Latest quote from Zarqawi. Whups, FOR Zarqawi from the Kerry Campaign

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

Quote:

---

That statement just gives affirmation to Zarqawi and his Thugs to attack soldiers as well as kidnap and murder civilians.

---

OK. Here's your chance to call me stupid.
How is Lockhart's statement an invitation to attack and murder?

Be explicit, remember, you're dealing with a stupid person.

---

Rue, you are not stupid, as the argument here is rather a subtle one.

The notion is that Zarqawi and his ilk are striving to take down the interim Gov in Iraq because they see it as an illigitimate pawn of the Infidel, Imperialist Americans ("the head of the snake'" as ObL has called us). For an American to suggest that this belief is justified is presumed to add fuel to the fire of the insurgents' zealotry, and thus increase the ferocity of their campaign to block and topple the Interim gov. They can then point to such statements and say, "See? Even the Americans --curse their black, godless souls-- say that this upstart (Allawi) is but a puppet. Let us then go forth in our Holy Cause to Blow Shit Up."

Let me go on record as saying that Lockhart's statement --presented as it is here, stripped of context, and pending research to ascertain the circumstances in which it was putatively uttered-- was boneheaded and counterproductive in the extreme.

However, if I may add my $.02, I do not believe that this statement --ill-considered as it may have been-- would have any discernible effect on the insurgents' activities. You see, their goal is to block the formation of any government which does not rest squarely on the Shari'a Law, which is to say a theocracy. To them, such a government would be a secular (read, "Unholy") offshoot of American Imperialism. What select Americans believe or don't believe about that government is immaterial to them. Whether we proclaim the legitimacy of the Allawi government or mock it as a puppet, they will still see it as a target, since it does not look like the Taliban, or the Iranian government.

So, while I cannot endorse Lockhart's presumed statement, I also reject the rather hyperbolic statement that it will spill any additional blood (except, perhaps from the veins of the Kerry campaign).

Update: It appears that the quote was referring to the content of Allawi speech before Congress (which tracked recent Bush oratory rather closely, don't you think?), and the subsequent photo ops at Bush's side. As for as I've been able to tell, Lockhart was not making a statement about the true nature of the Allawi gov, but about how it was apt to be perceived in the Muslim world.

However, the ease with which that statement has been decontextualized to present the appearance that he was expressing an opinion about the real nature of the Allawi government only underscores how stupid and counterproductive it was to say. I think we should all listen very closely to the National Security debate on 9/30...

BTW, SOUPCATCHER: I like the way you post! Measured and multiply, transparently sourced. Kudos.



Department of Redundancy Department

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

A senior guy in the Kerry camp "affirming" one of the major driving forces behind the insurgency
Pardon me, but it's not Americans admitting that we've put in a puppet government with no legitimacy that is a major driving force of the insurgency. It's the fact that we HAVE DONE put in an illegitimate puppet government that's driving the insurgency. That's what's killed any hope of an Iraqi democracy in the crib.
Are you saying that if we all just close our eyes and tell the same lies, lies that are utterly transparent to everyone in the world that doesn't live in the US, and most of those who do, that's the way to protect folk?
Boy-howdee, I surely hope I'm never trapped in a burning building with you.

You know what gets folk killed?
-Acting on intelligence that you know to be wrong, because you're the one what ordered it cooked, 'cause you didn't like what you read the first time.
-Saying mercury ain't toxic because you changed the rules to say it ain't.
-Pretending what you know to be so, ain't.

Some candidate's advisor of such-and-so stating the obvious truth ain't gonna cause one more death, not one more injury, not one more dented fender. Solidarity is bullpuckey if it's purpose is to promote a lie. And it's just embarassing when the whole world already knows you're lying.

I love my country, I do. But I can't blame those who hate us for doing such stupid, harmful, gorram-fool things. The same mistakes over and over again; Samosa, Marcos, Pahlavi, Noriega, Hussein, and now Allawi.

We're all adults. We oughta know better. You know we oughta.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Now some bright lad is gonna ask, "So what should we do, if you're so smart?'

Here's my suggestion:

1. Do not, I repeat DO NOT turn the country over to the hand-selected cronies of the current presidential administration (Ah, Chelobi, we hardly knew ye).
1a. Do establish a military Governor, as was done in post-war Germany and Japan.
2. Military Governor holds elections to establish the future configuration of the country. Does that mean the citizens of (the artificial entity established by the British kown as) Iraq can vote to break the country up? Yup, that it does.
3. Military Governor then establishes elections in the resulting national entities.
4. (simultaneous with the above) Clean house on the existing power structure, Baathists first in line for processing. We knoe how to do this, we ran Spandau prison for, how long?, 30-something years?
5. Establish mutual protection treeaties with the newborn national entities. make it clear that if they kill their own people, treaty's off and an invitation is sent to their neighbors to "Come 'n get it".
6. Leave a few bases as needed to help protect and watch over our new friends.
7. Get the rest of our men out of there.

And no, I know I ain't so smart. But I can read history, and I know some math. Makes it harder for folks to lie to me and get away with it.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

The intent was not to equate Senator Kerry with Zarqawi, though I see how that conclusion may be drawn. I was angry when I chose the tagline, and was trying to come up with something that would actually catch attention. Demonization of a politician is not, and never was, my motivation for this thread.

Next, I'm not saying that the way to fix this situation is to close our eyes and imagine it's not there. That's simply foolish. I just don't believe encouraging these people is the right thing to do.

Also, I'm well aware of the context of the quote I have posted, as well as my stripping it of that context. The scary thing about it is that it stands so well as I have posted it. Most of the things I would say have been said already, either by myself or others, so that's all I'm going to say for now.


One man's opinion, you know the routine.

~ Lost In The 'Verse

"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I guess this would be the equivalent of saying that Nguyen Van Thieu was (or could be perceived as) a puppet of the United States. In the context of the Vietnam War, I don't think this have made much of a difference either way. THe only solution to the Vietnam War was US withdrawal.

I think the situation in Iraq is politically the same, but of course much more dangerous because we depend on Mideast oil. The US has monkeyed with Mideast politics for so long that any open support from the US automatically de-legitimizes any political group. Iranian and Saudi reformers are running away from contact with the US because they will be tarred with the same brush as the Shah and the House of Saud. The US has dug itself into such a deep hole by allying so consistently with dictatorships (as well as Israel) that we a FORCED to deal only with the most corrupt wanna-bes. In a perverse and strange sort of way, criticizing the current leadership in Iraq may actually give it a more legitimacy with the average Iraqi.

In any case, it seems to me that the longer and more vigorously we try to "fix" the problem in Iraq the worse it will become because WE are the problem. We would be far better off publically criticizing (but secretly supporting) a moderate leader like Sistani instead of someone with such overt ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Just as an aside, I wonder how this compares to the Administration's willingness to "burn" an asset (Valerie Plame) for political purposes?

I mean, if they are going to accuse Kerry of treason- which is what they are doing- maybe they better look into their own mess?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:

By not coming out and disagreeing, Kerry has given his implicit endorsement to the above statement.

---

Fallacy of False Dilemma - simply because he hasn't retracted the statement doesn't automatically equate to him endorsing the statement.

___________________________________
Jayne: "Know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I beat you with till you understand who's in command."

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

In the case of a public figure, particularly a Senator, not openly disagreeing with that statement made publicly by one of his top aides is an implicit endorsement. If anyone in his campaign made a statement to a reporter that Kerry didn't at least partially endorse, he would have at least publicly and openly disagreed. Politics is funny that way, it's all about perception. By not disagreeing, projected image is that he agrees.

As always, this is just my entirely uneducated opinion.

~ Lost In The 'Verse

"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

just don't believe encouraging these people is the right thing to do.

---

Well, that's where I'm still stuck.
Alawi was/is a CIA asset and long-term Iraqi expat. He came late to the party, after Chalabi (of Penatgon /neocon/ administration favor), heir apparent, was accused of counterfeiting, among other things. (After he tried to gain legitimacy with Iraqis by making non-compliant statements about the future of Iraq.) Alawi showed up just in time to be hand picked as PM by L. Paul Bremer III, US Administrator. Since then he's been in lock-step with important US administration issues, such as Bremer's orders and elections, and curiously out-of-synch with anything the UN says.
So, at this point, Alawi shows up in Washington, his message a virtual reprise of Bush's.
As an aside, and I don't want to lose the thread of the question but you'd think the administration would have learned something from the Chalabi (rose petals) and the WMD (tons) experiences. Just because you can find someone to feed your propaganda machine what you want to amplify, doesn't make it more reliable.
Anyway, so Alawi does actually LOOK like a puppet of the US government.
Now it gets mentioned, referentially, by a really third-tier news source (Lockhart). What does this mean to Iraq?
There are several categories to consider: those Iraqis who think Alawi is a puppet and hate him, those who don't know, those who think he is but accept the government anyway, and those who think he is not. Categories one, three and four aren't about to be influenced. Category two, if they haven't gotten an opinion by now, aren't about to be influenced by US political debate, which is so must further away and fainter than anything they're experiencing in Iraq today. (Iraq's information is spoken with guns, bombs, truck bombs, and the ongoing lack of jobs, water and electricity.)
So how could this embolden the insurgents? It's not about to sway opinion in Iraq.

I know people have Spain in the back of their minds. But Spain's ruling government at the time was out of touch with the will of the people. MILLIONS in Spain (an estmated 1/3 of the entire population) demonstrated against the war. Polling, about 70-80% were 'against'. The ruling party jumped in the 'pro-US, pro-war, anti-terrorist' mode early, and used the 'anti-terrorist' topic to impose even more restrictions on the Basques. The opposition party had an anti-war platform. But even with all the war opposition the polls going in were appx 50/50. What turned the tide? It was not internal war dissent, or the explosions themselves, that brought down the ruling party. It was when they tried to pin it on the Basques. People were incensed about being lied to. (Geezer, is that why you state lies aren't important? You don't want them to be an issue?)

So, are you saying that Lockhart's statement encourages terrorists? How could this be?
If there were NO opposition to the war in the US, the terrorists might try to create it in public opinion, the same way the IRA did in Britain (Northern Ireland was a non-issue to Brits until the IRA made it one.) It would take decades, but it has been and can be done. But the opposition is apparent, and it is a sizeable fraction in the US (percentages depending on whose polls you read and when you read them). Does Lockhart's statement, as indirect as it was, actually add to the situation? It won't change any USer's minds, in my opinion.
Nor will it change the terrorist's perception of the US. They already know this is a divisive issue. It is the large elephant in the room that doesn't get talked about but is plainly there for everyone (including the terrorists) to see.

So, I am still puzzled. How did Lockhart's statement encourage 'those people'?

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME