Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit"The ice age has ended in Washington," writes Tom Hayden. In the last twenty four hours, the momentum in Congress has shifted. "It's a flawed policy wrapped in an illusion" is how Representative Jack Murtha--a 37 year Marine corps veteran--described the Iraq quagmire. In an emotional speech, this most hawkish of hawks, said that it is time for the war to end and for the troops to come home. Murtha also blasted Vice-President Cheney ("five-deferment Dick") for his distort, distract and divide attacks against opponents of this war.
What next? Hayden lays out what needs to be done to bring this war to a speedy end.
Senate Strands Bush in Iraq by Tom Hayden
Congress finally got the message and began its own withdrawal from the Bush war policies this week, after many months of silent paralysis. On Wednesday I met with a staffer involved for three months in "slow, painful" internal Senate negotiations which had resulted in the murky bipartisan resolution passed with 79 votes the day before. The Washington Post headline summarized it well: "Senate Presses for Concrete Steps Toward Drawdown of Troops in Iraq." Would there be follow-up?, I asked the longtime insider. "I doubt it, because it took so much to get even to this point," was the reply. It would be "premature" to expect much more in the short term, I was advised.
The aide was wrong. The Senate may have been exhausted for the moment, but in the next 24 hours:
**Nineteen House members attended a press conference to endorse various resolutions to end funding (McGovern) or set withdrawal timetables (Abercrombie-Jones).
**The once-hardline Rep. Jane Harman advocated an exit strategy proposal in a Capitol Hill publication.
**Rep. John Murtha stunned the pundit class by advocating a six-month withdrawal, too much for Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi.
**In the previous few days, Sen. John Kerry and former senators John Edwards and Tom Daschle stepped up their calls for a withdrawal plan.
It is much too early to predict a flood, but the ice age has ended in Washington. It is a time reminiscent of Watergate, when the US intervention in Vietnam collapsed as the White House was weakened by scandals arising from its covert operations against the antiwar movement.
The strategy of "Iraqization" seems finished except as a figleaf. The new Iraqi constitution, which damages the interests of Sunnis and women, barely passed amid widespread accusations of voter fraud. Then came the discovery of the Saddam-style torture chamber operated by Shiite militias under cover of the Iraqi army. The discredited Ahmad Chalabi brazenly flirted with high US officials about returning to power. If US and British troops redeploy, it is hard to imagine the Iraqi army standing up against the Iraqi resistance.
Reeling from internal turmoil, scandals and declining poll numbers, the White House has lost its sound bite. When Bush and Cheney accused Democrats of changing their minds, as if they should continue to embrace fabricated evidence, Murtha blasted Cheney as a five-deferment Dick.
The media's humiliating wartime collaboration with the Bush Administration, shown last week by the New York Times' dismissal of Judith Miller, was underscored anew by revelations that Bob Woodward, considered a media "god" according to the Washington Post, had kept from his own editors his secret interviews with White House officials about Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame.
These were dizzying, stupifying role reversals. The former hawks were calling for peace! The former investigative reporters were keeping state secrets! And of course it all was defined as an inside game of jockeying among the powerful, when in fact it was the outside pressure of thousands of activists, letter-writers, marchers, door-knockers, bloggers, anti-recruiters, quakers, code pinkers, moveon.niks and angry military families who were the motors turning the fans that blew the wind.
Those at the top can't cope with the idea that movements with an outside game are capable of upsetting the future that the inside elites have planned. It's as hard for them as for pigs seeing what they are stepping in. So in explaining the sudden Congressional shift, Dan Balz of the Post made eight references to "public opinion" without a single acknowledgement of organized public opinion. Balz notes "growing public frustration" (twice), "public anxiety," "increasingly unhappy" constituents, and quotes Sen. John Warner as "'not unmindful' of widespread unease in public opinion."
It is a moment for antiwar activists to claim some measure of success, after many months of pounding against the walls of war.
But progress has a painful price. Americans and Iraqis continue to die everyday in a widely-rejected war, and not a single American soldier has been withdrawn. While the antiwar talk in Washington is a welcome development, it is also prompted by an incumbent desire to lull the public into trusting their leaders during an election year. According to one insider, the official debate "has now shifted to how to get out of Iraq" because "that is where the public is, and the senators were making sure that were on the right side of the political debate."
The question is how the invisible antiwar movement can intervene to make the politicians keep up their forced march out of Iraq. The Nation magazine, in an historic front-cover editorial, has one suggestion for starters: refuse to support any candidate in either party unless they commit to a speedy end to this war. In an election year promising to be relatively competitive, that's a message any candidate can hear.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
The rationale for war was BS then, and the smell has now begun to be noticed. No amount of back-calculating, nor half-assed justifications, can make it "right". More like a lie, wrapped in blatant BS and smothered in oil potentials!
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/18/2005 @ 5:40pm
If the US is serious about withdrawal, then will there be an opening for the Arab League and/or the UN to reach out to Iraq? Perhaps if Iraq proves that its serious about being a nation?
Posted by Bushfools at 11/18/2005 @ 6:08pm
KVDHUEVAL
The vote tonight will be telling, your side will lose and lose decisivly! You writing is completely dishonest or sinister piffle.
Madame where will you be when all this is going on? Peter Schwiezer was right, do as a say not as I do. You ought to take more vacations on your yacht for perspective.
Posted by CPT at 11/18/2005 @ 6:13pm
For those of you who remember, it's strangely reminiscient of around 35 years ago. The Washington insiders were telling us we had to stay until 'they' could do it for themselves. Gains were fantasies. Then, finally, people decided that the best way to support our troops was to bring them home.
Posted by adr at 11/18/2005 @ 6:20pm
Why there are people in the US that continuely wish to put our sons and daughters into a meat grinder for rich corporations, (I would say--) only God knows, (but come on now-- we really 'do' know why and it has nothing to do with the safety of our nation). If you'd say it has to be done, then trade your seat with my daughter, and you go to Iraq instead. You killers-- go kill each other. Stop spouting about how we can't run away, pack up 'your' weapons and go do some fighting in Iraq to defend our US-- either way-- you put up or shut up.
Posted by Bushfools at 11/18/2005 @ 6:46pm
u know, rio, choosing one's political ideology is not the same as choosing one's allegiance to a sports franchise. the kind of loyalty u show to your party line is indicative of nothing but pride and blind tribal rah rah-ism. this is more important than winning and losing, more important than looking smart or being on the winning side. this is about people's lives possibly thrown away, american, iraqi, and all the others as a result of arrogant falsification. if i say the sky is red and u open the sun roof to show me its blue, why on earth would i continue to argue my point. the sun roof is opening up here. check it out - the sky is blue and no measure of stubborn, prideful denial and team loyalty can change reality.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/18/2005 @ 6:54pm
And the reaction of the DCCC head Rahm Emanuel:" Jack Murtha went out and spoke for Jack Murtha . . . At the right time we will have a position."
It seems to me appropriate that the Nation call for his immediate resignation.
How about it KVH?
Posted by john.halle at 11/18/2005 @ 6:59pm
How ironic that this war, this "product," was rolled out just in time for the 2002 elections, and its end may well be required as a political necessity for the 2006 elections. Or perhaps the real key number here is 2,083 - the number of American service members killed as of today. That rising number, coupled with the realization that Con. Murtha's point that there is nothing more (positive) than can be accomplished militarily in Iraq is exactly right, will build political pressure to wind this war down. That's what's driving the polling, which is what's building the political pressure. The antiwar movement, such as it is, is of seconday importance, if that, to what happens from here.
Posted by llallred at 11/18/2005 @ 7:00pm
Frei, those "innocent" people were the losing side in a civil war. they too were kilers. your revisionism is ludicrous. you learned absolutely nothing from the Vietnam war.the US could have avoided the vietnam debacle, by keeping their promise of independent elections in vietnam. they could have avoided millions of dead in Laos which was neutral and not starting a secret war in Cambodia. it is also now well known that the gulf of tonkin incident was fraudulent. all of these are directly parallelled now in Iraq.
as usual you shy away from facts, I guess it's because you are ignorant of them. read a book, then come back to talk.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/18/2005 @ 7:16pm
Bush would like to be Putin, Putin would like to be Stalin
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/18/2005 @ 7:19pm
Stalin is dead.
I think they'll get their wish.
Posted by Will C. at 11/18/2005 @ 7:58pm
They'll all have a chance to go on record tonight. I don't recall anything like this in 1968 to 72... it's good. Let's hear where they stand. It's about time.
It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.
Posted by Bill Baar at 11/18/2005 @ 8:24pm
You guys are dreaming. We followed your cut and run strategy in Vietnam. We had the war won, left when Teddie and the boys de-funded the war in 1974, and then watched 3M Cambodians die and 3M boat people flee Viet Nam. I spent a good part of my younger years picking those poor people up. We aren't going to make that mistake again. We stay in Iraq until the job gets finished. Before you flame me, answer these questions. Why is the left to infatuated with death? Why do you want to condemn a whole nation of Shias, Kurds, and Sunnis to life under either Saddam or Bin Laden? Why do you enjoy that?
Posted by markpercich at 11/18/2005 @ 8:48pm
The left is acting like the Bush crew went into Iraq with intentions to never leave.
I recall countless times when the POTUS said that we would stay as long as it takes and no longer.
For the demos to get all huffy now about calling for a pullout is comical.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/18/2005 @ 9:06pm
Hey MARKPERCICH, Have you ever heard of the Pentagon Papers? You idiot! Internal government documents acknowledged that we never had the support of the Vietnamese population (kind of ruined our chances by supporting a brutal dictatorship). Yeah, why should we have stopped at killing only 2 million--we should have stayed to "finish the job." And did you ever think that many of the refugees were leaving because we completely devastated their poor country? More land mines than trees left; more tonnage of bombs dropped than were used in WW2. As for Cambodia, it was the Vietnamese who went in to stop Pol Pot...and during/after that conflict guess who we sided with? Yes, it was Pol Pot and his bloody murderers. As a matter of fact we've (U.S.Govt) sided with just about all the worst murderers: including Saddam. Oh, but that was because of the crazy Iranians who took our people hostage. We were also kind enough to overthrow their democratically elected leader in 1958, because he had the audacity to nationalize his own oil resourses for Iran- cutting out the British imperial scumbags, who were too weak to run things like the old days (Churchill was the first to order the poison gassing of Kurds) and needed our help. The ungrateful bastards didn't send flowers for our reinstallation of the brutal Shah! I'm not going to sink to your level and ask: "why do you enjoy that?"...but I will ask why you support that kind of foreign policy? Or perhaps you haven't heard that version on the Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity/Mike Savage/They're All The Same Morons show.
Posted by Oustbush at 11/18/2005 @ 9:44pm
This, the sea-change, is something of a wonder to behold. It will be fascinating to see what will be left of this administration when they leave office - whether or not in the public eye, at least, they'll be able to salvage some dignity. Their historic failure is certainly assured. There use of, and philosophic support for, torture will give them a special place in history - achieving the emblematic status reserved for such notables as, say, McCarthy or Boss Tweed.
I hope we, as a nation, manage to learn our lesson.
Blink
PS - Hey Will C - You asked for some mathematical proof on another topic. Let me know if you want me to provide that for you - privately at this point. Thanks.
Posted by Blinky at 11/18/2005 @ 9:49pm
It's hard to know what to say in response to such utter drivil. A total disregard for facts, combined with an insouciant misreading of history...Vietnam ended because of Watergate??? Murtha a hawk??? an Iraqi "resistance"???
Posted by jballard701 at 11/18/2005 @ 9:51pm
Posted by MARKPERCICH 11/18/2005 @ 8:48pm | ignore this person
Why is the left to infatuated with death?
Nixon starts a secret war in Cambodia which in turn destabilizes that country to the point of genocide and you want to blame it on Teddy?
Time to unclench the sphincter
Extract head
Why do you want to condemn a whole nation of Shias, Kurds, and Sunnis to life under either Saddam or Bin Laden?
You mean like Ronnie and Daddy Bush did? With your consent and blessing and bucket loads of our hard earned tax dollars.
You could almost say that Ronnie and Daddy Bush made Osama and Saddam the men they are today
Why do you enjoy that?
We don't. That is why we would like to end this thing
Remove the fuel from the fire.
The fire burns out
Posted by Will C. at 11/18/2005 @ 9:54pm
Blink
Mathmatics that support ID. I remember.
No privacy needed. Here is fine.
Posted by Will C. at 11/18/2005 @ 9:55pm
USAPRIDE--
I recall reading earlier in the war that we were also planning on establishing somewhere betwen 14 permanent (I think the word of choice was "enduring") military bases in Iraq. I haven't heard if these plans were scrapped, but it sounds a little like not planning on leaving to me.
Matthew
Posted by matthewg at 11/18/2005 @ 9:59pm
BLINKY--
I'd also be interested in seeing what you have to say about math.
Matthew
Posted by matthewg at 11/18/2005 @ 10:00pm
De plane boss, De plane, De plane is coming to Fantasy Island! Look its Peggy Shehan and Code Pink commandos come from harassing vetrans and their families outside the gates to Walter Reed Hospital!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/18/2005 @ 5:48pm
RIO BRAVO- what's that? The humorous accolade that someone gets when they release a particularly loud one after they've consumed a jumbo super burrito?
You're well on your way to adjusting to your "I'm-not-a-historical-loser-if-I-ignore-reality" status. Similar to the nutcases who are still bitter that we didn't nuke Hanoi to win a war that we couldn't win on the battlefield regardless of our vastly superior firepower.
They got back at those who were smart enough to know better by accusing them of spitting on returning soldiers. Such a thing never happened but what difference does that make? The important thing is to convince yourself that you're better than them.
One difference, however, between now and then was that back then many of the people saying that had actually seen combat. Not today. Today we're treated to the spectacle of dyed in the wool cowards continually calling everyone who disagress with their stupid ideas cowards. The next decade should be entertaining.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/18/2005 @ 10:42pm
You guys are dreaming. We followed your cut and run strategy in Vietnam. We had the war won . . .
Posted by MARKPERCICH 11/18/2005 @ 8:48pm
You still can't figure out what happened in Vietnam after thirty five years. America has begun to realize that people who think this way are simply congenitally incapable of dealing with reality. They can't be trusted with political office.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/18/2005 @ 10:54pm
I say all those that wish to stay in Iraq and fight 'til the death-- enlist yourselves in the Iraqi army. Spot asking others to fight your battles.
Posted by Bushfools at 11/19/2005 @ 12:24am
I say all those that wish to stay in Iraq and fight 'til the death-- enlist yourselves in the Iraqi army. 'Stop' asking others to fight your battles. (Sorry 'bout the previous typo, it's late. Good nite.)
Posted by Bushfools at 11/19/2005 @ 12:26am
As predicted, the resolution to for immediate pullout FAILED big time. 403-3....WOW!!! I guess those guys on the hill have not seen the polls on Iraq...right? As many here like to cite, Its a GREAT DAY to be an American.
The House sent a POSITIVE message!!
OUTBUSH
It was those VIETNAMESE that went in to stop the Khmer Rouge....sure they did, AFTER they murdered about 200,000 (conservative number) of their own people who wanted no part of their system. Watch who you call an idiot, hey pot, you are just as black
Posted by CPT at 11/19/2005 @ 04:45am
Hi Will C. and MatthewG -
I'm a newbie around here; and for that reason and maybe a few others, I'd rather not interject the Evo/ID debate into this blog.
But if you or anyone else would be interested in a few comments (not my own) relating to Evo-theory and Math, just email me, and I'd be happy to reply with those.
greggardner487@peoplepc.com
Blink
Posted by Blinky at 11/19/2005 @ 05:34am
Cpt, the House voted down the Republican mock resolution, not Murtha's proposal. No Democrat should have voted for that stunt.
Posted by pcalex at 11/19/2005 @ 07:37am
We should say though...that that vote DOES show that there is no political will for "Sheehanism" or "Pull out fully now".
Apparently the only politically useful alternative for the anti-war movement...is to support a GRADUAL pull-out.
Posted by Mask at 11/19/2005 @ 08:05am
Katrina:
Your "Editor's Cut" should be called "Editor's Cut and Run". BTW, you guys lost 403 to 3. What? Only 3 democrats with the guts to vote the way they really feel?
Posted by pbsssmith at 11/19/2005 @ 08:37am
The tide has turned. A clear majority of the American people want this occupation over. Kerry's mouthpiece, when asked if Kerry agreed with Murtha in calling for withdrawal, said "Sen. Kerry has his own plan". Disgusting...the same kind of forked-tongue bullshit that Kerry used during his campaign. All those stay-the-course Demos (Hillary,Biden,Kerry,Emmanuel,etc.) should understand that the peace train is leaving the station. Any Demos not on board have no chance in the next election. Check out the great piece at commondreams.org by Jeremy Scahill about the "Loyal Opposition". It points out the hypocrisy of Demos who voted for the war now saying they were misled. Total Bullshit! The Demos like Kerry are respondsible for this war too. Like Bush, they have blood on their hands. And I despise them.
Posted by philbq at 11/19/2005 @ 08:38am
There has never been a case where an indigenous insurgency has been defeated. If so, tell me where? All of you out there who say stay-the-course are wasting blood and money. After several years, and billions of dollars in training, if the Iraqi military is not capable of defending their country, then their heart is not in it. The insurgents, like the Vietcong, have demonstrated their determination and willingness to die for their side. The weakness of the Iraqi army speaks volumes about their commitment, or lack of it. They are just hanging around for a paycheck. They are not willing to die for their country. Then why should our troops die?
Posted by philbq at 11/19/2005 @ 08:49am
one of the things I keep hearing that if the US withdraws its forces from Iraq, Al Qaeda and Bin Laden will run Iraq. that is absurd. Iraq has been governed for almost 50 years by the Baathist party. in the civil war that is raging in Iraq now, having been precipitated by america's invasion, either the Shia majority or the baathist minority will prevail, and rule Iraq.Bin Laden and Al Qaeda is a much much smaller group, and will definitely not rule Iraq. another fear tactic of the mis-administration to prop up their illegal and futile war.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/19/2005 @ 08:55am
the bill that was voted on in the House last night was another shameful attempt at bait and switch.they did not vote on Murtha's bill but on a fake bill substotuted at the last minute, which was rightfully defeated. the american people, especially the uninformed ones are fooled again, maybe
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/19/2005 @ 09:07am
Apparently all the bloggers here that want to stay in Iraq 'til the death of all our sons and daughters is complete, are hypocrites BIG TIME-- as they are not on the 1st plane to Iraq to do any fighting. All they're interested in is convincing other peoples children to die for their corporate masters instead. They really don't see the hypocrisy. It's only business, right!
Posted by Bushfools at 11/19/2005 @ 09:50am
There is no valid reason to remain in Iraq. I opposed the whole intervention, but now today, after elections, and formation of a government, it is time for the U.S. troops to go. My suspicion is that the unholy alliance between the Bush Reich, and AIPAC Democrats (Kerry, Hillary, Biden, Emmanuel,etc.) is so strong that they will stubbornly resist all calls for withdrawal. These Demos are complicent in this war, and they are part of the problem. I wouldn't vote for any of them.
Posted by philbq at 11/19/2005 @ 10:08am
Hey Frankgrits...check out www.operationtruth.com for the soldiers perspective on the war. The organisation has Jesse Ventura on its board, and is the main group representing Iraq and Afghan vets. They are very critical of the fact that 40% of the troops are National Guard, which is a perversion of the mission of the Guard, which is to be here protecting our shores. But the Bush Reich wanted to have their war on the cheap.
Posted by philbq at 11/19/2005 @ 10:20am
Hey CPT. I suppose the Vietnamese went into Cambodia merely to murder babies and then drink their blood before statues of Karl Marx... but the damn Khmer Rouge just happened to be in the way: so they removed them from power not only as an obstacle to their addiction to murdering innocent people (one would never apply ethical consideration to "commies") but also because Cambodia was their first stop in taking over the world (Domino Theory). Oh, wait a minute...they were both communist gvts and the commies were all one big happy evil family bent on world domination--so I'm confused. Please educate me, old cold war relic warrior...
Posted by Oustbush at 11/19/2005 @ 11:02am
Just my opinion, but this is a really yucky time. As many of the right wingers on this site happily point out, the left has no real power, except a few token talking heads and sites such as this. To reach the point where our goals are being promoted by a "respected" man in congress who has been on the opposite side of every war-related issue of the last 20 years just gives me the creeps. I do not respect him, nor do I congratulate him for finally getting something right.
For the mindless posters on this site who see something meaningful in the childish pranks and prods in the House last night--you've got to be kidding. It was shameful, from Rep. Stars and Stripes from the great state of Ohio and her jarhead letter to the rambling incoherence of virtually all of our representatives (who,let's be honest, make all of us look like Our Founding Fathers by comparison) and the whiny I-got-balls kind of responses from the Democrats. Nice job, House leadership. You've brought the chaos and confusion of an average day in the mind of Bush to the floor of Congress.
This will not end well, no matter how it ends. Does the right believe otherwise? Do you expect the bombings to end and peace to reign? I hope not. Nor should you expect our investment in Iraq to end any time soon. We have invested so much blood and money to create this country that we are going to continue to prop up whatever sordid little characters seize control. This is bound to create good will across the Persian Gulf and the whole of the Middle East. Stay tuned.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/19/2005 @ 11:05am
OUTBUSH
Easy go talk to ANY vietnamese refugee living in this country, they will be able to educate you on the noble Vietnamese communists. There are about 10 million refugees and/or their descendents.
Posted by CPT at 11/19/2005 @ 11:08am
I'm going to make another attempt here to try to reorient this blog from a forum for, at best, blowing off steam, or at worst, engaging with right wing cranks who are quite likely, in many cases, provocateurs (maybe even paid provocateurs) whose main objective is to prevent us from making use of what could be a potentially very valuable organizing tool. We need to bear in mind that The Nation has put at our disposal a forum where those of us having a more or less similar perspective can mobilize to advance achievable political goals. Our not making use of it, while not surprising given the history of left strategic dysfunctionality, is a shame nonetheless.
To counteract this tendency, I'll suggest one example of the kind of thing we could now be working on: to encourage the Nation to go beyond its "historic" editorial to withhold support for pro-war Democrats but which is still too vague. What's needed now is for the Nation take this one step further and focus on specific members of the Democratic leadership who need to be replaced by those who are committed to withdrawl from Iraq.
Above, I made a specific suggestion namely, to have the Nation run an editorial calling for the removal of Rahm Emanuel as head of the DCCC and that it will recommend no financial or in-kind contributions to Democratic candidates until this is effected.
Could we get consensus on this blog that the participants here-rightwing cranks excluded, of course-support that objective?
Of course, I would greatly appreciate discussion of other specific achievable goals which others may have in mind. I'm mentioning this to get the ball rolling in what I think is the right direction.
Posted by john.halle at 11/19/2005 @ 11:34am
Tj, i think it's actually a less yucky time tha it was three years ago, or evn three months ago. the subject and the tone of the national conversation have changed. we have gone from Sieg Heil to something approaching dialogue.
look what an impact both Ciny Sheehan and Murtha have made. at this point I would applaud Satan, if he called for withdrawing the troops and ending our Iraq war. their Iraq war will not end when US troops are withdrawn.
look at vietnam, we withdrew troops but continued the war. after we ended our war, the vietnamese war continued fitfully for a while, and then the communist side "won", with some definitely horrible consequences for our side. but they were killers too, our killers.
so it will be in Iraq, our Iraqis will be in big trouble when we leave, they will have to fight for their survival, as the "anti-Iraqis" are doing now. perhaps they wouldn't have one sided elections and one sided constitutions, thumbing their noses at the Sunni, without 160,000 american soldiers doing their dirty work for them.
at the end of our revolutionary war, the loyalists were driven out, killed etc. this is what happens, it's not nice. staying in vietnam, as in Iraq, would not have protected vietnamese from death and destruction, it would have extended it, with american dead added, so we left, cut and run.
the right is engaged in major historical revisionism about vietnam, so much so that I suspect they started the Iraq war for that hidden reason.
the public has every right to turn against a war that was sold on a fraudulent basis and is a disaster for americans, despite the effect on troops' morale. I mean that's just too bad for the soldiers. they are there to serve us not vice versa. we owe them honesty and support, there and when they return. we do not owe them our foreign policy.
we owe the fallen soldiers respect and honor, but not throwing more troops into the maw of death.
the show in the house was disgusting and compelling political theater. the vacuous comparisons to Normandy beach showed the absolute bankruptcy of the right's argument. but can you imagine such a scene three months ago, or even before the election?
the election of 2004 was fraudulent in many ways, not least the way the difficult and damaging questions were pushed back beyond the election. the dems were complicit in that fraud, with their platform of "we can do the war better" instead of offering a real, and anti war alternative.
Dean offered such an alternative at first, but the right and the lapdog press performed a political assassination, using the scream as a pretext. here too the dems were entirely complicit.
it was poetic justice that this technique was then performed on Kerry with the swift boaters.
I claim that we live for the first time in half a decade in hopeful times.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/19/2005 @ 11:52am
.
Katrina vanden Heuvel is jubilant at a shift in US public opinion and the prospect of a US pull out from Iraq. She knows that that will kill Iraq's chance at an open and free society. She does not care. She approvingly quotes Tom Hayden:
The Nation magazine wants that deployment. It does not care that as it celebrates "The End of the Ice Age" the suicide bombers of the "the Iraqi resistance" killed 74 worshipers in two mosques in eastern Iraq and that two car bombs attacked a Baghdad hotel housing journalists, killing eight Iraqis.
The Left looks to the fight of "the Iraqi resistance" as its fight. It does not care that that "resistance" is a resistance to democracy and religious toleration and free speech. The insurgents have expressly condemned all of that as evil, hateful to God.
The Left's real focus is on the Bush administration, which it loathes. It wants it defeated. It does not care that such a defeat will entail the defeat of a noble effort to give Iraq and the Middle East an alternative to despotic governance.
The Left is all emotion. It does not realize what it is doing, to itself and to the United States. Should the insurgency win the Left will have collaborated with fascists to defeat democracy. The aftermath will tear the US apart. It will destroy the Left. It will change America.
.
Posted by nacl at 11/19/2005 @ 12:27pm
.
My second paragraph should read:
Because liberals seem either incapable or unwilling to understand the real nature of the war we are currently engaged in, I offer this snippet from a PBS Frontline Discussion after the London bombings. Please note the transcript of a taped conversation of terrorists seized by Italian police in 2004. It should serve as a real wakeup call to everyone including liberals, but I doubt you are willing to consider the facts.
NARRATOR: The power of this religious message became clear to police in Milan, Italy, in the summer of 2004. Acting on a tip from Spanish police, they had mounted a surveillance operation, putting bugs in every room of an apartment on Via Cadore. They listened as two men played religious tapes. They were overhearing the recruitment of a suicide bomber to go to Iraq. These are official transcripts of their conversations.
[Spanish police transcript]
AHMED RABEI: These are very special tapes. They indicate the way of the martyr. They enter your body, but you must listen to them constantly. I listen to them all the time.
NARRATOR: The recruiter was a 32-year-old Egyptian named Ahmed Rabei. His recruit was a 21-year-old named Yahia Payumi.
AHMED RABEI: This tape has an indescribable voice. It enters your veins.
NARRATOR: On May 28, police overheard the two men download a jihadi video from Iraq. A transcript reports that Rabei became very excited as they watched 26-year-old American hostage Nicholas Berg kneel before his captors.
AHMED RABEI: Watch closely. This is the policy of the sword. Slaughter him! Cut his head off! God is great!
YAHIA PAYUMI: Isn't that a sin?
AHMED RABEI: It's never a sin! It's never a sin for the cause. Everyone must end up like this.
[www.pbs.org: More of the transcripts]
NARRATOR: The chilling tapes came to the desk of Armando Spataro, a senior prosecutor in Milan. He had never heard anything like this in all his years of fighting the Mafia and other European terror groups in campaigns that date back to the '80s.
ARMANDO SPATARO, Terrorist Prosecutor, Milan: [through interpreter] On a human level, more than fear, I had this feeling of incredulity. My first reaction was, "How is it possible that even here, in a democracy, a country that welcomes immigrants from all over, that there could be someone who harbors so much hatred to consider taking his own life in order to kill others?"
NARRATOR: Spataro realized he was listening to an experienced operative, one who had connections with other cells throughout Europe.
ARMANDO SPATARO: [through interpreter] Rabei was some sort of contact person, with links to cells all over Europe. We verified his presence in Spain, France, Germany, Italy, besides contacts with Belgium and Holland.
NARRATOR: Ahmed Rabei's journey through Europe began in September, 2000, in the Lebach refugee center in Germany. Ishac Badawi is a social worker at the center. He remembers Rabei as a mysterious character who spoke educated Arabic, who claimed to be a Palestinian but had no passport or papers.
ISHAC BADAWI, Lebach Refugee Center, Germany: [through interpreter] He had been in prison for about a year, and authorities did not know his country of origin. They could not hold him indefinitely because he had no papers, and they didn't know where to send him. He claimed to be Palestinian. I went there to help determine his country of origin, as suggested by his dialect.
NARRATOR: During his years here, Rabei became known for his militant politics and a growing sense of piety.
ISHAC BADAWI: [through interpreter] He grew his hair and his beard. Then, as leader of prayer, he took to wearing traditional robes and took to going around and gathering people to pray.
NARRATOR: His proselytizing was sufficiently extreme that he was attracting the attention of the security services.
Another man who now attracts the attention of German security is Reda Sayem. Because of his radical views, this divorced father in Berlin has been accused of being a dangerous jihadist. He's been linked to international terrorism, including the Bali bombing.
REDA SAYEM: [through interpreter] We believe that the caliphate shall be restored, and we believe that Rome shall be conquered. Islam was the dominant power in the world for the longest time of any empire. For more than a thousand years, Islam ruled the world, until the fall of the caliphate. Communism lasted only 70 years before it fell. Capitalism will fall soon. We offer the alternative, an Islamic program. But the West is not willing to try it. The West is afraid that they will have to give up its sensuous lusts and greed for money.
LOWELL BERGMAN: Do you admire bin Laden? What do you think of him?
REDA SAYEM: [through interpreter] We consider that bin Laden is standing on one of the fronts to defend Islam.
LOWELL BERGMAN: When he says that it is all right to-- or to kill Jews and the crusaders, or when he justifies the deaths of Muslims, do you agree with this?
REDA SAYEM: [through interpreter] Usama bin Laden didn't say you have to kill this or that person. The Quran says this. It is my understanding that what the Quran says is that Muslims are supposed to fight those who go against God's will.
NARRATOR: In August, 2001, Ahmed Rabei didn't collect his monthly food parcel. Immediately after the terrorist attack on 9/11, security services came looking for him. They were too late. The man with no passport had abandoned these quarters to travel for the next three years throughout Europe. It's now believed that he had taken on the manner and methods of the Takfir, violent Salafist extremists who came out of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Takfirs are not bound by the usual religious constraints. Rabei cut off his beard. He could now blend into the crowd. Takfirs, who have significantly influenced al Qaeda, believe that any means justify the end, that even other Muslims can be killed in the cause, that this society is heathen and they are the force to destroy it.
JEAN-LOUIS BRUGUIERE, Chief Anti-Terror Judge, France: We have a lot in Europe, many, many cells. Many groups belongs to Takfir or share the values of Takfir-- very, very, very radical. And all the members are living look like undercover. They are no Islamic-looking, you know? They have no beards. They have just a tie. They drink alcoholic beverage. They can--
LOWELL BERGMAN: They drink--
JEAN-LOUIS BRUGUIERE: If necessary, yes, have a sandwich with pork inside is no problem. So the visible signs, it's quite impossible to discover. But they have, you know, two caps, two lives.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/etc/script.html
Al Qaeda and all the similar terrorist organizations have the intention of re-establishing the Caliphate that once ruled the Middle East. It would be centered in Iraq according to Bin Laden. It's real goal as witnessed in this tape is the eventual rule by Muslims of the entire world.
This is the central issue that liberals either downplay or dismiss. It will not be defeated through UN discussions and idealistic philosophies. Unfortunately, force and force alone is the only way to remove this cancer from humanity.
Posted by love liberty at 11/19/2005 @ 12:43pm
Halle, I don't believe that this is a forum for changing the Nations editorial policy, by majority vote of posters. I imagine Ms Vandenheuvel would agree with me. your larger point is well taken, but again I'm not sure if this blog is an organizing tool. I think you should definitely lead here and others may follow.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/19/2005 @ 12:51pm
LL,
From the transcript it sounds as if this is a disease that has spread like cancer. I am not sure how our current efforts are helping cure the disease. Even if we share your dream that peace is established in Iraq, will this stop the maniacal drive to rule the world as expressed in the video? I have no solution, I confess. But clearly this is a global problem and if we continue to be ineffective in organizing a global response, then we have failed in our duty to combat Islamic terrorism.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/19/2005 @ 1:08pm
For a fairly comprehensive article complete with many reference links on this goal of re-establishing the Al-Khalifa:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread71714/pg1
(sorry, link was too long to hyperlink)
Posted by love liberty at 11/19/2005 @ 1:28pm
For TJB
Given these goals, I maintain that the use of force is the only solution that has any opportunity of success. As noted in the first posting and the additional informtion I posted @1:28pm, negotiations are not truly possible with these people. What is truly needed is a recognition by more governments around the world of the necessity to seriously address this problem. The Western Governments like France are nearly crippled due to the Islamic problem they currently have and many Middle Eastern countries are either too corrupt or are sympathetic to this goal.
All in all, it is a nasty situation with no easy answers.
Posted by love liberty at 11/19/2005 @ 1:36pm
Use of force against whom and coordinated by whom? It's fine with me if the UN is to discounted. But at what point does our country take up the responsibility for coordinating a global effort to deal with this problem instead of picking two countries and burying ourselves in them? Our major effort in Afghanistan was to capture bin Laden. We failed. Our effort in Iraq still remains a mystery to me. A country that was little connected to terrorism now has a burgeoning market in it.
We have personalized this effort rather than seeing that so many other countries are dealing with this problem. As long as we ignore this, we will never accomplish what we are told is assured: a victory in the war on terror.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/19/2005 @ 1:58pm
Zero,
If you truly desire peace, you and other liberals/progressives will have to develop some relational perspective between your hatred and distrust of the Bush organization and this global threat to the world. All the conspiracy theories about Middle Eastern domination pale in comparison to this global threat from these jihadists. As long as people are willing to be suicide bombers and murder innocent men, women and children deliberately in order to further their goals, all mankind remains at risk. As long as these people believe they cannot restore the Caliphate, no one is safe.
Posted by love liberty at 11/19/2005 @ 2:31pm
Bin Laden has clearly stated he wants to be the next Khalifa of the Muslim world. The following provides some insights into this role and rule including the provision to use force to expand the muslim rule into non muslim lands.
The duties and responsibilities of the Khalifa
The Khalifa of the Muslim ummah must strive to: Safeguard Islam in its original form, and to protect against the introduction of new things (bid'a) into Islam.
Establish justice (including punishments for crimes) among the people.
Ensure the protection of the ummah. People within the boundaries of the Muslim state (regardless of whether they are Muslims or not) should feel secure enough to be productive.
Protect the physical boundaries of the state through the use of arms and other methods.
Defend the rights of Muslims abroad, and to see to it that Islam can spread freely in non-Muslim lands (including the use of force).
Organize jihad against any non-Muslim government which prevents Muslim da'wah from entering its land.
Collect and distribute zakat and the spoils of war according to the Qur'an and Sunnah (and ijtihad, if necessary). This must be done without the use of fear as an incentive (unless a person refuses to pay). Zakat is not to be taken from the best or worst of people's possessions, but rather from the middle.
Pay the salaries of Bayt-ul-Mal employees, i.e., those people whose job is the collection of zakat and other state-levied taxes. Their salaries should be reasonable and be paid on time.
Hire honest people as helpers, aides, governors, etc. The Khalifa must appoint to public office those who are competent and who can give good advice. This especially applies to Bayt-ul-Mal officials.
Be heavily involved personally in the acts of governing. The Khalifa must be actively checking and overseeing the duties of the government, and constantly be guarding against internal corruption.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/politics/khalifa.html
What is also interesting is that the teachings provide for respecting the authority of someone who assumes the role of Al Khalifa by force (Al Sadr had this in mind in his struggles with other muslims in Iraq).
Posted by love liberty at 11/19/2005 @ 2:35pm
TJ, I'm not so sure how much of an effort was really made to capture Bin Laden. he is so much more valuable to them as a boogey man at large. the true story of the afghan war has not been told.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/19/2005 @ 2:40pm
Whaddaya know, Johannes? What's the scoop? Tell me more.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/19/2005 @ 2:43pm
LL, im curious what the shia have to do with this, and which caliphate this is supposed to be a revival of. and how do the shia fit into this, because in the past they have had separate caliphate, and different dynasties and empires.
Posted by hvmiller at 11/19/2005 @ 2:56pm
Al Qaeda and all the similar terrorist organizations have the intention of re-establishing the Caliphate that once ruled the Middle East. It would be centered in Iraq according to Bin Laden. It's real goal as witnessed in this tape is the eventual rule by Muslims of the entire world.
This is the central issue that liberals either downplay or dismiss. It will not be defeated through UN discussions and idealistic philosophies. Unfortunately, force and force alone is the only way to remove this cancer from humanity.
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 11/19/2005 @ 12:43am
There's sayin
And there's doin
From where I'm sittin most conservatives are "Talk the Talk"
Posted by Will C. at 11/19/2005 @ 3:19pm
Above, I made a specific suggestion namely, to have the Nation run an editorial calling for the removal of Rahm Emanuel as head of the DCCC and that it will recommend no financial or in-kind contributions to Democratic candidates until this is effected.
Posted by JOHN.HALLE 11/19/2005 @ 11:34am
As ol' RumDud likes to say, you go to war with the army you have, not the one you want. What you're calling for is a purge of the Democratic Party to make everyone ideologically pure. That makes us republicans. Next we all have to get the Borg implant, start mindlessly repeating DNC talking points...
That's ok. I like being part of the circular firing squad. I like being part of a party that has more than one solution to a problem. It's what I like to call Advanced Citizenship. I can honestly disagree with someone who wears the same colors and I don't have to regress to the sixth grade to rebut them because all I get out of them is sixth gradeisms.
We will figure it out. I'm guessing that the hyperbole that the evangelics are using to defend themselves at this point will in itself be the death of hyperbole in political discourse. They're starting to look like crazed maniacs. The mask is finally starting to fall off. And when it does, then we can actually have a thoughtful conversation about what we need to do. And if during that conversation someone starts screaming that the sky is falling we can casually wave them off as "Republicans" and get back to what we were talking about.
But if you really do want to do something, personally get involved in the next election. Put your time, your money, your blood, sweat and tears on the line. That's what we used to do. That's what we forgot how to do.
One more thing about Rahm, I voted for him when I was living in Chicago. The man sends dead crows to his republican opponents.
I like that.
Posted by Will C. at 11/19/2005 @ 3:46pm
HV,
Bin Laden sees himself in the role of the global expansion Caliphs (ie, Spain, India).
As noted by his Sheik Abdullah Azzam: "Jihad must not be abandoned until Allah alone is worshipped by mankind…Jihad and the rifle alone…no negotiations, no conferences and no dialogue."
The objective of al-Qaeda's game is to follow the Koranic blueprint to its logical conclusion; global jihad, a second age of conversion by the sword, the destruction of the West, and the establishment of a global Islamic theocracy.
As to which Caliphs, Bin Laden is a follower of the Sunni line which considers themselves to have the true right of succession to Mohammed. As is well known, he follows the Salafi School which also contains the Wahaabi sect. Bin Laden sees himself in the righteous line of Caliphs beginning with Abu Bakr and the Rashidun Caliphs followed equally by the Umayyads who reigned until about 760 BCE.
Given the rules set down for establishing a Khalif, Bin Laden is well placed to seek his place either by vote or by force since both are allowed.
Posted by love liberty at 11/19/2005 @ 3:58pm
This bin Laden guy sounds like he's up to no good. Maybe we should do something about him.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/19/2005 @ 4:02pm
LL, my point is that except for the first muslim empire, the umayyad, there has never been a monolithic islamic empire. nor is there any reason to believe that is anything close to possible. im not saying that doesnt mean that the wahhabi think it is, or that makes bin laden or wahhabi ideas any less dangerous.
Posted by hvmiller at 11/19/2005 @ 4:08pm
The fact that prisoners were being held and tortured by their Shiite captors should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed this metamorphosis which has simply shifted the oppressiveness and brutality in name only.
Once the U.S. has pulled out most of its forces, ostensibly moving them into Kuwait to "stand by" in case of major insurrection, the Shiites will proceed to do unto the Sunnis what was done unto them for decades under Saddam Hussein's rule.
And really, that's about it when it comes time to answer these questions for the American people: "What have we accomplished after almost three years of fighting? Once the so-called Iraq fighting battalions are up to strength, what is it that they will be protecting and defending for or against?"
That should be simple enough now to answer. We have lost over 2,080 U.S. military dead, 15,500 wounded, killed tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children in order to replace one Sunni Baathist dictatorship and repressive government with another Shiite, Iran-friendly orthodox Islamic autocracy. Mission accomplished. Time to go home.
Posted by richard38 at 11/19/2005 @ 4:18pm
the RIGHT either believes all the bullshit fed to it by its propaganda machine or pretends to.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/19/2005 @ 4:23pm
Harun al-Rashid was part of the abbasid dynasty that conquered the umayyad.
Posted by hvmiller at 11/19/2005 @ 4:30pm
Harun al-Rashid was part of the abbasid dynasty that conquered the umayyad.
Posted by HVMILLER 11/19/2005 @ 4:30pm
HV,
Well noted and it is fairly obvious that Bin Laden is not interested in resurrecting the Abassid line of Khalifa and especially not someone like Harun al Rashid who promoted the arts and sciences, along with expansion of trade with the West.
Posted by love liberty at 11/19/2005 @ 4:44pm
LL. im just saying its obvious the shia who have violently rejected the various sunni caliph would probably continue to do so. also considering most sunni reject wahhabism, and wahhabism doesnt consider sufi-influenced sunni(ottoman empire) or mongol muslims true muslims the overwhelming majority of muslims reject claims like bin ladens. om top of that various sunni caliph were kept as figurehead spiritual leaders, but had almost no military power, such as under the seljuks.
Posted by hvmiller at 11/19/2005 @ 4:50pm
also, the umayyad did not elect caliphs, it was dynastic succession
Posted by hvmiller at 11/19/2005 @ 4:51pm
Thanks for the discussion on my previous post:
In response to Johannes, I think an entirely reasonable function for this forum is to talk back to the editors of the Nation-to let them know when they are in step and out of step with the grassroots constituency which supports them through subscriptions and which they see themselves as speaking for. I believe we have successfully done this on a few occasions in the past months-on those rare occasions when we can penetrate the band of noise created by the cranks. The testy replies which have been emerged on a few occasions when Nation editors have deigned to respond to concerns issued by me, "colmes" and "Zero" among others are indicative of the fact that they are listening, as well they should be. And, while it can't be proven, the recent "historic" editorial may very well be a response to precisely this sort of grassroots pressure.
On a more general note, I agree with you that certain subjects are and are not appropriate for the purposes of this forum. Along these lines, I would suggest to you that we need to move beyond debating with the right wing the question of our intervention in Iraq. Doing so simply reinforces the assumption that the matter is debateable. Most reasonable people have long since rejected this assumption: the matter is long past debating. What we need now is action, and that's what I'm suggesting that we use this board to discuss.
Finally, Will C's comment that he "likes to belong to a circular firing squad" speaks volumes about why we have been so incapable of achieving our goals. As for his support of Rahm Emmanuel, I'd suggest having a look at David Sirota's column in the Huffington Post as an indication of why his being in a leadership position sends exactly the wrong signal and will insure the continuation of the DP's spriral into political irrelevance and not incidentally play a role in continuing death and destruction in Iraq.
Posted by john.halle at 11/19/2005 @ 4:53pm
HV,
Some good comments! However, where I think your analysis breaks down as noted in these points:
1. The Shia represent only about 10% of Islam
2. While the Wahaabi sect is looked down upon by many Sunni, the true leading sect of Sunni Islam is the Salafi which embraces the notion of an expanding, militaristic Islam (as noted in the quote I shared from Bin Laden's mentor Sheik Abdullah Azzam: "Jihad must not be abandoned until Allah alone is worshipped by mankind…Jihad and the rifle alone…no negotiations, no conferences and no dialogue."
3. Commentaries like this have been set up all over the web:
O Honourable Ummah!
No matter how much the disbelievers and their surrogates from among the hypocrite rulers, who flung themselves into the Jews' embrace, so they became part of them, for Allah (swt) says
"And he from amongst you who turns to them would become one of them." [TMQ 5:51]
He (swt) also says
"... Do not take the Jews and Christians as allies, for they allies to each other" [TMQ 5:51],
no matter how much they threatened, they shall not be able to halt this overwhelming Islamic surge, especially now that the Muslim Ummah is looking up to the establishment of the Islamic rule, the rule of the rightly guided Khilafah.
Such conference would only strengthen the resolve and dedication of those sincere active Muslims, for the saying of Allah (swt) would apply to their likes. He (swt) says
"People said to them: People are gathering huge armies against you so do fear them. But this only increased their faith and they said: Allah suffices us and He is the best disposer of affairs. And they returned with grace and bounty from Allah. No harm ever touched them for they followed the good pleasure of Allah. And Allah is the Lord of the unlimited bounties" [TMQ 3:173-174]
We call upon all the Muslims to cast away the traitors and the hypocrites, and to gather around the sincere active Muslims in order to stand up and confront the large armies of disbelief. We also call upon the leaders of all the Islamic groups to close ranks and to undertake the sound, effective and fruitful work, by joining forces with those working towards the establishing the Khilafah Rashida. Here we are today witnessing the alliance of the disbelievers in their resistance and hostility towards us. Is this not enough impetus to make us close up the ranks, just like the solid foundation, in order to stand up to the disbelievers and prevent them from achieving their designs and their goals. We call upon every Muslim capable of uprooting the corruption to rise and help those active sincere sons of the Ummah. It would be sinful for anyone capable of bringing about a change to stand and watch the struggle taking place between the Ummah and disbelievers and their allies. Working towards changing the status quo is a duty upon everyone who has the means to do so. It would be forbidden to hesitate for one moment when it comes to helping your brothers in belief. Allah (swt)says
"Truly the believers are brothers to one another" [TMQ 49:10]
Therefore, it would be forbidden to slacken before this serious situation, for there is no excuse for any languid person who witnesses the disbelievers' cupidity to hit hard those who work for Islam with all their might.
It is high time for those sincere and capable persons to work towards saving the Ummah from the claws of the traitors, and aim for the establishment of the Khilafah and the upholding of Allah's (swt)Word
19 Shawwal 1416 9 March 1996
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~luqman/leaflet/summit.html
Posted by love liberty at 11/19/2005 @ 5:13pm
LL, i understand the fundamentalist rhetoric, its roughly the same as calls to unite muslims have been since the crusades. on top of that, the muslims successful in expelling invaders were not arabs or fundamentalist. saladin was a kurd, and the mamluks were turks. bin ladens idea is a pipe dream. the height of muslim culture in the 1700s had 3 great muslim empires, non of which resemble anything bin laden advocates.(ottoman, safavid in persia, and mogul in india). i also highly doubt salafi is either mainstream or the majority.
Posted by hvmiller at 11/19/2005 @ 5:31pm
HV,
It is not mainstream but it is the predominant sect of Sunni Islam practiced by Al Qaeda and other similar terrorist organizations.
The word Salaf means predecessors (or ancestors) and refers to the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad (the Sahaba), the early Muslims who followed them, and the scholars of the first three generations of Muslims. They are also called Al-Salaf Al-Saalih or "the Righteous Predecessors".
The Salafis view the first three generations of Muslims, who are the prophet Muhammad's companions, and the two succeding generations after them, the Taba'een and the taba Tabe'een as perfect examples of how Islam should be practiced in everyday life. These three generations are often referred to as the Pious generations. This principle of law is derived from the following hadith (tradition) stated by the Prophet Muhammad: "The best of people is my generation, then those who come after them, then those who come after them (i.e. the first three generations of Muslims)." (Reported by Bukhari and Muslim b. al-Hajjaj).
Some Salafis distinguish between traditional Wahhabism and modern Salafism. They say that Wahhabism is practiced in Saudi Arabia and propounded by Saudi regime scholars such as Ibn Humaid, Ibn Baz, and Ibn Uthaymin. Wahhabis adhere to the Hanbali school of law. Non-Wahhabi Salafis, they say, are possibly best represented by the Syrian based scholar Al-Albani, the 19th century Yemeni scholar ash-Shawkani and his Indian student Siddiq Hasan Khan.
Posted by love liberty at 11/19/2005 @ 8:33pm
RIO, Dear dear Rio,
Your hairtrigger Clinton hatred is really starting to wear thin. Feel free to list the brighter than bright Republican leaders that were calling for bin Laden's head 6, 8, 10 years ago. And then you can give us more information that is beside the point. Not that you ever seem clear what the point actually is.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/19/2005 @ 9:56pm
As for his support of Rahm Emmanuel, I'd suggest having a look at David Sirota's column in the Huffington Post as an indication of why his being in a leadership position sends exactly the wrong signal and will insure the continuation of the DP's spriral into political irrelevance and not incidentally play a role in continuing death and destruction in Iraq.
Posted by JOHN.HALLE 11/19/2005 @ 4:53pm
Interesting Article. Sirota sounds pissed. Calls my buddy Rahm a lot of names. That's' ok, he's allowed to get pissed.
As of today the Rules Committee of the House of Representatives is controlled by the Republicans. This means that nothing gets to the floor for a vote that they don't want to take to the floor for a vote. Without the power over the rules committee, anything we do now is just a lot of hot air.
Not being a Republican, I'm not a big fan of sending messages to my enemies. What I am a big fan of is ripping the guts out of my enemies. But, we won't have the ability to do that again until Nov of 06. Unless you are suggesting that we waste the capitol we have on a bunch of meaningless frontal assaults that will gain us nothing and leave us open to charges of cowardness and hysteria from the Republican Party, then I recommend you keep your pecker hard and your powder dry,
because there is a fight coming
Posted by Will C. at 11/20/2005 @ 01:44am
be there or be square
Posted by Will C. at 11/20/2005 @ 01:50am
Hi Will C. (and MattG.)-
You might have missed my earlier post. Offer still stands if you're interested. (Did do a little research for you.)
greggardner487@peoplepc.com
Posted by Blinky at 11/20/2005 @ 04:21am
.
What have we accomplished?
1. We established, you can't play footsies with the US indefinitely. The US is not a push over. It has a punch and is willing to throw it. When after 12 years of a cat and mouse game, it says, enough, the US means it.
2. Libya was encouraged to abandon its WMDs and to go straight.
3. Syria was eased out of Lebanon.
4. Iraqis got a chance to write a constitution and elect their own govt.
5. Work has begun on establishing an alternative to despotic govt in the ME.
6. A rabid aggressor was ejected. He had:
We put a stop to that. To you that is chopped liver?
In WWII, after three years of war, as we landed in Normandy and suffered almost 3,000 dead on the first day, did we ask outselves, what are we doing here, the French are happy collaborating with the Germans, what have we accomplished, let's go home?
Why is cleaning up the Middle East less worth doing today than was cleaning up Europe 65 years ago?
You think WWII went smoothly? The administration had promised to keep America out of war. Yet it used every trick to get America embroiled in war. It began with Pearl Harbor, an act of treasonable negligence. We started out with second rate planes. Our torpedoes didn't work. Our tanks never were half as good as the enemy's. The disaster of Kasarin pass was followed by the disaster of the Italian campaign. In Normandy our heavy bombers attacked our own troops on two successive days destroying a division and killing even its commander, a major general. The Navy, off Sicily, shot down dozens of our own transport planes crammed with 82nd airborne troopers. One foul-up followed another producing the term SNAFU, "situation normal, all fucked up." We suffered out worst defeat, 17,000 dead, in the 1944/45 winter. Five months laer the Germans surrendered unconditionally.
The Germans, the Japanese were a hundred times more formidable than Iraq's insurgents. Did any American, in the press, in Congress, on the radio ever say, it's a mess, it's too bloody, we can't beat them, lets pull out? The idea of abandoning the fight never entered anyone's mind. It was unthinkable. Americans are not quitters. Or at least, were not quitters. America knew it was fighting an enemy who hated democracy, hated religious toleration, hated freedom of speech. We did not want the world to go that way, the fascist way. So we hung on, and took 300,000 dead. Was that a mistake? Should we have let the Japs and Nazis have their way?
But that is what you want. You want insurgents to prevail who slaughter the innocent, who behead journalists, who openly say, they hate democracy. You want to abandon the field to them. You don't think it is worth wringing the necks of egregious aggressors and of opposing fascists. You side them!
You abomination!
.
Posted by nacl at 11/20/2005 @ 05:04am
I think the "Who's side are you on?" question, eloquently raised by NACL above, is an interesting one. Truth is, I think in some sense he has a point. Personally I must admit, I do deeply want to see Bush fail. And so, that being the case, if the insurgency were to fold tomorrow, with no further Iraqi or Coalition deaths (allowing Bush to land on yet another aircraft carrier in a grand display of hubris) I can't exactly say that I'd be pleased.
Given this admission, how do I now think of myself? Am I a simple traitor, not worth the price of a rope? Or is there possibly something else going on here?
Predictably, I say 'something else.' The Insurgency - despite being comprised of those who would love to kill me if that had even half a chance - are at least fighting for a cause that I believe in: the ouster of an invading power. Their methods are of course appalling; and their victims (or at least a percentage of their victims) in this case happen to be my very own countrymen.
Now, I can honestly inform NACL that while I am sickened by all deaths caused by this war - American, Coalition, Civilian and even Insurgent - I am enough of a creature of tribe to be especially sickened by the thought of beautiful (in my eyes) Americans dying needlessly. That is where my anger and my compassion are focused.
But I also understand the twisted impulses that started this war; and it is those impulses that I most want to see defeated - even more than I want to see my own country rejoice in victory.
Understandably, that may be treason in the eyes of some - who adopt a '"My country right or wrong," stance. And I myself would love to cheer 'my team' on, no matter what the issues. But given my understanding of this war and what brought it about, that's just not a luxury I can afford myself.
Blink
Posted by Blinky at 11/20/2005 @ 05:14am
Clarification: NACL's eloquence was apparent in the post that ended on page 1 - not in the one above, which I did not have a chance to read.
Posted by Blinky at 11/20/2005 @ 05:23am
NACL -
All that you list is not 'chopped liver'. But we have lowered ourselves nearly to Saddam's level to do it. Unprovoked invasion. Black sites. Tens of thousands of civilian deaths at Coalition hands. And a studious effort early on to abandon containment strategies that had already defanged this toothless tiger.
War - and especially the Love of War - is the real enemy, NACL. We need less of it.
B.
Posted by Blinky at 11/20/2005 @ 05:39am
WILL C
You're wasting your breath. There's a certain percentage of the Left now that is totally rejecting the Democratic Party (atleast the SANE part of it, which is still a majority).
They want it to sound like the "Greens", which is a recipe for disaster, based on a fantasy that "IF the DNC would sound REALLY 'progressive' and anti-capitalist, then 'all those' people who don't vote, because they see no difference between Dems and Repubs, would come out to vote and we'd see some REAL change!!!!!" (note- you must add the 5 exclamation marks!....hehe)
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2005 @ 06:58am
NACL: No indigenous insurgency has ever been defeated that I am aware of. If a government has no broad support from its own people, it will fall, regardless of being propped up by the imperial power. That is the lesson of history. You should know that, since you often cite historical examples to your weak points. You tell me and the American people: how long and at what price do we prop up this nation we have built, as it slides into civil war every day???
Posted by philbq at 11/20/2005 @ 07:30am
To all of you cheerleaders of this Iraq war: The death squads are back. The new U.S.-created Shiite government has its own secret police that has been snatching people out of their homes in the night, torturing them, and killing them. And this is the government you believe in so strongly? We spent billions and blood for this? You are fooling yourself - Iraq is a snakepit. I say get out, and leave them to each other.
Posted by philbq at 11/20/2005 @ 07:46am
Govern the state by being straightforward; wage war by being crafty; but win the empire by not being meddlesome. How do i know that it is like that? By means of this. Now the more taboos there are in the empire The poorer the people; The more keen instruments the people have The more benighted the state; The more knowledge men have The further novelties multiply; The more prominent the laws The more thieves and bandits there are; Hence in the words of the sage, I take no action And the people are transformed of themselves I prefer stillness And the people are rectified of themselves; I am not meddlesome And the people are rich of themselves; I desire not to desire And the people become like the uncarved block them selves.
Posted by vano at 11/20/2005 @ 09:01am
Tao Te ching LV11
Posted by vano at 11/20/2005 @ 09:03am
NaCl
What have we accomplished?
1. We established, you can't play footsies with the US indefinitely. WTF are you babbling about? The resolution to war was, on paper, to uphold UN edicts - without the UN's approval or support of course. The only point made here was the one on top of your head.
2. & 3 Were they "really" related to the war? You're stretching it pretty thin there buck-o.
4. Iraqis got a chance to write a constitution and elect their own govt.
5. Work has begun on establishing an alternative to despotic govt in the ME. Uh....hate to point this out but these are the same point. I'll allow one for this, but two points is out of the question.
6. A rabid aggressor was ejected. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this coulda been done with a single bullet.
So while you make a rousing party-line cheerleader, it's just the same old, same old. yawn time for something intersesting...like coffee
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/20/2005 @ 09:05am
NaCl...
Take a guess at how many crack Iraqi troops we have managed to train in three years? Per the WH's own cheerleaders there is ONE independent battalion of 800 that can act on its own. ....and then there is a 150,000+ cut-n-run BS Iraqi wannabee troops. You must be so proud...
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/20/2005 @ 09:09am
You can rest assured that this Democrat will be doing all in his power to remove Stephanie Herseth from office. Her vote has remained foundered in the Republican groin.
Posted by SDdem at 11/20/2005 @ 10:10am
For CPT and anyone else interested: this article reports recent findings by the GAO on our military recruiting efforts. Not quite the pretty picture painted by CPT.
Pentagon warned of recruiting shortfall [wnd.com]
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/20/2005 @ 10:10am
In response to Will C., the suggestion is not to expel Emmanuel from the DP.
Rather, the objective should be to remove him from party leadership. This is a matter of simple strategic logic. The position which Emmanuel is taking-to wait "for the right time" to oppose the war-is profoundly out of step with the overwhelming majority of americans who, as polls repeatedly demonstrate, have long since decided that they are opposed and favor withdrawl, more or less along the lines which Murtha laid out.
It is politically suicidal to have a leading spokesman for the party repeatedly associating it with an extreme minority position on this or any other issue.
In contrast, the Republicans made the right decision in removing Trent Lott as majority leader when his extremist views on race became known. If the Democrats were able to think straight, they would recognize that Emmanuel's extremist views on the war disqualify him as a spokesman for the Democratic majority.
While it is also true that his position on the war is despicable, that is beside the point.
Posted by john.halle at 11/20/2005 @ 10:15am
The LA Times has a story this morning about German intelligence officials speaking for the first time about the lack of credibility of "Curveball," the informant that supplied much of the faulty intelligence on Iraq's biological weapons capabilities. The url is too long, so if you copy and paste you will have to remove the space between "nation/" and "la-na".
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/ la-na-curveball20nov20,0, 1753730.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/20/2005 @ 10:59am
Al Qaeda and all the similar terrorist organizations have the intention of re-establishing the Caliphate that once ruled the Middle East. It would be centered in Iraq according to Bin Laden. It's real goal as witnessed in this tape is the eventual rule by Muslims of the entire world.
This is the central issue that liberals either downplay or dismiss. It will not be defeated through UN discussions and idealistic philosophies. Unfortunately, force and force alone is the only way to remove this cancer from humanity.
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 11/19/2005 @ 12:43am
The cancer you're talking about consists of a few thousands of people in all the world, many of whom have a habit of blowing themselves to pieces on a regular basis. Hardly a prescription for taking over the whole world. 99.9% of Muslims consider them nutcases. A good example is the little Muhajiroun group in England. They profess similar ideas and Muslims in England have been demanding for years that Britain deport them. Muslims there hate and despise them.
They certainly are dangerous in terms of possible individual terrorist acts but the idea that they represent a major threat or could take over the world is ludicrous in the extreme. Any sympathetic support that they enjoy among Muslims is infinitesmally small compared to that which the IRA enjoys among the Irish, for example.
If this is your intellectual fallback for justifying the Iraq war it's singularly lacking in any cohesive logic. Iraq was not responsible for any terrorist act against the United States, it's weapons capability was non-existent, and the violent element among Salafists that you're talking about hated the Saddam Hussein government because it repressed people like them. All that the Republicans have done with their stupid Iraq war is give aid and assistance to the violent nutcases among the Muslims.
The Republican Reich, by the way, is the one power in the world that is obviously bent on ruling the world. It's hardly surprising that other similarly socially isolated groups would come up with an opposing concept. The Busheviks are their source of inspiration.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/20/2005 @ 11:34am
I claim that we live for the first time in half a decade in hopeful times.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/19/2005 @ 11:52am
I'm less sanguine than you. Hope died with Robert Kennedy and has only seen false glows since.
It's truly unfortunate that true change, real hope, arises only after horrendous events. The 9/11 attacks might have built something new in the world with a decent administration in Washington. Instead, they just made a bad situation worse.
Therein lies the hope. Eventually, with sufficient pain, our usually complacent (overfed, overindulged) public wakes up and realizes its errors in allowing themselves to be duped by the moneyed power-wielders. (How readily people are willing to give up their freedom, their very "souls," for a few pieces of silver.)
Unless Bush captures bin Laden and ends the occupation (not a war for a long time now) of Iraq by the end of next summer, they're going to have either a minority in Congress or too slim a majority to accomplish anything.
It would be nice if 2006 would build a Congress that has the balls to pass an impeachment resolution on Bush AND Cheney. Bush's people probably know how to insulate him from any provable "high crimes and misdemeanors." Too bad it's not possible to impeach for gross mismanagement and waste of national resources, for unbelievably poor judgment and lack of ability to think, for ignoring the desperate needs of the poor masses and for pandering to the wanton desires of the rich and powerful. Too bad!!
My only hope is that the idiots (and the very clever like Rove) will overstep themselves in their frenzy of power that they'll leave a legacy of shame that will live on for decades and keep any other power hungry pigs out of office until long after I'm dead.
Posted by adr at 11/20/2005 @ 12:21pm
LOVE LIBERTY, I'll give you credit for contributing just about the biggest load of crap I've ever seen posted here with your "Worldwide Islamic Caliphate threat" garbage.
You paint the Salafist tendency in Islam as bent on violent world conquest by conflating Bin Laden with the entire Salafist school of thought and by believing some racist, anti-Muslim web site that apparently told you that Osama Bin Laden rated some sort of doctrinal respect in the Muslim world based on his scholasticism and knowledge of Islamic thought and practice. Just the opposite is the case. Muslims snicker when Bin Laden issues a "fatwa". He's recognized by Muslims as having no authority to do so. It's sort of like George Bush landing on an aircraft carrier thirty miles off the coast before it docks so he can be pictured in the news media as a conquering hero. In regards to Islamic authority, Bin Laden has zero credibility among Muslims.
There are millions upon millions of Salafist-oriented Muslims who utterly reject the exhortations of the Bin Ladens of the world. They are entirely peaceful, at least probably up to the point at which some Nazi-like organization on the model of the Republican Party launches a blitzkrieg to invade and destroy them. I would expect that they would engage in violent acts at that point. I would expect the same of my own American countrymen in similar circumstances.
No, what you are engaged upon here is a project of propagation of hate literature directed against all Muslims. The tiny number of "worldwide caliphate-seeking" Muslims that you love to refer to, the ones who are going to conquer the West in that fevered braincase residing under your tinfoil hat, are generally inept in their knowledge of their own religion. They have a greater resemblance to the Branch Davidians than anything else. They are in fact consumed with a nationalistic consciousness cloaked in amateurish references to their religion. That nationalism has been set afire by their community's brutal treatment at the hands of the West . . . something which this stupid Republican Reich is doing everything in it's power to accentuate to the extreme.
Your two cents of hate culled from zionist propaganda sources who quote some idiot on an Islamic militant website as if he were a revered Islamic scholar are despicable.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/20/2005 @ 12:45pm
For a fairly comprehensive article complete with many reference links on this goal of re-establishing the Al-Khalifa:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread71714/pg1
(sorry, link was too long to hyperlink)
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 11/19/2005 @ 1:28pm
Welcome to the AboveTopSecret.com conspiracy discussion board. Use this board to engage in collaborative discussion and debate on a broad range of conspiracy, extraterrestrial, secret project, government agency, and other alternative topics. Within this board, our staff will be diligent in keeping the tone and style of the boards polite and congenial. Terms & Conditions
Members see fewer ads and have access to a wealth of perks and services such as upload space, blogs, webmail, custom features, contests, and more. Click here to join now.
It's "fairly comprehensive" alright. Fairly comprehensively loony.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/20/2005 @ 1:21pm
to all who insinuate that opposition to the iraq quagmire is evidence of sympathy for "the enemy" i have one thing to say - BULLSHIT...
for all who imply that we have made iraq a safer place, take a vacation there...
for all who worry about the security of the iraqi people, far more are being killed now than before we "liberated" them...
for all who claim that the "liberation" is stopping terrorism, compare the number of terrorist attacks in iraq before and after the invasion...
for all who claim that this war has brought the terrorists to iraq instead of elsewhere, how many terrorist attacks have we witnessed since the invasion in europe and asia outside iraq???
for those who claim there were wmd in iraq, such claims were strangely enough not touted by the admiistration before it unveiled its plot to invade...
for those who claim there was a link between hussein and bin laden (other than highly antagonistic one) again, all i can say is BULLSHIT...
for those who claim the current administration used, in an unbiased way, the best intelligence available - well, either they were grossly incompetant or intentionally lying...dubya may or may not be a genius, but his handlers are wickedly cunning...
for those who don't believe top petro defense contracters wold not be delighted for US occupation of iraq to drag on for ever regardless of the cost in human misery, wake up...
for those who dont believe that the very top officials of this neocon gov wont personally profit as a result of teir personal investments in abovementioned industries, i'm sorry your heroes are villains, pollyannas...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/20/2005 @ 1:32pm
A last comment:
The recent postings from "redbird" effectively demonstrate that support of continuing intervention in Iraq is a fringe position, limited to flat earthers, conspiracy buffs, cynical corporate profiteers and delusional militarists. That the first two categories are highly disproportionately represented on this board should not allow us to be mislead that they are in any way indicative of a broad public sentiment. Polls have consistently shown that a large majority favors withdrawl. For this reason alone, the cranks are best ignored; it is a waste of intellectual energy and bandwidth to respond to them. The ignore feature should be used liberally.
Unfortunately, those representing the latter two categories remain in control of the political agenda of both parties. But here too our objective needs to go beyond answering their arguments: we need to devise a strategy whereby they can be removed as soon as possible.
By way of analogy, it is as if a delusional schizophrenic has been taken the controls of a bus. We can't waste time arguing that his or her hallucinations have no basis in reality. We simply need to figure out how to get him or her out of the drivers seat.
The same logic applies to the Cheneys, Bushes, Emmanuels and Pelosis. Unless they can show that they have firm grasp of reality, they need to be removed as soon as possible.
Posted by john.halle at 11/20/2005 @ 1:55pm
Bin Laden has clearly stated he wants to be the next Khalifa of the Muslim world. The following provides some insights into this role and rule including the provision to use force to expand the muslim rule into non muslim lands.
The duties and responsibilities of the Khalifa
Defend the rights of Muslims abroad, and to see to it that Islam can spread freely in non-Muslim lands (including the use of force).
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 11/19/2005 @ 2:35pm
"The following provides some insights into this role and rule including the provision to use force to expand the muslim rule into non muslim lands." (?)
It obviously says no such thing. It refers explicitly to defending the right of Muslims to practice and preach their religion. It makes no reference whatsoever to "ruling" anyone. You are just an absolutely barefaced liar. In the first case, this whole thing is nothing more than the opinion of one Muslim, anyway, in a lecture to a Muslim Students Association at an American university. They may or may not have thought his opinions had any validity or relevance. The whole lecture is merely, in fact, discussing the practice of a Caliph in a Muslim society and makes not one reference whatsoever about establishing your feverishly imagined "worldwide caliphate".
To put the icing on this mephitic post of yours I would like to see your reference to where Bin Laden "has clearly stated he wants to be the next Khalifa of the Muslim world." I challenge you to do that. He wouldn't say such a thing because it would have made him the laughing stock of the Muslim world.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/20/2005 @ 2:14pm
Has everyone noticed yet that the remaining proponents of Bush and his war, too, have no credibility in presentation or discussion of real facts, have no rebuttal to the exposure that the rationale for the war, as presented by the White House and its allies, was a fraud, have no plan to present to address the real threat of real terrorism, and have, in the process of being allowed to pursue their agenda, caused a catastrophe in the heart of the Middle East, and isolated the country on the international stage?
These remaining True Believers are dead-enders, and this is a dead-end presidential administration. It's only hope of producing a political force in America that outlasts the '08 election is some act or acts of political theatre that successively distract the people or change the topic. There is no consent for their war, and there is no sane way to pursue their agendas further. Further deceit, or demise, are the only options for this movement that Bush presides over.
How much longer will we even address their commentary? At some point the door to the asylum can be slammed shut and the demented souls within can be left to howl at the walls.
Posted by ZERO 11/20/2005 @ 1:47pm
LOVE LIBERTY is the apotheosis of what you describe. He's now retreating into the myth of the "Khalifa threat" in a last ditch attempt to engender the fear and hatred necessary to his desired worship at the altar of blood. Bush's recent speeches included the same pathetically insane references. The "terrorist threat" is completely susceptible to being competently handled by enhanced police forces and heightened security procedures and nothing more.
We would also be a long way along the road of resolving it on a long term basis once we realize that Islamic militants are not attacking us, they are counterattacking us.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/20/2005 @ 2:26pm
To put the icing on this mephitic post of yours I would like to see your reference to where Bin Laden "has clearly stated he wants to be the next Khalifa of the Muslim world." I challenge you to do that. He wouldn't say such a thing because it would have made him the laughing stock of the Muslim world. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/20/2005 @ 2:14pm | ignore this person
Redbird,
This is par for the course with this poster. Over the last few months that I have been reading the Nation's blog sites, he has frequently presented himself as one who divines what others think or imagine and offers his opinions as "facts." As the "Ice Age" ends, his fossilized pronouncements defending Bush's War will be "relegated to the dust bin of history."
Posted by seattlescribe at 11/20/2005 @ 2:45pm
WILL C
You're wasting your breath. There's a certain percentage of the Left now that is totally rejecting the Democratic Party (atleast the SANE part of it, which is still a majority).
They want it to sound like the "Greens", which is a recipe for disaster, based on a fantasy that "IF the DNC would sound REALLY 'progressive' and anti-capitalist, then 'all those' people who don't vote, because they see no difference between Dems and Repubs, would come out to vote and we'd see some REAL change!!!!!" (note- you must add the 5 exclamation marks!....hehe)
Posted by MASK 11/20/2005 @ 06:58am
If the Democratic Party got rid of it's DLC element it could propound a platform more in line with the desires of most Americans and become a real mass party. Getting people to vote who don't currently vote would not be crucial. There are enough currently Republican voters who would respond to a populist platform. (That may overlap some areas of what the "Greens" are saying but first I would have to figure out what the "Greens" are saying. They seem to be having a problem figuring that out themselves.)
What has held back the more progressive elements of the Democratic Party is the lack of cash to finance the astronomically high cost to win an election. It's a firewall protecting America's political elite. The DLC's only claim to fame is it's access to that cash. That has become less of a concern now that the Dean campaign illustrated that large numbers of small contributions can be generated dirctly from the electorate. Anyone who is not supporting progressive candidates with whatever cash they can afford doesn't have any right to bitch about corporate money. Put your money where your mouth is.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/20/2005 @ 2:45pm
Redbird,
This is par for the course with this poster. Over the last few months that I have been reading the Nation's blog sites, he has frequently presented himself as one who divines what others think or imagine and offers his opinions as "facts." As the "Ice Age" ends, his fossilized pronouncements defending Bush's War will be "relegated to the dust bin of history."
Posted by SEATTLESCRIBE 11/20/2005 @ 2:45pm
The Republicans have another three years to give the American people a good lesson on why they should never again let nutcases like this into any public office. Once that process is completed the Ice Age for these dino's will be upon them before they know what happened.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/20/2005 @ 2:50pm
Did anyone catch Rummy on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" this morning? What a rhetorical dancer he is. George nailed him on one point for sure: He does appear to be distancing himself from Bush's bunker.
Posted by seattlescribe at 11/20/2005 @ 2:53pm
The Republicans have another three years to give the American people a good lesson on why they should never again let nutcases like this into any public office. Once that process is completed the Ice Age for these dino's will be upon them before they know what happened. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/20/2005 @ 2:50pm | ignore this person
There are reasons why previous generations did not allow Republicans to control both houses of congress.
Posted by seattlescribe at 11/20/2005 @ 2:57pm
And how about Bush himself – will he ever give a speech where he is not wrapped in flags and the audience is comprised of military people who are required to be there? The histrionics of his public appearances demonstrate his desperation.
Posted by seattlescribe at 11/20/2005 @ 3:06pm
redbird - i may well be wrong, but i believe bin laden, among others in fact have been advocating ideas of a "worldwide caliphate". furhtermore, use of violence to further islamic proselytizing is unfortunately found in the koran, lending support to such extremists. without "waging a war on islam", such realities should be acknowledged, just as certain scriptural passages in the new and old testement which encourage intolerance among some christians (such as pat robertson) should not be ignored either...
what i find ironic and absurd is that after being attacked by such islamic extremists on 9/11, we went after the fascist secular anti-islamic-extremist government of iraq, most of whom happened to be moslem, and who were also targets of the hatred of the bin laden types...also what i find telling are many of the comments and actions of fundevangelist christians in regard to the whole thing, from at least one army general to the usual pulpited bigots - lending credence to islamic extremists' charges of "crusading mentality" in regard to the motives of our neocon-fundevangelist government.
but don't let your revulsion of the hypocritical self serving obverse democratic fascists (amoral ayn rand nihilists and medievalist fundevangelist theocrats) we both decry blind u to the uglier motives of our real foriegn enemies...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/20/2005 @ 3:22pm
WILL C
You're wasting your breath. There's a certain percentage of the Left now that is totally rejecting the Democratic Party (atleast the SANE part of it, which is still a majority).
Posted by MASK 11/20/2005 @ 06:58am
Get a clue!
Unlike republicans, we're not a bunch of cyborg clones. We actually debate the issues with each other. Nobody gets brow breaten into giving or withholding support. The majority wins.
You should pay close attention
Posted by Will C. at 11/20/2005 @ 5:31pm
Rather, the objective should be to remove him from party leadership. This is a matter of simple strategic logic. The position which Emmanuel is taking-to wait "for the right time" to oppose the war-is profoundly out of step with the overwhelming majority of Americans who, as polls repeatedly demonstrate, have long since decided that they are opposed and favor withdrawal, more or less along the lines which Murtha laid out.
Posted by JOHN.HALLE 11/20/2005 @ 10:15am
If you want to remove Rahm from party leadership all you have to do is elect guys who will vote him out. Go for it. I'm not standing in your way.
But let's look at Rahms current position from an operational point of view, with the ultimate goal of taking back the house.
Politically we can't do much until after the Dec 15 elections in Iraq, because until then they have our puppet government and not their elected government. Step one
Then we have to give the new government some time to settle in and get their feet wet. What do you say, a hundred days? Sound good? A number we are all familiar with? Step Two.
This puts us at the end of March. Just about the time the congressional campaigns are going to be kicking off for real. Does that sound about right?
John, I think you already know that I like Rahm. I'm not dropping my support for him. But I need you to consider this. You don't drop artillery on an empty field. You wait till the enemy has stopped there eat lunch. You make your fire count. Otherwise you are just wasting Ammo. I don't know the democrat plan, but what I do know is that Murtha came to his decision two months ago and only went public with it Friday. This dude is a crusty old career Marine. He knows how to fight wars. Rahm was part of the Clintons strategy team that kept Clinton fighting during the eight years of Ken Star investigation. In the last two months, they have been talking. They have a plan.
If I'm correct you are going to see Democrats coming out publicly in ones and twos supporting Murtha beginning after the New Year. And the call will get louder and louder until the end of March, that hundred day point.
Then the fun begins. I'm confident we will be fighting on the same side at that point.
Posted by Will C. at 11/20/2005 @ 5:59pm
redbird - i may well be wrong, but i believe bin laden, among others in fact have been advocating ideas of a "worldwide caliphate". furhtermore, use of violence to further islamic proselytizing is unfortunately found in the koran, lending support to such extremists. without "waging a war on islam", such realities should be acknowledged, just as certain scriptural passages in the new and old testement which encourage intolerance among some christians (such as pat robertson) should not be ignored either...
what i find ironic and absurd is that after being attacked by such islamic extremists on 9/11, we went after the fascist secular anti-islamic-extremist government of iraq, most of whom happened to be moslem, and who were also targets of the hatred of the bin laden types...also what i find telling are many of the comments and actions of fundevangelist christians in regard to the whole thing, from at least one army general to the usual pulpited bigots - lending credence to islamic extremists' charges of "crusading mentality" in regard to the motives of our neocon-fundevangelist government.
but don't let your revulsion of the hypocritical self serving obverse democratic fascists (amoral ayn rand nihilists and medievalist fundevangelist theocrats) we both decry blind u to the uglier motives of our real foriegn enemies...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/20/2005 @ 3:22pm
Although I have not heard of Bin Laden advocating a caliphate (I haven't bothered to read everything Bin Laden has said) that would be consistent with Muslims like him. The distinction is with the word "worldwide". If that word was used by Bin Laden (no one has yet shown me where he did) my opinion would be that he was referring to the Islamic world. The idea of imposing a "caliphate" on a territory which is non-Muslim is not consistent with the ideas of any significant Islamic militants that I have read of. Any that do seem to be tiny cult groups located in Europe and if the idea is expressed by Islamic militants elsewhere I think you will see that it originated in Europe among Muslims born there. They come from a social mileau similar to the Nation of Islam in America which is far from Islamic. Bin Laden's communiques (which people like Bush have browbeat the news media into not printing, "secret messages") seem to consistently say that "we will do to you what you do to Muslims". I have never heard of him advocating a Muslim "conquest" of the West. I'm sure they're all available somewhere on the internet. Take a look and tell me if it's otherwise. I mean, for God's sake, the idea is ridiculous. The real reason that the Busheviks don't want Bin Laden's communiques published is that they clearly show that they are quite willing to leave us alone if we stop our brutal interference in the Muslim world. That's the "secret message". Do some reading and you will find that the Muslim world has historically tended to ignore the West more than anything. They don't gaze on it with avaricious eyes. Opinion polls indicate that most of them still admire many aspects of the West even after the all the things the West has done to them. Bush seems intent on changing that.
Your statement that "use of violence to further islamic proselytizing is unfortunately found in the koran" is not correct. The Quran counsels resistance to those who oppress Muslims. It nowhere advocates violence as a means of proselytizing. It recommends the opposite. Any reference to war in the Quran is limited to specific historic events and locations and was always a response to efforts to destroy the early Muslims. These passages have been twisted out of context by two groups: militants like Bin Laden and those who are attempting to cast all Muslims and the religion itself as an insane and aggressive threat. They're symbiotic and are equally dangerous to us all. You'll notice that the militants like Bin Laden and al-Zarqawi often lay out a defense of their methods. These are not directed at the West but at Muslims who instictively see that it conflicts with Islam.
Having said all that I must also say that I don't have any illusions whatsoever about the type of society advocated by Bin Laden, et al. Their real struggle is against modernism and the struggle against Western imperialism is merely a vehicle for that. If you want to see their essential ideological basis read the ideology of Seyyid Qutb [tinyurl.com] who is roundly condemned by Muslim scholars. Also see Is this the man who inspired Bin Laden? [tinyurl.com] Muslims would not want to live in the society advocated by these people. Polls have confirmed that. They throw the Iranian mullahs in the shade in terms of extremism. Why and how much longer will we continue to do everything that confirms what they are saying? The Busheviks want a world of perpetual war and they're doing everything in their power to bring it about. That will give them the society focused on a created outside threat that they can't politically survive without. They're on their last legs. Even the uninformed public has the commonsense to see the manipulation. Opinions of Muslims actually improved after the 9/11 attacks, most likely because many Americans took the time to learn more about them.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/20/2005 @ 6:04pm
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 11/20/2005 @ 10:59am TJ, I read the article you linked in the above post. im speechless.
Posted by hvmiller at 11/20/2005 @ 6:47pm
"CURVEBALL", like a Le Carre novel on psilocybin mushrooms
Posted by hvmiller at 11/20/2005 @ 6:56pm
Today at a family gathering, not unintelligent people, I asked what everyone thought of john Murtha's comments and the Republican reaction. Nobody even knew what I was talking about.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/20/2005 @ 6:42pm |
Frank
You hit it on the head. People won't pay attention until election season. We must be patient and not fire our wade too soon.
I agree with the rest of your post.
My fingers are crossed that the Dems will present a united front at the moment of decision
Posted by Will C. at 11/20/2005 @ 7:03pm
FRANK, i'm not. i read the whole thing, and am busy cleaning up my own feces. in trying to comprehend that lunacy, i had some kind of pseudo-epileptic fit.
Posted by hvmiller at 11/20/2005 @ 7:06pm
Frank,the LA Times isn't the only place the story of Curveball has been told.I've read about him in Truthout.org and OpEd news.The war on Iraq has been in the planning stage for a long time.Way before king George started denying he was going to be a president of "nation building" while he was campaigning in '98 and '99 Cheney and Wolfowitz had oil fields mapped out for strategic purposes(thus the orders to soldiers"protect the oil fields")If Iraq didn't have oil does anyone think Bush would have wanted to "spread Democracy" there??If any of our right wing friends on this blog would say yes to that question I'd like to know why not Saudi Arabia or Syria or Iran or North Korea? WHY IRAQ??Please don't say Saddam was worse then any of the dictators of those other coutries--it won't wash.
Posted by BusyHands at 11/20/2005 @ 7:37pm
At the Central Intelligence Agency, officials embraced Curveball's account even though they could not confirm it or interview him until a year after the invasion. They ignored multiple warnings about his reliability before the war, punished in-house critics who provided proof that he had lied and refused to admit error until May 2004, 14 months after the invasion.
After the CIA vouched for Curveball's accounts, Bush declared in his 2003 State of the Union speech that Iraq had "mobile biological weapons labs" designed to produce "germ warfare agents." Bush cited the mobile germ factories in at least four prewar speeches and statements, and other world leaders repeated the charge.
Powell also highlighted Curveball's "eyewitness" account when he warned the United Nations Security Council on the eve of war that Iraq's mobile labs could brew enough weapons-grade microbes "in a single month to kill thousands upon thousands of people."
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/20/2005 @ 6:59pm
"They vouched for his account without interviewing him"- I was wondering what it took to get a Medal of Freedom from a Republican "President".
Posted by fromredbird at 11/20/2005 @ 8:16pm
Frankgrits,
You are a left wing bigot who cannot get your nose out of either Clinton's ass.
I must say after trying to come back and engage with some cogent research, it all comes down to the hatred of Bush and conservatives by those who post here.
Other than Keven Collins, TJB, and others on occasion, there is little here that represents any thought deeper than "Bush and Christians evil".
You may now go back to your written group masterbation.
Posted by love liberty at 11/20/2005 @ 9:13pm
Frankgrits,
You are a left wing bigot who cannot get your nose out of either Clinton's ass.
I must say after trying to come back and engage with some cogent research, it all comes down to the hatred of Bush and conservatives by those who post here.
Other than Keven Collins, TJB, and others on occasion, there is little here that represents any thought deeper than "Bush and Christians evil".
You may now go back to your written group masterbation.
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 11/20/2005 @ 9:13pm
"Cogent research"? You posted a bunch of hateful, murderous foolishness, it was shown to be so, and now you're weeping about it and want to take your ball and go home. I'm sorry to hear that because, if you haven't figured it out, you ARE my ball.
I'm no Christian but I'm smart enough to know that you aren't either, regardless of your hypocritical profession of it. You should stop embarrassing people who actually are Christians.
And, pardon me Frank, for butting in.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/20/2005 @ 10:28pm
Frankgrits,
You are a left wing bigot who cannot get your nose out of either Clinton's ass.
I must say after trying to come back and engage with some cogent research, it all comes down to the hatred of Bush and conservatives by those who post here.
Other than Keven Collins, TJB, and others on occasion, there is little here that represents any thought deeper than "Bush and Christians evil".
You may now go back to your written group masterbation.
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 11/20/2005 @ 9:13pm
Liberty!
I like you so much better when you don't cut and paste. We get to see the shallow, twisted and perverted evangelic pastard that you truly are.
It is a true joy.
PS. Please stop knocking Christians with your repeated claims of community. It's not only absurd but you are embarrassing real Christians.
Posted by Will C. at 11/21/2005 @ 04:18am
and you are pissing God off
Posted by Will C. at 11/21/2005 @ 04:20am
It's getting clearer who is the real president. Bush is off in Mongolia, smiling with the children, while Cheney, in a snit, refutes the charges that they greased the road to war by cherry picking the intelligence, and shamelessly lying. Bush is the ceremonial president, he likes to play dress up and talk to the soldiers, one of the few groups where his ratings have not yet tanked. Cheney is in charge.
that in itself is a coup d'etat, they keep getting caught in one lie after another, energy meetings to white phosphor, it's all a slam dunk to them.
Full speed ahead in Iraq isn't really an option, the folks at home are not in step with the war, elections loom, a war started to influence elections can be stopped to influence elections.and don't speak to me about Iraqi elections. we know the majority hates the former ruling minority,
elections fail to address the facts on the ground, the murderous civil war raging in Iraq,what they call the security environment. neither provisional government, nor phony constitution, have stemmed the doubling of violent attacks,
in other words the war has doubled in size. have they reported that?
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/22/2005 @ 09:45am