0
   

The US, UN & Iraq III

 
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 05:16 am
a
http://www.allhatnocattle.net/bushmemo%20to%20gore.jpg
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 05:31 am
How things are really going in occupied Iraq .......


The temperature is rising. And Baghdad, Basra and Nasiriyah have all erupted on the same day

Salam Pax
Wednesday August 13, 2003
The Guardian

As you go into Baghdad from the west there is graffiti on the walls that says "Welcome to the Republic of Darkness and Unemployment".

Baghdad had no electricity for a whole day. Call me the master of all whiners but do you have any idea what it feels like to sleep in 50C? I guess with the current heat wave you have a taste. Today's office stories: Muhammad, one of the drivers, decided the best place for his family to sleep was in the car with the engine running and the air-conditioning on. Shihab was up every couple of hours getting water for his kids because he was afraid they would totally dehydrate. Everyone who got into the office today had bags under their eyes and a bad headache. Haifa, the nice lady who makes sure we have coffee in the morning, was ranting about having to watch "this Paul something" give us lies on TV everyday. She actually described Paul Bremer as another Saddam; we see him every day on TV, and the news is all about what he says and what he does. Next we'll have statues of him in the streets. Somehow you feel like he lives in a bubble and has absolutely no idea what the people are saying.

Listen to Bremer talk about improvements in the electrical situation while Basra is rioting. I just didn't believe my eyes when I saw the images from Basra. I am guessing that the reason we didn't have electricity for a whole day in Baghdad is because they wanted to patch things up in Basra. Two days of riots and about eight Iraqis injured. At least the Coalition forces didn't call the rioters "Saddam loyalists", at least there is some acknowledgment that these are people who are upset with the way the occupation forces are mismanaging the country. And it is getting out of hand. Baghdad, Basra, Nasiriyah all going up in one day and Baqubah being added to the list of cities not really under control.

I went to a press conference where our new one-month-president [the coalition provisional authority has a rotating chairman] was telling us about what they were up to. The press guy, at the request of the conference, was telling journalists that the instantaneous translation thingy has two channels; channel one for Arabic, channel two for English. I would like to add another channel: channel three for the truth. It keeps repeating one phrase: "We have no power, we have to get it approved by the Americans, we are puppets and the strings are too tight." I feel sorry for the guys on the council, some of them are actually very good and honest people and they have been put in a very difficult situation.

As usual, getting into these press bashes is an event in itself. You have to be there an hour early, you get searched a thousand times and, of course, as an Iraqi I get treated like ****. I have no idea why the American soldiers at the entrance to the convention centre [where the CPA press operation is] are so offensive towards Iraqis while they can be so nice to anyone with a foreign passport. I have to be the Zen master when the soldier at the gate gets condescending. The reporters of Iraq Today were not allowed to get to the press conference and they went ballistic. "This is my friggin' government, what do you mean I can't get in?" My sentiments exactly. Keep this image in your head: an American officer stopping you, an Iraqi, from attending the press conference your government is holding.

Earlier in the day I got frisked and the car I was in searched because the colonel or something who has just passed by thought that he didn't like the people who are standing by the car (me) and that I was giving him dirty looks. Habibi, you have no idea how dirty my looks can get, you didn't get one. What you saw was the I-have-been-standing-for-a-whole-hour-in-the-sun. But because you have the power to decide what a look means I got searched. You really should have looked more carefully before you shot the nine-year-old kid in Ramadi only to find out later that it was a water gun he had in his hands. Dirty looks - yeah, totally justified frisking me.

Yes, I am annoyed because if the occupation forces fail, my country will fall apart. And for some reason the CPA does not look like it has a sense of how serious the situation is.

Spot what is wrong in this sentence: "I am sitting in a car going to Fallujah with the Pretenders blasting from the speakers and air-conditioning on super-freeze."

What is wrong with it is that it can't last forever. I will get to Fallujah and will have to step out of the car and get smacked by Madam Reality for wanting to escape her grip on me.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 07:54 am
Gel

You have a knack for finding very ugly stories but here is one more to my liking and food for though among the Dems.

Commentary
Letters
Tim Menees
Rob Rogers
Editorial FAQ
Search




My Point / David M. Shribman: Democratic Party faces a struggle for its own soul

The threat: Will the winner of the struggle be Bush?

Wednesday, August 13, 2003

JACKSON, N.H. - Nine of the last 10 presidential elections have had the same important subtheme. It is no closer to being resolved now than it was the year Richard Nixon was elected.



David M. Shribman is executive editor of the Post-Gazette ([email protected]).



The subtheme, of course, is the Democrats' struggle to define themselves and to redeem their historic role in American politics. This struggle, which began in 1968, has been the leitmotif of every primary struggle for a third of a century except for 1996, when the party was happy to renominate Bill Clinton for a second term.

The 2004 election is 15 months away, but the most intriguing part of the campaign is already well under way. It is smoldering across the country but it has broken into flames here in New Hampshire, which only five months from now holds the first primary of the political year. How it is resolved will determine not only who is the party's nominee but also what the Democats will stand for at a time when their GOP rivals have resolved their own internal contradictions.

For now, the issue is being distilled into a superficial question: Is Howard Dean for real? But the question goes deeper than whether the former governor of Vermont -- unknown by three out of five likely Democratic primary voters, according to a nationwide poll taken this summer -- can sneak up on the established Democratic contenders.

"The cultural clash has been there for some time," Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, one of the Democratic presidential candidates, said in an interview this summer. "It's just more evident now. Some want to blur the differences between the parties."

Blurring the differences between the parties worked for the Democrats for a time; that was part of the Clinton magic. He listened to the murmurs of the bond market, slew the deficit monster and signed a welfare bill that Republicans ate up but that many Democrats, remembering their New Deal heritage of siding with the poor and striving, choked upon.

But blurring the differences is not the Dean way. He is from a granola state but he traffics in red meat; no Democrat in a decade has leaned left so conspicuously, so audaciously and so enthusiastically. And if his record in Montpelier doesn't quite match the expectations he is sowing across the Connecticut River in Manchester and in other devoutly Democratic precincts, no matter. A lot of Democrats feel good hearing that old-time religion.

The intriguing thing, of course, is an issue that appears periodically in American politics, thrust to the surface like rocks in a frozen New Hampshire field by such disparate figures as the two Reverends of earlier American politics, Jesse L. Jackson and Pat Robertson: Can an intoxicating new figure bring legions of new voters into American politics -- and if he does, can that return a party to its historic ideological moorings?

Jackson registered as many as a million new voters but failed to keep the Democrats on the left side of the road. Robertson brought untold hundreds of thousands of religious conservatives into the GOP flock and helped keep the Republicans on the right side of the road.

The Dean difference is the $7.5 million the country doctor raised over the Internet. He did it by tapping 45,000 donors, an astonishing figure. "We're very surprised," he said in a conversation this summer. "We are. I wish I was so smart to say I figured out the importance of the Internet. The community found us. We didn't find them." Now that this "community" is found, what will it do with the power it has found, and how will the rest of the Democratic field respond?

So far Dean, Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut are tied for the lead among likely Democratic primary voters, according to a nationwide Zogby International poll taken this summer. Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts is right behind them. Such polls hold little meaning, but this one suggests that the Democrats right now can't make up their minds about whom they want to nominate -- and what they want to be.

The presence of Lieberman at the top of the lists may represent the good will the former Democratic vice presidential candidate earned for his efforts three years ago in a cause many Democrats still believe they didn't lose. But it also shows the appetite some Democrats have for a more moderate bill of fare than that offered by Dean and by Gephardt.

The Democratic Leadership Council, the modern moderates, commissioned former Clinton pollster Mark J. Penn to examine the American political scene. His conclusion shouldn't be surprising: Democrats have to court suburban voters and middle-class families with children, a group that determines American elections and that, unfortunately for the Democrats, favors Republicans.

"Exciting the Democratic base alone will not bring enough voters into the Democratic fold," Penn concludes. "The heart of the middle class -- suburban parents -- will decide whether a Democrat can defeat George W. Bush in 2004."

That's a persuasive argument. So is the one being posited by Dean, which can be summarized this way: Is the White House worth winning if it's won by a pale version of the president? Those two viewpoints are what the Democratic caucuses and primaries are about. The fact that the Democrats have been asking this question since 1968 may be the best thing Bush has going for him as Republican donors stream into barbecues at his Crawford ranch.

E-mail this story Print this story

Search | Contact Us | Site Map | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Advertise | About Us | Help | Corrections
Copyright ©1997-2003 PG Publishing Co., Inc. All Rights Reserve
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 08:00 am
Gel wrote:

Point being ....... does anyone think Saddam wanted to go two out of three?
There were/are no wmd's. He took the gold and booked ....... that or he is Noriega's new cribbage partner ...

Here is another possibility: He views himself as the original "comeback kid" and he intends to go down swinging.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 08:05 am
Gel

You seem to be short of back slapping playmates today. What do you attribute that to? Do you think its the virus or a boycott of me. Probably a little of both huh?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 08:16 am
the options of explaination for the WoMD are numerous. They indeed may still be there and well hidden. Saddam may have destroyed them but wanted his neighbors to think he still had them (power of power). Saddam may have thought he still had them when in fact his minions had destroyed them. He may have sold them to the JDL to use against Mel Gibson. The point that comes to mind is that we listened to numerous statements of "we have hard cold facts about what he has and where it is." I'm thinking that was the really big lie.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 08:47 am
Dys

I think I understand your obsession with wanting to prove that Bush and his administration are liars but for a moment put yourself in his shoes.

You want to remove Saddam from power for a number of reasons which are mostly honorable and you want to stabilize the Middle east so therefore you must remove him from power. All the brilliant minds decide that this won't sell to the public or the congress (you must confess that this is probably a good analysis) so you say OK let's find a better reason. You must now keep in mind that in their minds this action is absolutely essential for their overall doctrine. As Wolfowitz said in public " WE DECIDED THIS WAS THE BEST REASON FOR GOING TO WAR" to push the WDM which at the time were accepted as being self evident.

It worked but now the nit pickers are stuck on 16 words. You want to live in a perfect world of truth and pure integrity---as far as I know that world doesn't exist so you go with the guy who wants to protect this country and who knows how to wield the big stick. Seems simple to me but to use your favorite cliche----"I'm probably wrong'".
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 09:03 am
i may very well be wrong and i have always been aware of that, my issue is that this is supposedly a democratic republic in which the people rely on their elected officials to be relatively honest. As you might very well note, the people are intitled to be wrong as well (the price we pay for our freedoms) but it is not allowable to have an elected body such as the president or congress to make decisions contrary to the will of the people by feeding them information that is not true. Perception, i am guessing that you also remember the gulf of tonkin and that lie that Johnson used I am sure he was convinced was in the best interests of the people. IT WAS NOT and 1,000's of lives were lost because of those lies. That may be ok to you but it is not ok with me....
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 10:45 am
Granted but you seem to think Bush is the first who may have engaged in deception to justify a war.

What if FDR decided on his own that we needed to enter the war against Japan and Germany to save the world, and given his knowledge of the isolationist feeling among the electorate prior to the war, he decided to provide a tempting target to the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. It worked and we entered the war and after terrible loss of life due to parity of weapons, we were victorious thus saving the world from oppression and tyranny. Has the story of Pearl Harbor been explained to your satisfaction?
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 11:00 am
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2003/db030727.gif
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 11:08 am
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2003/db030804.gif
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 01:26 pm
C'mon people are you gonna let BillW and Al Gore kill this thread? It will force all of us to find something worthwhile.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 03:00 pm
perception wrote:

Quote:
You want to remove Saddam from power for a number of reasons which are mostly honorable and you want to stabilize the Middle east so therefore you must remove him from power. All the brilliant minds decide that this won't sell to the public or the congress (you must confess that this is probably a good analysis) so you say OK let's find a better reason. You must now keep in mind that in their minds this action is absolutely essential for their overall doctrine. As Wolfowitz said in public " WE DECIDED THIS WAS THE BEST REASON FOR GOING TO WAR" to push the WDM which at the time were accepted as being self evident.


(Emphasis is mine.)

Your description above of the administration's motivations and actions is a perfect example of a quote I patched into this thread a few days ago:

"Power," the moral realist John Adams warned the idealist Thomas Jefferson, in words he could have addressed to George W. Bush, "always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all His laws. Our passions possess so much metaphysical subtlely and so much overpowering eloquence that they insinuate themselves into the understanding and the conscience and convert both to their party."

If the administration couldn't make the fictions fly, they dressed them up so that we "common people" would be convinced of the soaring wisdom of which they all suddenly became possessed the day after being elected or appointed.

When you have to deceive people in order to do what you think is "right," then you'd best revisit the issue carefully. This administration can back and fill all it wants; it is still totally unconvincing, and the more it says, the less I believe.

They could have made a more convincing case for war by appealing to this country's humanitarian instincts in suggesting that we should remove a cruel and oppressive dictator. In fact, this most-powerful-country-in-the-history-of-the world could have done that without going to war.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 03:17 pm
Wonderful, wonderful cartoons, Bill and Gel. And Fox News bringing suit against Al Franken for what they claim is infringement of patent on "Fair and Balanaced?" Fox is looking ridiculous, which I shouldn't think is a position they'd want to be in.

Al Gore's speech was terrific. There are all kinds of pros and cons on it, but this progressive is almighty glad that we've got energy and life back into the democrats. A major part of Clinton's public appeal was always the sense of life and purpose he gave. It's really disconcerting to have a president who thinks taking off a month for a vacation is the right thing. It denigrates the job, and I notice nobody - press or others - bothers with the phrase "working vacation" anymore. More and more he seems like a litle boy playing with his latest toy. Things are going to hell in Iraq, and he's never even seen fit to go there and cheer the troops. As president, Bush should be willing to risk a little in order to at least give the appearance of leadership. Beyond the conditions described by Gel, which are availabe to read in many papers, Bremer himself - the man on the scene - predicts more trouble, and seems to feel that Iraq may be the gathering point for militants from all over. What options does that leave? Nuke them all? Depart in silence? Keep talking about how maybe someday they'll discover the WMD?

We've gone way beyond that now. If they ever do find anything, most people won't believe it anyway. (Except for the diehards, who keep telling us that any day now Kay will find.......)

Enter Gore and Clinton. A team who pulled the country out of the economic doldrums and set it on its better course. No wonder some republicans are upset. As Gore, Clinton, Dean, Kerry and more speak up and get listened to, some favorite republican myths will be shattered. And for all those republicans who assure the democrats that Lieberman is right - that he has the right message. Do I assume you are voting for him? If not, why not stick to your own candidate? Or are we beginning to put too much heat on him - not believing all those lies, demanding proof, wanting to see - and finally waking up to the fact that Iraq was all along intended to be the political stepping stone. That it never had anything to do with improving the lot of the people, of bringing American-style democracy to the region - that it really was about the control of the oil leading to control of the whole region. Did Baker - the fixer - step out because he saw this as a loser?

Au contraire, perception. Or chacun a son gout. Clinton and Gore are becoming more relevant, and I don't think the mention of them will drive people off this thread.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 03:36 pm
mamajuana, you mention something that I have though a lot about lately although I've not seen a mention of it in the press. It is outrageous that George Bush is relaxing at his ranch in Texas, doing publicity shots and raising money for reelection, when troops are dying in Iraq.

Maybe he doesn't actually have to be on the ground "in country," (there might be a security risk :wink: to that brave man who took the daring jet flight onto an aircraft carrier) but surely he should not be on vacation. We can have vacations. The president can have a long weekend, full stop.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 03:51 pm
Kara

You have expressed yourself extremely well and the quote about power is particularly relevant. I cannot reconcile the implication of power beoming all consuming except to say that even the President cannot ignore the ultimate power of the people (their representatives in congress) and when he steps over some yet to be determined line (which I believe he has not yet) the people will take away his power which is easy enough (cut off the money).

There are two very important issues which will determine his success or failure. 1. Is he attempting to fight too many battles on too many fronts? and 2. Will the massive tax cut prove to be beneficial or a disaster.

The jury is still out.

I do further believe that a moral end can in some cases justify a means that could be considered unethical but not immoral.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 03:55 pm
perception- are you airing some veiled doubts? Goodness>
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 04:08 pm
Kara wrote:

Maybe he doesn't actually have to be on the ground "in country," (there might be a security risk to that brave man who took the daring jet flight onto an aircraft carrier) but surely he should not be on vacation. We can have vacations. The president can have a long weekend, full stop.

He can have his people flown in and he probably gets more actual work done there than at the White House with all those people wandering around. IT surely inconveniences his people though---they must hate it.

I think it was pretty gutsy of him to fly all over Africa what with all the shoulder fired missiles floating around that country. That must have been a security services nightmare.

But I'm with you, I would like to see him spend more time in the Oval Office but then again relaxing at his ranch gives the appearance of "being in complete control" which MAY BE an important psychological factor in the global arena. What we don't need is another Jimmy Carter micromanaging the entire government including the White House tennis courts. At least he has quieted his critics that believed he was a puppet of Cheney and Rummy.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 04:11 pm
CNN quick poll just now asked if the public thought Bush could turn around the economy by 2004. 8% said yes; 92% said no.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2003 04:13 pm
mamajuana wrote:

perception- are you airing some veiled doubts? Goodness>

Mama

Only those who still believe in Clinton and who would vote for Hillary to be president, would be incapable of doubt.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The US, UN & Iraq III
  3. » Page 192
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/19/2025 at 11:18:39