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

POSTED BY: LostInTheVerse
UPDATED: Friday, October 1, 2004 20:49
VIEWED: 6109
PAGE 3 of 3

PREV PAGE 1 2 3

SOUPCATCHER

Monday, September 27, 2004 7:20 AM

Thanks, Noocyte, for the explanation. I was having a problem making the connection. And thanks also, for the kind words. I have tried to modify my online persona over the past few years to more accurately reflect how I carry out face-to-face conversations. I consider all fireflyfans extended friends of mine, and so I try to post as if I was talking with friends: only making statements that I feel are supported, providing the information to support those statements, etc. (although it is an ongoing struggle made more difficult by the false pretense of anonymity that the internet provides). I fully expect to meet a few of you at a local shindig for the BDM premier and I'd rather not be continually worrying about things I might have written in the heat of the moment.

There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

LTNOWIS

Monday, September 27, 2004 3:24 PM

Quote:
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.

I disagree. I think Zarqawi and the foregin jihadis would like a theocracy, but they're perfectly happy creating a big mess and killing Americans. Likewise, many of the Iraqi insurgents really care more about us leaving than having a theocracy. So you're right that they don't want an American-imposed government, but I think if we left, and they became were a regular Muslim nation, like Syria or Pakistan, than the Taliban would leave Iraq. Of course, we'd rather have a democratic ally than an Anti-American dictatorship.

LTNOWIS

Monday, September 27, 2004 3:24 PM

Quote:
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.

I disagree. I think Zarqawi and the foregin jihadis would like a theocracy, but they're perfectly happy creating a big mess and killing Americans. Likewise, many of the Iraqi insurgents really care more about us leaving than having a theocracy. So you're right that they don't want an American-imposed government, but I think if we left, and they became were a regular Muslim nation, like Syria or Pakistan, than the Taliban would leave Iraq. Of course, we'd rather have a democratic ally than an Anti-American dictatorship.

RUE

Thursday, September 30, 2004 2:46 AM

BTW, fundamentalism is on a fast rise in Iraq. Hussein was actually keeping it down and maintaining a secular government and society.

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, October 1, 2004 7:37 AM

Two separate things brought this topic back onto my radar screen. The first was the mention that Bush made of the Lockhart statement during the debate. The second was an article from Thursday's edition of the Washington Post. The article is titled, "U.S. Effort Aims to Improve Opinions About Iraq Conflict" and is about public relations, but the three final paragraphs surprised me:

Quote:
excerpted from http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A60725-2004Sep29?language=pri
nter
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, asked Tuesday about similarities between Bush's statements about Iraq and Allawi's speech to Congress last week, said he did not know of any help U.S. officials gave with the speech. "None that I know of," he said, adding, "No one at the White House." He also said he did not know if the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad had seen the speech.

But administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the prime minister was coached and aided by the U.S. government, its allies and friends of the administration. Among them was Dan Senor, former spokesman for the CPA who has more recently represented the Bush campaign in media appearances. Senor, who has denied writing the speech, sent Allawi recommended phrases. He also helped Allawi rehearse in New York last week, officials said. Senor declined to comment.

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and British Foreign Service officials also helped Allawi with the text and delivery of his remarks, said administration officials who were involved. The State Department and officials elsewhere in the government took the lead in booking Allawi's interviews. Administration officials said that the Iraqi Embassy in Washington consists of just a few officials and has only a dial-up Internet connection, so was incapable of preparing for the high-profile tour.

I was surprised for a couple of reasons. The first was that this information came from anonymous administration officials. This administration has been very good at riding herd. In previous administrations you could always be guaranteed that some anonymous official would leak information to the press. This administration, not so much. I think this is a good thing - I've outlined my thoughts on the necessity of transparency in a democracy (within reason - no classified material, etc) in another thread so I won't go into any more detail here.

The second reason I was surprised was that the person who helped Allawi with his speech had obvious ties to the Bush campaign. This really does not look good. They should have hidden the trail a little better than that. I agree with Noocyte that Lockhart made an unfortunate decision when he chose to utter those statements. But this sends a similar message. Allawi's trip to the US was obviously done to give Bush's campaign a boost. But that didn't make him a puppet, just a favor among allies, so to speak. But now we find out that he was given some phrases to include in his speeches and coached on what to say. Looks like a duck and all that.

* Thanks to Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo for the WaPo link

There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

ARAWAEN

Friday, October 1, 2004 6:44 PM

I think there is a key difference between Iraq and Germany/Japan in post-WWII is that the latter were defeated, while the former simply had their ability to fight taken away by superior training and technology. Germany and Japan were tired of war, Japan was so fed up with war that their new constitution limited them to self-defense only.

Iraq didn't surrender. Those Iraqi elements that oppose us never really got to fight, let alone get a chance to become disillusioned with it. Our new way of fighting saves a lot of lives during the war, so maybe it is the way to go, but it might cost more lives during the 'peace.'

Aside from potential issue, I agree whole-heartedly with your points.

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

GINOBIFFARONI

Friday, October 1, 2004 8:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
BTW, fundamentalism is on a fast rise in Iraq. Hussein was actually keeping it down and maintaining a secular government and society.

I think if you look at the recent history of Afganistan, you would agree that the Taliban only came to power as a result of the people trying to reject foreign interference.

They were a regular Muslim type country, leaning a little left... then Jimmy Carter began to fund Terrorism in order to destabilize the Southern Soviet Republics... Then the Soviet Invasion in order to protect themselves..etc...etc

Iran would be another case in point, the US toppled a pro democratic government in 1951 in order to protect oil interests, reinposed the Shah who systematicly beat down such dissent for years until 1979 when they finally got rid of the Shah...

What I am saying is that action reaction wise the more the US trys to push " their values " and control on these people, they will fall back on the opposite to resist = fundamentalism.

Any form of democracy, the US will attempt to subvert, the only choice left is to throw up the toughest wall one has and fight...

So fight on !!

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

PREV PAGE 1 2 3