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.'"
Is this news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's face it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Having said that, I would have thought his own spin doctors would have written it, not White House staff, but really this idea that Iraq is somehow sovereign and no longer merely existing at the whim of the US is bollocks. The White House is the final authority in Iraq today and will be for many years to come.
Flame away...
Is anyone surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect Senator Finestein's shock is strictly rhetorical. I certainly hope it is.
News for nerds? (Score:4, Insightful)
Where are my Star Wars action figures?
Where are my Natalie Portman pics?
Where are my eye-burning lasers?
Where are my new programming languages?
I want my Slashdot back!
Re:Let's face it... (Score:3, Insightful)
If the White House wanted to be the final authority in Iraq for years to come why are elections scheduled in Iraq this January? Doesn't this give the people of that country the right to elect their own leaders to effect the policy they desire?
Puppet Show? (Score:5, Insightful)
Give me a break... (Score:1, Insightful)
I am a professional speaker, and I am also a security auditor. I get paid to give people an honest opinion of what I think. Even then, I will still ask the parties with whom I am going to speak for input on what they want to get out of a meeting with their group.
It would be silly to think that the US Government didn't have input into Allawi's speech. I believe that all of what was said was true because I do not believe that Allawi would take a script and stand and lie to the congress. He is not a puppet, he is one tough sucker. I believe that ALL the major media outlets ARE NOT being fair on their coverage on how well things are actually going out there.
That being said. Allawi may not be a public speaker and he's about to give the most important speech of his life. It would be silly to think that he didn't practice the test in front of folks that could give some meaningful feedback.
Mod parent down for telling the truth! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what America is all about: blindly following our commander-in-chief, not questioning their policies, always agreeing.
Just give me my 12 hours of TV, and my low-carb 2000 calorie retired dairy cow hamburgers, and my gas-guzzling SUVs, and I WILL BE HAPPY.
Re:Let's face it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the number of recent attacks, if safe to say that the whole country is unsafe and going to civil war.
Alternative (Score:2, Insightful)
Just look at Africa -- after Britain and France pulled out, everything went to straight to hell. America is doing th right thing by keeping a firm hand on Iraq. A decade from now, pulling out completely will be viable. Doing so now would create a situation so bad that the rest of the middle east would look like a picnic.
Re:Is this news? (Score:1, Insightful)
Assuming that staff at the Whitehouse did assist him "write" his speech (quite a stretch already), then it was an assist. He's the leader of the free country. I say he asked for help polishing the speach; we have people here who do that... they'll help you! Your side says he came her as a lap dog to do his master's bidding? Was given a statement read like a puppet before being cast out of the great White House?
One side is quite reasonable... the other side has team members who are missing the meds!
The issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine the outcry if Bush or Kerry went to China to address the National People's Congress and was handed a speech and told to read it.
Iraq is not a US, EU or UN state; it is a soverign country.
Re:Is this news? (Score:4, Insightful)
How is Iraq less of a dictatorship today than it was under Saddam Hussein?
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad thing is that America's image in the rest of the world is so bad right now, that as a foreigner, I am not entirely sure that this guy is trolling.
Let me be the ten billionth person to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Youre missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not "spin" or "status quo" thats outright imperialism.
Slashdot Moderation (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Are we sure? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because I distinctly saw President Bush take a drink of water while he was speaking.
That's because you weren't watching Karl Rove.
I'm amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
I just assumed it would be obvious from the fact that Allawi repeated not one, but almost every catchphrase that Bush throws into all of his speeches on the "war on terror". Anyway, read the speech [cnn.com] for yourself and see if it sounds like chunks of it came from the same speechwriters Bush uses. Mind you, I'd expect Allawi to be thankful and congratulatory, since he needs the US's continued commitment right now, but I wouldn't expect his own speechwriters to parrot back Bush's campaign slogans word-for-word.
Anyway, this doesn't come as a surprise to me, it was just much more blatant and obvious than I would have thought possible. Another poster brought up Julius Caesar, who wrote his conquered enemies speeches for them. His long lived and immensely successful successor, Caesar Augustus, was the master of running an authoritarian regime while maintaining all the dressings of the Republic, practically the inventor of political spin and authoritarianism cloaked in democracy.
Unfortunately, the analogies don't end there. Trading freedom for security under authoritarian regimes was practically pioneered by the Romans. If our schoolchildren were forced to read some of the classics, I wonder how different things might be in America today.
Re: allawi a puppet (Score:3, Insightful)
> In the last week, there has been a spin war going on between the campaigns about whether Allawi is a US puppet. I'd like to know what most of you guys think: is he independent, sort of independent, or a puppet.
Are you seriously considering a possibility that one country would take on the expense and political risk of imposing a regime change on another country, and then neglect to ensure that the replacement regime was subservient?
It's called the "client state", and the idea has been around at least since the time of the Roman republic.
Re: Alternative (Score:3, Insightful)
> America is doing th right thing by keeping a firm hand on Iraq. A decade from now, pulling out completely will be viable. Doing so now would create a situation so bad that the rest of the middle east would look like a picnic.
I think that's called "the Viet Nam argument".
Re:Is anyone surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Heck, the Daily Show did a bit on it... specifically the part where Allawi does the "we are safer, you are safer, the world is safer" bit. I can't even begin to imagine why the Iraqi president would come over here to inform us that we (the US) are "safer". So obviously the White House told him to say it. Can't believe this is even news...
Re:Debate (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bush's Votes (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Debate (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole Iraq war is a puppet show, watch the war, and we won't notice how Bush is slaughtering our EPA, Forests, and corporation responsibility.
Glad we got Saddam for the 911 attack, oh wait....
Re:Let's face it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep in mind the way the current US President came to power ( lost the popular vote, was awarded the presidency by the Supreme Court ) before you start praising the US-run Iraqi elections.
Nice moderating there (Score:5, Insightful)
-1 mod for overrated? For posting two editorials critical of the war?
This is a prime example of why America is headed for disaster.
If you're genuinely interested in knowing what's really happening in the world, I would suggest looking beyond CNN, FOX, Wall Street journal and the New York Times. All of America's big media is owned by a very small group with very strong political leanings. When you look to them, you only get one side of the story.
If you want the other side, places like www.cursor.org are a good place to start.
Fun with words! (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this the part where I get to assume it's already fact?
And the 'Thinnest Skin' Goes to (Score:2, Insightful)
I am all for presenting the facts. Just because she is from CA does not mean she needs to go for the cheesy emotion crap.
Re:Is this news? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Let's face it... (Score:5, Insightful)
heh (Score:2, Insightful)
As if ANY politician these days (including Diane Feinstein) writes their own speeches, instead of having them "massaged by their campaign operatives"...
Why is this on front page? (Score:1, Insightful)
Slashdot... Propaganda for news, spin that doesn't belong.
Re:Puppeteer? (Score:3, Insightful)
This just proves the point (Score:3, Insightful)
It is my humble but thoughtful opinion that most of the current strength of the U.S. was actually forged during the time of the physical, bloody rejection of British governance 225 years ago. Ironically, as a result I wonder if the ideal solution to the Iraqi problem would actually be to pull out and allow the forces at work there to believe they HAD fought for their independence and won.
I look at Germany (the homeland of my parents) as a rare, good, but definitely not ideal, outcome of "nation-building". Germany to this day continues to struggle (I feel) with a definition of itself that works in this century. Why else are there these irrational resurgences in interest in Nazi ideas. It was the last time that Germany was the world leader in engineering, science, and was getting lots of attention. Now they're known as the source of oom-pah music, all kinds of wurst, that country that Mike Myers makes fun of, kinky porn, and beer. Ideally, I think the people of a country would like a better fate than that. A defining moment... Where is Iraq's defining moment??
Does it matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then, after Bush wins in a massive landslide, the "Republicans" in power can get back to raping this nation and the world.
Have a nice day!
- A.P.
Re:Let's face it... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's one thing to not have voters cast ballots in genuinely unsafe conditions. It's quite another to rule that areas that support someone other than the US-selected leader cannot vote.
This makes the fuss over who got onto what banned list in the 2000 US Presidential elections seem like a trivial affair. Here' we're talking about the disenfranchising of entire regions, based on how the US happens to feel about those regions at the time. Those who feel the election is tainted and invalid have some serious grounds for complaint. Now all they have to do is find anyone who'll listen. That's the hard part.
Re:daily show (Score:5, Insightful)
For the first part of the interview he is trademark Stewart, mixing wise cracks with straight lines just about evenly, but about 15 minutes into the interview it really changes. The interviewer starts talking about the reputation that The Daily Show, the self-described "fake news show" has developed as one of the most perceptive analysts of the current state of American politics. Stewart is quite modest, but displays a marvelous level of understanding of the role of the media in America, and the way that its has abrogated its responsibility to be a skeptical filter and not simply an uncritical platform for the political spin-meister of the moment.
The great irony, of course, is that very few of the talking heads in the "non-fake news" business seem to have this level of understanding of the responsibility they bear.
Re:I long for the day (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let's face it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Democratic Underground (Score:4, Insightful)
The shrill nature of the allegations and insinuations are just laughable against President Bush.
Re:Let's face it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Imagine finding out that Kerry's speechwriter is the same guy as Bush's speechwriter. One guy writing two wholly different scripts; ignore how difficult that would be, and focus on the shock of realizing one guy ultimately decides what either of them is to say.
It would be a little unnerving, to say the least.
Same sorta thing about Bush and Alliwa. A little unnerving that the guy who is running Iraq is in lockstep agreement with Bush, right down to the cute catchphrases.
The image of a muppet with a human up its ass comes to mind, as one man is controlling two leaders. Not so sure that's a very wise idea, especially as that puppeteer wasn't elected for the job.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is this news? (Score:2, Insightful)
...who used to work with the CIA. From this wikipedia article [wikipedia.org]:
(Emphasis is mine, to acknowledge those points that are accusations, not necessarily accepted facts.)
Allawi is at best a controversial figure who came to power largely due to the backing of the US:
Maybe the whitehouse didn't write his speech, but there's certainly room for a skeptic to wonder about its origins, and Allawi's motivations.
-jim
Re:Is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Dictators don't allow the people to do such a thing. They know when people get the idea that they can elect whoever they want to run the city, that they'll figure out that they should be able to elect whoever they want to be prime minister.
It's one of the reasons why the kings of England weren't considered dictators - they allowed the people a democracy to a large extent, and even demanded it.
Because it's OUR dictatorship. (Score:2, Insightful)
Mod points wasted (Score:2, Insightful)
Why on earth would you waste a perfectly good mod point to mod someone a troll just becuase it goes against what you believe (speaking, of course, to the person who modded you a troll)?
You are, in fact, reenforcing ACs point that if you disagree, you must be unpatriotic and a troll.
Jeezus.
Re:Why is this on front page? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only other story with so many comments is "Your Rights Online: Missed Opportunities in U.S. v. Microsoft" with 342 comments but this was posted 7 hours earlier.
I don't come here to read politics either and I realize that comments alone do not necessarily denote interest, but you can't deny that Politics, for better or for worse, interests a lot of SlashDot readers. As a technical crowd, as close as I can tell, the stats bare this out.
Re:Mod parent down for telling the truth! (Score:2, Insightful)
The reasons for the first two are obvious (assuming the accuracy of sources quoted from "the web of a million lies"). The last, because the content is deliberately provocative and inadequately tied by rational discourse to the topic at hand, to wit, the possible manipulation by the Bush campaign of the nominally independent address of the leader of another semi-sovereign nation to our congress. Had the poster actually taken the trouble to insert the intermediate rational train of thought connecting the messages to the subject matter of the original article, rather than leaving it to inference and allegation, I would drop my "troll" assessment. They didn't; I wouldn't.
In further off-topic matters: For those who wonder at my political leanings, my listening to tonight's debate has solidified my assessment of the presidential election. If elected, John Kerry will be a disaster as president; if re-elected, George W. Bush will be an unmitigated disaster as president. Time to renew my passport.
Re:Is this news? (Score:3, Insightful)
One might argue that never before in history has a father's presidency been used as a springboard for a son's.
What's behind this fixation on Hillary, anyway? Was she not fairly elected?
Re:Puppet Show? (Score:3, Insightful)
If by worked out you mean - HelloKitty, Anime and porn in the same magazine and a host of other morally questionable changes along with the freakshow you get walking in downtown Tokyo.
If that means everything worked out then by all means let the Iraqi freakshow begin.
I'll go!
MOD PARENT UP!!!! Exactly right. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Seeing how the comments so far have been moderated, it's quite clear that the moderators are either unaware, or unwilling to be aware of a serious problem in America."
MOD PARENT UP!!!! Exactly right.
You cannot develop an accurate opinion by listening to the innuendo from media employees who would lose their jobs if they seemed to indicate a preference for one candidate over another. Remember, the media exists to make money. Unfortunately, we don't have directly supported media, only ad supported media, and advertisers, understandably, are careful not to alienate anyone.
Please don't be intimidated by someone with unspecified objections, or objections that merely try to draw attention away from the major issues. Consider everything in the light of your own experiences and your own extensive investigation.
If you have never read the books [futurepower.org] about the Bush family and Bush administration, I suggest you do so. If you read the books, you will see that the corruption is far worse than you are being told.
--
Bush: Borrowing money [brillig.com] to try to make his administration look good.
Re:Right (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, because we should be influencing other people to stand for equality, democracy, and civil liberties. Just like we influenced the Afghanis to depose the Taliban, put girls back in school, and allow women to participate in society as something more than property.
Like the way we influenced Japanese to throw away tyrannical rule by despots and adopt a democracy. Just like we convinced the Germans that having a nutjob whacko for a dictator is not a good idea. Just like we influenced the British, Indians, Chinese, and pretty much every other world out there that maybe, just maybe, freedom is a viable alternative to oh, say, injustice, hatred, violence, and tyranny.
Yeah, I think you have a great point here. So many people want to influence the world to do evil, to trade in slaves and blood, to sell out their own countries for a little profit, while the US is standing up for the individuality and freedom and humanity, at the cost of instant gratification.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is this news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup. Never before [civil-liberties.com]
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, he's probably not. A sizable portion of the country say such things in all seriousness.
Re:Let's face it... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Electoral College is in place for a very specific and important reason. If America worked by direct democracy, the candidates would only have to win the huge urban areas like New York and Los Angeles in order to win the presidency.
So if the major urban areas constitute a majority of the people in the country, what the hell is wrong with their votes counting as the majority of the votes for President? The Electoral College system fails DISMALLY at doing what you suggesting - in fact, it explicitly _CAUSES_ candidates to ignore large urban areas. Bush and Kerry only come to New York and Boston for one reason: fundraising. Nobody bothers campaigning in the northeast. We barely get to see those nifty attack ads you guys in the midwest see all the time, we don't hear the local stump speeches, basically we are ignored.
I'm officially resident in Massachusetts right now (though in NYC much of the time), and because of this, my vote doesn't count. That's right, it's essentially irrelevant. Kerry may have just impressed all of the educated folks on the coasts with his excellent performance tonight, but it's the dipshits in the midwest (and Florida) who get to decide our president for us. Ya know what? I'm sick of it. We (New Yorkers) are the ones who get BLOWN THE FUCK UP when our foreign policy pisses off our allies and helps Al Qaeda recruit more terrorists.
I suffer the consequences of terrorism directly, I pay more taxes than you (again, we're speaking collectively here, not turning this into an ad hominem against the parent poster), why the FUCK doesn't my vote count equally? If a couple hundred thousand people live in the wilderness of Wyoming, and 10 million people live in NYC, and the NYC votes dominate Wyoming, do I see that as an issue just because Wyoming has more square miles? Hell no.
The only way anybody gives a crap about what I have to say is if I donate money (which I have, to the DNC and the Kerry campaign).
Now, to turn your argument back on you, if you want to argue that direct election is a bad idea because the people can't be trusted with even that modicum of direct democracy, I might be inclined to agree with you. But I would propose a solution that requires passing a basic citizenship competency test to qualify to vote as a solution and doing away with this absurd electoral college that invariably ends up giving up rural bumpkin-friendly presidents, or at least Ivy League graduates who can put on a reasonable show of bumpkin-friendliness.
Hang in there. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This just proves the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Mod parent down for telling the truth! (Score:4, Insightful)
The U.S. government is building 16 permanent bases (Score:5, Insightful)
The U.S. government is building 16 permanent bases in Iraq. This was mentioned in the debate tonight. They apparently want control over the oil. They apparently care about nothing else. A democratic country is one that has control over its own resources.
Re:Is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
And those brave soldiers of the U.S. military.
Off course, if you commit the additional crime of making photo evidence of your actions, you will be court martialed...
I'm pretty sure they're doing much less volume.
Well, over ten thousand dead in a year...that's rather a lot I would think.
Re:Ahh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let's face it... (Score:2, Insightful)
Maintaining the fiction that Wyoming (insert your favorite unpopulated, irrelevant state here) is equal to New York doesn't really interest me. The states may be independent to a degree, and have their own state laws and management of certain government functions at a state level, but that doesn't mean that a small minority of the nation's population should control the presidency based on the political and historical boundaries drawn around certain state areas. We can trash the electoral college system without depriving states of any of their rights or other functions.
Re:Is anyone surprised? (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect Senator Finestein's shock is strictly rhetorical. I certainly hope it is.
The fact that it is no longer shocking is half the reason it keeps happening. Is there a bottom here? If this is not shocking, what is? If the president (any president) were to, say, dissolve Congress, would we all log onto Slashdot and say, "I can't see why anyone would be shocked by this." What if the party in power started jailing the opposition? What if they started shooting them?
The thing is, I can faintly recall a day when this absolutely would have been shocking. I don't want to ever have to tell my daughter about the time when the scenarios I mention above were viewed as shocking.
You may be right: Feinstein may be simply rolling out shock for rhetorical reasons, but frankly, I think they are damn good reasons, and I would say that those among us who are too cynical to be shocked ought to be acting like it none-the-less.
My 1972-adjusted two cents.
More Letters from the Front (Score:3, Insightful)
Dear mum,
our flatulant, pompus general lost another battle. This is hopeless. We've lost every battle so far, and General Washington keeps retreating. Will we retreat all the way to the territories? How am I to get back to this fall's harvest if the British burn our fields?
Indeed, the times are grim, and I wonder what is to become of us. All we hear is how things are going well, but all I see is death and retreat.
-----
People on the ground rarely have any idea of what's going on.
Digital Camera's (Score:3, Insightful)
Not quite the advent of the digital camera and expedent digital media conveyance made the Abu Ghraib Prison story different.
I listened to an interview of the guy who broke the Abu Ghraib prison story. He said he could have written pages and pages with all sorts of details concerning the incident and it would have never be noticed. But a single image drove the point lucidly home and made all the difference.
Re:Fun with words! (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this the part where I get to assume it's already fact?
Did you actually read the original speech?
You could have taken the Bush 2003 State of the Union Address Drinking Game, played with Allawi's speech and gotten smaashed off your arse.
If Bush's aides didn't write that speech for Allawi, then Allawi and his goons have been going through Karl Rove's garbage can.
Re:Mod parent down for telling the truth! (Score:1, Insightful)
That's what America is all about: blindly following our commander-in-chief, not questioning their policies, always agreeing.
No, that is the picture painted by the looney left of the Bush Administration. It is fantasy, political pornography.
Give us a break.
One of the few ways almost guaranteed to make you rich these days is to write a book criticizing the Bush Administration. I guess the organs of oppression must be on dialysis, huh?
Re:Debate (Score:3, Insightful)
On another note, I'm glad we went to Iraq. I think if you aren't, you would be the sort to stand by a watch while somebody was being mugged, raped, assaulted, etc. But that's my opinion.
Pretty sad opinion, i'd say. I know i've not stood by. Will you step up for Bangladesh? Zimbabwe? Sudan? Chechnya? Burma? big hero? You get all puffed about you're big 'liberation' when in fact the situation seems more like some asshole who assaults a rape victim "I chased off that bad Saddam, he won't hurt ya - now bend over, bitch"
Duck, here comes Mighty America, looking out for us all
I want to know what each candidates position is on things that are pertinent to me... guns ... gay marriage ... abortion, illegal immigration, patents, copyrights, taxes, our economy, healthcare, and so on. Once I know that, I'll vote for the candidate I like best.
The gulf between us is that you can see nothing unfortunate with the above order of 'things' you deem important.
Re:Is this news? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ahem. What does Al Queda have to do with Iraq?
strike
TIME: Secret plan for CIA to rig Iraq elections (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,917
Whether or not Iran is influencing the elections, this idea is very very wrong. The biggest problem any politician elected will be credibility, to be more exact, they need to be seen to be independent of the US. Even *rumours* of CIA interference in elections will derail the reputation of anyone elected. As academic Juan Cole writes, if it is wide-spread opinion that the US rigged the elections (esp. through the CIA bogeyman), it does not mean only failure of democracy in Iraq but in the entire Middle East:
"The first is to point out that this sort of behavior by the Bush administration fatally undermines the ideal of democracy in the Middle East. If Muslims think that "democracy" is a stalking horse for CIA control of their country, then they will flee the system and prefer independent-minded strongmen that denounce the US. The constitutional monarchies established in the Middle East by the British were similarly undermined in the popular imagination by the impression they gave of being mere British puppets. This was true of the Wafd Party in Egypt in the 1940s and early 1950s, which the Free Officers overthrew in 1952 in the name of national indepencence. It was also true in Iraq, where in 1958 popular mobs dragged the corpse of the pro-British Prime Minister Nuri al-Said through the streets and finished off the British-installed monarchy."
http://www.juancole.com/
Re:Nice moderating there (Score:4, Insightful)
Language barrier? Just read the Aussie [smh.com.au] news (reg. required, sorry).
Re:Is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
A point of caution. While I am not in a position to know the extent of Saddam's doings you should keep this in mind; Histories are written and Villains are made by the Victors. All of the links you quoted are provided by organizations who are sworn enemies of the Bathists and who all are known to make stuff up when it suits them. Some of the mass graves listed here turned out to be graves from the battlefields of the Iran-Iraq war. The war itself was actively encouraged and financed by the USA. While it is quite likely that Saddams torture chambers, bullets and chemical weapons killed thens of thousands, that happened over period of twenty years while the Iraq war alone produced around 10000 casaulties (both military and civilian). One has to mention that the first Gulf War prodcued over 150000 dead Iraqi soldiers and civilians, bulk of them killed on the famous slauther on the "Highway of Death" over which they were withdrawing from Kuwait when the war was essentially over.
I am personally not sure who killed more Iraqis in total, Saddam on his own, Saddam aided by the US when he was an "ally" or US by itself.
Re:Al Lorentz (Score:1, Insightful)
If there is a problem here it is due to engaging in political activity while serving on active duty, not for a more general "speaking out."
There are restrictions on the political activities of soldiers, which this letter clearly is. (Notice the references to the Constitution Party, and specious claims about the un-Constitutional nature of the war. I will ignore the factual "errors" which should be apparent to anyone in the position he claims to be in.) You wouldn't want soldiers agitating to disobey the President becasue the "wrong party" was in control, would you? In most places that ends up being a coup. In most countries in which the civilian government controls the military that is considered bad form.
As to "serious jail time" (5+ years), I doubt it.
Unfortunatly the Senator is a sham... (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is a pity, really. Because it lends discredit to her statements. And as far as being a "leading US Senator", well, that opinion must come from somebody outside CA. Bush is evil, sure. But do you trust a nafarious liar such as Feinstein to point out his administrations evils? Its just hard to swallow...
Re:Letters from Iraq (Score:5, Insightful)
It could be filed two years before for all its importance. Not only this report is a lot of "maybe-coulda-woulda", it is also quite silly that otherwise intelligent people are so easilly fooled by all of this Iraq WMD talk. VX is known to be possessed by just about any two-bit country on the planet, including places like Serbia. Anthrax is produced from cow dung. A few nutcases were able to make it in a bathtub in England. Etc. Etc. If Saddam was truly bent on using this (rather awkward and unreliable weapon), he would have done so looong ago. Actually he did in 1980s on the Kurds and probably like every military before him, decided the thing was useless. Did you ever wonder why during WWII noone used chemical weapons on the battlefield? All sides had them. They are just extremely useless things in combat. Additionally, Iraq had no capability to produce nuclear technology in any meaningful way for a foreseeable future due to constant oversight.
Truly frightening bio-weapons are of genetic nature and at this point in time beyond reach of the terrorists. This will unforunately change in not so remote future and because of the nature of the technology they will become the primary, cheap and widely available weapon of unspeakable terror.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
patriotism abused ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this the Bush admininstration in a nutshell? If you disagree with us, you are un-American, disloyal, unpatriotic.
I'm tired of linking the following quote : People don't want War [snopes.com] by Herman Goering . That in a few sentences covers what you have saidRe:BS Alert! (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate hitler. If I was to point out some of his crimes would you just brush them off saying I am just some "political ideologue, with an anti-hitler paranoia".
ahhh the sweet irony of you posting that.
who cares if he's gay or not (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what's going on (Score:4, Insightful)
All this does is show Allawi to be an American puppet. Which is a conclusion many people, both inside and outside of Iraq, had already come to.
Re:Debate (Score:2, Insightful)
"A bad thing happened at Abu Ghraib Prison involving the United States. We acknowledge the actions, we reassert that the United States does not stand for this kind of behavior."
Instead, the typical military political ass-covering begins. Those above O-5 and GS-16 are given plenty of time to either find scapegoats, or create an inscrutable web of finger-pointing and blame-laying that nothing can really be resolved.
Instead of finding an honorable O-6 or Brigade General to step up and say, "we failed these prisoners, we failed the soldiers supervising them. It was my responsibility (duely delegated, of course), so the buck stops here."
Nope. Can't have Officers admitting of doing something wrong.
The military, of course, cannot ever seem to grasp that the reason so many whackos spin bad things out of control in the US is because they have such a long history of being ambiguous or lying directly to the press. When truth comes out later, it just adds more fuel to the fires of a cynical press. They dig their own hole.
Just like with "Blackhawk Down" (read the book). Sure, great idea to send in Rangers, Delta Force, et al. But our hubris at sending in the best soldiers for what was intended to be either a quick-and-dirty leadership decapitation just didn't end up that way.
Remember the mission, carry it out in a timely fashion, and get out.
Oh, what was the mission again?
Re:BS Alert! (Score:2, Insightful)
As for the slam on a career non-comm, the typical non-comm reply to that is, "someone's got to do the work around here."
Re:Mod parent down for telling the truth! (Score:2, Insightful)
Psychologists have, for years, been driving campaigns to 'mold' the public mindset for their political masters, and shape a society that is more directly malleable. It has been a fact in American politics since the first so-called "Doctors of Psychology" have held positions in the U.S. Government, as 'advisors'.
The Anthrax psy-op. The Be-headings psy-op. The 9/11 coverup. PATRIOT Act is a blatant psy-op (when did it get passed, again, and by who? And how?)
Americans are Victims of their own Strict Subservience to Thinking The Way You're Supposed To, granted to them by High Priests of Psychology, through their manipulation of pop culture.
Psychology is a weapon! It has been used against you!
Weed out this insidious cult, Americans! The organized movements of Pscyhology which have your government in their grips are Working Against The American Public. It may 'seem fantastic' to you, but just look at the reality. The reality is, a very significant portion of America has been converted into a nation of subservient victims of psychology and so-called 'religious thinking' (Christian cults are Psy-op Wastelands already), sheep ready and willing to 'go with the mob' and 'be part of society' in ways that only give the ruling class even more control...
"There is nothing you can do about it" == psy-op product.
"The powers that be know what they're doing" == psy-op product.
&etc.
America's true enemy are the ones you cannot see, the 'obvious' advisors and 'leaders of opinion' who use their position behind-the-ear of government leaders to manipulate mass opinion and perspective...
Re:BS Alert! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:BS Alert! (Score:2, Insightful)
I understand your viewpoint, but what your saying is disingenious. He is lying by omission, not lying outright. He told no untruths.
Re:The Bush administration is habitually dishonest (Score:2, Insightful)
ostiguy
What an amazing sense of compasion! (Score:2, Insightful)
What an amazing sense of compasion Ms. Feinstein has for the Bush administration: She's dismayed that there are reports of this, that, and the other! There can be no other explaination as to why she would bother to be so outspoken about such an allegation, unless there were cold hard facts about what was allegedly perertrated.
This jumping the gun on this issue is no more astute than Dan Rather and his brillant, yet revealing, ways.
Re:Nice moderating there (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly! Don't moderators know you're only supposed to moderate up liberal viewpoints as insightful? Conservatives and war-mongerers are misguided and should be moderated as low as possible and if possible their accounts should be banned completely. We can't have their intolerance for people voicing opposing viewpoints clouding our Slashdot forum in a time of great danger to John Kerry's election bid for President. Opposing viewpoints must be quenched!
so, the Dems position on foreign leaders is ... (Score:4, Insightful)
... we must give them great respect, and curry their favor.
Er, unless they actually help us in Iraq (UK, Australia, etc), or are trying at great personal risk to rebuild a country and hold elections (Allawi). Then we sneer at them and call them Bush puppets.
Who's doing exactly the wrong thing for political purposes, again?
Re:Is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but al-Zarqawi and his animals are not "defending their country against invasion." They are opportunistic, completely intolerant Islamic fundamentalists whose sole vision is to convert or kill all non-Muslims and create a unified Islamic world under strict sharia. Yesterday, this group killed 35 Iraqi kids with car bombs who were waiting for candy from American soldiers. Too bad there's no mod "-1, Misinformed".
Re:Is this news? (Score:2, Insightful)
I wouldn't be so quick to call American Armed Forces "loosely-affiliated amateurs".
They're very closely affiliated.
Nephs
Re:Al Lorentz (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Letters from Iraq (Score:3, Insightful)
So if Saddam was in breach of the agreements, it wasn't really that bad, yes? Especially since the genetic super Shazam! bioweapon of the future would always be unavailable to him, correct?
You gave yourself an appropriate screen name.
Re:More Letters from the Front (Score:3, Insightful)
Ummm, did you even read the post you are replying to? Start at the beginning...
People there sure as hell have a better idea of what is going on instead of slovenly nerds jerking off to anime half a world away.
Re:Nice moderating there (Score:5, Insightful)
My first big exposure to this was during the Iran Hostage crisis in 1979. US Media was "Oh, those Iranians hate us, they want to kill us and they don't think straight.:
Canadian media got most of their feeds from US stations, but were more moderate... pointing out how Iranians liked the US people but had serious distrust for the US Government.
European media were essentially going "What the hell is the US Doing???? Are they nuts????? They saw US actions in Iran at the time as counter-productive and generally stupid.
My reading is that US actions in the late 70s and early 80s destroyed the political lives of just about every moderate in Iran (most of them ended up dead), and pushed Iran from being neutral/pro US into being a heavily anti-US radical Islamic state. We're still dealing with that debacle -- including the very new quagmire in Iraq which has raised anti-US sentiment in the region to an entirely new level.
When Bush I led the Invasion of Iraq in 1991, Iraqis saw the incoming coalition as a savior. When Bush Sr. called on them to revolt against Saddam, many did so. Even after receiving a brutal drubbing at the hands of the US, Iraqi soldiers were doing things like spontaneously chanting "Long Live George Bush".
There was even a case of a tank crew coming across a bunch of American soldiers with their jeep stuck. The tank crew pulled the American soldiers out of their quagmire, and then happily surrendered to them.
What did the Bush Sr. do for them? Once he had achieved his objectives, he stopped what would have been a victory drive into a breathlessly waiting Baghdad, and modified the terms of Iraq's no-fly orders to allow Saddam to use his helicopters to brutally suppress the very revolt that Bush had called for.
He completely betrayed his allies (the people of Iraq). That is probably a very big part of what Bush Jr. had going against him when he invaded Iraq in the first place -- the name of his father who killed one part of the Iraqi population, and then betrayed the rest. Leaving them in the hands of a brutal dictator and punnishing them with sanctions to boot.
US actions in Iraq in this invasion (being very careless of neutral Iraqi lives) have made things even worse. Things like the debacle in Abu Gharab prison and the killing if Iraqi kids who had gathered around a disabled US tank have made things much worse.
For the time being, as long as Bush is in power, the USA has absolutely no chance of succeeding in Iraq.
If Americans want to salvage any sort of success in Iraq, the first thing they have to do is vote Bush out of office. -- Then Kerry needs to completely shift the attitude of the US military in Iraq to one of protecting and aiding Neutral Iraqis -- The US said that they went into Iraq to protect the Iraqi people, and they now need to act consistent with those words -- or eat them along with bombs and bullets.
Republicans Can Use Soldier For Political Purposes (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Bush administration is habitually dishonest (Score:1, Insightful)
Wasn't this the author who was grilled on Hardball and eventually conceded to the fact that she could not back up any of her sources for this book. Chris Matthews ripped her a new one in this interview [msn.com].
Re:Letters from Iraq (Score:2, Insightful)
Assuming that the soldier's letter is true, I can't assume that one NCO speaks for the entire effort. Dissenting letters like these loom large, simply because the word from the other 99.99% of the field is perpendicular to it. Even a soldier with 20 years of experience can be wrong, especially since he IS, after all, an NCO and there is a different perspective available from high-ranking commanders such as Tommy Franks [amazon.com]. Think about it in the perspective as a company employee. I've been that disgruntled employee before, and just because I'd been there for several years doesn't make me the end-all authority on whether the company is going down the toilet.
In short (unlike the parent post), ALWAYS be skeptical... ALWAYS view communications like these with a critical eye - even if they validate your own opinions.
Re:Letters from Iraq (Score:3, Insightful)
Damn!!!! I fed the troll again!
Re:The Bush administration is habitually dishonest (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mod parent down for telling the truth! (Score:3, Insightful)
You've just described 99% percent of the world.
Scientologist? (Score:3, Insightful)
Weed out this insidious cult, Americans! The organized movements of Pscyhology which have your government in their grips are Working Against The American Public.
You've got it backwards. The manipulation of minds is just a tool to them, the people in power who seek to stay in power. Politicians have been messing with people's heads since before anyone ever heard of "psychology".
Idiot Alert! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, you just destroyed any shred of credibility you had. This guy may be an asshole with an agenda, but I dare you to walk up to a First Sergeant and tell him the only reason he isn't a felching butterbar Lieutenant is that he's incompetent. I will gladly administer first aid afterward, you'll need it.
Hell, I know a couple of officers who would gladly hold you while the said noncom fed you your balls, if he had the optical magnification equipment to find them.
oh the irony. (Score:5, Insightful)
I hardly know where to start with this. Ideally it would be "insightful" viewpoints which are modded up as "insightful" independent of their political background. But what makes your post totally silly is that, despite the fact that people say slashdot has liberal leanings, liberals are kept on the defensive. Liberal viewpoints are modded down just for being liberal.
And the rest of what you said is totally inane- it is conservatives, not liberals, who seek to (and frequently manage to) quench "opposing viewpoints".
The republican noise machine's ability to shout louder than anyone else is great for conservative politicians, but it's hurting our country. How is a democracy supposed to adjust to circumstances when the debate is brought to the level of an elementary school playground fight?
I met an informed, reasonable republican on slashdot the other day. I praised him for his character, but in fact I was shocked because usually I only meet people like you, who gloss over reality because they came up with a witty barb to toss at the other party.
You guys are really good at that, credit where credit is due; it's only to bad that you are fucking us all over by removing the substance of the conversation.
Re:Nice moderating there (Score:5, Insightful)
They blame Saddam and his cronies for the killings since 1991, believe it or not.
Overly simplistic. Of course the Kurds blame Saddam for the killings. But they *also* blame Bush Sr. for not supporting their uprising when they had been given tacit acknowledgement that we would provide such support. When the Kurds did revolt Bush specifically instructed our troops to stay out of the way. Pilots later reported watching from their cockpits as Iraqi helicopters wiped out large numbers of Kurdish rebels.So yeah, they're a little bit bitter about that.
Re:Nice moderating there (Score:5, Insightful)
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. Basically, they treated the embassy personnel like enemy soldiers because they considered more or less all of them to be spies and because they (as young, inexperienced and highly radical) had no respect for diplomatic immunity. The former embassy is now being used as barracks for the Revolutionary Guards, and on the embassy corner there is a souvenir shop selling replicas of US documents labeled "Top Secret" about the good relations between the US, Israel and the Shah's government.
Most Iranians like the American way of life and have nothing against Americans. However, they have been highly indoctrinated against America as such. Most of them have been watching TV what goes on in Iraq, too. There's murals like this [pbase.com] (another view [bbc.co.uk]) and this [pbase.com] all over Tehran, and recently, some new ones have appeared where they reproduced pictures from Abu Ghuraib.
To put it another way: the average Iranian in Iran, at least judging from whom I've spoken to, likes America as the cradle of the American way of life, as a place to get a good education etc., and has no grudges against individual Americans, yet shows profound distrust of America as a political superpower. If (and that's a big if) the US were to invade Iran to avoid the government acquiring the A-bomb, the outcome depends on how quickly the US would be able to restore/provide peace, stability, prosperity and individual freedom so that the Iranian people would come to judge America by the former aspect rather than the latter.
(Again: I've had first-hand experience of the country, and I'm saying this out of experience as a consultant and language trainer (Farsi and Dari) for the German army, who expect serious trouble in Iran within the next five or ten years; read: large-scale peacekeeping mission. Please, US, don't botch this, it would be a complete disaster.)
Re:Allawi (Score:5, Insightful)
I found this refreshing to Bush's repetative and very non-specific "We're going to win!" over and over with no real substance as far as a clear plan and intelligent resolve. . .
Um...proof? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The U.S. government is building 16 permanent ba (Score:0, Insightful)
I guess I should be wearing my tin-foil hat so I can fit in with the rest of you loons.
Wake up and smell the coffe... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I'm not just trying to be a tinfoil-hat-carrying left-wing anti-US conspiration theorist - but seriously, have you read a paper the past few years?
How this can be "news" is beyond me. How it ever became "news for nerds" that's a whole other story...
Please, can we go back to Xeon vs. Opteron bashing?
Re:The U.S. government is building 16 permanent ba (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course this is just a game of thought and not a 100% precise analogy (most Arabs have no particular liking for Iran, for instance), it still gives you a vague impression of the other side's mindset. (Just to anticipate likely responses: your analogy has its limits, too. Israel is in a rather good state, except for the terrorism threat that, well, they've brought upon themselves to deal with somehow. And Iran isn't exactly on the scale of the Soviet Union as a global threat. And Iran has oil, too.
Re:Nice moderating there (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Read more (Score:3, Insightful)
Speeches before joint sessions of congress are very rare and should be held to a very high standard [whitehouse.gov]. It is absolutely appropriate that Allawi had help with phrases and delivery of his speech [cnn.com] to live up to that standard.
Allawi only received help writing and delivering his speech, and there is no evidence that he did not agree with anything in the speech. The content of the speech matches what he has said in many other interviews and press conferences. Anyone who would ignore everything Allawi has said and done in the past and in the future because he was helped with his speech, who did not attend the speech, insults Allawi, and disrespects the contributions of our allies, gives me no confidence that they are interested in bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people.
Re:Allawi (Score:5, Insightful)
1) we are right, therefore we are going to win
2) it doesn't matter if we botched the job with no planning and inadequate support because, uh, we are RIGHT!
3) if we are losing it's only because the enemy is hating us more for being right
4) my administration didn't make any mistakes because I am right
5) if you criticize anything we do, I simply mention that it's a hard job and reinforce the fact that I am doing a hard job, regardless of whether it is the right job
6) if you highlight how bad a job we are doing, you are actually perversely on the terrorists side and the public should discount you because the terrorists want to hear that we are doing a bad job
7) since I don't want them (or you) to hear that, I'll just keep repeating that we are doing the right thing
8) a decisive but WRONG course is much better than any indecisive course
9) but that doesn't matter anyway because...I'm right
On the pro side, Bush did come out I think revealing that, yes, he can remember facts and names. Since the bar is so low, this makes him seem ultra smart.
As far as Kerry he's already fucked himself because his statements have been so easy to spin, he can't dispell the myths around him, and the "debate" format doesn't allow him time to. There were many non-rational things Bush said, or foolish misinterpretations (either intentional or unintentional) by Bush of what Kerry had just said, that Kerry didn't have time to rebut. For instance, Kerry said that the test of whether to go to war is a more "global test" (or "universal test" I forget), namely that you have to be able to say to a soldier's family you did everything you could to avoid it, and Bush either intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreted this and played dumbfounded that Kerry was talking about some "global tests" as if he was talking about some world-wide exam. How can you debate somebody that can't even understand what you are saying? I get the feeling if he had said "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" Bush would have started saying: "what is this guy talking about, 'playing with birds', HEY WE'RE AT WAR!"
sigh.
Re:patriotism abused ... (Score:1, Insightful)
WAR ON TERRORISM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SADDAM.
He didn't have the capability to hit US in any way except one - Selling Oil for Euros
> you take you quote from a Nazi and ill take my quote from a lefty jurnalist.
The Nazi quote seems to be scary not because of what he says - but of what they achieved with that simple brutal policy.
Re:Allawi (Score:3, Insightful)
The only allies that are ever going to be there are already there. Kerry saying "I'll involve France, Germany, and Russia" isn't going to make France, Germany, and Russia send combat troups. In fact, all three have stated unequivocally they will not do so, under any circumstances, anyway. If Kerry thinks a regime change in the US is going to make an globally-unpopular occupation more popular somehow, he is in for a rude awakening.
Ensure that the Iraqi forces had been adequately trained to perform necessary police actions.
We're already trying to do that already. No difference in administration policy, there. As an aside, it's my understanding that France has, in fact, sent advisors to help train police and anti-terrorism forces in Iraq. I can't find a link to verify, though, so take it as you will (IOW, I'm not staking my life on it).
And take all means necessary to foster the view that America is not an occupier, but an enabler.
WTH? What is an enabler? That's just some vague psycho-babble buzzword with no inherent meaning. How are we going to enable Iraq?
- Give them free elections? Check.
- Replenish their police force? Check.
- Restore electricity, sanitation, and medical services? Check.
- Get their oil economy going again? Check.
Is there something enablers do that I'm missing here? Seems to me like Kerry's plan for Iraq is nothing more than keeping current policies in place.
Re:Allawi (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, Germany was a democracy before World War II. Hitler was an elected official. So democracy was nothing new to them. Obviously Japan was not, but neither Germany nor Japan were tribal as fook before during or after the war. Iraq is.
Iraq is more likely to decend into a civil war like Yugoslavia did or end up like one of the African clusterfuck countries, as opposed to being a success story like postwar Japan or Germany.
Re:The Bush administration is habitually dishonest (Score:1, Insightful)
You do realise that in war billions of dollars are just "lost", this whole Iraqi thing is just a money grab. This whole presidency has been nothing more than a money grab by a few at the top.
Re:Is this news? (Score:1, Insightful)
Turn the tables around. The US has been invaded my an army that is mostly muslim. The army's CinC, is a hard line muslim. They have occupied Washington, NewYork, and SanFran, and overthrown the federal government. They are having huge problems in New Orleans, because a mostly Christian Right militia has decided to fight back against the "occupiers" (of course, they claim they are not occupying anything, they have just freed you to follow the "one true path" of Allah).
Now, lets see what these people in the NOMilitia are.
- To Americans who are christian, they are good christians defending against the muslim hordes. If a fighter showed up on their doorstep, they would be given food/shelter/money/ammo whatever would help.
- To the occupyers, they would be insurgents or terrorists, depending on the term of the day.
- To other muslims around the world, they would be infidel christian fundimentalists, and dead enders.
- To other christians around the world they would be freedom fighter, just trying to practice their religion, and live like good christian in their own country.
-To patriots, they are freedom fighters, defending the fruits of 230 years of democracy.
How does the NOMilitia spread and get new fighters?
-Start in the low income and high crime areas. You all have guns, and you are used to fighting, so why not focus that energy on the invaders, rather than rival gangs? To top it all off, God says its a good thing, and a sure path to heaven.
-Start looking to family members of those killed by the occupiers. You want to avenge your brothers death, just follow me. Were gonna kill a piss load of those bastards tomorrow night. If you get killed, you can meet your brother in heaven.
- Put the call out to other religious organizations in the area. Hey, look, all the members of suchandsuch parrish are involved in this, if we had the support of soandso parrish, we could do better work.
-Next, hit up the people who have lost their way of life. You pissed off that your liquor store/bar/distillery was closed because of the new occupation laws? Why not fight with us, its not like you have anything else to do anymore, and until we get rid of these monsters, you can't reopen your business. I guess you could change what you do, but opening a shawarma stand is as good as giving up.
-Last, hit the patriots. Hey, remember when your family came here 250 years ago, because of oppression back in **insert homeland of choice**. Remember how your great great great grandpappy fought to make this country what is was? Well get up and defend it!
Now, don't go and attack the dates/numbers/whatever, I am not an American so I am just guessing about a lot of the geography and history stuff. Don't start up with the "Who could kick our asses" stuff, it isn't important, what is important is to think how it would impact you. Think about the situation reversed, and decide if you would join up, or give up. I would join up, and die if needed to defend MY country. The occupation would call me a terrorist, or insurgent, and my family/friends/coworkers would call me a hero/freedom fighter.
Decide how it would feel to see a T-80 parked in that intersection down the street directing traffic. How would it feel when the Mi-24 Hind opened up on a cathedral in Boston or New York and burnt it to the ground. You have to walk a mile in the other guys shoes, before you start calling people terrorists, or They are opportunistic, completely intolerant Islamic fundamentalists. Remember the Christian right, the Zionist Jews, and a bunch of other religous groups would love to see their predicted end of days come true, where their god proved to be the one and only true path. You think Jerry Falwell would shed a tear if every non christian died a horrible death tomorrow, leaving only the faithful to walk the earth? It w
Re:Al Lorentz (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but you don't necessarily have the right to express that opinion. As it is so eloquently said, "Soldier, you are here to defend democracy, not to practice it."
Re:Letters from Iraq (Score:2, Insightful)
- Sudan: to stop the Genocide in Darfur and the civil war in the South (FYI the UN Charter *mandates* military action in cases of Genocide, how come the US isn't pushing this harder?)
- North Korea: Kim Jong-Il is a nucular-armed (sic) madman who oppresses and starves his subjects while maintaining a massive military complex and threatening his neigbors
- Iran: A major sponsor of global terrorism, has its own nuclear program, and has been working covertly to undermine US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan
- Myanmar: A brutal, bloody and tyrannical regime by any standard
- Syria: Fellow Baathists, also tyrannical, also supporters of terrorism (Hamas, hezbollah, Islamic Jihad). Somehow our friends in the War on Terror (?!). Oh yeah, they're the US torture outsourcer of choice [thestar.com]!
- Pick any one [amnesty.org] of at least a dozen regimes in Africa that are as Brutal as the Iraqi Baathist regime. Or more so.
Y'know what I find funny? Many of the same people who are now saying that it was good for America to invade Iraq to liberate its people would have said the exact opposite a few years earlier. I remember much grouching about the 'new world order' and America's role as 'Global Cop'. I remember a presidential candidate who said he would not be a nation builder. I guess it's ok to change your philosophy ('flip-flop') once your guy's in power, though, right?
Don't get me wrong. Even though I knew, in March 2003 (it was well-knowneven then) that the rationale for going to war (WMD's *NOT* liberation) was a sack of BS and that the war had been predicided by mid '02, I thought the war was a good thing: Saddam was a monster and his kids were even worse. If the American's are even halfways competent the Iraqis would be free and it would all be worth it. But they weren't. And it wasn't. And now Iraq is a far more dangerous place than it was before 03/03.
Re:Allawi (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: the Debate (Score:3, Insightful)
Kerry voted to go to Iraqi. it can't be said it's alright for Kerry to say he was mislead and not give the president the same creedance.
I and the 9-11 commission would disagree....
I do agree that as far as ultimate goals for the Iraq war Bush and Kerry's positions are quite similar with the main impetus from Kerry being "I can do better." Consequently, I would point out the errors in judgement as found by the commission as well as current members of the administration's support of Sadam Hussein in the past (Ah Hem, Rumsfeld, chemical weapons, gassing of the Kurds and Iranian's anyone) and lack of ability to significantly cripple Osama's network in defense of this assumption.Than I would point out Bush's failure in domestic areas such as economy, human rights, benefits cuts to soldiers, tax breaks for the rich, quelching of the very principle of capitalism our country's economy is based on with no bid/uncontested contracts awarded to Haliburton, corporate welfare thinly veiled as an AID's relief package by writing in that no drugs can be generic, largest deficit ever seen in the history of the modern world, alienation of allies through failed diplomacy, worst security record of any president in our country's history allowing (you can argue that no one could have done better, but the only certaintity is that the Bush admin. didn't do good enough).
*NOTE* you can google for any one of these with any common news network like cnn, cbs, abc, etc to 'read all about it'.
Re:Were you watching the SAME debate? (Score:3, Insightful)
What neocon simple-think. Everything is either black or white with this ideology. Just because a President would consult with allies and try to gain other countries' support for our nation's policies does NOT mean that he has forfeit the ability to defend the country.
Bush's oft-said belief that "He doesn't need to ask anyone for permission to defend America" is just self-serving spin and a distortion of the true situation. Of course he doesn't, but neither would he have needed it if he had tried to build an alliance before going to war.
This doesn't even address whether or not attacking Iraq was really defending the country. Of course the real problem Bush had with going to the UN was that he did not have any real evidence that Iraq had any WMD.