Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditYou'd never know that the prime minister of a nation occupied by 130,000 US troops is in the United States, but he is. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is in Washington to meet President Obama and other US officials today and tomorrow, but the press coverage is weak. And in yesterday's press briefing by Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman, the issue of Iraq didn't come up at all. Not once.
But it's a critical visit, and I'll be updating this entry today and tomorrow as developments warrant. Obama and Maliki are scheduled to appear at a press conference on Wednesday afternoon at the White House, and I'll comment on that. Tomorrow morning, I'll be attending a speech by Maliki at the US Institute of Peace, and I'll report back.
Sadly, the mainstream media seems to be buying into the idea that Maliki has suddenly transformed himself into an ardent Iraqi nationalist. Don't be fooled. If anything, Maliki has conducted a power grab in Baghdad, arrogating to himself increasingly broad powers that have led many Iraqis to view him as a dictator-in-the-making. But he is still the head of the secretive Al Dawa party, an Islamist political formation that has long had ties to neighboring Iran. It's true that Maliki has noticed that the political winds in Iraq have shifted from sectarianism and religious identity to a more nationalist orientation. As I reported extensively in The Nation, the January 2009 provincial elections gravely weakened the most extreme manifestations of the sectarian/religious movement in Iraq, including the Iran-backed Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) and the fundamentalist Sunni, Muslim Brotherhood-led Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP). To accommodate that trend, Maliki has increasingly tried to portray himself as a nationalist, but there's no evidence that he's changed his sectarian spots.
Certainly, the turmoil in Iran has enormous and unpredictable implications for Iraq, where Iran has accumulated a lot of influence since 2003. Recently, Iran's Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other Iranian officials have been pressing Maliki to reconstitute the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), the Shiite religious coalition that included Maliki's Dawa, ISCI, the forces of Muqtada al-Sadr, and the Fadhila party of southern Iraq into a single unified electoral bloc. So far, Maliki hasn't agreed -- but he did make a pilgrimage to Tehran to meet with the hospitalized leader of ISCI, Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, who is Iran's key ally in Iraq. Maliki himself has close ties to Iran, and it's unlikely he'd do anything to jeopardize them.
Both Maliki and Iran agree that it's important to divide and conquer the secular opposition in Iraq, including the current and former Baathists, members of the Iraqi resistance, the forces that assembled into the Sons of Iraq movement, secular parties such as Iyad Allawi's group and Saleh Mutlaq's group. Obama, Vice President Biden, and others half-heartedly have tried to persuade Maliki to make concessions to the opposition, but so far he hasn't budged. Will the crisis in Iran make Maliki more likely to make a deal with the Iraqi opposition? I doubt it.
Obama seems to hope that he can avoid dealing with Iraq until 2010. That's a big mistake. Iraq isn't going away. Last year, during the campaign, Obama made the sensible argument that the international community, including the UN, had to convene a conference to help Iraqis rewrite their constitution in a manner that would weaken centrifugal federalism in favor of a stronger national state and would take some power out of the hands of the separatist Kurds and Shiites. I'd say that's the last thing on Obama's mind now. Another mistake. Meanwhile, the White House seems content to let the Pentagon make its Iraq policy. The State Department has been nearly absent from Iraqi policy in 2009.The US ambassador in Baghdad, Christopher Hill, is a complete beginner on Iraq, and he's been nearly invisible. There's no "special envoy" for Iraq, unless Obama considers General Ray Odierno to be his special envoy there.
UPDATE The news conference with Obama and Maliki, which ended around 3:35 pm, didn't make much news. Obama cited security gains and a decline in violence, though he didn't mention that violence is rising since June 30, when US troops mostly pulled out of Iraq's cities. Obama stressed that the US seeks no bases in Iraq, and he reiterated the two coming deadlines: August, 2010, for the withdrawal of combat forces and December, 2011, for the complete withdrawal of all US forces. He did say that the US would continue training assistance to " capable and nonsectarian" Iraqi security forces. He said several times that Iraq must accommodate all Iraqis -- i.e., Sunnis and Kurds -- into the Iraqi government and security forces, in part by making deals over Iraqi oil allocations and "internal borders," i.e., the undefined borders of the Kurdish area of Iraq outside the three provinces that the Kurds formally control. In response, Maliki talked about something called an "Iraqi national unity government," but he didn't define it, and he certainly didn't make any public comments about being more inclusive.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
oh, but the "combat" troops will leave.
and the remaining mechanics (no cooks or anything -- all outsourced at 37 times the price) will defend the <B>EMBASSY OF DOOM!!!!!!!!!!!</B>
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 11:02am
DREYFUSS: "If anything, Maliki has conducted a power grab in Baghdad, arrogating to himself increasingly broad powers that have led many Iraqis to view him as a dictator-in-the-making."
Astounding how applicable this passage to our very own Messiah!
I'm not sure if Maliki can learn any more of the `Art of the Power Grab' from Obama. It is quite possible BHO learned his own craft of Power Grabbing from Maliki.
Posted by Happy at 07/22/2009 @ 11:06am
happy,
so much hypocrisy, so little time.
and you voted for palin.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 11:08am
happocrisy.....
heheh
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 11:10am
"Obama seems to hope that he can avoid dealing with Iraq until 2010"
uh, that's 2110.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 11:12am
"to view him as a dictator-in-the-making."
Astounding how applicable this passage to our very own Messiah! "----Posted by Happy at 07/22/2009 @ 11:06am
So you've pretty much written off 2012, HAPP?
Going for "Obama going to declare martial law" next?
Posted by Mask at 07/22/2009 @ 11:18am
why would obama declare martial law in the u.s.?
he's got afghanistan and iraq to play with.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 11:27am
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 11:27am
Apparently "dictator" has some new definition...once used by the Left for Dubya, now used by the Right for Obama which includes "capable of being defeated in an election."
Again...unless HAPP has written off 2012 and/or decided that "Dictator Obama" is going to declare martial law before then and make himself President-for-Life.....like RESE and PLUNGER used to think about Bush????
Posted by Mask at 07/22/2009 @ 11:45am
Posted by Mask at 07/22/2009 @ 11:45am
Glad to see you amusing yourself! Thought KvH really hurt your masked feelings.....hahahaha!
Posted by Happy at 07/22/2009 @ 11:51am
"Dictator Obama"
Posted by Mask at 07/22/2009 @ 11:45am
i'm more worried about the junta of larry, timmy, and benny.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 11:51am
OK, guys. All very funny. But Maliki is a real dictator-in-the-making, and Obama's even having trouble herding the Blue Dog cats. Let's focus on Iraq here. You're proving my point that no one cares about Iraq anymore.
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 07/22/2009 @ 11:53am
How, exactly, does a country explode?
What, exactly, do you suggest Obama do?
Tell the UN to write the Iraqi constitution? I'm thinking that's going to work out about as well as the British mandate.
Your other suggestion is to get the state department in on creating an Iraq policy. What will this change? What will the state department bring to the table?
The bottom line is that Iraq needs to resolve political problems and the U.S. is limited in what it can do on that front. While the U.S. may be able to facilitate the discussion somewhat, it is not in our power to make people reconcile, share power, etc. People have to make these arrangements for themselves.
As much as I disagree with the Afghanistan/Pakistan business, the strategy of denying the Taliban access to cities and towns while working to build up some infrastructure and conducting strategic assassination missions on Taliban leaders there makes some military sense.
Where's there any sense in Iraq? The only policy that makes sense there is to maintain the minimal military involvement necessary to prevent a humanitarian crisis with an eye on getting out. You've reached an Israel/Palestine type problem in Iraq. It's time to recognize that fact.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/22/2009 @ 11:58am
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 07/22/2009 @ 11:53am
thanks, ref.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 12:03pm
You've reached an Israel/Palestine type problem in Iraq.
not even close. the Iraq civil war has had far greater casualties than Palestine. the Israeli occupation of the west bank, which by the way Jordan definitely doesn't want back, is far less bloody than the Iraq occupation.
I don't think it's an apt comparison.
Israel has some justification, as they are continually attacked, whereas the US was not threatened by Iraq.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/22/2009 @ 12:13pm
The 130,000 US troops are not occupying Iraq, any more than US troops are occupying Germany or S. Korea. They are stationed there, with the approval of the independent national government.
It's funny that those who wanted an immediate US withdrawal from Iraq are now grousing that the US is not sufficiently involving itself, much less intervening, in Iraqi domestic politics.
This is why these columns aren't serious. One week policy A is promoted, the next week policy b is promoted, the third week is a complaint about a neo-policy A and the fourth week policy C, which is inconsistent with polict B, is promoted. Like posters like columbnist. We like to hear ourselves think, and repeatedly confuse thoughts with ideas.
Posted by gren at 07/22/2009 @ 12:19pm
Posted by emile duBois at 07/22/2009 @ 12:13pm
You're right. It is not an apt comparison. But, I wasn't comparing the two, I was classifying them both as a type, i.e., "political problems that have limited response to U.S. intervention".
To make a comparison, I might say that the United States and the owner of mortgage that was upside down were experiencing "financial problems that aren't easily solvable". By doing so, I wouldn't be saying these financial problems are the same. Apply the same principle here. Obviously, there are important and relevant differences in both cases.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/22/2009 @ 12:46pm
Posted by Happy at 07/22/2009 @ 11:51am
Sorry, HAPP...your PLUNGE into RESE-like paranoia getting pretty hilarious.
Posted by Mask at 07/22/2009 @ 1:28pm
Oh, and HAPP...
"And, I am among the 52% who want us out of Iraq, "regardless if we "win" there", IF that's what my chosen POTUS elects to do....."----Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/28/2008 @ 3:39pm
A Serious Question of Character posted by John Nichols on 07/28/2008 @ 2:04pm
Posted by Mask at 07/22/2009 @ 3:01pm
...IF that's what my chosen POTUS elects to do....."----Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/28/2008 @ 3:39pm
A Serious Question of Character posted by John Nichols on 07/28/2008 @ 2:04pm
Posted by Mask at 07/22/2009 @ 3:01pm
What's your point? Is Magic "my chosen POTUS"?
He is yours, so, support him since his Iraq policy prescriptions IS the one of the two reasons he won over Hillary; the other is his race. If he is not living up to what he prescribed, YOUR problem!
Posted by Happy at 07/22/2009 @ 4:22pm
The 130,000 US troops are not occupying Iraq, any more than US troops are occupying Germany or S. Korea. They are stationed there, with the approval of the independent national government.
Posted by gren at 07/22/2009 @ 12:19pm
now, THAT'S funny!
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 4:31pm
This from Maliki, at the White House, via today's NYT tells us that Robert Dreyfuss must know something about Maliki, as a nascent sectarian dictator, that we and others can't ascertain independently.
"Iraq has suffered a great deal from being marginalized from the policies of sectarianism and from wars," Mr. Maliki said. "We will work very hard not to allow any sectarian behavior and opportunity to flourish."
That Iraq has economic and cultural ties with Iran is hardly grounds for suggesting a conspiracy against Iraqi nationalists, at least not for those of us who live in a more sophisticated world than culturally separatist Americans. Dreyfuss may not have realised it but his thinking seems to be locked into the paradigm "if you are not with us ( viz in our isolationist approach to Iran) you are against us."
We are at loggerheads with China over seemingly trumped up charges against an Australian (China born) national, Rio Tinto executive, recently arrested but that hasn't caused our minerals trade and other contacts with China to miss a single beat. That is real world sophistication that Maliki also seems to embrace but which left and right wing McCarthyites like Dreyfuss seem to have difficulty with.
In Maliki's case one needs to know that he fled to Iran because Saddam was after his life so it seems pretty natural to have some regard for a country that provided safe haven for him. The fact that he cleaned up the pro-Iranian militias in Basra, a little while back, helps confirm his Iraq nationalistic credentials.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/22/2009 @ 7:18pm
It's funny that those who wanted an immediate US withdrawal from Iraq are now grousing that the US is not sufficiently involving itself, much less intervening, in Iraqi domestic politics.
Posted by gren at 07/22/2009 @ 12:19pm
That's also funny.
Posted by Shingo at 07/22/2009 @ 8:01pm
No mystery here.
Iraq is invisible because the mainstream media has determined it could be damaging to Obama politically.
Just last year Iraq was above the fold whenever it could be damaging to Bush politically.
It's great now that the world loves us again though, isn't it?
Posted by freiheit1 at 07/22/2009 @ 8:28pm
'Obama stressed that the US seeks no bases in Iraq, and he reiterated the two coming deadlines: August, 2010, for the withdrawal of combat forces and December, 2011, for the complete withdrawal of all US forces. He did say that the US would continue training assistance to " capable and nonsectarian" Iraqi security forces.'
Not going to abandon the George Bush Imperial Palace (aka Embassy) though I bet.
'New embassy, which has been described as the largest and most expensive embassy in the world at 0.44 square kilometers--the size of Vatican City[1]--was opened in January 2009 after a series of construction delays. It replaced the embassy, which opened July 1, 2004 in the Baghdad's Green Zone in a former Palace of Saddam Hussein.[2]'
'A new embassy, which has been referred to as Fortress America[8], opened in January 2009 in the Green Zone in Baghdad.[2] The embassy complex comprises 21 buildings on a 104 acre (42 ha) site, making it the largest and most expensive U.S. embassy in the world.[9]
It is located along the Tigris river, west of the Arbataash Tamuz bridge, and facing Al Kindi street to the north. The embassy is a permanent structure which has provided a new base for the 5,500 Americans currently living and working in Baghdad. During construction, the US government kept many aspects of the project under wraps, with many details released only in a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee report.[10] Apart from the 1,000 regular employees, up to 3,000 additional staff members have been hired, including security personnel'
Excerpts: Wiki
Mr. Dreyfuss - This Embassy is The Base!
This is a permanent occupation if there ever was one. Just preposterous. A great place to conduct the oil business however.
Posted by OneVote at 07/22/2009 @ 9:05pm
frei,
manyfist destiny has made the bed you must sleep in very uncomfortable.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 9:07pm
That Iraq has economic and cultural ties with Iran is hardly grounds for suggesting a conspiracy against Iraqi nationalists, at least not for those of us who live in a more sophisticated world than culturally separatist Americans.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/22/2009 @ 7:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yeah right Jones - you would either be speaking German, Russian or Japanese right now if it wasn't for us culturally separatist Americans who lack sophistication. Japan would have kicked your ass easily when they got around to it.
Posted by OneVote at 07/22/2009 @ 9:14pm
"That's also funny."
Why? Dreyfuss called for an immediate withdrawal of all of our troops before the success of the surge. He said any mass outbreak of violence or genocide following such a retreat could not be blamed on the retreat itself. More recently, he urged Obama to accelerate our withdrawal without listening to military commanders or advisers. He even predicted that listening to his advice might result in a rapid increase in violence: he said Obama must learn to ignore advice from the military urging a slower withdrawal in the event of such an outcome. NOW, he argues that unless Obama gives more speeches on reconciliation and asks the UN to rewrite Iraq's constitution, Iraq is doomed.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/22/2009 @ 9:40pm
Yeah right Jones - you would either be speaking German, Russian or Japanese right now if it wasn't for us culturally separatist Americans who lack sophistication. Japan would have kicked your ass easily when they got around to it.
Posted by OneVote at 07/22/2009 @ 9:14pm
I didn't mean all Americans OV just the ones who seem to delight in the moral purity of separatism whether in religion or politics. It does seem, if you'll forgive the presumption, to be almost exclusively an American thing these days.
Of course Dreyfuss doesn't really belong there as he is all for dialogue with Iran. On the other hand he sees something sinister in Maliki having a similar dialogue with the "enemy". Which leads one to think that Robert really is hoping against hope that Iraq doesn't become the stable democracy it now seems to be on course to become. I mean a journo's reputation is at stake here.
Not sure if Robert was in the good war/bad war camp but it should be pretty obvious by now which one is more likely to be successful in terms of political outcomes.
On the sophistication thing it is more the ability to effect change in less dramatic ways than taking one's bat and ball and going home.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/22/2009 @ 10:00pm
Japan would have kicked your ass easily when they got around to it.
Posted by OneVote at 07/22/2009 @ 9:14pm |
They did bomb Darwin, which is on the mainland and got a few mini subs into Sydney Harbour. Thus we are very grateful to your mob, sophisticated or not, for keeping our ass (arse?- ass is a donkey) safe.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/22/2009 @ 11:11pm
What a mess... Thank god we invaded IRAQ...
"May George Bush drink the blood of every Iraqi man, woman, and child".. Borat..
Disaster, disaster, disaster.... What else could "Operation Iraqi Freedom" be called... 2 Trillion, down the drain. A fools errand.
How does this end..?? A wise man would surely say he does not know...
And Freiheit... Dont play the MSM card.. Where is the coverage on YOUR FOX ..??? WHERE..??? FOX is as 'Mainstream' as the rest.... Give that old right wing mantra a break...
How does the final chapter of Iraq play out ...?? None of you know... Don't pretend.... One thing IS for certain... It will be a mess for a long time...
Thanks Dubya !!! Good job !!!
Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/22/2009 @ 11:27pm
Thanks Dubya !!! Good job !!!
Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/22/2009 @ 11:27pm
oh, gore probably would have done the same thing.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 11:49pm
" A fools errand."
Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/22/2009 @ 11:27pm
A fools errand? Maybe but overwhelmingly successful in its stated objective.
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/23/2009 @ 02:34am
Posted by freiheit1 at 07/22/2009 @ 8:28pm
More liberal plots. Oh, when will those liberals stop running the country!?
"A fools errand? Maybe but overwhelmingly successful in its stated objective.
BUWHAHAHHHAAAA...
"Mission Accomplished!"
Yet still 130,000 troops keep "the peace".
Just like in Germany, except that in Iraq US soldiers and Marines die weekly by the hands of the liberated.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/23/2009 @ 05:02am
Curious if any of our cons can name the author of these statements:
February 24, 2006, 2:51 p.m. It Didn't Work
"One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. "
"Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans."
"One of these postulates, from the beginning, was that the Iraqi people, whatever their tribal differences, would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom."
More Liberal MSM America Hatred?
Posted by crabwalk at 07/23/2009 @ 05:18am
"Mission Accomplished!"
Yet still 130,000 troops keep "the peace".
Just like in Germany, except that in Iraq US soldiers and Marines die weekly by the hands of the liberated.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/23/2009 @ 05:02am
Mission Accomplished! That is the expression that was eluding me. Thanks for that Crabs, a lot more meaningful than victory, say, as that is a bit harder to define. I guess W got in a bit early but all's well that ends well.
The goals you will remember were to give Saddam and his wretched crew the boot and replace him and them with a democratic government. Which seems to be about where Iraq is today. Hence your MA applies.
You have a funny sense of humour Crabs. You mean those who blow themselves up are "liberated"? Good one but it could be out of the frying pan into the fire for them if they have misread Allah. But that's black humour if you are into that sort of thing for a giggle.
I think you may find that these are the same type of goons and psychopaths that did much the same sort of thing in even larger numbers during phases of Saddam's rule. As you know it tends to be kids and women and non-combatants they terrorize, by blowing them into bloody pieces, more so than against soldiers.
If you look at more mature democracies such as India and Pakistan you will find that they also still have a bit of trouble with various of their own liberated with their bombs etc. Just had one episode this last week in democratic Indonesia, in which a few Aussies got killed when a some al Qaeda types blew up a few rooms in one of Jakarta's plush hotels. There is a pretty good chance Iraq will be further down the road in terms of citizen security in a lot shorter time than it is taking those democracies to restrain their own liberated liberators.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/23/2009 @ 06:13am
LRJONES....the "Australian Bill Kristol".
LOL
Posted by Mask at 07/23/2009 @ 08:03am
If you look at more mature democracies such as India and Pakistan... Posted by lrjones4 at 07/23/2009 @ 06:13am
Pakistan is a "mature democrac[y]"? Your evidence, please? My evidence against: 6 decades of intermittent military coups, the last one having given way to an elected government just last year.
Posted by oneworld at 07/23/2009 @ 08:07am
I didn't mean all Americans OV just the ones who seem to delight in the moral purity of separatism whether in religion or politics. It does seem, if you'll forgive the presumption, to be almost exclusively an American thing these days.................
On the sophistication thing it is more the ability to effect change in less dramatic ways than taking one's bat and ball and going home.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/22/2009 @ 10:00pm
Generalties are bound to offend - particularly on this issue.
So - take Australia for instance. There was never a certain segment of your citizenry that exclaimed "Never Again" relating to being drawn into European conflicts on behalf of Britain? I think not.
As far as taking the bat and ball and going home - well that this mighty easy to decry when America is footing the bill isn't it?
And by way of example - Chamberlin's policy of appeasement didn't have an underpinning of separatism as well as war weariness?
Don't forget who turned the tide in WWI. So the US wasn't justified in being just a little bit weary of war? What did Wilson say about the Treaty of Versailles? Which countries were instrumental in imposing and insisting on draconian conditions on Germany? Is this cultural separatism and lack of sophistication? I think not. I think it is common sense and human nature.
Americans have been more than generous on the world stage, and you know it. There are many who consider that your "sophisticated world community" is freeloading at our expense. We have readily shared our wealth, blood, and future for benefit of the world community - and yes, American altruism is what prevents revolt against such policy as that is the public face that is put on much of it.
Healthcare vs. ICBMs.
Posted by OneVote at 07/23/2009 @ 08:57am
They did bomb Darwin, which is on the mainland and got a few mini subs into Sydney Harbour. Thus we are very grateful to your mob, sophisticated or not, for keeping our ass (arse?- ass is a donkey) safe.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/22/2009 @ 11:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Don't forget it mate. And mind your words.
Posted by OneVote at 07/23/2009 @ 09:09am
Posted by oneworld at 07/23/2009 @ 08:07am
The reference was a time relative one viz more mature in terms of time than Iraq. Though there have been military coups and military rule in Pakistan it also has had, in between such rule, as well as sometimes during that rule, the significant democracy markers of a parliamentary political system, an independent judiciary and a fairly free press in place.
This from Associated Press of Pakistan, 18th Feb 2009, indicates that Pakistan does have a democratic ethos if not an uninterrupted democratic history:
Nation Pledges to Uphold Democratic Norms
ISLAMABAD, Feb 18 (APP): "Nation celebrated Day of Democracy on Wednesday with commitment to uphold the democratic norms and supremacy of the Constitution and Parliament. The day marked the restoration of democracy after prolonged dictatorship in the country as the political leadership also pledged not to let the country fall again into clutches of dictatorship."
"On this eve, Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani urged the nation and political parties to strengthen democracy in the country so as not to allow undemocratic powers any chance to bring in dictatorship again."
"The people of Pakistan will prove it to the world that they are the true flag bearers of democracy and a peace-loving nation and will stand by the world in fight against global terrorism," the Prime Minister said."
"He paid rich tributes to the political leadership of the country that strived for the restoration of civil liberties, democracy and supremacy of parliament."
...."He also assured supremacy of the Parliament, strengthening institutions, eliminating extremism and militancy, ensuring transparency and good governance and economic reforms were the priorities of his government."
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/23/2009 @ 09:44am
"....indicates that Pakistan does have a democratic ethos if not an uninterrupted democratic history: "-----Posted by lrjones4 at 07/23/2009 @ 09:44am
LR has now re-set the bar on what a "mature democracy" is.
Imagine how low he's going to set it for Iraq to keep his neo-con ideals intact????
Posted by Mask at 07/23/2009 @ 09:53am
Posted by OneVote at 07/23/2009 @ 08:57am
Posted by OneVote at 07/23/2009 @ 09:09am
Well there you go, couldn't have written it better myself. Just scratch the surface and discover what is really there.
My intention was to limit the idea of "sophistication" to Maliki's contacts with the Iranian government and indicate how that clashed ironically with those who on one hand are calling for such a general approach but denying it to Maliki. My perhaps too broad a brush flushed out the true OV who in response sounds more like a neo-con war mongering pugilist than a classical liberal.
And because America is basically the sort of world stage player, in the very best sense, it has been at least from WW2, if not WW1, there will be many more Iraqs and Afghanistans that have little to do with an exhibition of American power or accumulating wealth but in the very best sense are motivated by a people whose heart is and has been in the right place for a long time.
So whatever you and I think about the desirability of the US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan both will, I'm convinced, be governed by the best motives. I'm sure that is just as true of Obama as it was of Bush.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/23/2009 @ 10:28am
"Iraq is invisible because the mainstream media has determined it could be damaging to Obama politically.
Just last year Iraq was above the fold whenever it could be damaging to Bush politically. " freiheit1 has it right.
That which we loathed in Bush is now either ignored, covered up or excused away, to protect Obama from criticism that sticks.
The only way WE will ever get the truth about the Bush-Cheney WMD Lies that killed and maimed over 34,000 US Soldiers in an unnecessary invasion of Iraq, is through investigation and prosecution.
THIS is about violating Our Federal Laws and nothing else.
SIGN THE PETITIONS Demanding both a Commission of Inquiry and a Special Prosecutor For All Their Crimes
at
ANGRYVOTERS.ORG
You should also contact AG Holder directly & Demand a Special Prosecutor.
Department of Justice Switchboard - 202-514-2000 Office of the AG - 202-353-1555
Email: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
NOTE: IF your group has a related petition, send me the url and I'll include it on our website.
We have all the petitions for investigation and prosecution of the criminals in the Bush Administration in one place where you have quick and easy access. Takes just a few minutes to sign them all.
.
Posted by JohnHKennedy at 07/23/2009 @ 10:43am
"Iraq is invisible because the mainstream media has determined it could be damaging to Obama politically.
Just last year Iraq was above the fold whenever it could be damaging to Bush politically. " freiheit1 has it right.
That which we loathed in Bush is now either ignored, covered up or excused away, to protect Obama from criticism that sticks.
The only way WE will ever get the truth about the Bush-Cheney WMD Lies that killed and maimed over 34,000 US Soldiers in an unnecessary invasion of Iraq, is through investigation and prosecution.
THIS is about violating Our Federal Laws and nothing else.
SIGN THE PETITIONS Demanding both a Commission of Inquiry and a Special Prosecutor For All Their Crimes
at
ANGRYVOTERS.ORG
You should also contact AG Holder directly & Demand a Special Prosecutor.
Department of Justice Switchboard - 202-514-2000 Office of the AG - 202-353-1555
Email: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
NOTE: IF your group has a related petition, send me the url and I'll include it on our website.
We have all the petitions for investigation and prosecution of the criminals in the Bush Administration in one place where you have quick and easy access. Takes just a few minutes to sign them all.
.
Posted by JohnHKennedy at 07/23/2009 @ 10:44am
LR has now re-set the bar on what a "mature democracy" is.
Imagine how low he's going to set it for Iraq to keep his neo-con ideals intact????
Posted by Mask at 07/23/2009 @ 09:53am
Not too sure how much you know about what constitutes a democracy but it hardly needs to be said that the security of a democracy's people is one very vital measure of its presence.
And one of the key indicators, along with a vital functioning parliament, an impartial and free judiciary and a free press in Iraq will be the security of its citizens.
Iraq has started a long way behind with all these indicators, mainly because of the Saddam years which not only brutalised a people but destroyed every vestige of democracy. Along then with that other leftover, political corruption, that needs to be eliminated, we will need to see the level of violence Iraqis still experience significantly reduced before we can say that Iraq is more than a nascent democracy.
This is early days yet and it will need time but there has been a start down that road.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/23/2009 @ 10:55am
"And one of the key indicators, along with a vital functioning parliament, an impartial and free judiciary and a free press in Iraq will be the security of its citizens. "----Posted by lrjones4 at 07/23/2009 @ 10:55am
Yet those same "key indicators" you outofhand dismiss about Pakistan with a "democratic ethos if not an uninterrupted democratic history" throwaway line.
So which LRJONES should we believe on the definition of "democracy"....
the one who claims "Pakistan is a mature democracy"...
or the one who tells us that parliaments, impartial-free judiciaries, and free presses are "key indicators"?!?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 07/23/2009 @ 11:27am
Why oh why does Dreyfuss beat the crap out of Iran every chance he gets.?
Posted by Anti-imperialist at 07/23/2009 @ 11:39am
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/23/2009 @ 10:28am | ignore this person | warn this person
My friend, you need to understand the difference between defending an ally against imperialism (Germany, Japan and Russia via Non-Agression Pact went on the war path to expand their frontiers as I recall)versus imperialism itself - US invasion of Iraq. You seem to be using that "broad brush" again.
So tell me about how John Howard's position on multi-culturalism for instance in Australia is "sophisticated" and "worldly," and is not de facto separatist within Australia's own borders, not to mention outside those borders.
Yes - I get a little peeved about 'foreigners' who forget the sacrifice of US citizens to defend their freedoms and way of life against present and future threat. When you consider our level of our military spending and economic assistance to foreigners, and ponder what that money could have bought at home as investment in American society and welfare, it starts the pot boiling. We've got crumbling infrastructure here at home, no public healthcare, monumental debt, poverty and hunger in our own backyards, second rate schools, little assistance for secondary or advanced education, states that can't meet budget and are having to cut back services, on and on.
Posted by OneVote at 07/23/2009 @ 1:53pm
the one who claims "Pakistan is a mature democracy"...
or the one who tells us that parliaments, impartial-free judiciaries, and free presses are "key indicators"?!?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 07/23/2009 @ 11:27am | ignore this person | warn this person
Didn't Benazir Bhutto do the same? At least until she was busted for corruption.
Posted by OneVote at 07/23/2009 @ 1:57pm
Posted by OneVote at 07/23/2009 @ 1:57pm
Probably with LRJONES' reasoning, the assassination of Bhutto shows that Pakistan is a "mature democracy" because WE had the Kennedy assassination and we''re a "mature democracy".
Yes....he probably would make such an argument!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 07/23/2009 @ 2:32pm
Posted by OneVote at 07/23/2009 @ 1:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person
it's because our money has been squandered on imperialist wars, regime change is an imperialist notion, and on tax cuts for the super rich.
these wars have been spectacular failures.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/23/2009 @ 2:45pm
"The 130,000 US troops are not occupying Iraq,"
stupid revisionism. the government of Iraq is a US puppet. absent US troops it would not last a year.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/23/2009 @ 2:48pm
"The 130,000 US troops are not occupying Iraq,"
stupid revisionism. the government of Iraq is a US puppet. absent US troops it would not last a year. Don't forget who turned the tide in WWI.
who?
the tide had already turned.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/23/2009 @ 2:50pm
Probably with LRJONES' reasoning, the assassination of Bhutto shows that Pakistan is a "mature democracy" because WE had the Kennedy assassination and we''re a "mature democracy".
Yes....he probably would make such an argument!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 07/23/2009 @ 2:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person
He believes that nationalism will will out over religious sectarian history that goes back for g-d oh so long.
Jones was making the analogy the other day between Shia and Sunni and Protestants and Roman Catholics. Jones asserts that nationalism has triumphed completely in northern Ireland. I pointed out to him that Catholics still aren't real fond of Protestants in northern Ireland, and in fact pelted a Protestant marchers and police in Belfast the other day. Just a little bit more unemployment in Ireland, a little bit more unrest, and whammo - you got 'the pots on with the gas on high' (I know you love J.L. Hooker lyrics).
Wonder what his take on Sadat and Rabin is?
Posted by OneVote at 07/23/2009 @ 3:56pm
these wars have been spectacular failures.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/23/2009 @ 2:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Ja!
Posted by OneVote at 07/23/2009 @ 3:57pm
the tide had already turned.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/23/2009 @ 2:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
tell that to the english and french JR...
thought they were somewhat beleaguered.
they may disagree with you.
Posted by OneVote at 07/23/2009 @ 4:13pm
Its clear that the brunt of the fighting in the West was taken by the British Empire/Commonwealth and the French. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia gave Germany the opportunity to wage the war on one front. With the entry of the US into the war the Germans felt that they needed to make a serious push to end the war in 1918. The strategic thinking of the Germans was that the arrival of fresh US soldiers would tilt the balance of the war in the Allies favor and the Germans wanted to make the push before the full weight of the US could be felt. In looking at the results of the German offensive in 1918, it is again clear that the brunt of the offensive was taken by the Anglo-French soldiers. After the German offensive sputtered, US forces were heavily involved in the Argonne region, taking extensive casualties (100,000 +/-). Without US entry into the war, the Germans very well may have sat back in their trenches and the war in the west could have resulted in a stalemate which results in German victory inasmuch as the war had been won by the Germans in the east. The best statement describing the American contribution to the Allied victory in WWI is that we were the feather that broke the camels back.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/23/2009 @ 4:27pm
in contrast, it must be said that Australian and Canadian troops were involved in some of the heaviest fighting.
of course historians may disagree on this point, but it is worth raising.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/23/2009 @ 4:30pm
Posted by emile duBois at 07/23/2009 @ 4:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person
great synopsis JR - thanks. 'turn the tide' does not discount the sacrifices of others. As you have referenced, the Germans felt that was little hope of victory. As Hitler relates, there were more than a few Germans who would have been 'glad' to carry on, and of course the obligatory blaming of Jews for armistice, when there was no need for armistice - i.e., 'we weren't even defending our soil yet.'
from movie All Quiet on the Western Front
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4-96gWQMpU
Posted by OneVote at 07/23/2009 @ 5:34pm
from movie All Quiet on the Western Front
of course before it was a movie it was a book, by Erich Maria Remarque, a huge popular author of his time.
this reminds me of the story where the author Anthony Burgess heard someone refer to Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange". peeved he answered that it was not Kubrick's but HIS "A Clockwork Orange"
a famous movie director said you cannot make a great film without a great book.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/23/2009 @ 5:42pm
it was Wild Bill Wellman
Posted by emile duBois at 07/23/2009 @ 6:22pm
emile, try telling the millions of Iraqis who bravely marched as one to the ballot box in 2005 despite the constant brutal violence and murder and torture and intimidation and barbarism and cruelty they faced at the hands of bin Ladenist jiihadists and genocidal facist Baathists, knowing that they might be killed and accepting that they might die to make a stand on principle that the government they voted for because they could vote and thus decided they SHOULD vote was elected in a sham and is a puppet. International election monitors do not agree. You are blind to a more obvious truth: Saddam's rule would have collapsed but for his secret police, army, security apparatus, and brute force.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/23/2009 @ 6:25pm
By the way, Bush had doubts about Maliki. So, he spied on Maliki extensively and recorded secretly everything Maliki said in private conversations for a very long and indefinite length of time. He was convinced from this that Maliki is "a good man with a difficult job".
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/23/2009 @ 6:36pm
So, emile, if regime change is always imperial, presumably you must think that co-existing with Nazi Germany would have been desirable if such co-existance was "peace-loving" and Hitler was contained "in his box". I take it you are glad that there are no more people left to cleanse or kill in Darfur. I suppose you wish Pol Pot had ruled Cambodia for far longer than he did. I suppose you wish that Kuwait was part of Iraq and that Saddam had the atom bomb he was only a few months away from building in 1991. I bet you are proud we left Rwanda alone. I'm sure you would have been pleased if Bosnia was cleansed successfully.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/23/2009 @ 6:57pm
Jones was making the analogy the other day between Shia and Sunni and Protestants and Roman Catholics. Jones asserts that nationalism has triumphed completely in northern Ireland. I pointed out to him that Catholics still aren't real fond of Protestants in northern Ireland, and in fact pelted a Protestant marchers and police in Belfast the other day. Just a little bit more unemployment in Ireland, a little bit more unrest, and whammo - you got 'the pots on with the gas on high' (I know you love J.L. Hooker lyrics).
Wonder what his take on Sadat and Rabin is?
Posted by OneVote at 07/23/2009 @ 3:56pm |
Sorry OV but I'm pretty sure I've got you blokes by the short and curlies, as we say in polite company over here.
I think you will find jones made no such assertion or mention. We know a fair bit about the Irish as most of our penal variety of settlers came from that quaint little land of leprechauns and this vast land with all of its challenges has helped them integrate in a more "sophisticated" way (if you please), into a different sort of society. So the Irish hardly count in any intelligent analysis. (sort of joking).
I was really thinking of a broader sweep of Western history and the lessons learned from conflicts beginning with the Thirty Years War and though this had other factors it was in part about Protestant, RC differences. So it certainly bears some comparison with the tensions that at times exist between Sunni and Shia sects of Islam.
I do enjoy dropping the odd grenade into the conversation to see what happens. Who would have thought that lack of American "sophistication" would have flushed OV out as being a bit of a closet fan of America's militarism (I think that's what bona fide lefties call it). You'll have to join our neo-con mob ex-comrade.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/23/2009 @ 7:15pm
Posted by OneVote at 07/23/2009 @ 1:57pm
Probably with LRJONES' reasoning, the assassination of Bhutto shows that Pakistan is a "mature democracy" because WE had the Kennedy assassination and we''re a "mature democracy".
Yes....he probably would make such an argument!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 07/23/2009 @ 2:32pm
No Mask I probably wouldn't so I'll let you take all the credit for those little gems but I will let you into a little secret.
I always had the impression that America was a democracy. That was until I became an avid reader of The Nation. I now know that you have just experienced 8 years of a Nazi like dictatorship in which even your judicial system and "free" (oh yes I've also learned free is a joke) press has been compromised and even corrupted.
Then I applied the sort of reasoning I now see I should have applied to Pakistan and phut there goes your democracy too. You can see the power of that reasoning Mask, can't you?.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/23/2009 @ 8:07pm
a famous movie director said you cannot make a great film without a great book.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/23/2009 @ 5:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person
movies that have "value" too I might add.
Posted by OneVote at 07/23/2009 @ 8:31pm
indubitably
Posted by emile duBois at 07/23/2009 @ 8:35pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/23/2009 @ 7:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person
there you go again - qualifying a blanket statement of reconciliation of P and RC for sake of the common good of nationalism.
at least we are in agreement that your argument has a probability well less than you originally insinuated. I will grant you "some" similarity without further ado.
oh my jones - how beneficient of you to assimilate the Irish into your society. what about the them Scottish troublemakers? Did the fact that they were Protestant make it easier? I am betting yes. See - there you go. And you have proved my point that you still differentiate don't you - despite the Irish being Australians too.
Jones - you would be surprised how patriotric liberals are. it is the closet fascist in you that blinds you to this fact.
Are you sure you aren't Antisocialist's long lost cousin or some relation????
Posted by OneVote at 07/23/2009 @ 8:48pm
do enjoy dropping the odd grenade into the conversation to see what happens. Who would have thought that lack of American "sophistication" would have flushed OV out as being a bit of a closet fan of America's militarism (I think that's what bona fide lefties call it). You'll have to join our neo-con mob ex-comrade.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/23/2009 @ 7:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Funny that you are an avid reader of The Nation - given our low level of sophistication and what not. Wondering what that says about you mate?
Tell you what - if Australia is invaded without provocation, I'll will be the first one to enlist to go save you guys again. But....if you get any crazy imperialistic cravings, including joining up with our "coalition based" brand of imperialism, and say the Chinese get ticked off and lob a bomb or two your way, count me out.
Posted by OneVote at 07/23/2009 @ 8:59pm
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/23/2009 @ 6:57pm |
What I have learned is that most here do not represent what America has actually been about in this and a significant part of the last century. Then there are those like OV whose main problem is not the good foreign policy things that you do, he supports them in principle, but rather the cost and its effect on other worthwhile programs.
For me what really defines what America is all about and is a continuation of your WW2 and post WW2 efforts in helping make the world a better place, is epitomised in the ILA1998. That statement of aims and intent represents America at its moral and humanitarian best.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/23/2009 @ 9:22pm
Jones - you would be surprised how patriotric liberals are. it is the closet fascist in you that blinds you to this fact.
Are you sure you aren't Antisocialist's long lost cousin or some relation????
Posted by OneVote at 07/23/2009 @ 8:48pm
Surprised? No shocked is a better description.
Bit before my time but a Jones relative scored a bride from 5th Avenue in the 1840s and eloped to Australia with her. Name of Thompson if anyone is missing a female relative over there. Apart from that one American mine were all from Boadicea's tribe.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/23/2009 @ 10:38pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/23/2009 @ 9:22pm
"For me what really defines what America is all about and is a continuation of your WW2 and post WW2 efforts in helping make the world a better place, is epitomised in the ILA1998."
Please take a look at the following link and take a close look at the chart for the years 1958, 1963, 1987-88, 1990-91, 1998 and 2003.
Let me know if you find anything strange about the notion that U.S. intervention in Iraq made "the world a better place" particularly when you consider the fact that the U.S. supported Iraq as it invaded Iran and used chemical weapons on the Kurds that are identified as findings 1-3 in the ILA1998.
Somebody drank the Kool-aid...
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
Posted by srjenkins at 07/24/2009 @ 01:08am
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/23/2009 @ 8:07pm
I'm still waiting for you to pick WHICH "LRJONES" and his definition of "democracy" we should believe?
The one who says a "mature democracy" is indicated by just a "democratic ethos"...even if under the rule of military dictatorships for decades...
or the one who says the key indicators are "parliaments, impartial-free judiciaries, and free presses"????
Posted by Mask at 07/24/2009 @ 08:03am
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/23/2009 @ 9:22pm "For me what really defines what America is all about and is a continuation of your WW2 and post WW2 efforts in helping make the world a better place, is epitomised in the ILA1998."
Please take a look at the following link and take a close look at the chart for the years 1958, 1963, 1987-88, 1990-91, 1998 and 2003.
Let me know if you find anything strange about the notion that U.S. intervention in Iraq made "the world a better place" particularly when you consider the fact that the U.S. supported Iraq as it invaded Iran and used chemical weapons on the Kurds that are identified as findings 1-3 in the ILA1998.
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
Posted by srjenkins at 07/24/2009 @ 01:08am
SR I've looked at that information in the chart and am at a loss to know what it is meant to convey. My reading of the notes at the end of the chart, that lists all sorts of American interventions, is that it is a do it yourself course in both pacifism and anarchism. The latter because some of the data on the chart is not about foreign countries but about a few enhanced police/military presences in some of your states (Idaho 1892,Colorado 1914, West Virginia 1920-21 (these along with one or two others seem to be strike breaking exercises) then Los Angeles 1992 is Army support for an anti-police uprising) the listing of both these sorts of activities seems to indicate the compiler has more than a streak of anarchism in him. So I reject those straight up as being relevant to the issue of American interventions in foreign countries.
Then the last para of the notes tells us we are simply confronted with a fairly well known form of pacifism:
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/24/2009 @ 09:48am
"Every country, every ethnicity, every religion, contains within it the capability for extreme violence. Every group contains a faction that is intolerant of other groups, and actively seeks to exclude or even kill them. War fever tends to encourage the intolerant faction, but the faction only succeeds in its goals if the rest of the group acquiesces or remains silent.
"The attacks of September 11 were not only a test for U.S. citizens attitudes' toward minority ethnic/racial groups in their own country, but a test for our relationship with the rest of the world. We must begin not by lashing out at civilians in Muslim countries, but by taking responsibility for our own history and our own actions, and how they have fed the cycle of violence."
First I have great respect for Christian pacifists because they serve a transcendent cause and are willing to give their lives and sometimes have, in that cause.
However my position is that it is an impractical philosophy that has never produced peaceful outcomes within or between nations. That is one reason the UN, which should be susceptible to such a philosophy, if it were at all useful, maintains peace keeping forces that are armed.
Pacifism is naïve and unperceptive in its assumptions about human nature. That is why it will always fail in its endeavours to bring peace among and between nations.
So what I'm saying SR is that you are pursuing a criticism of your own country's short comings, in its foreign policy dealings and there are many, through the prism of a naively impractical and real-world useless philosophy. Your perspective is thus constricted and merely nit picking if that "evidence" I looked at is all you have.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/24/2009 @ 09:48am
The way I look at your country begins with the basic proposition: "America is the greatest power for good in the world to this day". I arrive at that by looking, on balance, at its outcome achievements in past foreign policy and military interventions in Europe and Asia particularly.
The Asia-Pacific area in which I live contains a little less than 60% of the world's population. The Key economies are Japan, China and India. This area is one in which harmonious trade and cultural relations exist between mostly all the countries in the region. The continuing peace and stability of the area is primarily due to the tremendous job America, particularly, performed in birthing and nurturing a democratic Japan post WW2. (Incidentally the US, Russia, Canada, Chile, Peru and Mexico are also co-members of APEC).
It is the big ticket items like America's involvement in the defeat of Japan's all consuming militarism, (China also has a lot to thank America for in this regard as does most of SE Asia) and the Axis powers Nazism and Fascism in WW2 and its encouragement of democratic institutions throughout the world that has been a mark of its uniqueness or exceptionalism.
Of course there have been mistakes, perhaps many, and sometimes very mixed motives, (containment of Iran) as in the earlier support of Saddam, but in the end its truer character at the national political level has come to the fore in such legislation as the ILA 1998. I have great hopes that Iraq, in much the same way as the many beneficiaries of America's intervention in this part of the world, will also prosper.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/24/2009 @ 09:48am
I'm still waiting for you to pick WHICH "LRJONES" and his definition of "democracy" we should believe?
The one who says a "mature democracy" is indicated by just a "democratic ethos"...even if under the rule of military dictatorships for decades...
or the one who says the key indicators are "parliaments, impartial-free judiciaries, and free presses"????
Posted by Mask at 07/24/2009 @ 08:03am
If you can't pick one that you like Mask you better do a bit more research. Reading a little more carefully may just drive the cobwebs from your head.
Did you ever think to ask yourself why India and Pakistan were chosen? Why not choose say Australia or Japan as standards by which to compare Iraq's progress? Would that be fair? No ideas?
Go away and think about that and while you are at it ask yourself which country is further down the road to becoming a mature democracy; Pakistan or Iraq?
If I have to work it all out for you every time, Mask you will continue to wallow at the bottom of the class.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/24/2009 @ 10:03am
Posted by Mask at 07/24/2009 @ 08:03am |
The one who sees the hallmarks of democracy in a future dictatorship propped up by the military presence of a real one (interpret the referent as your political leanings require).
Posted by snowball777 at 07/24/2009 @ 10:18am
lrjones-You do not have enough knowledge about this, or any other subject, to do any teaching.You,like every other westerner,has an opinion about a part of the world that all of us westerners find confusing and unpredictable.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/24/2009 @ 10:27am
This was a pretty interesting and pretty balanced article, not something one usually sees on the Nation's website. In particular the note that the main media outlets have largely ignored Iraq since Obama has become president, in part because the place has largely stabilized -- fragile though it might be.
In part, too, because Obama's acolytes in the media would have to admit that not much would be different had McCain been elected, or even if Bush had stayed in office.
Though talk of Obama as an aspiring dictator of some sort is basically hyperbole, just as it was when those sorts of accusations were hurled at Bush, if there is a kernel of truth there, it is the protectiveness the press has had of him. The honeymoon has been sort of grotesque in the lack of hard questions and the absurd flattery. That's sort of being dented now.
With every passing day, he can blame Bush less for every conceivable malady. And if Iraq implodes, it will be at his feet. By all indications, it is right to be wary -- but it seems perhaps too much pessimism isn't warranted either. Right now, Iraq looks like a qualified success story.
Was it worth all the blood and money? Different question.
Posted by J. Saxon at 07/28/2009 @ 12:22pm