THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

I actually wrote the following (as corrected):

Yes, the Bremmer plan needed to be corrected. Yes, Al-Sistani demanded that it be corrected. Excellent! Yes, Bush agreed to al-Sistani's demand. Excellent! Yes, the plan was corrected. Excellent? Yes, Bush was wise to adjust Bremmer's (Bush's) plan when he possessed the power to continue with that fault in his plan. But Bush did not adjust the January 30th date in reaction to al-Sistani's demand. Excellent! Al-Sistani correctly yielded to Bush's demand to hold to that part of the plan plus much of the rest. Excellent!

Paul Bremer may not have been toughest horse running in the race, but run he did. I think it amazing that it would be seen as "a Bush failure" because a number of plans were drawn up, tested, and discarded before everybody finally agreed on one that worked. Meanwhile the U.N. and the naysayers both at home and abroad, were saying it couldn't be done at all and were, perhaps unwittingly, egging on the insurgency. Meanwhile those not declaring total gloom and doom over the entire process were the ones complaining that if any Iraqi government was installed at all, it would be a U.S.A. puppet government most likely controlled by the oil companies. I swear some of these people won't be satisfied if we hang them with a new rope.



Caption: The United Nations has blown a hole in the Americans' latest plan without exactly suggesting what to put in its place

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2460701

ican (you who love "facts") got any more good ones lately? I'd like to read the ones about not replacing the rule of Sadaam with the rule of Islam.

Wasn't it Bremer that lost nine billion dollars of taxpayer money|?

Many many pages back, I posted that I didn't care what kind of government the Iraqis have as long as:
1. It is a government of the Iraqis's own design.
2. It doesn't murder civilians in its own country.
3. It doesn't permit those who murder civilians in other people's countries to be located in its own country.

Now, what's this stuff about "the ones about not replacing the rule of Sadaam with the rule of Islam?" If there be a rule of Islam that advocates the murder of civilians either in Iraq or in other countries besides Iraq, I oppose that rule. Is there such a rule of Islam?

It allegedly happened under Bremmer's management. Did it happen? We don't know yet. Assume it did happen under Bremmer's management. What's your point?

Well actually I was more interested in Bush/Ashcroft/Bremmer rules about Islam not going to be a dominate factor in the new Iraq government, there's lots of info/quotes on this issue. I got a ton of them.

Assuming you are correct, are you asking me anything more than I posted above?

As long as all three of my three conditions are met, I don't care at all about what "Bush/Ashcroft/Bremmer rules about Islam not going to be a dominate factor in the new Iraq government."

If that's merely a "Bush/Ashcroft/Bremmer" prediction, they're welcome to it. If it's actually a rule which if imposed on the Iraqis will violate any of my three rules, I oppose it.

Put 'em here?

Edit: Lol - to clarify due to Ican's confusion - that was addressed to Dys' previous post:

"Well actually I was more interested in Bush/Ashcroft/Bremmer rules about Islam not going to be a dominate factor in the new Iraq government, there's lots of info/quotes on this issue. I got a ton of them."

Who shall "Put?"
Who is "'em?"
Where is "here?"

I'l bet you are still waiting to see if the Enron allegations were true .....

Actions speak louder than words in my book.
*************************************
Concerns about U.S. treatment of Muslims
S.A. HOSSEINI
(Original publication: February 14, 2005)


(The writer is a resident of Croton-on-Hudson.)
While congratulating President Bush on his re-election, I must raise my concerns about his "war on terrorism" policy, our current involvement in Iraq, the state of affairs in the Defense Department and the general treatment of Muslims by our government.

I, as an American of Muslim faith and a registered Republican, am greatly concerned at what is going on right now. I believe that our freedom, liberty and pursuit of happiness should be defended vigorously, without committing any illegal and heinous acts under our names. We should not allow any act of terrorism to happen here, or for that matter, anywhere else. Sadly, I am witnessing an erosion of American values by acts committed by the Bush administration that are profoundly disturbing. The hurting is multiplied by an apparent lack of any concern by senior members of the administration for the long-term consequence of these barbaric acts.

The clincher for me was the revelation of using an American female interrogator to apply unspeakable physical and sexual torturing methods on Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in order to extract intelligence. Is this our new "moral" society?

This revelation comes on the heels of still-unfolding torture scandals at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Here is list of my concerns:

• Racial profiling of American Muslims after the 9/11 tragedy.

• Attacking Iraq under false pretense and causing numerous casualties to Americans and Iraqis alike. Spending billions of dollars on this futile enterprise when the American health care, education and Social Security systems are facing bankruptcy.

• Implantation and promotion of anti-Muslim policies at the Defense Department. For instance, not rebuking Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin on his anti-Muslim "crusaders" speeches, given in full military uniform. The general, instead of being fired in disgrace, was promoted and given an even more sensitive job, dealing with Muslim issues.

• Inviting and promoting the Rev. Franklin Graham's ideology, which consist of rabid anti-Muslim ideas at the Defense Department and the rest of the administration.

• Systematic persecution of uniformed Muslim personnel. The act of purging Muslims, under trumped-up charges, is reminiscent of the Soviet Union's KGB action.

• Not prosecuting Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, who was commanding officer at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib prisons, where torture atrocities occurred.

• Lack of any high-profile American Muslims in the administration. There are plenty of well-qualified, patriotic American Muslims who could serve at the highest level. Why are there none, even at assistant secretary level?

I believe the president's heart is in the right place; however, his actions have brought about wrong results. Today, I feel less secure than on Sept. 11, 2001. Today, I feel less respected here as a Muslim and despised abroad as an American. Nonetheless, I can deal with it. What concerns me more is the legacy I would like to leave for my children, and God willing, my grandchildren.

President Bush has four more years to enhance our situation here and abroad and correct all these wrongs.

I bet you are wrong. By the way, what has Enron's corruption got to do with the topic of this thread? :wink:

Sorry, did not realize that concept would be an impossible leap for you.

Rules? Or hope/influence/request/suggestion/initiative? Ultimately it is not up the U.S. to tell Iraq how it will structure its new government. And I have a ton of quotes testifying to that. Did we see a democracy preferable to another Islamic despot? Of course we did and do. But how naive is it to assume that anything related to large numbers of people can be accomplished without fits and starts, a step back and try again, redrawing, renegotiating, and dealing with differences of opinion? How cynical is it to view that process as a failure before it is complete? The founding of the U.S. government would no doubt have looked as messy on the evening news.

And don't forget, the new Iraqi government is being formed in the midst of armed conflict in which a small but deadly group is trying to force its desire for that very Islamic despot, with them as the ruling authority of course, against the wishes of a determined people who want the exact opposite.

What will the Iraqi government ultimately look like? Probably not like the United States, but I have great hope that it will afford the people some degree of self governance. That would be such a huge step forward, it could be one of the great watershed events of history. There will be plenty of time for fine tuning when the people can direct the process themselves.

And the winner is ........ Ican!!!! let's hear it for the man ... gonna miss ya buddy ...when you leaving??

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050222/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_politics

Chalabi Withdraws Bid to Be Next Iraqi PM

7 minutes ago


BAGHDAD, Iraq - Interim Iraqi Vice President Ibrahim al-Jaafari was chosen Tuesday to be his Shiite ticket's candidate for prime minister after Ahmad Chalabi dropped his bid, senior alliance officials said.


Pressure from within the ranks of the winning United Iraqi Alliance forced the withdrawal of Chalabi, a one-time Pentagon (news - web sites) favorite, said Hussein al-Moussawi from the Shiite Political Council, an umbrella group for 38 Shiite parties.


"They wanted him to withdraw. They didn't want to push the vote to a secret ballot," al-Moussawi said.


The 140 members were to put the decision between Chalabi and al-Jaafari to a secret ballot by Tuesday's end.


The decision came after three days of round-the-clock negotiations by senior members of the clergy-backed United Iraqi Alliance, which emerged from the Jan. 30 elections with a 140-seat majority in the 275-member parliament, or National Assembly.


The office of Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (news - web sites), confirmed that Chalabi had withdrawn his bid to be prime minister.


The United Iraqi Alliance took 48 percent of the vote in Iraq's landmark Jan. 30 national elections, but a two-thirds majority of the National Assembly is required for the most important decisions, including selection of a prime minister.


Kurdish parties, who won 26 percent, have apparently agreed to support the alliance's candidate for prime minister in return for the largely ceremonial presidency.

Al-Jaafari, a family doctor, is the main spokesman for the Islamic Dawa Party, which waged a bloody campaign against Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime in the late 1970s. Saddam crushed the campaign in 1982 and Dawa based itself in Iran.


In an interview with The Associated Press last week, he said the most pressing issues for the nation were improving security and improving the standards of its social services.


Chalabi is a former exile leader who heavily promoted the idea that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He later fell out with some key members of the Bush administration over allegations that he passed secrets to Iran.

In other words, you are admitting that you don't know what Enron corrutions have to do with the subject of this thread.