Iraqi claims Iran, Syria against democracy

WASHINGTON -- The head of a small secular political party in Iraq who lost his two sons in a suicide bombing last month is making the rounds of the U.S. capital to warn that Iran and Syria are trying to throttle democracy in his country.
...
He escaped to Syria, then moved to Germany, returning in 2003 after Saddam was overthrown by U.S.-led forces. Last year he was expelled from Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress for attending a terrorism conference in Israel.
"I think we and Israel have the same interest, and there is no reason to have war," he told a reporter. "They are a democratic country and they are very close to America, as we hope to be, so from our own Iraqi interests we have to start a dialogue and establish peace."
...
Al-Alusi said he was telling administration officials and members of Congress that the Islamic parties in Iraq are very close to Iran and have the same ideology and the same goals.

"I am trying to explain that we are in the beginning of a process and we should have a red line and be very careful and remember what Hitler did - use democracy to control the people," he said.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apmideast_story.asp?category=1107&slug=US%20Iraqi's%20Warning

What horseshit.

Horseshit like what you've just written is why we get hammered so effectively from the right.

Propaganda can be difficult to identify for some, but keep trying.

This is propaganda in the same vein as the incubator story.

I'm willing to bet this guy's only ties to Iraq is that he was born there, like Chalabi.


BTW, personal attacks are not allowed on DU. I recommend you edit your post before someone alerts the moderator.

Why? That was not a personal attack. Horseshit is horseshit regardless of how it's presented.

My point is that I believe both Syria and Iran are threats to their neighbors and to the future of peace in the Middle East.

and leveling the next most populated promotes peace in the Middle East?

....we may not like to admit it, I certainly don't, but I'm also a realist.

The Chimp-in-Chief said that Middle Eastern peoples, even those who have never known liberty and democracy, would still embrace it if given the chance.

I didn't believe him.

But after seeing what I saw during the Iraqi elections, and seeing what's happened since....the Lebanese openly demanding that Syria quit their country, and the Egyptian and Saudi governments openly talking about allowing more democratic elections in their countries, I have to admit he may have been right.

I don't condone how he got us (or them) there, but there can be no doubt to me that most of these peoples do indeed want democracy. IMHO, the Syrian and Iranian governments don't.

Do you think they do?

;-)

and has imprisoned and tortured US citizens and non-US citizens for years without due process afforded them is really bringing democracy to the Middle East?

....but the outcome, people embracing democracy, for some reason seems to disturb many here on this forum.

Doesn't bother me. I think it's good for the world's oppressed peoples.

What "good" can come from this? Be specific.

Bush's State Department just released a report critical of Iraq's human rights record since the interim government took power.

(China's report) says Americans are threatened by violent crimes and "severe infringement of civil rights by law enforcement departments".

The report refers to the US as a democracy "manipulated by the rich", saying US$4 billion was spent on last year's presidential election while "poverty, hunger and homelessness haunt the United States".



http://abc.net.au/ra/news/stories/s1315449.htm

China has made gains in human rights while the U.S. has been backsliding.

Hard to believe China actually has the upper hand on the human rights issue.

....it would be better for the people of Iraq to continue to suffer at the hands of a brutal dictator like Hussein.

Yeah, that makes sense. No good can possibly come of people voting in their own form of government because the country that finally gave them that opportunity is run by an evil cabal of commercial thugs.

A thousand wrongs don't undo a single right and the right of the people of Iraq to vote on their own government is good, no matter how you slice it.

"We need Saddam back," Fidah Mahmoud, a 49-year-old mother, said. "Only Saddam can control the Iraqi people and give us security."

-----------
"None of the American promises has happened. It is unbelievable what has happened," Mr Yassim said.

His son concludes: "We have discovered that Saddam is better than the
Americans."

...over the Chimp-in-Chief. What does that silly example prove?

Because Iraqi citizen disagree with an American (you).


And in case you haven't noticed, Bush is the one acting like a dictator.

Astonishing!!!!

We can agree that Sir Bush is acting like a dictator, here and abroad.

That still doesn't diminish the crack in the damn known as free elections in the Middle East. It's happening, it's good, and I'm glad I'm alive to see it.

Until there's concrete proof democracy will take hold in the Middle East, you're (and they) are just jerking off.

We've been here before without results.


Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

.....and then whine about why it failed. No thanks. In my lifetime this is the first time I've believed that something positive was happening in the ME.

I'm pulling for the Iraqis, the Palestinians, the Lebanese, and the oppressed people of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and others in the region who wear a yoke of dictatorship.

Once again, a strawman is the sign of a failing argument.

I'm not talking about failure.

I'm talking about having realistic expectations.


I'd hold off on the celebration if I were you. I've lived in the Middle East long enough to know things never work out the way you want.

...if not, then I apologize.

I certainly don't have your advantage of having lived there. But like I said before, this time I do believe that there's a real opportunity for change in that part of the world. I feel it in my bones after seeing the faces of those who voted.

I may be all wrong, all wet, but I don't think so. Not this time.

There will most certainly be some ups and downs, but I do believe the freedom genie is out of the bottle and countries like Egypt, Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are scared to death.

Ask Florida about what that means!

Does your husband beat you? Perhaps brutality is relative.

....Saddam's goons in action? Bullets through the brain, explosive charges in front pockets, boards used to break arms, machetes used to lop off fingers, hands, feet, a man slowly dipped in acid.

I can send you a link if you'd like to be as outraged about how he routinely treated his people versus how our goon government tortured and humiliated prisoners of war.

They were only there in Iraq the last several decades, so they of course don't know what you know.

Human Rights Watch; Iraq invasion cannot be justified as humanitarian intervention

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0126-07.htm

can you?

How can anyone seriously claim that.

The world is definetely WORSE off with Saddam gone.

He was successfully contained.

Tens of thousands have been killed with him gone than with him in power.

TOUSANDS of our boys and girls, sons, daughters, husbands and wive - are worse off with him gone - they are dead.

Terrorism has INCREASED - the number of terrorists as INCREASED.

Our treasury is drained.

Our government is in a shambles.

Yeah, it has CIA written all over it.

Ruthless dictatorships disguised as democracies.

Why do you think Chalabi and Allawi are so unwilling to give up their quests for the presidency and prime minister positions?

Broadcast a few people attempting to vote in an otherwise meaningless staged election, and there isn't a dry eye in the house.

Meanwhile, what happened to all the tears for the 9-11 victims, where is Osama Bin Laden, and what does Iraq have to do with any of this?

It wasn't really the search for WMD's?

And what about the oppressed people living in countries with no oil?

......though I hate it that we concern ourselves with the peoples living in countries like Iraq while totally ignoring those suffering terribly under the rule of thugs in African countries.

I guess you don't remember Bush offering the Taliban "a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs" in order to get a pipeline run through the country.

...about the worst place to try to route a pipeline.

I'm suspicious of your info. Are you trying to pull the wool over my eyes?

Most ill-informed people are easy to fool.


Afghanistan is the BEST route for a pipeline.
www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/pipeline_timeline.htm
www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI203Ap.html


Carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs:
www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI203B.html
www.onlinejournal.com/archive/03-10-02_Chin-Pt_2.pdf

.......Larry Chin?

Look at a world map Tempest, preferrably one with topographic features.

If Unocal was ever really serious about the pipeline idea through Afghanistan, then their management is even loonier than I thought.

If you know how to use a search engine, you'll find hundreds of articles about the pipeline.


And I guess their management is loonier than you thought, because the deal has been signed and the pipeline is CURRENTLY under construction.

The pipeline has been under construction for months.

Kinda puts a lie to your claims. Like all your other lies.

What is your agenda?

They've been drooling over that pipeline for years prior to 9/11. The Bush adm. was negotiating with the Taliban to give the concession to American companies. Condi Rice was on the board of ChevronTexaco when they made deals with Turkmenistan for drilling in the Caspian. The Caspian area has oil and gas worth about 10 trillion. Only it's landlocked. The pipeline through Afghanistan solves that problem and the deal was, sure enough, signed right after former Unocal adviser Hamid Karzai was installed as puppet ruler in Afghanistan. The Bush adm. made several attempt to negotiate the same deal with the Taliban, but when negotiations failed in june-july 2001, during a meeting in Berlin, they told the Taliban envoys that they would "bury them under a carpet of bombs". A former Pakistani foreign minister has confirmed that he was informed by American diplomats, in the summer of 2001, that attacks against Afghanistan would commence October 2001. Which they did.

The whole PNAC strateg is to seize control of Central Asia, which is of vital geostrategic importance due to its oil reserves and also, secondarily, as "encircling" Russia and China with permanent military bases now even on former Soviet territory.

Look at a map. The forces of the Empire are now present in a belt from Saudi Arabia to Kyrgyszstan (where they have an airbase), which borders China. Only the belt is interruptet by Iran, a big and uncooperative regional power which also happens to have some of the biggest oil fields in the world. Guess who's next to be liberated, if the pee-nackers get their will? And in this admin., they usually do.

May I recommend the PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses or Zbygbiew Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard. They've laid it all out in no uncertain terms, it's about conquering "Eurasia".

While it made me happy to see the smiling Shiites and Kurds on election day (on a few selected locations, to be sure, in a carefully orchestrated media event) I wouldn't hold my breath about democracy taking hold in Iraq. According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who was right before the invasion of Iraq about the non-existant WMD, the election result has been manipulated by the puppet government to achieve the desired result.

To say that the Iraqi people are now "free from the monstrous Saddam" is misleading. Saddam was a bad man, but you could walk down the street without fear of being blown up or kidnappet for ransom. There was electricity and water where now there is often none. People had a job to go to, who are now unemployed and desperate. Child malnutrition has doubled. The death rate is much higher than it was before the invasion, as indicated by the famous Lancet study of last year.

If you thought the idea was to establish democracy and leave, I believe you have been mislead. At least 14 big, permanent military bases have been built and they are building the biggest embassy in the world right now. It doesn't look like they ever had the intention to leave. Spreading democracy is a talking point and a fig leaf to hide the good, old-fashioned colonialism that is apparently back in vougue. Sigh, the white man's burden can be such a burden some times...

....wanting to build the thing. Just look at the terrain and then consider how difficult it's going to be to protect it from sabotage.

They're freaking nuts!

:-) That's why McCain is saying that the troops need to stay in Afghanistan indefinetly, I presume. To protect "vital American interests".

How is a pipeline from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, to Pakistan, a vital American interest?

McCain can do better than that, though what can we expect, he is a Repig.

>>How is a pipeline from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, to Pakistan, a vital American interest?<<

What is the U.S. dependent on? Gas and oil.

What is the pipeline going to transport? Gas and oil.

Who is building and who will be operating the pipeline? American companies.

Who is building and who will be operating the oil depots at the pipeline's end? American companies.


Starting to get the picture yet?

You're probably correct on US companies participating in the construction, but since Union Texas had a number of employees murdered in Pakistan, I didn't think there was much American presence any longer in Pakistan's oil and gas industry.

I could be wrong. I've been so many times before.

That pipeline is still not in our VITAL interest.

The U.S. government considers it to be a vital interest.

And since our industry and most of the nation's residential heating depends upon natural gas, and we have to import natural gas, it passes the test of being a vital interest.


And I clearly stated it was gas, the future oil pipeline will run beside it.

He needs to get new material though.

*Sniff* *Sniff*

Jeff, is that you?

Somebody sent it to me on e-mail, and I lost it.

Do you happen to have something like that available? Thanks for your detailed account. It reminded me of that map, which I'd love to have back.

I don't have it in digital form. But I would highly recommend the book "The New Great Game: Blood and Oil in Central Asia". I can't find it at the moment and the author's name escapes me. But it's a detailed account by an American journalist who travelled from Georgia to China in 2002. All the maps are there.

realities.

Unbelievable.

there before 9/11. Since you are such VASTLY informed Blue to the Bone type, methinks that would be old news to you.

Something about you smells. It really does.

you posted here.

Your ignorance about our foreign policy towards Afghanistan alone is astonishing.

There were plans LONG ago to establish a Pipeline there.

But then again, I suppose we should give you a break.

There was no Fox News Channel back then. How could you have known?

And McCain just reminded us that we need to maintain a military presence to protect "American interests."

Do you know the primary charge at the Nuremberg trials? It had to do with planning & carrying out aggressive war. That is, starting a war--not defending yourself.

If our government truly "concerned themselves" about people needing help--there are other ways to go about it. That do not involve bombs & guns.

...that's why it aggravates me so much to see our government totally ignore so many African peoples who need our help desperately.

They're too busy being shot at to "embrace democracy". And we're not exactly embracing democracy here at home, either. The majority of people in Iraq say they were better off under Saddam. We've destroyed their country, and have killed, and continue to kill, innocent people there. Do you think when we bomb Iran, they'll greet us with flowers, just like the Iraqi's did?

I don't see "democracy" exactly thriving anywhere - not in the countries we attack, and not here at home. I think maybe you should turn off Faux news.

...democracy. Why do we hate that idea so much? Why do we fear it?

Torturing people and dropping thousands of bombs on civilian populations is not many people's idea of democracy. According to the UK's Lancet's Medical Journal, US democracy has killed over 100,000 women and children. To you, they're just collateral damage, worth it in order to stage a kangaroo election.

I call it war crimes.

If Bush were serious about not torturing the Iraqi people anymore, he would have fired Rumsfeld and Gonzales. Instead they were lauded and promoted. That should tell you something, but I fear you've missed the connection.

Nor do I SEE it. I'm sure they WOULD embrace democracy, if given the chance, but they're not going to be allowed to have a democracy. OUR democracy is being taken from us, while we're busy spreading the chimps version of "democracy" around the globe. His version and most people's versions of democracy are two different things.

Read up on the PNAC, then read up on Facism. Maybe then you'll understand a little better. If there's going to be any democracy in Iraq, it's going to be DESPITE *, not because of him, and it's not going to be until we get the hell out of there and let them run their country. Those 14 bases we're building tell me that's not going to happen anytime soon.

If it's the bushit's version of "democracy" you're talking about, I don't think they embrace it any more than we do.

>>the Lebanese openly demanding that Syria quit their country, and the Egyptian and Saudi governments openly talking about allowing more democratic elections in their countries, I have to admit he may have been right<<


The Lebanese have been demanding Syria leave long before Bush took office. The real demonstrations started taking place in 2000 after Israel left Lebanon. But you don't hear about those in the "liberal" media.

If you read what Egypt and Saudi Arabia said about democratic reforms, you would know they're not reforms at all.


I recommend you become better informed before trying to pull the wool over our more informed eyes.

No friend of the US or the Chimp in Chief, but his words are telling:

"It's strange for me to say this, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical aobut Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, eight million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world. The Syrian people , the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing."

Walid Jumblatt, Druze Leader and Lebanese parliamentarian

He's obviously angling for $$$ from Bush.

All politicians flip-flop when they see U.S. greenbacks coming their way.

...that there are some positive signs finally coming out of the Middle East.

I, for one, will be glad if that part of the world continues to move towards democracy and ultimately makes meaningful change that results in their peoples living in freedom.....to the benefit of everyone.

Positive signs?

You mean like when the Oslo accords were signed?


I'll believe it when there is concrete, and real, democratic reforms.

Not just talk of reforms like we've seen before, and the talk of "democratic" reforms that are not reforms at all.

According to interviews with some of those voting, they were voting AGAINST the occupation, not for any "democratic" ideals.

And the group who won is proof that "democratic" ideals wasn't a priority.

Iraq's laws will be based on Islam.

...with Iraqis voting???

Sure, I understand the anger at Bushco for invading the country, but what's wrong with the Iraqi people going to the polls?

The constant negative comments about the election are really perplexing to me. I'm happy they're voting and happy they're giving Bushco the purple finger.

Why aren't you happy?

No one has said anything about having a problem with Iraqis voting.

If you don't know what a strawman is, look it up. It's the sign of a failing argument on someone's part.


The real question is why are you so willing to drink the kool-aid and unwilling to admit there are many obstacles before you can claim democracy is taking hold in the Middle East?

You're acting like it's a foregone conclusion.

Because I BELIEVE that it is actually taking root, Tempest. Am I allowed an opinion on this forum or is it that my opinion must conform to your superior knowledge of the world?

Of course you're entitled to your opinion.

Just don't criticize, like you've done numerous times in this thread, those of us who aren't drinking the kool-aid and then turn around and complain you're unable to voice your opinion.

It reeks.

By following me around and arguing every opinion of mine?

No one should drink the kool-aid Tempest. And when it comes to democratic progress in Iraq, everyone is welcomed to not give a single inch in the face of otherwise compelling evidence to the contrary.

Let's continue with our strategy of negativity, and CIA conspiracy theories to explain everything that we don't like about what happens in the world. Our adversaries will continue to thin our herd in election after election.

see that compelling evidence, Blue one. That's the problem. I see an occupied country which just had an election to elect a convent to write a constitution, because the Shia strongman Ayatollah Sistani demanded one, lest he raise hell. The result of which has possibly been manipulated. I see hopeful Iraqis who are only too likely to be disappointed when they realize that the occupiers weren't leaving after all, that they are not going to be allowed any true self-rule, that material conditions will not improve, that jobs will not be created, that there will still be a risk of being blown up in public places.

In Afghanistan, all the other candidates (other than Karzai) withdrew in protest of "irregularities" during the election. US special envoy and former Unocal adviser (another one!) Kalmid Kalilzad (sp?) was busy bribing candidates not to run and to support Karzai. Tribal leaders were bribed into coercing their subjects to vote for Karzai. But in the end of the day it's of limited importance, as Karzai is only the mayor of Kabul and the warlords/drug-lords rule the rest of the country. Need I say that women's conditions have not improved in the warlord-dominated areas. But that's okay, as the US have built military bases along the pipeline, so they will be able to protect it.

It's not a strategy of negativity to point out that the Emperor is indeed naked. They can say "democracy" and "freedom" as much as they like, it does not make it real. Until I see some of that compelling evidence, I'm not buying it.

....and I understand your concerns.

I also get the feeling from many here though that somehow unless an election is flawless, it's worthless. It would do us all good to look at some of this country's first elections.

My major concern is that sometimes in our zeal to denounce the criminal cabal in Washington, we also refuse to see or accept some things that have actually gone right in this world. As such, we're constantly and effectively painted as being totally negative and without ideas.

I do think your concerns about our long term intentions of occupying at least parts of Iraq are well-founded.

I do understand your concerns. I don't quite agree with the lack of ideas, as the idea of immediate withdrawal is frequently voiced in these quarters. The biggest problem with that is that it's impossible to predict what would happen there afterwards. Civil war? Mullah theocracy? It's pretty chaotic there now, and it would be an open-ended situation. And a big humiliation for BushCo, if there isn't a functioning democracy in place. Yet I think the best idea is to get out as quickly as possible, even if things are chaotic. The very presence of US troops is a major source of instability.

I agree that the record of the BushCo cabal leads us to be extremely suspicious to anything they claim has gone right. Perhaps too suspicious at times. But there is also the opposite risk of wanting to believe that at least something is going right, which can make us believe good news that arent really as good as they seem. Especially if the good news come with pictures of smiling, happy people dancing in the streets.

An election isn't worthless even though it isn't flawless, but it's striking how the sole fact that elections are held has been used massively to "show" how Iraq and Afghanistan are on their way to becoming functioning, western-style democracies. There are clear indications in both countries that the elections were far from fair & free and that America's favourite stooge got some "special treatment". Again, according to Scott Ritter, outright fraud in the Iraqi election, where the Shia list associated with ayatollah Sistani allegedly was "adjusted down" to only 48% of the votes, so as to not command a pure majority in the convent.

With all the spin and propaganda, it's really hard to know when good news *really* are good news. I guess that is the crux of the problem. I would certainly hate having to admit that Bush, Rumsfeld & Co have been right about something I've vociferously denounced them for. However, the danger of that befalling me does not appear to be imminent.

.......but with the situation on the ground there now, don't know if that would be wise. We've created such a mess that it is indeed hard to know what to do at any given point.

I just hope that I'm correct that there have been some positive steps towards self-determination for the Iraqi people.

A question on Scott Ritter. I know his history and have confidence in him because of what he told us about WMD before we invaded, but what does he bring to the table re experience with election fraud in Iraq? Was he on the ground there during the election process?

Frederik, without a doubt, your posts are some of the most thoughtful and well-written that I've seen on this forum. And I appreciate that instead of launching into name-calling because you might disagree with someone's opinion, you instead lay out your logic for that disagreement. I sometimes get caught up in the name-calling when others insult me personally, and will do my best to avoid it from here on out.

We may not always agree, but you have my sincere respect.

if that comes to pass. As for Iraq, I don't think it can happen while US troops are still occupying their country. 20 years from now, I picture Iraq in much the same state as the occupied Palestinian territories. I hope I'm wrong.

can figure that one out, eh?

were anything short of a sham tells me all I need to know about you.

....explanation. Yeah, I thought they'd be a complete sham too. But when I saw the lines, saw their faces, saw them holding up their purple fingers, saw them dancing in the streets, all-the-while doing so under the threat of death, it had a profound effect on me.

Sure, the Sunnis didn't turn out, and now some of their clerics are saying they made a mistake by not doing so.

It wasn't perfect, but it was far from a sham IMHO.

And your comments tell me all I need to know about you.

with the party name mentioned only and most people who voted didn't even know who they were voting for.

Add to that the tiny proportion of Iraqis who actually voted and you have, statistically and realistically, an election that was not much better than no election at all.

You tell me how it was NOT a sham and try leaving out emotional feel-good factors. Elections are about more than shiny happy faces shown on FUX news.

I'll bet it rivaled or exceeded our average election turnout.

I know most of us hate to admit that the Chimp might have been right about these people embracing free elections and the concept of democracy, but it's still good for the average Iraqi in the long run.

Feel-good? Yeah, made me very happy to see them so excited, crying in many cases, just for the right to cast their ballots.

Perhaps your hatred of the criminal cabal in Washington is so strong that it blinds you to what happened that day, but it certainly opened my eyes.

Keeeep talking, it's getting even deeper in here!

What did that election accomplish? And do you ACTUALLY think bushco will let Iraq have the government it wants?

They voted in a radical fundamentalist Muslim government. Yeah, BIG success, exactly what the US wanted.

LOL.

Of course they embraced the idea of free elections, but I feel sorry for the Iraqis who did risk their lives to vote in that "election" since it was all for naught anyway.

Oh and watch out: you are falling back heavily on feel good stuff again and not anything of substance.

...then how'd they vote in the "radical fundamentalist Muslim government", that they wanted???

Yeah, I agree it's not what Bushco wanted, but it's what THEY wanted and that's been my point all along. Freedom to chose their own direction!!!

How can anyone argue with that except for the corrupt cabal in Washington????

Your comments above, about feeling sorry for those who risked their lives because it was all for naught, don't make sense.

The average turnout was less than the U.S. average turnout.

The polls were empty in most of Iraq.

Very few Iraqis living outside of Iraq and registered to vote in the election bothered to vote.


You don't read much, do you?

<<Of Iraq's 14 million eligible voters, 8,456,266 cast ballots for 111 candidate lists, the commission said. That represents a turnout of about 60 percent, several points higher than the predicted 57 percent.>>

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=495492

Like - no vote, no food. People do have to eat, so some gave in and voted because of that. But, nah, it wasn't a sham, it was a great democratic process. Freedom is on the march...

was around 30% voting, and as I've said, according to Scott Ritter the votes were wasted as the result was manipulated.

<<Of Iraq's 14 million eligible voters, 8,456,266 cast ballots for 111 candidate lists, the commission said. That represents a turnout of about 60 percent, several points higher than the predicted 57 percent.>>

I guess you missed where Bush pressured the Iraqis to give seats to the parties who didn't receive enough votes in the new government.


Why do I even bother?

....Sunni clerics were saying that they'd made a mistake by not encouraging their followers to vote.

I hope the new government does consist of Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis and I hope it's successful. I hope the Iraqi people will some day soon live in peace and prosperity and that no American troops will occupy their land.

but even Bush himself said that even if the newly elected body asked the US to leave, the US would not. The elections will have no effect on the country whatsoever. The US will continue to force their will on the country. Furthermore, the elections will lead to nothing more than a second fiddle body under the complete authority of the US occupation, at best.

The Iraqi people will live in their own country when they throw the US occupation out of it.


On another note...nice to see you again Blue to the bone!

Who's paying you to be here? How much do I have to pay you to go away?

Christ, I know it's bad form to do this, but it is INSULTING sometimes.

How stupid do you think we are?

SERIOUSLY.

BOMB EM into "democracy"!!!

RAH RAH RAH!!!

What a "progressive" you are!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Hmmmmm. Why WE get hammered?

Interesting.

Amazing how this little bunny has gotten around here for such a short time!

He's not fooling anyone, except his "pal".

Just what is your agenda?

Simply do a search on his Posts.

It' fascinating. And it's obvious.

bush sure is DESPERATE when he can only find one Iraqi to accuse Syria and Iran of "evil deeds".

There are probably a lot more of them than people in this little pro-US party...

This is the beginning of a propaganda campaign to treat good people in the leadership to Rove style smear tactics.

..."we must invade these two countries right away then". And they will all march into Congress like a bunch of lemmings and give the chimpmaster authorization to invade on this persons word.

Don

Hillary Clinton for example.

Iran and Syria "pose such great threats not only to peace and stability, but in Iran's case the potential for nuclear capacity, and in Syria's case, with the continuation of the support for terrorism that flows from Damascus," she said. oth Iran and Syria were cause for alarm, but Clinton said Syria deserved special attention.

"I've been particularly troubled by the Syrians' aggressive posture," said Clinton. "We need to send a very clear message that we will not tolerate what we believe to be and have reason to know is the continuing support for terrorism that comes out of Syria and Iran."

http://carla.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/1/2008/28757

but I am sure that the Sharonistas in this country are filling her campaign coffers everytime she calls for the killing of more Arabs.

That the DLC is not the wing of the Democrat party in which to hang her hat.

It's almost like she's intentionally poisoning the 2008 waters in order to have a good reason not to run.

That and she has her Jewish NY constituency to think about.

Hillary is obviously not listening to the mainstream Jewish community, preferring instead to cater to the most extreme elements. One can be pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian at the same time.

From Gaza to Negotiations: The Role of American Jews
Brit Tzedek v'Shalom's 3rd National Conference
February 19-21, 2005

"We are at a critical juncture in Middle East history, and we in the American Jewish community who have said the occupation of Palestinian lands must end for a genuine peace to be possible now have the wind in our sails," says Brit Tzedek v'Shalom's president, Marcia Freedman. "We have a unique role to play in promoting a new paradigm of peace and reconciliation and in providing support for our government's efforts to hold the Palestinians and the Israelis equally accountable for any failure to honor their agreements."

Jeremy Ben-Ami, the former policy director for Howard Dean and a deputy policy advisor to President Bill Clinton, cautioned the conference attendees that despite their own growing awareness and enthusiasm about recent developments, they still have much work to do to change the mindset of Congress and the Jewish community. He recommended, "Let yourselves be heard. Turn up the heat on the mainstream Jewish community."

Conference attendees were urged throughout the conference to work with their local Jewish communities to encourage our national leaders to support Sharon's Gaza disengagement plan, and then to follow-up with more pressure to continue negotiations toward a fair and just two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

http://www.btvshalom.org/conference/2005/

the Syrians have gone out of their way to assist in the "War on Terror", even to the point of agreeing to torture terrorism suspects on behalf of BusCo. Silly Syrians who thought it was actually about terrorism and that they would be rewarded if they cooperated.

Syria's not the only country to get shafted by Bush.

No Democrats I know truly believe that.

And I stand by my statement. The only people I've seen pushing a Hillary run are Drudge and a few Republican Hill denizens.

...and to me there can be no doubt that she's preparing for a run for the White House.

But since you're MASSIVELY involved in Democratic politics, I'm interested in your opinion of who you think could stop her in the primaries when she does run.

Just about the same time the Bush twins go.

:shrug:

What will they say next in their silly trash talking.

disagree with the occupation. Won't be democracy to you then, now will it?

eom