http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Bush_shoethrower_appears_before_Iraqi_judge_1217.html

BAGHDAD — The Iraqi journalist who became an instant media star for hurling his shoes at US President George W. Bush appeared on Wednesday before a judge investigating the incident.

Muntazer al-Zaidi, 29, a television reporter who relatives and colleagues said acted because he "detested" Bush and America, was brought before the judge in the high-security Green Zone in the heart of Baghdad, his brother, Dhargham, said.

Al-Zaidi appeared before the judge in his jail cell "because he is too injured to appear in a courtroom," Australia's Herald Sun quotes the brother as saying.

This guy is taken into custody for throwing a shoe @ Bush, then, by several seemingly credible accounts, thoroughly beaten. And all Bush has to say is [paraphrasing] it's up to the Iraqis to handle it?

"...being treated at a government psychiatric hospital in Texas."

Missed this yesterday. Another notch on Condi's bedpost.

http://chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/3/1665-abandoned-by-the-world-un-declares-open-season-on-somalia-.html

click the linky

http://www.venganza.org/card.php?id=13041&un=4016

or touch sig

I really hope you weren't reading tombstones this early.

I'm so relentlessly pissed, thought I'd inject a little levity.

I think my own appendage looks rather undersized in that linky, but otherwise it's a pretty decent rendering. ;)

[Read more letters about this article: Here]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz01hN9l-BM

Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty.

Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

How does your "I can devise scenarios where torture is justified" position differ from Yoo's "it depends"?

How does your "I can devise scenarios where torture is justified" position differ from Yoo's "it depends"?

No meeting of the minds, here.

You can devise a scenario where torture is justified. I, for reasons both practical and ethical, cannot. Further, I would argue that attempts to do so are simply torture advocacy. Period.

Guess that ends our discussion. We simply couldn't disagree more.

Your ticking time bomb scenarios are absolute bullshit.

And see the part about the practical inefficacy of torture.

You're an effing torture advocate. I am not.

The fact also remains we are talking about behavior that is absolutely prohibited in the Law. So tell your "I'm a BadAss 24 hero" DriveL to the Court at the Hague.

Thank you for the linky to the interview.

Don't let up on this.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/248713.php

Didn't wade through all the comments, but Pam used a phrase I'd never heard before, and I'll be using it from here on in:

"Professional Christians"

And, for the record, Warren's a douchenozzle. Him and most of the other professional christians. A pox upon all their houses.

That "other" "Black guy" that was always on about [something]?

How he knew everything, and all the Salonistas were so much shite beneath his notice, maybe?

Sorry, it's late, and the full roster of the deranged eludes me sometimes...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/us/politics/22web-blair.html?_r=1

I hear he's in as Intel Chief

I'll check back in the a.m. G'night all.

Yer RIGHT! It's the lol,lol,lol that's the dead giveaway.

Errata? Then there was the Democrats of the Bush era.

"were"?

I imagine there will be some interesting discussion about this post.

N/T

Seriously, what ARE you talking about?

He can't do that from within an "all liberal, all the time!" bubble.

Who would you delineate as the liberals inside the bubble, so far?

From where I sit, you look pretty thin-skinned about the fact that somebody would dare to question OS's actions to date.

Greenwald has elucidated innumerable times, that he (GG) is willing to wait and see how Obama implements policy, that it's too early to make definitive judgments, etc.

You, OTOH, come across as firmly in the Hope Foe Change, OS is WAAAYY smarter than you, camp.

So far, the only policy decisions available to judge are the various appointments. Doesn't look too hot from my perspective.

And honestly, I really do Hope I'm wrong.

Clearly, it must be difficult for you, but try not to be such a douchenozzle.

In order for a statement such as he can't do it from inside a 100% lib bubble to have any relevance whatsoever to a discussion about the inclusion of yet another right-winger, there would, of necessity, be some percentage of bubble-insiders who were "liberal". I asked who you thought examples of those people might be.

I can't type, so I use acronyms.

Extreme Dislike - the entire Nat'l Security team, Interior, Agriculture

Like: Chu

Liberals in the bubble?

Obama should reach out to the likes of Warren because he can't operate from within a 100% lib bubble, and your example of libs within that bubble are Boxer and Wellstone?

Last I checked, Boxer wasn't in any way/shape/form an Obama "advisor" and Wellstone was... well, still DEAD.

Inasmuch as I can determine your point, you don't like the fact that Glenn [your words] started claiming that the only reason people were defending Obama was out of blind loyalty. And you "don't understand why people are getting so pissed off that Obama invited a token religious conservative to his inauguration party".

OK, so you don't understand, or agree necessarily. So, what? People should stop discussing the issue? They're WRONG to be ticked off? What's your point?

I thought it was "your job" to keep the batsh!t feckin' crazies out! ;)

Thrashers back (GBT). And another guy I won't even mention because I honestly feel sorry for him.

Read THIS about the new DNI

http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990927/nairn

or click sig