Senator Alleges White House Wrote Allawi's Speech 1281
Jeremiah Cornelius writes "In a letter to the White House, a leading US Senate Democrat, Diane Feinstein, expressed 'profound dismay' that the White House allegedly wrote a large portion of Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's speech to Congress last week. 'His speech gave me hope that reconstruction efforts were proceeding in most of the country and that elections could be held on schedule. To learn that this was not an independent view, but one that was massaged by your campaign operatives, jaundices the speech and reduces the credibility of his remarks.'"
TRANSCRIPT (Score:1, Informative)
Al Lorentz (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Give me a break... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Are we sure? (Score:2, Informative)
> Because I distinctly saw President Bush take a drink of water while he was speaking.
But I bet you've never seen Cheney take a drink while Bush is speaking.
Re:Debate (Score:5, Informative)
Read Senator Kerry's testimony to the Senate from 1971. Read it all. Comprehend. Then form an opinion and speak.
If you can read english, you will see that Kerry was relating details of war crimes related to him by over 100 other men. War crimes that they were coerced and abetted in committing by commanding officers. They knew it was wrong, and they admitted it out of shame, and because they knew that it tarnished the credibility of the United States, which they defended because they loved.
Fast forward 33 years. Location: Abu Ghraib Prison, Iraq. Same story. Nothing learned. Our national credibility savaged. Maybe because we have a president who admittedly "doesn't read much".
Re:Give me a break... (Score:5, Informative)
And that makes it all the more repugnant that Bush and Co. have been complaining about Kerry criticizing the speech. Bush has his puppet prime minister give a campaign speech and Kerry isn't allowed to criticize it? Puh-leeze.
Re:Ahh (Score:3, Informative)
washington post story corroborates (Score:2, Informative)
But it turns out [washingtonpost.com] that "the U.S. government and a representative of President Bush's reelection campaign had been heavily involved in drafting the speech given to Congress last week by interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi." The same article notes that the official response to some negative data that USAID released a few days ago is going to be to stop releasing the data. The whole story's a must-read, revealing how the entire federal government has been mobilized to fight not the war on terrorism but the president's reelection campaign."
That last sentence is obviously partisan, as suggested by the source, but read the article it links to.
Does anyone ever read the article? (Score:1, Informative)
But in this case it seems even Senator Feinstein is guilty of this. She refers to a Washington Post article that "alleged that Allawi was coached
Re:Kerry dominated Bush in today's debate (Score:0, Informative)
Kerry said no such thing (Score:3, Informative)
He was talking about the statements made by other people. From the transcript [c-span.org]:
Please read the transcript (hell, skim it) before coming to any conclusions about Kerry's actions in '72. The 'media' sure ain't going to clarify any of this. We need to do it ourselves.
Re:Is this news? (Score:5, Informative)
In short, no one entity, governmental, military, or otherwise, is calling the shots for the whole country. That doesn't sound like any kind of dictatorship to me -- it sounds more like chaos.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Let me be the ten billionth person to say (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Is this news? (Score:2, Informative)
First, we have not killed thousands of innocents. Sure, maybe during Vietnam or the Korean War or World War II, but not during the Iraq wars. I'd like to see your source. The reason we don't hear about it is because it hasn't happened. That's the same reason why you haven't heard about the six billion dollars I made selling lemonade.
If you would like to know who has killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, look to Saddam Hussein. Look at the mass graves. (link [usaid.gov], link [shianews.com], and link [state.gov]) Look at the torture he has inflicted. (link [usatoday.com], link [bbc.co.uk], link [thisislondon.com])
I don't know how that even compares to the limited number of casualties that the US Forces caused. It doesn't even compare with what happened at Abu Ghraib. Nevertheless, America as a country is pursuing justice. Already, one of the perpetrators has been heavily sentenced. The others will be punished shortly. At least they get a fair trial.
Now, I know I won't sway you with my words or my evidence, because you have already seen the evidence. You are like the monkey who refuses to see and hear the atrocities committed against the people in Iraq. You then turn around and make a mountain out of a molehill, comparing the abuse that some prisoners suffered at the hand of American soldiers to the torture and suffering that Saddam caused.
I looked for accurate data on the number of civilians killed in Iraq by American soldiers. There is no such number reported anywhere. And the numbers of civilians killed isn't even accurate. Some say 25,000. Others say 6,000. Which one is right? Why are they so different? It's easy. They are not accurate. No one has done an actual body count. No one has done a count where civilians were distinguished from terrorists, insurgents, and the Iraqi military. Unfortunately, you can't ask the dead whether they were innocent or a terrorist. And you can't tell by what clothes they were wearing or even their age.
Your lies stop here.
This isn't just Feinstein's opinion. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Is this news? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Kerry dominated Bush in today's debate (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=123847&ci
My family and me were watching it on TV an were awestruck of how poorly Bush managed the debate. Like i said, i know little about Kerry (and i'm weary to pour trust on politicians... you know, past experience), but he struck me as someone very intelligent in his answers and ideas.
Re:Debate (Score:1, Informative)
Many of those who "testified" fabricated their stories. Some had never been in the military. Some had been in the military, but never been to Vietnam. Some had been to Vietnam, but never took part in the exploits they claimed.
I recommend the book Stolen Valor as a look that the whole strage world of the fake Vietnam vet and the terrible damage they have done to our society.
What is really sad is that this story, like so many internet hoaxes, never seems to die.
Likewise, the Abu Gharaib incident, although serious, was badly distored and exploited for political purposes. It looks like it was a total of about 30 badly supervised, poorly trained soldiers abusing prisioners for mixed reasons, mainly over a period about a week following some troubling security incidents. The most familiar face of it came from the photos taken by the ones doing it for sadistic pleasure inbetween sex parties (do you think those were government policy?). There were also a few who exploited the bad behavior of others to try and get more information out of the prisoners in a misguided attempt to follow some confusing orders. Ugly? Yes. National policy? I don't think so.
Read more (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The U.S. government is building 16 permanent ba (Score:5, Informative)
http://harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html [harpers.org]
Re:Let's face it... (Score:4, Informative)
I do agree tha proportionally distributing the electors, and even allowing fractional distributions, would be a good thing. The previous election could have changed completely with only a few thousand votes changing in Florida (such a small number that it was way below the noise so in fact it really is impossible to tell who won and Gore is just as legitimate of a "winner" as Bush, no matter what anybody says). Under a fractional proportional elector system this could not happen. This would be an enormous improvement, even if it is still possible (but much harder) for the winner to not win the popular vote.
Re:Al Lorentz (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/29/mili
Online media, but not a weblog and with sources to follow up on.
Re:Letters from Iraq (Score:2, Informative)
Tell me I'm wrong. This report was filed in January of 2003. 2 months before the "evil" George Bush began the war.
BS Alert! (Score:5, Informative)
Al Lorentz is the former Chairman of the Constitution Party of Texas. He was against the war in Iraq, because Lorentz believes in isolationism (even after 9/11). So while he is not "some politically idealistic and naÃve young soldier", that's only true because he's not young. He is a political ideologue, with an anti-Bush paranoia.
That made my Bullshit Detector go off like a Claymore in a cattle drive.
Al Lorentz spent most of his career in the Reserves.
A noncomm in Civil Affairs doesn't have a "muds-eye view" of the war at all. He may as well be back in Texas, for all the fighting he'll see. This guy is an armchair General. Why isn't he an officer? Because he's incompetent for a commission, that's why.
Al Lorentz [cptexas.org] was a Bush basher before he went to Iraq, and he's a Bush basher now.
From another article [prisonplanet.com] by Lorentz:Allawi (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe some of the insurgency is inspired by the feeling that the country shouldn't have a U.S./Israeli mole installed as chief executive, no?
Re:Ahh (Score:4, Informative)
War on Terrorism (Score:4, Informative)
Launch War on Terrorism
Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq 15033
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ [iraqbodycount.org]
plus
Deaths due to kidnapping and beheading of citizens of countries [ some that have noting to do with war ] - Kenya,Egypt,India,Australia,Britain,France..etc etc.
plus death of military persona of USA,Britain and other countries whose soldiers are present in Iraq.
Re:The U.S. government is building 16 permanent ba (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Al Lorentz (Score:3, Informative)
Specifically, the UCMJ prevents political activity while in uniform. Otherwise, you do not give up your right to speak out as you wish at the appropriate time and place. A leter to the editor is perfectly legal, for instance, but appearing in uniform in a political ad (for or against the current president) is not.
Re:Let's face it... (Score:3, Informative)
At least 76 U.S. troops were killed this month, reflecting a steady increase in American deaths since the United States transferred sovereignty to the interim Iraqi government June 28, according to a count announced by the Pentagon."
From Seattle Times [nwsource.com]
I just see Rumsfeld admiting that large areas of Iraq are out of control.
I just see hundreds of Iraq people killed in bomb attacks each week, blaming USA on CNN for the lack of security.
Re:Nice moderating there (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nice moderating there (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah right, CNN and the New York Times are founding members of the vast right-wing conspiracy.
You may want to see if your reality check process is still running.
The *real* reason for the Electoral College (Score:1, Informative)
And that's why the US Constitution says Electors are selected as state legislatures direct - period. If a state legislature directs the selection of Electors for Mickey Mouse there is nothing anyone can do. Period. End of story. Yes, the state's voters can replace their legislators - but only after the fact?
Why the reliance on state legislatures? Because the selection of a President is a political process, and the legislatures are political bodies. And it's a whole lot harder to gain complete control over a whole legislature than it is to, say, pack a supreme court with a bunch of justices who lean in one direction or another.
The US system of electing a President is based on getting the best result possible given that the electoral system as a whole is corrupt.
Re:patriotism abused ... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:What an amazing sense of compasion! (Score:4, Informative)
By reports, she of course meant newspaper reports. You know, the things most of us get our information from. From the Washington Post:
Later in the article:
So it seems that it is a bit more than mere suspicion, as you would characterize it. The article makes it pretty clear that Allawi was a mouthpiece for the Bush campaign while he was here in the US. So that's why Ms. Feinstein was dismayed. Frankly, so am I.
The article is here [washingtonpost.com]
Re:There is no hint George W. Bush was gay. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Mod parent down for telling the truth! (Score:3, Informative)
Uh, no. That may describe 99 percent of the US, but get out of the country and you'll find plenty of alternatives.
And they're alternatives that people are quite happy to embrace.
Re:Good (Score:1, Informative)
The interview is about Matthew's verbal aggression (Score:3, Informative)
The interview you cited does not establish anything negative about the author, only about the verbally aggressive Chris Matthews.
Do you disagree that George W. Bush stopped his Guard service in April, 1972? Or, do you disagree that the Guard started drug testing in the same month? Or, do you disagree that alcoholics use cocaine to help them drink more?
I find it really, really frightening that you did not already know the things in the book. There's nothing particularly remarkable, if you understand the issues from other sources. The interview discusses someone who said he thought George W. Bush was involved with a prostitute. It should not come as a surprise that an alcoholic abused sexuality. I don't know if George W. Bush was involved with a prostitute, but such a story does not seem surprising for an admitted alcoholic. They usually abuse sexuality. For example, Dick Cheney was known as a drinker and "womanizer" when he worked in Wyoming as CEO of Halliburton.
(George W. Bush admitted only to years of problem drinking, but said he did not think he was an alcoholic. However, this is normal behavior for alcoholics, to deny that they are alcoholics.)
The book just lists things you would hear if you did the research yourself. If you go out to ask people, and 10 people who don't know each other all say that they had knowledge of an abusive drunk, it begins to have credibility. Anyhow, the matter is not in contention, since George W. Bush has admitted publicly his problems with alcohol, and his wife Laura Bush told him she was thinking of leaving him because of his drinking.
George W. Bush would say that his abusiveness was only having fun. This is normal for alcoholics. For example, he called Russian leader Vladimir Putin, "Pootie-Poot" [guardian.co.uk]. English commentators are not able to analyze this adequately. They don't know that "poot" is a slang American term for a baby's defecation.
George W. Bush's grandfather, Senator Preston Bush, had real ability as a politician, but he was a physically violent alcoholic. George W. Bush's daughters have problems, too. See the story Laura's Girls [washingtonpost.com]. It is common that highly stressful families who abuse alcohol induce abuse of alcohol and/or drugs in their children.
Do some googling [google.com]. For example, see this admiring article from Time Magazine: How George got his groove [cnn.com]. Or, see this less-admiring article: Bush's Life-Changing Year [washingtonpost.com]. Remember, these journalists were covering a political candidate who might win, and the journalists depend on access to keep their jobs.
Re:Mod parent down for telling the truth! (Score:1, Informative)
No, this is what the left wants everyone to believe the Bush administration is about. I've never seen the administration call anyone un-American, disloyal, or unpatriotic. Although I have seen suh comments from George Soros, Barbara Striesand, and Tereza Heinz Kerry, among others on the left...
(Mod:-5, Conservative)
Re:Al Lorentz (Score:2, Informative)
AFPAM36-2241V1 part 11.40.1
Specifically, each Air Force member is responsible for obtaining the nessessary review and clearance, starting with ppublic affairs, before releasing any proposed statement, text, or imagery to the public. This includes digital products being loaded on an unrestricted web site.yadda, yadda....
Im sue other services have similar rules of conduct as well.
Were you watching the SAME debate? (Score:3, Informative)
Bullshit. Bush attacked Kerry on his multilateralism, not because of his criticism of Bush's policies. Bush made it clear that he didn't need international authority to defend US interests. That pretty much sums up the difference between the two. Like that approach or not, if you have a shred of honesty, you have to admit that Bush was upfront about his policy ideals, and that he'll tell you, upfront, that those ideas are very different from Kerrys. You make it sound like Bush went "How dare you criticize me?". That's utter crap. There are very big differences between the ideas of these two men, and that's what they debated last night.
Please! (Score:3, Informative)
I had a problem with social security and I wrote the same letter to all my representatives both democrats and republicans asking for help. We have some of the supposedly most caring democrats in the country, like Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi. Not one of them answered their email, so I sent a real letter to their offices which also went unanswered...not even a form letter. Yet every republican I emailed contacted my either in person or through a representative and were very helpful, pointing me in the right direction and even arranging meetings in my local community.
I have seen all the news articles and one thing Diane Feinstein does not offer is any kind of proof that this happened....she just said it did. Those in California my also remember how she said she helped San Francisco when she was mayor but how it was bankrupt when she left and how it barely pulled itself up from that debt.
Diane we here in California know you are long on words but woefully short on action.
Re:Allawi (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Nice moderating there (re: Khomeini + Iran) (Score:3, Informative)
The embassy kidnappings in Tehran were done by a highly radicalized group of religious students active in the Islamic Revolution. Khomeini called the US embassy in Tehran a "US den of espionage" and ordered it kidnapped, and these students did it.
wrong. That's part of the public misconception. There were actually two invasions of the US embassy by radicals. The First one was in June, if I remember correctly. After that takeover, Khomeini talked them out after the first embassy taking and told them not to do that again. After the second taking, he sent his own sun in to talk them out again, but he failed.
The reason why he failed on the second time was public sentiment. Iranians at the time still remembered that the US had caused a counter-revolution in the early 60's that had returned the Shaw to power (and marked the beginning of serious brutality on his part). All along, they had simply been asking for an apology from the US for the (illegal) interference in Iranian government affairs and a promise not to do it again. (the later alone probably would have been sufficient).
When The Shah entered the US ostensibly (OK, and actually, too, but try and tell that to fearful Iranians) for medical treatment, radicals in Iran claimed that it was really to organize a second counter-revolution. The Iranians were too scared of a repeat of that fate to think straight (sound familiar?). The irony is that it was the US's unwillingness to verify it's compliance with international law that resulted in one of the most serious violation of the US's international law rights. (sound familiar?).
Khomeini made a number of attempts at moderating the hostage situation. Every time he did so, the US ignored his actions and undercut his intentions. The portrayal of Khomeini as able to get the hostages out with a snap of his fingers is entirely contrary to the effort that he had to take in the face of public sentiment and fears. Khomeini was in power by dint of public support only..
A couple of samples:
I think that it was about this time that Khomeini's moderate former prime minister was executed.
For the record: I have nothing against the rescue attempt, per se. but the timing sucked bigtime
This is part of the reason why (I think) Khomeini arranged to get the hostages out the same day that Regan was sworn into office. He wanted to get rid of
Re:Is this news? (Score:2, Informative)
You seem to think it is funny, the suggestion that you are "imposing democracy" on them. Do the iraqi's get to vote for the person they want to vote for? If they do, say hello to the newest funimentalist regiem in the mid east. So to stop that, the US won't let them vote for the PERSON THEY WANT.
You are confusing what you want, with what Iraqi's want. They do NOT want Alawi, they do not want the US. There is a very good chance that they will actually vote for Sadam, as he is trying to get on the ballot. That should tell you how badly you have all fucked up there, they would rather have Sadam back then deal with the US.
By the by, you did not go into Iraq the same way you went into any of those mentioned countries, except maybe Vietnam. You really think you are being "hailed as liberators" in Iraq? Please, don't make me laugh. I guess you have had 1000 dead and 20,000 maimed in the mad hugfest that overtook the people?
In my original post I asked you to think. That seems beyond you. My suggestion for you, pull your head out of your ass, at least long enough to get some O2, you seem to have lost your grip on reality. You die GI.