A Sovereign Iraq?

In Wednesday's Washington Post, reporter Amit Paley reveals what the Iraqi people want from their sovereign state: "A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers."

The State Department poll shows that 65 percent of Baghdad residents favor an immediate pullout. And polling by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland indicates that 71 percent of Iraqis want U.S. led forces out within a year. Even 57 percent of Sunni Muslims – who might fear reprisals from a Shiite majority – favor a U.S. withdrawal within 6 months.

According to the State Department report titled Iraq Civil War Fears Remain High in Sunni and Mixed Areas: "Majorities in all regions except Kurdish areas state that the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I) should withdraw immediately, adding that the MNF-I's departure would make them feel safer and decrease violence."

If we truly believe in democracy in Iraq and it is now clear that the Iraqi people want us to leave, why not allow the country's citizens to vote on the issue? Perhaps a simple ballot proposition: "Should U.S. troops remain in Iraq or leave within a year?" – with a stay or leave option.

The new polling refutes the notion dominating today's Washington Post op-ed page – and its editorials every week--that we have the right to stay in Iraq as an occupying force.

Comments (63)

1. Think a correction will be forthcoming....

   "Even 57 percent of Sunni Muslims – who might fear reprisals from a Sunni majority – favor a U.S. withdrawal within 6 months."

   Posted by Mask at 09/27/2006 @ 4:48pm

2. Curious....

   What keeps Talabani and Al Maliki "in line" and silent on calling for a pull-out?

   (I'll start..."Rove has compromising pictures of them at Abu Ghraib"....okay, now....any serious answers?)

   Posted by Mask at 09/27/2006 @ 4:50pm

3. How long before the Iraqi people are accused of wanting to "cut and run?!"

   Posted by Woody Fan at 09/27/2006 @ 5:06pm

4. the iraqi people have wanted us OUT for 3 years. this is old news.

   glad people are talking about it.....but still old news.

   and bush keeps saying: "i listen to my commanders on the ground". right, those commanders who basically live 24/7 under massive military cover, in underground bases, with filet mignon, prostitutes and satellite nfl games.

   Posted by darladoon at 09/27/2006 @ 5:23pm

5. If we have installed a real democracy there, then I believe the Iraqi people have representatives to make decisions regarding military occupation. Do we have any polling on their point of view? If not, this is interesting but meaningless, just as our representatives' undying support of the occupation trumps our opinions. It sucks, but...

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/27/2006 @ 5:48pm

6. We won't let them vote on it because we can't get the Diebold machines over there. If we could get those installed, we'd have elections soon with overwhelming majorities "voting" for the U.S. to stay. Gotta love democracy...and no paper trail.

   Posted by BlueTexan at 09/27/2006 @ 5:52pm

7. The problem with this article is that it misconstrues what democracy actually is. It's not just "having elections and voting for things"; it has other important aspects, like established processes, particular institutions, and a way of understanding the relationship of government to society. You can't have democracy simply by holding elections, nor can you say that an outcome is "democratic" simply because lots of people vote for it.

   Posted by Thrawn at 09/27/2006 @ 6:05pm

8. Think a correction will be forthcoming....

   "Even 57 percent of Sunni Muslims – who might fear reprisals from a Sunni majority – favor a U.S. withdrawal within 6 months."

   Posted by MASK 09/27/2006 @ 4:48pm

   Why don't you concentrate on correcting your anti-semitism, MASK? That's more disturbing than anyone's typos.

   Posted by fromredbird at 09/27/2006 @ 6:33pm

9. thrawn, the problem isn't the article. the problem is your understand of it.

   it's not about democracy, per se, it's about the iraqis wanting us to leave.

   the polls show it. and, kvh is right, if their IS a voting system in place, and if the iraqis could vote on whether or not they want the US to stay, and IF the answer is 'US OUT', well then, shouldn't we get out?

   Posted by darladoon at 09/27/2006 @ 6:34pm

10. Gee, the neocon Bush buttmonkeys make such a big deal out of purple fingerprints (that show clear progress?), but now that the votes are going in another direction (think Hamas), well, hold on with that "democracy" talk!

    Posted by Turk33 at 09/27/2006 @ 6:48pm

11. "If we have installed a real democracy there,"

    democracy cannot be installed, like central airconditioning. there is not now, nor has there ever been a democratically elected gov't in an arab state. not exactly fertile ground for experiments. as Thrawn has pointed out, there is more to democracy than elections. an independent judiciary for one thing is essential, an uncorrupted civil service is another. the iraq war was never about a democratic Iraq, that was just an ex post facto excuse, when the big lie of WMD was finally exposed.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/27/2006 @ 6:52pm

12. johannes,

    we know this.....but that's not really what KVH is trying to assert.

    the fact of the matter is: the iraqis do have a polling system in place. period. if a referendum was put before the people (US in/US out), and the iraqis reached a decision, then shouldn't we listen?

    that's the point.

    besides, we KNOW that iraq isn't anywhere near a democracy.

    and, no democratically elected govnt in an arab state? what about lebanon?

    Posted by darladoon at 09/27/2006 @ 6:59pm

13. and when KVH asserts "if we have installed.....", she is merely using the terminology that bush likes to use. she is speaking on their terms, not hers....

    Posted by darladoon at 09/27/2006 @ 7:00pm

14. democracy cannot be installed, like central airconditioning. there is not now, nor has there ever been a democratically elected gov't in an arab state. not exactly fertile ground for experiments.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/27/2006 @ 6:52pm

    That's exactly why there should be elections in all of historic Palestine- so they can democratically decide whether everyone wants things like . . oh, restricting immigration to "Jews-only", for example, or whether they want a thirty foot high concrete wall cutting through the middle of Palestinian towns and villages.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/27/2006 @ 7:21pm

15. The last I heard, Lebanon never found it necessary to violently expell 80% of a particular ethnic group in order to have the "right kind" of elections. That's exactly what israel did and what it's "democracy" is founded upon.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/27/2006 @ 7:24pm

16. Posted by DARLADOON 09/27/2006 @ 7:00pm

    Ahem...

    I believe the quote you cite is mine. I meant it quite facetiously.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/27/2006 @ 7:27pm

17. and she would have too, if she said it ;)

    Posted by darladoon at 09/27/2006 @ 7:40pm

18. there is not now, nor has there ever been a democratically elected gov't in an arab state. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/27/2006 @ 6:52pm

    I may be mistaken, but wasn't the government in Iran that we 'disinstalled' to put the shah on the peacock thrown democratically elected?

    Posted by hmnpwr at 09/27/2006 @ 8:53pm

19. HM, Iranians are NOT arabs, but persians.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/27/2006 @ 9:01pm

20. johannes, it is very difficult to make that simple claim.

    after all, how would you define an arab? son of abraham? or speaker of arabic?

    conversely, is farsi spoken only in iran? or also in iraq or afghanistan, where arabs also live?

    there are arabs in persia, just as there are persians in arabia. the borders that now separate disparate and ancient religious, ethnic and political groups are anachronistic.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/27/2006 @ 9:46pm

21. J, the basic point I think he is making is correct. The US has always extended it's support to dictatorships in the Middle East, seeing them as more reliable allies against their own people. It wasn't only in Iran that the US has done this. The US only starts talking about democracy in the Middle East when it starts losing control of some of it's dictators.

    If the Middle East isn't fertile ground for democracy it's largely because the US salted the land just as the Romans did at Carthage, so to speak.

    But you are incorrect in saying that the Middle East is not fertile ground for democracy. That's a viewpoint that you acquired by osmosis from your imperialist culture.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/27/2006 @ 9:49pm

22. That's exactly why there should be elections in all of historic Palestine- so they can democratically decide whether everyone wants things like . . oh, restricting immigration to "Jews-only", for example, or whether they want a thirty foot high concrete wall cutting through the middle of Palestinian towns and villages.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/27/2006 @ 7:21pm

    Come on, FROM....say it. Say what you want to happen to Israel.

    (BTW, the "anti-Semite" schtick don't work...when YOU start talking about "Jews")

    Posted by Mask at 09/27/2006 @ 9:53pm

23. I found this interesting:

    Lessons of Suez

    By Geoffrey Wheatcroft | September 17, 2006

    Fifty years ago, two western powers conspired to invade an Arab country--in defiance of international law and world opinion. Guess which side the United States was on.

    In November 1956, British and French troops tried to regain control of the Suez Canal, which had been seized by the Egyptian leader, Colonel Gamal Abdul Nasser. There are all too many painful similarities between the Suez operation and Iraq, although there is also one crucial difference: Far from leading the attack (or orchestrating the deception), the White House was enraged, with President Eisenhower asking Eden, ``Anthony, have you gone out of your mind?" But then those were the far-off days when even a conservative secretary of state could see his task as gaining ``the friendship and understanding of the newly independent countries who have escaped from colonialism."

    Since then, there has been a startling role reversal. In 1956, not only did London and Paris act in secret collusion with Tel Aviv, the United States was almost hostile to Israel-and toward ill-considered Western adventures in the Middle East. Today, Blair might ponder whether he should have acted as President Bush's candid friend, in the way that Eisenhower did with Eden, counseling the president against a rash enterprise rather than grandiosely supporting him ``to the last."

    *************************

    The reaction in Washington was conditioned by domestic political considerations: The Anglo-French landings took place on the day before the presidential election, with Eisenhower running for a second term. To complicate matters further, the Hungarian rising erupted, and was savagely suppressed by the Soviets. Eisenhower didn't need one international crisis on his hands come Election Day, let alone two. He was embarrassed by the British and French who were, after all, NATO allies, and he thought that the moral authority of the West to condemn the action in Budapest was compromised by the sheer recklessness of an operation that would have disastrous effects throughout the Middle East and beyond.

    **************************

    Although Suez violently divided opinion, it wasn't along party or even national lines. Some Americans believed that Eden was right. We should let the British and French know ``they have our moral support to go in," Eisenhower was told at the time by the Senate majority leader. But then 10 years later he-Lyndon Johnson-would learn the hard way in Vietnam that ``resisting aggression" isn't so simple, and that ``going in" can be easier than getting out.

    **************

    Those two leaders drew different conclusions from Suez. For Macmillan the moral was that his country should never again act except in close consort with Washington; for de Gaulle, the contrary moral was that the Americans could not be relied upon and that France, and Europe, must find another path. Today de Gaulle's shade might ask Macmillan's which of them was right.

    ****************

    Nor could Eden. On the contrary, he was reminded in friendly but forceful terms of the sheer unwisdom of ``the use of force" against an Arab country-which would, ``it seems to me, vastly increase the area of jeopardy." The ``appeaser" in this case was General Dwight David Eisenhower, the 34th president of the United States, in the day when things were different in the White House and the Republican Party. If Eden persevered in his folly, Ike wrote to the prime minister on Sept. 3, 1956, in words just as chilling today, not only the peoples of the Middle East but ``all of Asia and Africa, would be consolidated against the West to a degree which, I fear, could not be overcome in a generation."

    http://memigo.com/frame?id=575296&browse=off

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/28/2006 @ 12:03am

24. Posted by ZERO 09/28/2006 @ 12:35am

    Interesting.

    I urge all who are arguing,"It's Clintons fault." and refusing to hold dickhead accountable, to read that memo and then come back here and talk some more shit.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 09/28/2006 @ 12:59am

25. it's not about democracy, per se, it's about the iraqis wanting us to leave.

    the polls show it. and, kvh is right, if their IS a voting system in place, and if the iraqis could vote on whether or not they want the US to stay, and IF the answer is 'US OUT', well then, shouldn't we get out?

    Posted by DARLADOON 09/27/2006 @ 6:34pm

    Well...no. I know this may sound kind of bad, but I think it's important to ask what the justification for your position is. Your entire argument, I'm pretty sure, relies on the idea that the Iraqi people ought be sovereign in determining the destiny of their country. The problem, though, is that you can't have the people elect a dictator and call that democratic; in other words, a choice that blatantly precludes democracy cannot be democratic, because democracy is about more than just the exercise of choice.

    The US leaving would effectively preclude democracy from happening unless the Iraqi government is capable of stabilizing the country on its own. As many have argued, how the Iraqi government deals with al Sadr will be be an important part of that process, which also strongly suggests that civil war in Iraq was hardly the "inevitable" outcome that some would like to suggest. Though the Iraqi government will have a hard time bringing about democracy, it will be virtually impossible if all US troops pull out now.

    democracy cannot be installed, like central airconditioning.

    This is sort of true. Like I said, democracy is about more than just elections, but that doesn't mean that certain regions are just forever precluded from democracy. Japan's government was pretty anti-democratic during World War II, but it moved towards democracy fairly rapidly during and after the occupation.

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/28/2006 @ 01:00am

26. thrawn, you have written many words, but none of them address my central point:

    iraq has a polling system in place. period.

    if iraqis collectively decide something via this polling system, how can it not reflect their collective wishes?

    Posted by darladoon at 09/28/2006 @ 01:07am

27. That's exactly why there should be elections in all of historic Palestine- so they can democratically decide whether everyone wants things like . . oh, restricting immigration to "Jews-only", for example, or whether they want a thirty foot high concrete wall cutting through the middle of Palestinian towns and villages.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/27/2006 @ 7:21pm

    Come on, FROM....say it. Say what you want to happen to Israel.

    (BTW, the "anti-Semite" schtick don't work...when YOU start talking about "Jews")

    Posted by MASK 09/27/2006 @ 9:53pm

    Oh, shit, MASK! Is that what you're talking about? Well, hell, yes . . if I think everyone in Palestine should be able to vote and not just all the Jews and 15% of the Palestinians .. or, I think it's wrong to ethnic-cleanse 80% of an ethnic group in a country by means of violent rape, murder, and plunder and then bar immigration to anyone whose relatives had lived there for a thousand years but open it wide for someone ("Jews-only) whose relatives had never lived there . . or, if I think it's wrong to steal someone's property by the simple expedient of building a 30 foot high wall across their whole village or town, and murder anyone who resists that while the rest of the world watches on television . . then I fit YOUR definition of "anti-semitic", don't I?

    On the other hand, if you think it's OK to do those things . . well, hell, you fit my definition of an animal.

    I hope everyone's clear on the definitions now.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/28/2006 @ 03:22am

28. I had never thought of that. Isn't that strange? It seems Americans only want a vote when they know they will win. That's how we get a bad name. Remember how Vietnam voted for Ho Chi Minh?

    Posted by Ed71 at 09/28/2006 @ 04:47am

29. .

    WHAT CAUSES A MAN TO SELL HIS SOUL?

    WHY DID DICK CHENEY SELL HIS?

    ASBESTOS.

    The WTC was a $15 billion HALLIBURTON liability.

    You now know from the recent news reports that the first responders at ground zero are suffering from respiratory ailments as a direct result from inhaling asbestos-laced air at the WTC site.

    LET'S BACK UP…

    Larry Silverstein had just closed on his acquisition of the Twin Towers lease mere weeks prior to 9/11 – having insured them heavily against terrorist attack.

    But the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe. From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception by the NY Port Authority -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. The Towers were a MONEY LOSER. How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?

    The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.

    The projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion. Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion!

    In other words, the Twin Towers were condemned structures. How convenient that an unexpected "terrorist" attack demolished the buildings completely.

    WTC Building 7 was a part of the WTC complex, and covered under the same insurance policy. This 47-story steel-framed structure, which was NOT struck by an aircraft, mysteriously collapsed 8 hours later that same day into its own footprint at freefall speed - exactly in the manner of the Twin Towers. WTC 7 collapsed at 5:20pm http://wtc7.net http://911review.com

    How could this have happened? Mr. Silverstein gave the world the answer when he slipped up during a PBS television interview a year later, on 9/11/2002:

    "I remember getting a call from the...er...fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

    As anyone who knows anything about construction can tell you, "Pull" is common industry jargon for a controlled demolition.

    One thing is for sure, the decision to 'pull' WTC 7 would have delighted many people. Especially because it has been reported that thousands of sensitive files relating to some of the biggest financial scams in history - including Enron and WorldCom -- were stored in the offices of some of the building's tenant.

    Inside WTC 7 was the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. "All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran.

    What a neat, complete, and fortuitous turn of events was 9/11.

    Incidentally, it's worth noting that one of Lucky Larry's closest friends - a person with whom it's said he speaks almost daily by phone - is none other than former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/09/07/18306895.php

    SO HOW DID DICK CHENEY'S HALLIBURTON COME TO BARE THE LIABILITY FOR ASBESTOS RELATED CLAIMS IN THE UNITED STATES?

    CHENEY, HALLIBURTON, THE BUSH FAMILY, AND ASBESTOS

    Dick Cheney, Halliburton, Inc., and, reportedly, the Bush family are surprisingly well acquainted with asbestos-related concerns.

    On December 18, 2002, CBS News reported that Halliburton "has agreed to pay about $4 billion in cash and stock to settle hundreds of thousands of asbestos claims against it." Reportedly, Halliburton inherited its asbestos liability from Harbison-Walker, a unit of Halliburton's subsidiary Dresser Industries, and from Halliburton's Kellog Brown & Root subsidiary.

    On December 13, 2001, the World Socialist Web Site reported that "During the 2000 election campaign critics noted that in the last several years Cheney and Halliburton had contributed $157,500 to congressional candidates who had co-sponsored legislation to cut off victims' rights to a fair recovery when injured or killed as a result of asbestos exposure."

    And on August 11, 2002, The Olympian (from Olympia, WA), carried a Washington Post article noting that:

    "Dresser had close ties to a family Cheney knew well: the Bushes. Cheney's boss while he served as Secretary of Defense, President George H.W. Bush, was once being groomed to run Dresser, a company that Bush's father and grandfather had reshaped decades earlier.

    When Dresser went public in the 1920s, it turned to W.A. Harriman & Co., whose president was George Herbert Walker, grandfather and namesake to former president Bush. Prescott Bush, the former president's father, helped organize Dresser and select its new president, H. Neil Mallon. Prescott Bush eventually sat on the board and by 1941, still held 1,900 shares of Dresser stock. Mallon was so close to former president Bush that he described him in his autobiography as "surrogate uncle and father-confessor." One of his sons, Neil Mallon Bush, is named after him. After World War II, Mallon employed George H.W. Bush and Dresser executives expected him to take over the company, according to journalist Darwin Payne, who wrote a history of Dresser. Instead, the former president left to prospect for oil.

    While Cheney saw sound business reasons for acquiring Dresser, there was a problem in its past -- the use of asbestos in Harbison-Walker division products."

    That story about Halliburton acquiring the asbestos liabilities of Dresser Industries raises an interesting point...

    Cheney KNEW that Dresser had the most massive liability issue on planet earth (he had to have known) yet decided to pay good money to bring Dresser's problems under Halliburton's tent.

    This raises the question...who were the largest shareholders of Dresser - in need of a lifeboat to save their own personal bacon? Anyone named Bush? Anyone named Carlyle?

    The deal went like this:

    Cheney agrees for Halliburton to take on the Dresser asbestos liability.

    It is determined that Bush and Cheney will be (s)elected, and that the PNAC plan will be implemented - using 9/11 as the essential pretext.

    Ken Lay plays his role using his Enron smoke and mirrors tactics to create a faux energy crisis in California, causing the public to demand an energy-savvy administration be elected.

    With the asbestos liability and other matters hanging in the balance, the election of 2000 simply had to be rigged in order for the plan to go in to effect.

    Following the appointment of Bush and Cheney, the secret energy planning meeting established which oil companies would reap the rewards of the pending invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.

    The timing and the pretext were predetermined, and 9/11 was greenlighted for 9/11/2001. Cheney outsourced the implementation to Mossad, and ran the show from his bunker on D Day under the cover of preplanned drills simulating the exact attack that was proscribed, with NORAD as coconspirator. At least 50 administration officials and countless foreign agents were in on it.

    Once the entire charade was concluded, the Administration generally, and Cheney specifically, had every reason in the world to blame Iraq.

    The Afghanistan mission could not provide Halliburton with enough revenue to offset the massive asbestos liability claim. Iraq and Iran are essential wars in order to provide cover for the infusion of the billion of TAX DOLLARS necessary to both profit Halliburton for its actual work AND cover the massive asbestos liability claims.

    Now you know why Halliburton was awarded the contracts without the need to bid for them. This was all prearranged.

    NOTE: Private enterprise pushed its legal/financial obligations onto tax payers using war as the excuse.

    The asbestos liability claims of Dresser Industries were ultimately paid by you and me, and our troops in the field, all to ensure that the investors in Dresser didn't take the multibillion dollar loss.

    State of the Union speech in 2005:

    "To make our economy stronger and more competitive, America must reward, not punish, the efforts and dreams of entrepreneurs. Small business is the path of advancement, especially for women and minorities, so we must free small businesses from needless regulation and protect honest job-creators from junk lawsuits. (Applause.) Justice is distorted, and our economy is held back by irresponsible class-actions and frivolous asbestos claims -- and I urge Congress to pass legal reforms this year."

    GEORGE W. BUSH

    Posted by plunger at 09/28/2006 @ 06:49am

30. None seem to notice the 35% of the population or the 43% of the Sunni group, who it seems, want the coalition to stay (indefinitely?).

    Or could we read it that 71% of Iraqis want or are happy for the US to stay for a year (If things look up the 71(+?)% may like to double or triple the time). That is a pretty amazing figure. No Western political leader would get that sort of please "stay for a year" percentage. By anyone's reckoning all those poll categories reveal a very good level of acceptance of an "occupying force" and look to be a pretty good omen for a pro-American Iraq once security and the bread and butter issues improve.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 09/28/2006 @ 07:30am

31. Posted by LRJONES4 09/28/2006 @ 07:30am

    So barely 51% of the votes in 2004 gets the commando in chief carte blanche as an "overwhelming referendum", but 71% of Iraqi's isn't quite enough to let them make their own decisions? Nostradumus couldn't hold a candle to George Orwell in terms of predicting the future.

    Posted by Turk33 at 09/28/2006 @ 08:27am

32. Posted by MALCONTENT 09/28/2006 @ 12:59am

    Posted by ZERO 09/28/2006 @ 12:35am

    Indeed, Clarke's memo is proof positive that MushroomCloudCondi is engaging in ass-covering for her career and her administration, a direct slap at the 3000 people massacred on 9/11.

    If only this hoplelessly out of her depth celibate who was mainly hired to for her compliance and to flatter Bush's pretensions of knowing somebody black would just go and do what Chavez diagnosed her as desperately needing to do: namely, getting laid before she is too old for it.

    MushroomCloud certainly has no business in high government office for her ineptitude or outrageous bullshitting after the fact, when America's interests are at stake.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 09/28/2006 @ 08:28am

33. Think proving credibiity of polling perhaps before basing a refuting post on such! Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/27/2006 @ 11:25pm

    Once again, RIO WACO serves up the word salads (!).

    But here is a question that even someone afflicted with deepest alexia could answer as it is "yes" or "no" (that is, to make things easier on intellectually challenged RIO and saving him linguistic strain).

    RIO, as a publically committed David Koreshite, is there any child-molester whom you put before Koresh in terms of admiration?

    Remember: "Yes" or "No".

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 09/28/2006 @ 08:34am

34. Geez, the hypocrisy....

    "johannes, it is very difficult to make that simple claim."

    Posted by DARLADOON 09/27/2006 @ 9:46pm

    and then she makes THIS one, with no evidence...

    "those commanders who basically live 24/7 under massive military cover, in underground bases, with filet mignon, prostitutes and satellite nfl games."

    Posted by DARLADOON 09/27/2006 @ 5:23pm

    Posted by Mask at 09/28/2006 @ 08:58am

35. By anyone's reckoning all those poll categories reveal a very good level of acceptance of an "occupying force" and look to be a pretty good omen for a pro-American Iraq once security and the bread and butter issues improve.

    yeah, right. double talk, wishful thinking,and completely out of touch with reality. the enormous violence in Iraq, unleasherd by US invasion, is a matter of survival to Iraqis, not some bread and butter issue. this is about their survival, and the settling of scores. did the US invade to enable the Shia, oppressed for 40 years or more, to become revanchist? is that what our americans died for? and when we pull out, and we will pull out, there will be an orgy of sunni and Baathist violence, can we all say civil war, class?.why we should be lectured by an australian right wing ideologue is beyond me, we have plenty homegrown ones.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/28/2006 @ 09:24am

36. my biggest problem with our australian friend is that he has nothing to lose, as he does not have a dog in this race, and don't tell me about the very small number of troops that country has over there. why they should have thrown in their lot with Bush is a mystery to me.WE have something to lose. in a draft my son would become cannon fodder. My country has been torn apart by the murderous policies of the Bush gang. and it is MY city that took the attack and is a target for future attacks. Meantime Bush's policies have angered muslims the world over and acted as a recruiting magnet for jihadists.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/28/2006 @ 09:37am

37. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/28/2006 @ 09:37am

    Exactly.

    As Bush is short on accomplishments -- across his whole lifespan, and most notably in the past 5+ years -- perhaps he can claim the circumstances that JOHHANES describes as his rousing, crowing "success".

    With the NIE as evidentiary support, Bush could travel to downtown Baghdad and do a ribbon cutting ceremony for the "George W. Bush Terrorist Recruiting Centre". Smiles and photo-ops all around.

    For GWB, terror recruitment agent par excellance according to US government intel, it must seem like a long road from all his prior "sucesses" as a ... as (umm) ... well, as a cheer-leader ("Rah rah Andover, Crush the Exeter Infidels!"), for example... or assss ... as a bar stoll bombadier ("rrr ... rrrr ... rrrraaaaallllfff"). And especially his "success" as a titan of business ("It's me, dad (belch)(beerfart). Got any friends who can bail me out with some investment cash?") ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 09/28/2006 @ 09:52am

38. FRB

    Oh, shit, MASK! Is that what you're talking about? Well, hell, yes . . if I think everyone in Palestine should be able to vote and not just all the Jews and 15% of the Palestinians .. or, I think it's wrong to ethnic-cleanse 80% of an ethnic group in a country by means of violent rape, murder, and plunder and then bar immigration to anyone whose relatives had lived there for a thousand years but open it wide for someone ("Jews-only) whose relatives had never lived there

    Oh come on FRB, admit it--this is all about you wanting the Jews driven into the sea (and please spare me the "some of my best friends are Jews" line you constantly fall back on. Why else would you start in in Israel-bashing re a post that was about Iraq?

    Posted by brunowe at 09/28/2006 @ 10:11am

39. Johannes,

    Isn't Turkey an Arab democracy?

    Posted by freedomplease at 09/28/2006 @ 10:18am

40. Please, please, they're Turks, not arabs

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/28/2006 @ 10:26am

41. Bruno, you are correct in calling the Commissar on his anti Israeli rants.his absolute and onesided history is a joke, though a very bitter one. I recently asked Juan Cole, not an Israel apologist to be sure, to recommend a history of the founding of Israel, including the before and after. His recommendation was: Charles D Smith's book "Palestine and the Arab Israeli conflict". I can add my voice to his. this book is a great antidote to Redbird's ravings.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/28/2006 @ 10:37am

42. I just want to make clear that I do not wish to censure the australian poster. Post away merrily.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/28/2006 @ 10:39am

43. http://www.uagrad.org/Alumnus/s05/smith.html

    good article by Mr. Smith

    censor instead of censure in above.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/28/2006 @ 10:47am

44. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/28/2006 @ 09:24am

    JR,

    The poll really has nothing to do with the great hardship you are bearing (150,000 out of how many million, come off it and haven't you anti-war types been claiming Bush has not been sharing the pain around the populace enough) its about a very significant (according to this poll) slice of Iraqis who, despite the bloodshed, the sectarian violence, the presence of al Qaeda and degraded utilities, want the US troops there and a massive 71% of all Iraqis who aren't demanding that the troops leave immediately.

    The use of that poll by your mob indicates it is not too bright or thinks it can pull the wool over the eyes of its camp followers. Judging by your response the latter is probably a shrewd analysis.

    As far as Australia goes it was fighting alongside the US and other allies in Europe and Asia before you were a twinkle in your old man's eye.

    One would hardly expect an ex-European pacifist to be familiar with that sort of history anyway.

    If you are wrong in your analysis of the present conflict and if your path of pacifism was followed, it would not only be the US that would suffer but other countries as well.

    The al Qaeda branch office in Indonesia, Jemiah Islamia, was responsible for the death of over 200 in the Bali bombing, including 88 Australians. If you had a better grasp of geo-politics and the spread of the religious extremist movement throughout SE Asia, you may begin to have had some idea of why Australia is beholden to the US militarily.

    Incidentally for those pacifists who are not overly squeamish there are "jingoistic" rumours in Australia, so I am told, that a relatively small band of Australian SAS was responsible for dispatching a few hundred Taliban, heard the figure 500 mentioned, in the last few months. So the US is getting its money's worth in terms of efficiency.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 09/28/2006 @ 11:16am

45. The al Qaeda branch office in Indonesia, Jemiah Islamia, was responsible for the death of over 200 in the Bali bombing, including 88 Australians.

    how many Iraqis were involved? you are an aparatchik, mouthing Bush lies. no mas. we're not buying.the war in Iraq does nothing to address anyone's concerns of islamic radicalism the world over. quite the contrary.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/28/2006 @ 11:24am

46. One would hardly expect an ex-European pacifist to be familiar with that sort of history anyway.

    why you pompous twit. I am well informed about the history of the last few wars.after all, I did grow up in a country devastated by war, something australians like americans have not experienced.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/28/2006 @ 11:28am

47. JR: I've heard on Wingnut Radio that Detroit is an Arab democracy....

    Posted by nathanhale at 09/28/2006 @ 11:42am

48. Nathan, sounds like racist garbage to me. not on your part of course.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/28/2006 @ 12:05pm

49. Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/28/2006 @ 11:41am

    RIO WACO,

    I never voted for Clinton -- although he looks better and better in retrospect and for his pro-social activities since leaving office.

    YOU, however, have yet to distance yourself from or denounce David Koresh. Too tough for you? Until such time, you are a Koresh ditto head.

    And speaking of ditto-headism: What experiences have you had with women that would lead you to use that phrase (aped from your Jhabba the Hutt master) "femi-nazi"?

    Don't be shy, RIO, we all need some belly laughs and your life is the obvious source material for them ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 09/28/2006 @ 12:21pm

50. apropos feminism or women's lib, it is nothing less than civil rights for half the population.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/28/2006 @ 12:46pm

51. I never voted for Clinton -- Posted by GLENN LEMON 09/28/2006 @ 12:21am

    GLENN, curious....you voted for ...Perot in '92 and '96?

    Posted by Mask at 09/28/2006 @ 1:03pm

52. MASK asks,

    GLENN, curious....you voted for ...Perot in '92 and '96?

    No, I did a write-in in each case. The outcome at the federal level was obvious, so the local elections were of greater moment where the weight of my ballot was concerned.

    Then, for Nadar in '00 (although Gore has been more distinguished as an ex-pol, in my appraisal) and Kerry in '04 as a matter of principle.

    Re: Your George Allen comments earlier, about the relation of smoke to fire.

    I agree here. The thing that gets me is the unchallenged fact of the Confederate Flag coupled with the noose in his office. Seems he really wants to be understood as standing for, umm, something with that statement (made in early middle age); so let's hold him to it particularly as he finds reprises of the sentiment irresistable ("macaca"). If George Allen wants now to run his campaign against what the authentic and spontaneous side of him yearns to be, let him try ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 09/28/2006 @ 2:04pm

53. "Then, for Nadar in '00"

    you wrote in the name of the great french photographer?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/28/2006 @ 2:09pm

54. JOHANNES, I will clarify. I voted for that tweedy guy named Ralph!

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 09/28/2006 @ 2:24pm

55. Cute, JOHANNES

    "Nadar was the pseudonym of Gaspard-Félix Tournachon (April 6, 1820 – March 21, 1910), a French photographer, caricaturist, journalist, novelist and balloonist."

    Posted by Mask at 09/28/2006 @ 2:47pm

56. Posted by GLENN LEMON 09/28/2006 @ 2:24pm |

    Might I enquire as to who you "wrote in" in 1992 and 1996? Nader was on the Green ballot in 1996. There were also Socialist, Constitution, and Libertarian nominees as well....none appealed to you then?

    Posted by Mask at 09/28/2006 @ 2:49pm

57. FRB

    Oh, shit, MASK! Is that what you're talking about? Well, hell, yes . . if I think everyone in Palestine should be able to vote and not just all the Jews and 15% of the Palestinians .. or, I think it's wrong to ethnic-cleanse 80% of an ethnic group in a country by means of violent rape, murder, and plunder and then bar immigration to anyone whose relatives had lived there for a thousand years but open it wide for someone ("Jews-only) whose relatives had never lived there

    Oh come on FRB, admit it--this is all about you wanting the Jews driven into the sea (and please spare me the "some of my best friends are Jews" line you constantly fall back on. Why else would you start in in Israel-bashing re a post that was about Iraq?

    Posted by BRUNOWE 09/28/2006 @ 10:11am

    Uh . . because MASK smeared me with the "anti-semitism" slander on just about every thread yesterday. You also smear me with the "anti-semitism" slander every chance you get. For example:

    saying that I think everyone in Palestine should be able to vote and not just all the Jews and 15% of the Palestinians .. or, I think it's wrong to ethnic-cleanse 80% of an ethnic group in a country by means of violent rape, murder, and plunder and then bar immigration to anyone whose relatives had lived there for a thousand years but open it wide for someone ("Jews-only) whose relatives had never lived there . . or, if I think it's wrong to steal someone's property by the simple expedient of building a 30 foot high wall across their whole village or town, and murder anyone who resists that while the rest of the world watches on television . . that's "israel-bashing"?

    I guess then, by your definitions, anyone criticizing the holocaust was Germany-bashing then. You and MASK should get together and start an "Orwell 1984 Now" club. You put on a pretty good show, BRUNOWE, with your semi-liberal, moderate banter but when it comes to israel you throw in your lot with the kosher version of the "sturm und drang, lebensraum forever" crowd.

    I think it is evident to others that you, johannesrolf, and MASK are striving to stuff your words into my mouth because israel is a losing hand if morality and ethics are a part of rules of the card game. Like the "drive the Jews into the sea" that you're struggling with now. You don't have the least shred of concern that the zionist settlers ACTUALLY DID drive the Palestinians into the sea in the 1940's. Would you like me to post a link to the photograph again?

    Ha, ha, ha . . craven but humorous.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/28/2006 @ 5:06pm

58. Bruno, you are correct in calling the Commissar on his anti Israeli rants.his absolute and onesided history is a joke, though a very bitter one. I recently asked Juan Cole, not an Israel apologist to be sure, to recommend a history of the founding of Israel, including the before and after. His recommendation was: Charles D Smith's book "Palestine and the Arab Israeli conflict". I can add my voice to his. this book is a great antidote to Redbird's ravings.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/28/2006 @ 10:37am

    The Smith book validates what I have said here. You should actually read it rather than just talk about reading it.

    Go to the Amazon,com website and see all the zionists saying that it's one-sided and biased toward the Arabs. Ipso facto, you're an anti-semite, j. Do you have any chagrin about being smeared with the same brush that you smear me with?

    Probably not. You're too sickeningly vain for that.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/28/2006 @ 5:15pm

59. http://www.uagrad.org/Alumnus/s05/smith.html

    good article by Mr. Smith

    censor instead of censure in above.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/28/2006 @ 10:47am

    BRUNOWE may not like this part:

    Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians did not simply reject Israeli offers at Camp David. Israel, as well as the Palestinians, rejected offers from the other side or requested clarifications. Informed scholarly opinion believes that the Palestinian version of what occurred is much closer to the truth than the Israeli/American account.

    The legacy of this misrepresentation of events, with President Clinton condemning the Palestinians for the failure of the talks when he had promised to impart no blame beforehand, will be with us for years to come.

    . . which I argued with BRUNOWE over for almost two days. Wasn't that you, BRUNOWE, or am I mistaken?

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/28/2006 @ 5:21pm

60. Oh come on FRB, admit it--this is all about you wanting the Jews driven into the sea (and please spare me the "some of my best friends are Jews" line you constantly fall back on. Why else would you start in in Israel-bashing re a post that was about Iraq?

    Posted by BRUNOWE 09/28/2006 @ 10:11am

    Ha, ha . . . you mean she wasn't really my best friend just because I was sleepin' with her?

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/28/2006 @ 6:02pm

61. And, whatever you do, don't read these books on the subject by a Jew. Right, Johanny? They're actually in print, reasonably priced, and the the author isn't trying to please the great American middle while nervously glancing over his shoulder at the israel-first gang.

    Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History by Norman G. Finkelstein

    Misuse of anti-semitism. Did you catch that MASK, BRUNOWE, and JOHANNESROLF?

    Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, New and Revised Edition by Norman G. Finkelstein and Norman Finkelstein

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/28/2006 @ 6:21pm

62. Iraq police college a symbol of failed U.S. plan Thu Sep 28, 5:14 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - It was intended to showcase U.S. rebuilding efforts in Iraq, but instead Baghdad's new police academy was declared a health hazard by U.S. inspectors who found human waste dripping from the ceilings.

    shit dripping from the ceiling.poetic ain't it,

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/29/2006 @ 08:39am

63. Of course the Iraqi people want us out of there. Daily there are dozens of bodies that show up that have been tortured before being killed. Do they not think Americans perhaps are involved in at least some of them? By staying we're picking sides unknowingly like we did in Beirut in 1982. Time to come home.

    Posted by racougar65 at 10/01/2006 @ 4:52pm