, when you are fighting two wars and have over 220, 000 troops to protect, your biggest institutional allies in every country in which you operate are the intelligence and military services—the very backbone of the authoritarian regimes that we are trying to weaken. In other words, our heavy military feet always trump our waving democracy hands.
This suggests that our efforts for transformative reform in the region are not likely to succeed so long as we are at war and have heavy military presence. But we can do more to shrink the gap between public opinion and governments as a prelude to incremental reform. This can only be done by putting forth a new vision for a broader and credible foreign policy that addresses regional concerns beyond democracy itself. It starts with reforming ourselves and restoring our credibility particularly of issues of human rights. It proceeds by working with international institutions to uphold commonly accepted norms and demanding compliance across the board. It pushes for credible reform in which the public can trust, concentrating on areas in which governments in the region may have incentives to cooperate, even if reluctantly. And it ends with the recognition that the power of our example must be restored as one of our greatest assets when it comes to inspiring democracy and human rights around the world.