REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

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

POSTED BY: LOSTINTHEVERSE
UPDATED: Friday, October 1, 2004 10:49
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4784
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, September 25, 2004 11:51 AM

LOSTINTHEVERSE


Quote:


"The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips," senior Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart told the Los Angeles Times [referring to Iraqi interim P.M. Ayad Allawi].



I thought I was beyond being stunned by anything either side can say this election season, but this little gem had me speechless. Does Lockhart have any clue about consequences from things he says? That statement just gives affirmation to Zarqawi and his Thugs to attack soldiers as well as kidnap and murder civilians. Why didn't Kerry fire this guy? Why didn't he at least retract the statement? By not coming out and disagreeing, Kerry has given his implicit endorsement to the above statement. It shows a certain lack of respect for human life... A certain willingness to sacrifice the lives of others for personal gain. Americans (and the Iraqis who attack them) will bleed for that statement, just like Americans (and the Vietnamese who attacked them) bled for John Kerry's statements in the '70s.

One (very angry) man's opinion. Feel free to tear it apart, or even agree on occasion.


~ Lost In The 'Verse

"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 25, 2004 11:51 AM

LOSTINTHEVERSE


Quote:


"The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips," senior Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart told the Los Angeles Times [referring to Iraqi interim P.M. Ayad Allawi].



I thought I was beyond being stunned by anything either side can say this election season, but this little gem had me speechless. Does Lockhart have any clue about consequences from things he says? That statement just gives affirmation to Zarqawi and his Thugs to attack soldiers as well as kidnap and murder civilians. Why didn't Kerry fire this guy? Why didn't he at least retract the statement? By not coming out and disagreeing, Kerry has given his implicit endorsement to the above statement. It shows a certain lack of respect for human life... A certain willingness to sacrifice the lives of others for personal gain. Americans (and the Iraqis who attack them) will bleed for that statement, just like Americans (and the Vietnamese who attacked them) bled for John Kerry's statements in the '70s.

One (very angry) man's opinion. Feel free to tear it apart, or even agree on occasion.


~ Lost In The 'Verse

"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 25, 2004 12:13 PM

SUCCATASH



The blood is on Bush's hands, not Kerry's.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 25, 2004 1:46 PM

SOUPCATCHER


I don't understand how you get from the quote to your conclusion.

On a related note, how common is it for the head of a country that is in the middle of a war being fought solely within its own borders to leave that country and fly halfway around the world to deliver a press conference?

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 25, 2004 1:52 PM

LIGHTINTHEBRAINPAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Succatash:

The blood is on Bush's hands, not Kerry's.




Trying -- hard -- not -- to -- post

Okay, I try not to get into political discussions here because Firefly isn't supposed to be about that, but I can't help myself on this one. Please consider:

If Bush is driving a car with the engine on fire--let's say due to his own mechanical incompetence--and Kerry's aide throws some gasoline on the engine, does the aide not share ANY of the blame for the result?

Things are going to get really critical in Iraq really fast over the next few months. It seems to me that US citizens need to come to an agreement that this is the fix we're in, we can't undo it, but we CAN avoid publicly undercutting best efforts to bring about a reasonable outcome for both the Iraqi people and our own nation.

The statement made by Kerry's aide is undercutting and a bad idea.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 25, 2004 2:22 PM

SUCCATASH



"Americans (and the Iraqis who attack them) will bleed for that statement..."

It seems to me that US citizens need to come to an agreement that this is the fix we're in, we can't undo it, but we CAN avoid publicly undercutting best efforts to bring about a reasonable outcome for both the Iraqi people and our own nation."

You guys sound dangerously close to saying, "Every time someone complains about the war, a soldier dies."

What an appalling concept. Silencing protestors and faking agreement is not the answer.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 25, 2004 2:38 PM

SUCCATASH



Bush: "I've decided to invade a country. Please don't make negative statements about my actions, because if you do, a lot of people will die and the blood is on your hands."


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 25, 2004 2:39 PM

LIGHTINTHEBRAINPAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Succatash:

"Americans (and the Iraqis who attack them) will bleed for that statement..."

It seems to me that US citizens need to come to an agreement that this is the fix we're in, we can't undo it, but we CAN avoid publicly undercutting best efforts to bring about a reasonable outcome for both the Iraqi people and our own nation."

You guys sound dangerously close to saying, "Every time someone complains about the war, a soldier dies."

What an appalling concept. Silencing protestors and faking agreement is not the answer.






You say I came "dangerously close" ... but DID I cross that line? No.

Protesting and disagreeing are the American way. However, once your nation and your soldiers are at war, you need to consider carefully the consequences of what you say. I was one of the people who protested the Vietnam War. I have a much better understanding now of how certain statements result in more harm than good. I believe Kerry's aide crossed the line.

There is a HUGE difference between saying, "We shouldn't have gone to war because XYZ, we disagree with how the war is being handled, we believe that the US should do XYZ, dump Bush," and "Allawi is a puppet of the US government." A huge difference.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 25, 2004 4:17 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

That statement just gives affirmation to Zarqawi and his Thugs to attack soldiers as well as kidnap and murder civilians.


OK. Here's your chance to call me stupid.
How is Lockhart's statement an invitation to attack and murder?

Be explicit, remember, you're dealing with a stupid person.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 25, 2004 5:50 PM

NEUTRINOLAD


This is what stunned you?
Not the Vice President saying that electing the other party's candidate would result in more terror attacks, undermining the very principle of democracy?

Not spending lives annd treasure, ostensibly to overthrow a tyrant (Saddam Hussein), only to replace said tyrant with another thug cut from the same cloth (Allawi - and don't you dare try to deny it or you will lose all credibility with myself and anyone else capable of reading)?

Not the fact that the second largest force in Iraq, next to the US Army, is the force of US-hired mercenaries?

Not the commission of torture by American forces, even if it was okayed by the Justice *ahem* Department ahead of time?

Not the Congress subverting the Constitution and abdicating their responsibility to be the branch of government that declares war?

Not the passing of a tax cut while running up trillions of dollars in debt with drugs programs and, maybe you've heard of this, a WAR going on?

From all indications my countrymen have gone completely totally batsh!t insane.
And please, we all know Cheney has his hand shoved so far up Allawi's backside that the lump in his throat ain't an Adam's Apple, it's Cheney's knuckle.

Face reality as it is, not as you wish it were. Only then can we start to solve problems.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 25, 2004 6:17 PM

LOSTINTHEVERSE


I'm not saying any of those things, I'm not even saying Allawi is not a puppet. I don't have enough information to make that assertion. Cheney's attack on Kerry, while ill advised, doesn't directly result in more lives lost. A senior guy in the Kerry camp "affirming" one of the major driving forces behind the insurgency with no rebuttal by the American senator running the camp does. One of the main arguments Zarqawi is using is that Allawi is an American puppet, so the Iraqi government is not legitimate. Lockhart just fed the beast.

In response to some other posts, I am in no way saying that every time somebody disagrees with the war more people die. It's a war, people die. I hate it, you hate it, we all hate war. It freaking sucks. But we're in one, and we can't just back out now. We sure as hell can try to minimize the damage though. Lockhart undercut that effort in a huge way.

Either way, this is just my opinion, you don't have to agree with it.

~ Lost In The 'Verse

"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 25, 2004 6:17 PM

LOSTINTHEVERSE


I'm not saying any of those things, I'm not even saying Allawi is not a puppet. I don't have enough information to make that assertion. Cheney's attack on Kerry, while ill advised, doesn't directly result in more lives lost. A senior guy in the Kerry camp "affirming" one of the major driving forces behind the insurgency with no rebuttal by the American senator running the camp does. One of the main arguments Zarqawi is using is that Allawi is an American puppet, so the Iraqi government is not legitimate. Lockhart just fed the beast.

In response to some other posts, I am in no way saying that every time somebody disagrees with the war more people die. It's a war, people die. I hate it, you hate it, we all hate war. It freaking sucks. But we're in one, and we can't just back out now. We sure as hell can try to minimize the damage though. Lockhart undercut that effort in a huge way.

Either way, this is just my opinion, you don't have to agree with it.

~ Lost In The 'Verse

"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 25, 2004 6:39 PM

SOUPCATCHER


I initially hesitated in posting to this thread because of the title (I see it as an unfortunate attempt to equate the Kerry campaign with Zarqawi). After ghosting a number of threads on Iraq I was unsure if it was possible to carry on a dialogue about the topic without the discussion veering dangerously towards demonization. But I'm willing to risk it.

I read an article in yesterday's Washington Post that reinforced my belief that the rhetoric in this election campaign has crossed a line. The article requires registration so I'll reprint a signaficant portion here:
Quote:

excerpted from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45672-2004Sep23.html
President Bush and leading Republicans are increasingly charging that Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry and others in his party are giving comfort to terrorists and undermining the war in Iraq -- a line of attack that tests the conventional bounds of political rhetoric.

Appearing in the Rose Garden yesterday with Iraq's interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, Bush said Kerry's statements about Iraq "can embolden an enemy." After Kerry criticized Allawi's speech to Congress, Vice President Cheney tore into the Democratic nominee, calling him "destructive" to the effort in Iraq and the struggle against terrorism.

It was the latest instance in which prominent Republicans have said that Democrats are helping the enemy or that al Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents and other enemies of the United States are backing Kerry and the Democrats. Such accusations are not new to American politics, but the GOP's line of attack this year has been pervasive and high-level.

• On Tuesday, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said terrorists "are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry." On Fox News, Hatch said Democrats are "consistently saying things that I think undermine our young men and women who are serving over there."

• On Sunday, GOP Senate candidate John Thune of South Dakota said of his opponent, Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle: "His words embolden the enemy." Thune, on NBC's "Meet the Press," declined to disavow a statement by the Republican Party chairman in his state saying Daschle had brought "comfort to America's enemies."

• On Saturday, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (Ill.) said at a GOP fundraiser: "I don't have data or intelligence to tell me one thing or another, [but] I would think they would be more apt to go [for] somebody who would file a lawsuit with the World Court or something rather than respond with troops." Asked whether he believed al Qaeda would be more successful under a Kerry presidency, Hastert said: "That's my opinion, yes."

• The previous day in Warsaw, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage said terrorists in Iraq "are trying to influence the election against President Bush."


There's more and I found it an interesting read. I guess I expect this kind of attack to come from fringe elements of a party, not the party leaders.

It's also disturbing to me that decisions in Iraq appear to be made with more regard to politics than to what is best for our troops. The upcoming issue of the Marine Corps Times has a very disturbing article about Fallujah:
Quote:

excerpted from http://www.marinetimes.com/story.php?f=1-MARINEPAPER-356833.php
Many who fought in Fallujah may have been thinking it, but weren’t willing to say it — that Marines did not want to launch the April siege there, and once in the fight, they didn’t want to pull out before the job was done.

In a candid interview Sept. 12 with four major newspapers at his command post in Iraq, Lt. Gen. James Conway said senior coalition commanders in Iraq ordered the Marines into Fallujah against his advice and counter to the Corps’ long-term plan to quell the city’s insurgency.

Moreover, before Marines could consolidate their gains, they were ordered out, replaced by an unproven local security force cobbled together without the input of senior Marines on the ground there, said Conway, the outgoing commander of I Marine Expeditionary Force.



*editted to add: Oops. Forgot my secondary sourcing. WaPo article pointed at by dailyKos and Marine Corps Times article pointed at by Kevin Drum over at Political Animal.


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 25, 2004 6:52 PM

NOOCYTE


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Quote:

That statement just gives affirmation to Zarqawi and his Thugs to attack soldiers as well as kidnap and murder civilians.


OK. Here's your chance to call me stupid.
How is Lockhart's statement an invitation to attack and murder?

Be explicit, remember, you're dealing with a stupid person.



Rue, you are not stupid, as the argument here is rather a subtle one.

The notion is that Zarqawi and his ilk are striving to take down the interim Gov in Iraq because they see it as an illigitimate pawn of the Infidel, Imperialist Americans ("the head of the snake'" as ObL has called us). For an American to suggest that this belief is justified is presumed to add fuel to the fire of the insurgents' zealotry, and thus increase the ferocity of their campaign to block and topple the Interim gov. They can then point to such statements and say, "See? Even the Americans --curse their black, godless souls-- say that this upstart (Allawi) is but a puppet. Let us then go forth in our Holy Cause to Blow Shit Up."

Let me go on record as saying that Lockhart's statement --presented as it is here, stripped of context, and pending research to ascertain the circumstances in which it was putatively uttered-- was boneheaded and counterproductive in the extreme.

However, if I may add my $.02, I do not believe that this statement --ill-considered as it may have been-- would have any discernible effect on the insurgents' activities. You see, their goal is to block the formation of any government which does not rest squarely on the Shari'a Law, which is to say a theocracy. To them, such a government would be a secular (read, "Unholy") offshoot of American Imperialism. What select Americans believe or don't believe about that government is immaterial to them. Whether we proclaim the legitimacy of the Allawi government or mock it as a puppet, they will still see it as a target, since it does not look like the Taliban, or the Iranian government.

So, while I cannot endorse Lockhart's presumed statement, I also reject the rather hyperbolic statement that it will spill any additional blood (except, perhaps from the veins of the Kerry campaign).

Update: It appears that the quote was referring to the content of Allawi speech before Congress (which tracked recent Bush oratory rather closely, don't you think?), and the subsequent photo ops at Bush's side. As for as I've been able to tell, Lockhart was not making a statement about the true nature of the Allawi gov, but about how it was apt to be perceived in the Muslim world.

However, the ease with which that statement has been decontextualized to present the appearance that he was expressing an opinion about the real nature of the Allawi government only underscores how stupid and counterproductive it was to say. I think we should all listen very closely to the National Security debate on 9/30...

BTW, SOUPCATCHER: I like the way you post! Measured and multiply, transparently sourced. Kudos.



Department of Redundancy Department

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 25, 2004 6:58 PM

NEUTRINOLAD


A senior guy in the Kerry camp "affirming" one of the major driving forces behind the insurgency
Pardon me, but it's not Americans admitting that we've put in a puppet government with no legitimacy that is a major driving force of the insurgency. It's the fact that we HAVE DONE put in an illegitimate puppet government that's driving the insurgency. That's what's killed any hope of an Iraqi democracy in the crib.
Are you saying that if we all just close our eyes and tell the same lies, lies that are utterly transparent to everyone in the world that doesn't live in the US, and most of those who do, that's the way to protect folk?
Boy-howdee, I surely hope I'm never trapped in a burning building with you.

You know what gets folk killed?
-Acting on intelligence that you know to be wrong, because you're the one what ordered it cooked, 'cause you didn't like what you read the first time.
-Saying mercury ain't toxic because you changed the rules to say it ain't.
-Pretending what you know to be so, ain't.

Some candidate's advisor of such-and-so stating the obvious truth ain't gonna cause one more death, not one more injury, not one more dented fender. Solidarity is bullpuckey if it's purpose is to promote a lie. And it's just embarassing when the whole world already knows you're lying.

I love my country, I do. But I can't blame those who hate us for doing such stupid, harmful, gorram-fool things. The same mistakes over and over again; Samosa, Marcos, Pahlavi, Noriega, Hussein, and now Allawi.

We're all adults. We oughta know better. You know we oughta.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 25, 2004 7:11 PM

NEUTRINOLAD


Now some bright lad is gonna ask, "So what should we do, if you're so smart?'

Here's my suggestion:

1. Do not, I repeat DO NOT turn the country over to the hand-selected cronies of the current presidential administration (Ah, Chelobi, we hardly knew ye).
1a. Do establish a military Governor, as was done in post-war Germany and Japan.
2. Military Governor holds elections to establish the future configuration of the country. Does that mean the citizens of (the artificial entity established by the British kown as) Iraq can vote to break the country up? Yup, that it does.
3. Military Governor then establishes elections in the resulting national entities.
4. (simultaneous with the above) Clean house on the existing power structure, Baathists first in line for processing. We knoe how to do this, we ran Spandau prison for, how long?, 30-something years?
5. Establish mutual protection treeaties with the newborn national entities. make it clear that if they kill their own people, treaty's off and an invitation is sent to their neighbors to "Come 'n get it".
6. Leave a few bases as needed to help protect and watch over our new friends.
7. Get the rest of our men out of there.

And no, I know I ain't so smart. But I can read history, and I know some math. Makes it harder for folks to lie to me and get away with it.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 25, 2004 7:50 PM

LOSTINTHEVERSE


The intent was not to equate Senator Kerry with Zarqawi, though I see how that conclusion may be drawn. I was angry when I chose the tagline, and was trying to come up with something that would actually catch attention. Demonization of a politician is not, and never was, my motivation for this thread.

Next, I'm not saying that the way to fix this situation is to close our eyes and imagine it's not there. That's simply foolish. I just don't believe encouraging these people is the right thing to do.

Also, I'm well aware of the context of the quote I have posted, as well as my stripping it of that context. The scary thing about it is that it stands so well as I have posted it. Most of the things I would say have been said already, either by myself or others, so that's all I'm going to say for now.


One man's opinion, you know the routine.

~ Lost In The 'Verse

"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 25, 2004 7:50 PM

LOSTINTHEVERSE


The intent was not to equate Senator Kerry with Zarqawi, though I see how that conclusion may be drawn. I was angry when I chose the tagline, and was trying to come up with something that would actually catch attention. Demonization of a politician is not, and never was, my motivation for this thread.

Next, I'm not saying that the way to fix this situation is to close our eyes and imagine it's not there. That's simply foolish. I just don't believe encouraging these people is the right thing to do.

Also, I'm well aware of the context of the quote I have posted, as well as my stripping it of that context. The scary thing about it is that it stands so well as I have posted it. Most of the things I would say have been said already, either by myself or others, so that's all I'm going to say for now.


One man's opinion, you know the routine.

~ Lost In The 'Verse

"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 26, 2004 2:23 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I guess this would be the equivalent of saying that Nguyen Van Thieu was (or could be perceived as) a puppet of the United States. In the context of the Vietnam War, I don't think this have made much of a difference either way. THe only solution to the Vietnam War was US withdrawal.

I think the situation in Iraq is politically the same, but of course much more dangerous because we depend on Mideast oil. The US has monkeyed with Mideast politics for so long that any open support from the US automatically de-legitimizes any political group. Iranian and Saudi reformers are running away from contact with the US because they will be tarred with the same brush as the Shah and the House of Saud. The US has dug itself into such a deep hole by allying so consistently with dictatorships (as well as Israel) that we a FORCED to deal only with the most corrupt wanna-bes. In a perverse and strange sort of way, criticizing the current leadership in Iraq may actually give it a more legitimacy with the average Iraqi.

In any case, it seems to me that the longer and more vigorously we try to "fix" the problem in Iraq the worse it will become because WE are the problem. We would be far better off publically criticizing (but secretly supporting) a moderate leader like Sistani instead of someone with such overt ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 26, 2004 2:58 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Just as an aside, I wonder how this compares to the Administration's willingness to "burn" an asset (Valerie Plame) for political purposes?

I mean, if they are going to accuse Kerry of treason- which is what they are doing- maybe they better look into their own mess?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 26, 2004 7:27 AM

FIREFLEW


Quote:

Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:

By not coming out and disagreeing, Kerry has given his implicit endorsement to the above statement.



Fallacy of False Dilemma - simply because he hasn't retracted the statement doesn't automatically equate to him endorsing the statement.

___________________________________
Jayne: "Know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I beat you with till you understand who's in command."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 26, 2004 8:18 AM

LOSTINTHEVERSE


In the case of a public figure, particularly a Senator, not openly disagreeing with that statement made publicly by one of his top aides is an implicit endorsement. If anyone in his campaign made a statement to a reporter that Kerry didn't at least partially endorse, he would have at least publicly and openly disagreed. Politics is funny that way, it's all about perception. By not disagreeing, projected image is that he agrees.

As always, this is just my entirely uneducated opinion.

~ Lost In The 'Verse

"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 26, 2004 8:18 AM

LOSTINTHEVERSE


In the case of a public figure, particularly a Senator, not openly disagreeing with that statement made publicly by one of his top aides is an implicit endorsement. If anyone in his campaign made a statement to a reporter that Kerry didn't at least partially endorse, he would have at least publicly and openly disagreed. Politics is funny that way, it's all about perception. By not disagreeing, projected image is that he agrees.

As always, this is just my entirely uneducated opinion.

~ Lost In The 'Verse

"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 26, 2004 8:31 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

just don't believe encouraging these people is the right thing to do.

Well, that's where I'm still stuck.
Alawi was/is a CIA asset and long-term Iraqi expat. He came late to the party, after Chalabi (of Penatgon /neocon/ administration favor), heir apparent, was accused of counterfeiting, among other things. (After he tried to gain legitimacy with Iraqis by making non-compliant statements about the future of Iraq.) Alawi showed up just in time to be hand picked as PM by L. Paul Bremer III, US Administrator. Since then he's been in lock-step with important US administration issues, such as Bremer's orders and elections, and curiously out-of-synch with anything the UN says.
So, at this point, Alawi shows up in Washington, his message a virtual reprise of Bush's.
As an aside, and I don't want to lose the thread of the question but you'd think the administration would have learned something from the Chalabi (rose petals) and the WMD (tons) experiences. Just because you can find someone to feed your propaganda machine what you want to amplify, doesn't make it more reliable.
Anyway, so Alawi does actually LOOK like a puppet of the US government.
Now it gets mentioned, referentially, by a really third-tier news source (Lockhart). What does this mean to Iraq?
There are several categories to consider: those Iraqis who think Alawi is a puppet and hate him, those who don't know, those who think he is but accept the government anyway, and those who think he is not. Categories one, three and four aren't about to be influenced. Category two, if they haven't gotten an opinion by now, aren't about to be influenced by US political debate, which is so must further away and fainter than anything they're experiencing in Iraq today. (Iraq's information is spoken with guns, bombs, truck bombs, and the ongoing lack of jobs, water and electricity.)
So how could this embolden the insurgents? It's not about to sway opinion in Iraq.

I know people have Spain in the back of their minds. But Spain's ruling government at the time was out of touch with the will of the people. MILLIONS in Spain (an estmated 1/3 of the entire population) demonstrated against the war. Polling, about 70-80% were 'against'. The ruling party jumped in the 'pro-US, pro-war, anti-terrorist' mode early, and used the 'anti-terrorist' topic to impose even more restrictions on the Basques. The opposition party had an anti-war platform. But even with all the war opposition the polls going in were appx 50/50. What turned the tide? It was not internal war dissent, or the explosions themselves, that brought down the ruling party. It was when they tried to pin it on the Basques. People were incensed about being lied to. (Geezer, is that why you state lies aren't important? You don't want them to be an issue?)

So, are you saying that Lockhart's statement encourages terrorists? How could this be?
If there were NO opposition to the war in the US, the terrorists might try to create it in public opinion, the same way the IRA did in Britain (Northern Ireland was a non-issue to Brits until the IRA made it one.) It would take decades, but it has been and can be done. But the opposition is apparent, and it is a sizeable fraction in the US (percentages depending on whose polls you read and when you read them). Does Lockhart's statement, as indirect as it was, actually add to the situation? It won't change any USer's minds, in my opinion.
Nor will it change the terrorist's perception of the US. They already know this is a divisive issue. It is the large elephant in the room that doesn't get talked about but is plainly there for everyone (including the terrorists) to see.

So, I am still puzzled. How did Lockhart's statement encourage 'those people'?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 26, 2004 9:20 PM

SOUPCATCHER


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

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 27, 2004 5:24 AM

LTNOWIS


Quote:

However, if I may add my $.02, I do not believe that this statement --ill-considered as it may have been-- would have any discernible effect on the insurgents' activities. You see, their goal is to block the formation of any government which does not rest squarely on the Shari'a Law, which is to say a theocracy. To them, such a government would be a secular (read, "Unholy") offshoot of American Imperialism. What select Americans believe or don't believe about that government is immaterial to them. Whether we proclaim the legitimacy of the Allawi government or mock it as a puppet, they will still see it as a target, since it does not look like the Taliban, or the Iranian government.

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 27, 2004 5:24 AM

LTNOWIS


Quote:

However, if I may add my $.02, I do not believe that this statement --ill-considered as it may have been-- would have any discernible effect on the insurgents' activities. You see, their goal is to block the formation of any government which does not rest squarely on the Shari'a Law, which is to say a theocracy. To them, such a government would be a secular (read, "Unholy") offshoot of American Imperialism. What select Americans believe or don't believe about that government is immaterial to them. Whether we proclaim the legitimacy of the Allawi government or mock it as a puppet, they will still see it as a target, since it does not look like the Taliban, or the Iranian government.

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 4:46 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


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

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 30, 2004 9:37 PM

SOUPCATCHER


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

excerpted from http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A60725-2004Sep29?language=pri
nter

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, asked Tuesday about similarities between Bush's statements about Iraq and Allawi's speech to Congress last week, said he did not know of any help U.S. officials gave with the speech. "None that I know of," he said, adding, "No one at the White House." He also said he did not know if the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad had seen the speech.

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

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


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

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

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


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 1, 2004 8:44 AM

ARAWAEN


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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 1, 2004 10:49 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

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



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

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

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

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

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

So fight on !!

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
So, how ya feelin’ about World War 3?
Sat, November 30, 2024 19:32 - 48 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Sat, November 30, 2024 19:28 - 22 posts
A History of Violence, what are people thinking?
Sat, November 30, 2024 19:16 - 19 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sat, November 30, 2024 19:16 - 4794 posts
Browncoats, we have a problem
Sat, November 30, 2024 18:41 - 15 posts
Sentencing Thread
Sat, November 30, 2024 18:39 - 382 posts
Ukraine Recommits To NATO
Sat, November 30, 2024 18:37 - 27 posts
Elon Musk
Sat, November 30, 2024 18:36 - 36 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Sat, November 30, 2024 17:58 - 1542 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Sat, November 30, 2024 17:40 - 6932 posts
Hollywood LOVES them some Harvey Weinstein!!
Sat, November 30, 2024 14:33 - 16 posts
Manbij, Syria - 4 Americans Killed
Sat, November 30, 2024 14:06 - 6 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL