READER COMMENTS ON
"VIDEO - Interview with Robert Fisk on Iraq War"
(26 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 12/14/2005 @ 8:23 pm PT...
Sorry that the first comment on this thread is off topic, but I just read an editorial in the Rock River Times (Rockford Illinois) about the impending renewal of the Patriot Act. Although this is a "must read" for everyone, it is particularly a "must read" for Republicans. I don't want to slam them, I just want them to read it and take it seriously, to understand where people like myself have been coming from since at least 9-11, if not since the 2000 election. It's not about conservative/liberal, it's about the preservation of democracy. We must wake up to this.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 12/14/2005 @ 8:26 pm PT...
Sorry, it is about conservative/liberal!
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 12/14/2005 @ 9:01 pm PT...
Only if you're a narrow-minded fool. Care to elaborate?
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 12/14/2005 @ 10:26 pm PT...
Good catch David. And I don't think your input is off topic Soul Rebel ... this all fits together in the sense that the neoCons are behind the Iraq debacle which includes the "patriot" act. Here is a link to the page.
Thanks for this bloggers ... lets keep up the pressure and the good work.
Ricky ... is the Bill of Rights liberal or it is conservative?
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 12/14/2005 @ 11:17 pm PT...
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 12/15/2005 @ 2:25 am PT...
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 12/15/2005 @ 5:57 am PT...
TODAY IS AN HISTORIC ELECTION IN IRAQ. YOU WONT SEE THAT BLOGGED HERE BECAUSE ITS GOOD NEWS. LIBERALS KNOW THAT GOOD NEWS FOR IRAQ/AMERICA IS BAD NEW FOR THEM. SO THEY WILL IGNORE IT.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 12/15/2005 @ 6:39 am PT...
I agree. Here is the news from the "voting" front. Can we leave Iraq now?
...A large blast near the heavily fortified Green Zone slightly injured two civilians and a U.S. Marine, the U.S. military said. A civilian was killed when a mortar shell hit near a polling station in the northern city of Tal Afar, and a grenade killed a school guard near a voting site in Mosul.
A bomb also exploded in Ramadi, a mortar round struck about 200 yards from a polling place in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, and a bomb was defused at a voting site in Fallujah, despite promises by major insurgent groups not to attack such places. Some election sites in Ramadi were guarded by masked gunmen.
But violence was light overall and did not appear to discourage Iraqis, some of whom turned out wrapped in their country's flag on a bright, sunny day, and afterward displayed a purple ink-stained index finger _ a mark to guard against multiple voting.
An alliance of Shiite religious parties, which dominate the government, was expected to win the most seats, but not enough to form a new administration without a coalition with rival groups. That could set the stage for long and possibly bitter negotiations _ something the U.S. wants to avoid.
The mood among voters varied with the community. Sunnis, both in Baghdad and in provincial towns, were defiant, as if to assert their rights against the Shiites and the Americans. Shiites and Kurds seemed more hopeful that the new government would be more successful than the outgoing one in restoring security and providing basic services. Shiites also appeared confident of retaining their leadership role.
"We want to choose Sunni candidates. We want them to be in power because they are capable of providing security and they do not kill or beat us," said Khali Ibrahim, 70, as he hobbled up the stairs leaning on a cane.
Such comments reflect the sectarian tensions that threaten Iraq's future and the Bush administration strategy _ Sunnis have repeatedly complained of abuse at the hands of Shiite-dominated security forces.
"In spite of the violence, Iraqis have met every milestone," President Bush said in Washington.
For the Bush administration, the stakes are nearly as high as for the Iraqis. A successful election would represent a much-needed political victory amid growing doubts about the war among the American public.
U.S. officials said a successful election alone will not end the insurgency. Also needed is a government capable of reconciling Iraq's disparate groups.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 12/15/2005 @ 6:50 am PT...
That is to say ,I agree there was an election and lots of people turned out. EVERYONE wants this war (or whatever it is..) to end successfully. Many of us are growing weary of the purple finger thing and want some real progress. If this is it, then great! Bring the troops home! We will have a parade. I'll bring the balloons! Hurray for the red,white and blue!
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 12/15/2005 @ 6:58 am PT...
The people who vote decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything - Joseph Stalin
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 12/15/2005 @ 7:30 am PT...
"WASHINGTON, [Date X] --- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in [Nation X's] election despite a [terrorist] campaign to disrupt the voting.
According to reports from [Nation X], 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the [terrorists].
The size of the popular vote and the inability of the [terrorists] to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.
Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the [Candidate X], who was running for president, and [Candidate Y], the candidate for vice president.
A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in [President X's] policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in [Nation X]."
by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967)
Note: Nation X is South Vietnam, and Date X is Sept 3, 1967 (link here, and here).
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 12/15/2005 @ 7:48 am PT...
I find this whole thing confusing. Wasn't the war against Saddam? Or was it Bin Laden? Who is the enemy now? Is the insurgency Saddams guys or foreign fighters? Are the Shiites and Sunnis fighting us or each other? Are we fighting Al Quida or Iraqis? What ever happened to Bin Laden? Are we at war or are we a peace keeping force? If we are at war, are we fighting for or against the country of Iraq? What would success look like when it is achieved? How many times have we seen those purple fingers? YIKES! My head is spinning.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 12/15/2005 @ 8:17 am PT...
The USA"PATRIOT" Act is the worst legislation that has ever been passed by the U.S. Congress. In my opinion, it virtually nullifies much of the Bill of Rights, but possibly the worst thing about it is that it is designed (with gag provisions and secrecy) - whether intentionally or not - to ensure abuse.
We have to assume that those who drafted and voted for this law were ignorant of or had no respect for the basis of our system of government, laws, and culture (a piece of paper?); that they were cowards in the face of a violent attack; and that they were pathetically naive and ignorant about the use and abuse of power in history. (Sensenbrenner, of course, is beyond hope.)
(I won't get into my views about the corporate womb we have let ourselves be enticed into - but it is antithetical to democracy and smooths everything out into a narrow thoughtless process which is the foundation of much of what we see, including a puzzled reaction to liberty in the form of the Bill of Rights and to fair elections in the form of a public and open process.)
Regarding Iraq --- Looks to me that we've done in Iraq (led by the blundering blind) what has been our habit - create the conditions for civil war and possibly genocide.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 12/15/2005 @ 8:32 am PT...
I think this is good news! The Sunnis turned out in large numbers!
"Sunnis appeared to have turned out in large numbers — even in insurgent bastions like Ramadi and Haqlaniyah — to try to curb the power of Shiite clerical parties now in control.
“I came here and voted in order to prove that Sunnis are not a minority in this country,” said lawyer Yahya Abdul-Jalil in Ramadi. “We lost a lot during the last elections, but this time we will take our normal and key role in leading this country.”
Fallujah teacher Khalid Fawaz said he also took part “so that the Sunnis are no longer marginalized.”
Many others who turned out in Fallujah, which was overrun by U.S. forces in November 2004, saw the election as a way to get rid of the Americans and the Shiite-dominated government.
“It’s an extremist government. We would like an end to the occupation,” said Ahmed Majid, 31. “Really the only true solution is through politics. But there is the occupation and the only way that will end is with weapons.” -AP
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 12/15/2005 @ 8:49 am PT...
Wayne Madsen is reporting about an NSA employee who is being charged with improper possession of classified documents. It's interesting because this is a fellow who reported to the White House about the aluminum tubes which Saddam was supposedly going to use to make nukes and how he also briefed VP Cheney that they weren't to make nukes at all.
It's a story similar to the Plame/Wilson disclosure that the Niger yellowcake uranium story was bogus.
It's a story about 'speaking Truth to Power' and the retribution which can follow.
If Wayne is correct it's a story as big as PlameGate.
The White House will do their best to say that no eyewitness account can possibly describe the amazing successes going on in Iraq today. They will deny there are any problems right up to the moment when they leave office or decide to leave Iraq. They are impervious to Truth and the Will of the People.
Our only proper solution is to fix the voting machines, vote Dems in to Congress, kick out Bush & Co. and then get on with fixing problems.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 12/15/2005 @ 9:00 am PT...
LT Gen Odom on why we need to pull out of Iraq (damned liberal traitor that he is)
Three-star General William Odom's debunking of many of the misconceptions about Iraq in an interview summarized on the McLaughlin Report on Nov. 20, 2005
Lt. Gen. Odom served as the U.S. Army's Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence (1981-1985) and director of the National Security Agency (1985-1988) and is a member of the Military Intelligence Hall of Fame. Now at the Hudson Institute, Odom still teaches seminars on U.S. national security policy and Russian politics at Yale.
A Nine-point summary below, à la the McLaughlin Report.
1) Argument: Withdrawal would incite civil war.
Odom: Civil war is already happening.
2) Argument:World would not support withdrawal.
Odom: The world would rally behind withdrawal.
3) Argument: Withdrawal emboldens insurgency.
Odom: Occupation emboldens insurgency far more than withdrawal would.
4) Argument: Withdrawal would create a terrorist haven.
Odom: Iraq is worse than a haven now, it's a training ground for terrorists.
5) Argument: Withdrawal invites Iranian influence.
Odom: Occupation has already increases Iranian influence.
6) Argument: Withdrawal would spread unrest to other nations.
Odom: Staying would cause the same unrest.
7) Argument: Withdrawal would cause more Sunni/Shiite clashes.
Odom: More clashes will be prompted if we stay.
8) Argument: The Iraqi military will be unprepared if we leave now.
Odom: Disloyalty by the Iraqi military is the reason they are not prepared.
9) Argument: Withdrawal dishonors the troops there now and those who have died or been wounded.
Odom: Many troops already question the war.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 12/15/2005 @ 10:06 am PT...
Still a little OT but it will be my last comment on this thread about the Bill of Rights.
Do you know today is the Bill of Rights Day? On December 15, 1791 the Bill of Rights was ratified and became law. A great day.
Should we celebrate...mourn...or resolve to protect and defend this great document and the principles confirming the fundamental rights of citizens and limiting the power of government over them?
(BTW, Dredd, I think you are right on in some of your recent comments about the roles of elections and the Bill of Rights.)
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 12/15/2005 @ 10:26 am PT...
#16 Soul Rebel,
I can't remember where the original item is but here is a video summary of General Odom's 9 points.
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 12/15/2005 @ 3:12 pm PT...
How did this ignorant notion (that being a GWB detractor means you're a Liberal) get started? It's hardly the case. It's not even close to being the case. I'm no liberal, but I've voted against him twice. (I voted for McCain in the primaries, and would likely do so again, given the opportunity)
My best friend Richard, a 68-year-old life-long Conservative Republican, and owner of one of the largest apartment complexes in Southern California, is a passionate Bush detractor. He lists Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Bush Sr., Nixon, S.I. Hiakawa, George Murphy, George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson, and, more recently, Arnold Schwarzenegger, as among Republicans he's voted for. In fact, the only time he hasn't voted Republican was when Bob Dole was the candidate ("the ecomomy was strong, and Dole was too old and mean"), and the two runs of George W. Bush.
Richard voted against GWB because he considered him unqualified for public office, and a prop/shill/front for The Texas oil magnates, and their ilk, along with Cheney being "The Halliburton Man". All that has happened has deeply strengthened this conviction in both of us.
You can fool yourself, if you wish, but it's sheer fantasy to think that only liberals think this president is not the man who should be holding the office.
Just one example is Dwight D. Eisenhower's son. Pat Buchanan and George Will have also made some very strong protests to the way this administration represents conservative ideology.
Bush's list of non-liberal detractors is not a short one. There are many conservatives who state that this administration does not represent their idealogy at all.
This administration reflects, and practices, fascist/corporatist idealogy.
Halliburton's Stock has risen apx. $80 million since the Iraq invasion, and BOUGHT ANY PETROL LATELY?!?!?
This administration is succeeding in what it set out to do, at the expense of you and I, Liberal, Moderate, and Conservative alike.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 12/15/2005 @ 4:07 pm PT...
More good news. Mr Bush has decided to accept John Mccain's no torture bill. It's a Christmas miracle!
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 12/16/2005 @ 6:47 am PT...
I weep for my country....
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 12/16/2005 @ 9:03 am PT...
Go to www.juancole.com and scan down a bit to find the following blogpiece from yesterday:
The LA Times probably reflects the thinking of a lot of Americans in hoping that these elections are a milestone on the way to withdrawing US troops from Iraq. I cannot imagine why anyone thinks that. The Iraqi "government" is a failed state. Virtually no order it gives has any likelihood of being implemented. It has no army to speak of and cannot control the country. Its parliamentarians are attacked and sometimes killed with impunity. Its oil pipelines are routinely bombed, depriving it of desperately needed income. It faces a powerful guerrilla movement that is wholly uninterested in the results of elections and just wants to overthrow the new order. Elections are unlikely to change any of this.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 12/16/2005 @ 12:46 pm PT...
You didn't think it was going to be that simple did you (wink wink)
Read this: http://msnbc.msncom/id/10485561/site/newsweek/
Note that "loosened language" in Graham's bill will allow military tribunals to use info gathered through torture in other countries. So we just farm it out.
Putting a drill through someone's skull while they are kicking and screaming: Priceless
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
google pr main
said on 3/12/2006 @ 9:43 pm PT...
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
google pr main
said on 3/12/2006 @ 9:49 pm PT...
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 6/9/2006 @ 2:38 pm PT...