TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Are you Patrioitc or a Benedict Arnold, this is what Republicans call American.
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Are you Patrioitc or a Benedict Arnold, this is what Republicans call American.
Tying Kerry to terror tests rhetorical limits
Leading Republicans attempt to tie Kerry to undermining war effort
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."
*****The rest of the article is at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6086018/
This is the America that we live in, increasingly your patriotism is being questioned, fearmongering is the item of the day and for speaking about the truth in Iraq people are being accused of undermining the Iraqi effort. If the Iraqi effort was being done correctly there would be no need for such statements, moreover the terrorists are the one's undermining Iraq along with Iraqis who want the U.S. out last time I checked, not John Kerry patriotic Republicans, wake up. When tactics like these are associated with the Alien and Sedition Acts and the McCarthy Era its very telling.
Re: Are you Patrioitc or a Benedict Arnold, this is what Republicans call American.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NYCTrancefan ...Bush said Kerry's statements about Iraq "can embolden an enemy." |
Re: Re: Are you Patrioitc or a Benedict Arnold, this is what Republicans call America
| quote: |
| Originally posted by trancaholic Unlike "bring 'em on", I guess? I don't know what is more absurd: these statements, or that there are actually people buying into them. Some uniter Bush turned out to be. |
Re: Re: Re: Are you Patrioitc or a Benedict Arnold, this is what Republicans call America
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NYCTrancefan So far many here have bought it in large numbers, I question if they even examine the issues anymore. |
So you don't think that statements like those from Kerry can possibly boost the morale of the enemy we are fighting? Discrediting the PM of the country we are helping by saying our efforts are nothing short of a catastrophic failure does nothing to give confidence to the enemy we are fighting? Explain your logic to me.
Sure, Kerry has every right to say whatever he wants--I'm all for freedoms of speech here--but there are consequences and risks associated with those comments--much like there were ramifications to his speeches in front of congress i 1972 that no doubt gave comfort to the Vietnamese. Countless veterans have attested to that. Not to mention the damage it did to their own morale.
So sure, Kerry can say whatever he wants--but don't deny the risks and consequences associated with such. Screw his patriotism--how bout using some good ole' common sense! If he aspires to be commander in chief, the last thing he needs to do is portray an image of a commander in chief who attempts to destroy the morale of the very people he aspires to command!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you Patrioitc or a Benedict Arnold, this is what Republicans call
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Issues? What issues? All I know is, Kerry's quite the windsurfer! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka So you don't think that statements like those from Kerry can possibly boost the morale of the enemy we are fighting? Discrediting the PM of the country we are helping by saying our efforts are nothing short of a catastrophic failure does nothing to give confidence to the enemy we are fighting? Explain your logic to me. Sure, Kerry has every right to say whatever he wants--I'm all for freedoms of speech here--but there are consequences and risks associated with those comments--much like there were ramifications to his speeches in front of congress i 1972 that no doubt gave comfort to the Vietnamese. Countless veterans have attested to that. Not to mention the damage it did to their own morale. So sure, Kerry can say whatever he wants--but don't deny the risks and consequences associated with such. Screw his patriotism--how bout using some good ole' common sense! If he aspires to be commander in chief, the last thing he needs to do is portray an image of a commander in chief who attempts to destroy the morale of the very people he aspires to command! |
| quote: |
Yankee Go Home Who's leading the anti-war movement? Congressional Republicans. By William Saletan Posted Friday, May 7, 1999, at 12:30 AM PT Every time the United States goes into battle, anti-war activists blame the causes and casualties of the conflict on the U.S. government. They excuse the enemy regime's aggression and insist that it can be trusted to negotiate and honor a fair resolution. While doing everything they can to hamstring the American administration's ability to wage the war, they argue that the war can never be won, that the administration's claims to the contrary are lies, and that the United States should trim its absurd demands and bug out with whatever face-saving deal it can get. In past wars, Republicans accused these domestic opponents of sabotaging American morale and aiding the enemy. But in this war, Republicans aren't bashing the anti-war movement. They're leading it. Last weekend, three of the top five Republicans in Congress--Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi, Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles of Oklahoma, and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas--went on television to discuss the war. Here's what they said. 1. The atrocities are America's fault. "Once the bombing commenced, I think then [Slobodan] Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started," Nickles said at a news conference after appearing on Meet the Press. "The administration's campaign has been a disaster. ... [It] escalated a guerrilla warfare into a real war, and the real losers are the Kosovars and innocent civilians." On Fox News Sunday, DeLay blamed the ethnic cleansing on U.S. intervention. "Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode," DeLay charged in a House floor speech replayed on Late Edition. 2. The failure of diplomacy to avert the war is America's fault. "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning," Lott offered on Late Edition. "I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." Nickles called NATO's prewar peace proposal to the Serbs "a very arrogant agreement" that "really caused this thing to escalate." 3. Congress should not support the war. When asked whether they would authorize Clinton "to use all necessary force to win this war, including ground troops," Lott and Nickles --who had voted a month ago, along with 70 percent of the Senate GOP, not to support the NATO air campaign--said they wouldn't. Nickles questioned the propriety of "NATO's objectives," calling its goal of "access to all of Serbia ... ludicrous." DeLay, meanwhile, voted not only against last week's House resolution authorizing Clinton to conduct the air war--which failed on a tie vote--but also in favor of legislation "directing the president ... to remove U.S. Armed Forces from their positions in connection with the present operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." When asked whether he had lobbied his colleagues to defeat the resolution authorizing the air war, as had been reported, DeLay conceded that he had "talked to a couple of members during the vote" but claimed not to have swayed anyone since it was "a vote of conscience." 4. We can't win. "I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag," warned Nickles. DeLay agreed: "He's stronger in Kosovo now than he was before the bombing. ... The Serbian people are rallying around him like never before. He's much stronger with his allies, Russians and others." Clinton "has no plan for the end" and "recognizes that Milosevic will still be in power," added DeLay. "The bombing was a mistake. ... And this president ought to show some leadership and admit it, and come to some sort of negotiated end." 5. Don't believe U.S. propaganda. On Meet the Press, Defense Secretary William Cohen argued that Yugoslavia had underestimated NATO's resolve more than NATO had underestimated Yugoslavia's, and Joint Chiefs vice chairman Gen. Joseph Ralston asserted that Milosevic "had already started his campaign of killing" before NATO intervened. Nickles dismissed both arguments. "This war is not going well," he declared. "I heard Secretary Cohen say, 'Well, Milosevic miscalculated how, you know, steadfast we would be in the bombing campaign.' But frankly ... we grossly miscalculated what Milosevic's response would be." Later, Nickles volunteered, "I would take a little issue with [what] Gen. Ralston said. ... The number of killings prior to the bombing, I think, has been exaggerated." Moreover, given NATO's desperate need to "bring Milosevic to the table," DeLay cautioned, "It is not helpful for the president's spin machine to be out there right now saying that Milosevic is weakening." The truth, said DeLay, is that "nothing has changed." 6. Give peace a chance. Cohen said it was "highly unlikely" that Clinton would meet with Milosevic in response to Yugoslavia's release of the three captured American soldiers over the weekend, since the Serbs were continuing their atrocities and weren't offering to meet NATO's conditions. DeLay called this refusal "really disappointing" and a failure of "leadership. ... The president ought to open up negotiations and come to some sort of diplomatic end." Lott implored Clinton to "give peace a chance" and, comparing the war with the recent Colorado high-school shootings, urged him to resolve the Kosovo conflict with "words, not weapons." 7. We have no choice but to compromise. Unless Clinton finds "a way to get the bombing stopped" and to "get Milosevic to pull back his troops" voluntarily, NATO faces "a quagmire ... a long, protracted, bloody war," warned Lott. Clinton "only has two choices," said DeLay--to "occupy Yugoslavia and take Milosevic out" or "to negotiate some sort of diplomatic end, diplomatic agreement in order to end this failed policy." 8. We're eager to compromise. NATO has insisted all along that Milosevic must allow a well-armed international force in Kosovo to protect the ethnic Albanians. When asked whether "the administration ought to insist" that these requirements "be met" as a condition of negotiation, DeLay twice ducked the question. Nickles advocated "a compromise," and Lott expressed interest in Yugoslavia's proposal for a "lightly armed" U.N. peacekeeping force in Kosovo rather than a fully equipped NATO force. "Surely there's wiggle room," said Lott. "Obviously, [the Serbs] don't want them heavily armed, but they've got to be armed sufficiently to protect themselves. ... So, I think something can be worked out." 9. We'll back off first. Nickles discounted the administration's demand that Yugoslavia halt its ethnic cleansing in order to halt NATO's bombardment: "Secretary Cohen says, 'Well, Mr. Milosevic has to do all these things, then we'll stop the bombing.' Tim, I strongly believe we need a simultaneous withdrawal of the Serbian aggressive forces, have a stopping of the bombing, and an insertion of international police-keeping force." Lott's formulation put NATO's withdrawal first: "Let's see if we can't find a way to get the bombing stopped, get Milosevic to pull back his troops, find a way to get the Kosovars [to] go back in." And DeLay suggested that the United States should pull out unilaterally: "When Ronald Reagan saw that he had made a mistake putting our soldiers in Lebanon ... he admitted the mistake, and he withdrew from Lebanon." Some Democrats call Republicans who make these arguments unpatriotic. Republicans reply that they're serving their country by debunking and thwarting a bad policy administered by a bad president. You can be sure of only two things: Each party is arguing exactly the opposite of what it argued the last time a Republican president led the nation into war, and exactly the opposite of what it will argue next time. http://slate.msn.com//id/27730/ |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider It doesn�t matter if statements from Kerry could possibly bolster the morale of enemy troops. Kerry, and every other leader, has an obligation to tell the public the truth. If you�re on the board of a corporation, and you can see that the CEO�s negligent policies are ruining the company, are you going to stay quiet in the next shareholders meeting when they�re electing a new CEO because you don�t want to encourage your competitors? Or do you have a fiduciary responsibility to tell your shareholders the truth of the situation so that they have the necessary information to make an informed decision when it comes to protecting their investment? Similarly, if the President has embarked upon a failing strategy that will continue to fail if no changes are made what kind of common sense dictates that we ignore the indicators of deterioration under the ridiculous assumption that criticizing a failing strategy will make the situation �worse�? If I�m a major shareholder and you ruined my portfolio by making a colossal mistake, and you�re continuing to ruin my portfolio in your next stupid strategy, it�s asinine to suggest that I�m the one who�s making the situation worse by speaking up about your incompetence. But hey, if Republicans wish to go down this route, then be my guest. But I implore you, please pick up a history book before you stick your foot in your mouth: My god the man is prophetic. Edit: Wait a minute ... did Delay really say that the Americans were responsible for the genocide??? LOL bring on the 527s!!! |
prophetic equations to two very different campaigns? i guess? reaching IMO.
let Kerry say whatever he wants. Shakka is right when he says Kerry is responsible to the people as their prophetic Commander-in-Chief.
Commander's-in-Chief do not say things like Kerry is saying.
i realize that he is campaigning, but the voters who take this very seriously are entitled to be critical.
it is a time right now (war and election) we haven't seen the likes of in over three decades. parallels abound.
Re: Are you Patrioitc or a Benedict Arnold, this is what Republicans call American.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NYCTrancefan This is the America that we live in, increasingly your patriotism is being questioned, fearmongering is the item of the day and for speaking about the truth in Iraq people are being accused of undermining the Iraqi effort. If the Iraqi effort was being done correctly there would be no need for such statements, moreover the terrorists are the one's undermining Iraq along with Iraqis who want the U.S. out last time I checked, not John Kerry patriotic Republicans, wake up. When tactics like these are associated with the Alien and Sedition Acts and the McCarthy Era its very telling. |
A patriot is someone who protects his country from enemies foreign or domestic. This would include a government. It was done to King George.
The way the media portrays a patriot is someone who doesn't question their government no matter what the issue. But question the government and you are met with ridicule and hatred at the least.
This kind of thinking has a name, it is called mass hysteria.
Join the crowd
Eat the swill
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka I'm not trying to disagree with the statement. I'm just saying that it's also silly to think that Kerry's statements will have no impact. The leader has a responsibility to be honest and forthcoming, but he should also try to convey that message while at the same time not doing anything detrimental to morale. Yes, Dubya says things in Iraq are going well--perhaps better than they really are, but he has never said that it wouldn't be a difficult task. Maintaining an upbeat tone while still being honest is much more productive than being honest and simultaneously sending a negative message. I do like to compare the government/president to a corporation, but the lines blur a bit when you broach the subject of war. I get the impression that Kerry would have us believe that Bush is the equivalent of Baghdad Bob. |
| quote: |
I would've though you were too busy dealing with the Fannie Mae fallout, Occ! They're making Freddie look like the poster child of honest accounting! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Well fine, I would agree that Kerry's statements might have an impact. But hey even though the truth may hurt, you're still better off knowing the truth than living in a lie that's only going to hurt more in the long run. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus At this point of the game its not a truth, its an opinion. Its as if team USA and team Iraq were on the basketball court and at the end of the first quarter Iraq was up 10 points. Kerry is saying Iraq is winning, there is no way in hell that team USA can win, its a catastrophe, might as well stop playing now before you get humilitated further. While Bush is saying its just the first quarter, Iraq has a good team, nobody thought this game would be easy. Give it sometime, have confidence in our players. Team USA is better, they'll win. ... Now if you were a player on Team USA, who would you prefer as a coach? |
I would want the coach that doesn't follow the Neo-con war agenda.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X Except the thing that's missing in your analogy is that while you are trying to finish your game, the other side is recruiting an ever increasing player population. Many of their new recruits have seen their friends and family members blown to pieces during the game and are very willing to die in order to defeat you in the next round. |
Iraq: Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW) Swamp
G. I. Wilson
March 10, 2004
Iraq is fast becoming a fourth generation warfare swamp. The attacks on Shiite shrines in Baghdad and Karbala, killing and wounding hundreds, portends more of the same. These coordinated attacks signal a change in the very nature of the insurgency itself. Iraqi terrorists (both foreign fighters and indigenous) are waging symbolic and ideological warfare against the U.S., Coalition Forces, and segments of the Iraqi people.
These terrorists remain elusive and often effective in their attacks. Improvised explosive devises and suicide bombers take their toll on both Iraqis and U.S. troops. Determining with specificity what factions are precipitating this violence is no easy task.
Paul Bremer, U.S. administrator of Iraq, believes the violence aimed at Iraqis comes from foreign threats outside the country of Iraq. Gen. John Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee that foreign operatives continue to infiltrate across the Syrian and Iranian borders. The coordination among foreign interlopers, indigenous opportunists, Islamic extremists, and remnants of the Saddam regime is quite remarkable.
Remarkable in the sense the insurgents have both secular and religious components. The secular group has its origin in remnants of the Ba'athist loyalists. The religious group ties are with the foreign jihadists who came to Iraq to fight the great Satan�United States. These foreign interlopers or jihadists are most likely the trainers of terrorist cells and suicide bombers inside Iraq.
Iraq�s fourth generation foes appear at times to be everywhere in the region connected not only by family, clan, and ethnic ties but the Internet as well. This 4GW foe has no desire to make peace but rather is attempting to increase casualties as fast as possible during this next troop rotation. This 4GW adversary transcends borders and the nation-state paradigm. While Saddam Hussein loyalists press to destabilization Iraq, an irregular network of foreign and local terrorists in association Islamic extremists are creating internal strife and conflict.
All conflict in Iraq for U.S. forces and the Iraqis is now local. We must prepare and be willing to encounter these 4GW adversaries in all their shapes and guises. The situation is growing more complex resulting in a pugilistic witch's brew and hurly burly stew in the offing. For example, it has been reported in the open press that Hamas has an office in Nasariah, and Hezbollah has offices in Basra and Safwan. The political wings of both Hamas and Hezbollah are recruiting Iraqi youth with seminars that embrace their ideology and terrorist nature.
Terrorists' tactics and the nature of the insurgency are changing. This is characteristic of fourth generation warfare. One striking aspect of these fourth generation terrorist groups is their ability to adapt, transform and reappear. We must not lose sight of the fact that our fourth generation adversaries are constantly adapting changing as Islamic terror networks fan out seeking fertile new ground to foment discontent in places with weak authorities, lack of Iraqi security forces, shifting alliances, and endemic corruption associated with criminal enterprises.
We are beginning to see more attacks in Iraq focusing on the emerging Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi people themselves. The number of attacks on U.S. forces appears to be declining somewhat indicating that insurgent forces are focusing less on U.S. troops but rather on Iraqis who support the coalition forces, or people working for the new government. The situation remains problematic.
Foreign fighters are continuing to infiltrate across the Syrian and Iranian borders. Part of the threat is being attributed to extremists. Nevertheless, expect collaboration among Iraqi extremists, foreign terrorists, and Saddam loyalists (remnants of the regime�s intelligence service and Fedayeen). The desire to create internal turmoil cannot be overlooked.
For example, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is carrying on a fourth generation campaign inside Iraq, as described in a letter purportedly written by al-Zarqawi and intercepted by U.S. intelligence. The letter outlined plans to attack Shiite religious sites to foment a civil war.
The fourth generation foe in the Iraqi region is more likely to be known by his ideology than by his national origin or geographic connection as defined by nation-states. He is defined by his affinity for destructive ideologies or intentions. To this enemy, structures emblematic of globalizing influence become high-value targets. As the anti-occupation threat diminishes, other dangerous fourth generation groups lurk in the swamp.
There are ambiguous assortments of terrorist and fundamentalist groups whose organization; reach, network structure, and origins are difficult to define. The fundamentalists include followers of the Wahabbi sect of Islam, mujahedeen forces committed to a holy war against the West; and imams who preach anti-Western messages in Iraqi mosques. These groups mixed with foreign terrorists such as al-Qa'ida and Ansar al-Islam, and Iraqi Kurds compose a very dangerous enemy, which threatens the stability of Iraq.
This enemy cannot be overcome by simply killing them. Their deaths mean martyrdom. Where they fall, dozens or hundreds spring up to take their places. They cannot be overcome solely through firepower attrition, because all death caused by the West accrue to this enemy's benefit, proving their thesis that annihilation is still King in all struggles for power. Waging conflict with massive firepower and high technology are the hallmark of the great Satan to them.
As in all conflict the aftermath is not pretty and we need to recognize with Iraq that "the baby is ugly". We have violated General Zinni's twenty principles* of humanitarian operations. However, we still have a window of opportunity to make a dramatic difference if we work hard at creating Iraqi jobs, get Iraqi security forces firmly in place, establish venues for free press, provide extensive internet and media access to the Iraqi people, enhance the infrastructure, and control the borders of Iraq.
If the United States plans on Iraq to be the keystone in the region, then it needs well-controlled and monitored borders. Once Iraq�s borders are secure, Iraq can serve as the balancing centerpiece for the region. Controlling the borders of Iraq will be demanding but represents another way point necessary for exiting Iraq. Securing the borders will focus attention on such countries as Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran. No doubt Saudi Arabia will find itself in an uncomfortable position but one the U.S. cannot ignore either.
The next 13 months will determine the path Iraq will ultimately pursue. The volatile concoction of resistive Kurds in the north, assertive Shiites in the south and embittered Sunni Muslims in between, exacerbated by the presence of foreign interlopers, has all the potential for an internal explosion. Hopefully terrorist and fundamentalist factions will not turn Iraq into a fourth generation warfare swamp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://vader.mindtel.com/strongangel/Documents/ Go to the bottom of that page and click on the link "Zinni's Twenty Rules." It's a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet (15K)
� 2004 G.I. Wilson. All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com.
G.I. Wilson is a retired a Marine Corps Reserve Colonel with over 30 years of military service and 7 years combined civilian law enforcement and emergency services experience. He is widely published in military journals and has appeared in TV documentaries on warfare. He consults for ABC-7 Los Angles, Knowledge and Intelligence Program Professionals (KIPP) , M2 Technologies, Employer Support of the Guard & Reserve (ESGR) , Emergency Response Research Institute (ERRI) , and is President of the Board of Directors for Bossov Ballet Theatre.
Col GI Wilson, USMCR, was a co-author of the original paper on fourth generation warfare.
>>>Source<<<
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C82790%2C00.html
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/9593310.htm
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0...1044612,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...004Jun27_3.html
http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5351
Bush: Reckless Endangerment
BTW - Sorry for the threadjack, NYTrancefan!
So the Iraqi insurgents who are setting off carbombs and other explosive devices in the city, killing more innocent iraqis than Americans have in the entire war, are they seen as martyrs as well? Is their cause just?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by BadBadNeil Is their cause just? |
i guess that shit has to be stopped then
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus Now if you were a player on Team USA, who would you prefer as a coach? |
Here's an article that's right on point.
| quote: |
Investors Business Daily Monday, September 27, 2004 http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues.asp?v=9/22 Insulting A Friend Politics: Sen. John Kerry and his crew have proved Sen. Zell Miller right. They really will say anything to get elected, even if that means undermining a courageous ally and greasing the skids to defeat in Iraq. It was the renegade Democrat Miller who roused the 2004 Republican convention and raised the ire of the taste police with lines like these: "Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief." Strong stuff. At the time, even some on the GOP side suggested that Miller had gone too far. But after the events of the past week, we're wondering if he might not have gone far enough. That "manic obsession" described by Miller has so consumed Kerry and his campaign aides that they don't seem to care how much harm they do to the national interest or to America's allies. One of those allies, maybe the most important one at this point, is Iraq's interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. Allawi is a true hero, a man who has stepped forward for the hazardous mission of forming an effective Iraqi government and shepherding the nation toward democracy. Terrorists have marked him for death. Even critics of President Bush's policies owe Allawi some respect. They owe him support as well. If he fails, Iraq would slide closer to chaos, and the danger to U.S. troops and civilians would rise accordingly. Whether the goal is to win or just get out unscathed, it would be harder to achieve. So how did the Democratic presidential nominee show his respect and support for Allawi? By snubbing his Thursday speech to Congress (along with a number of other Democrats) and, as soon as it ended, calling him little better than a liar and a lap dog. It was an insult as ignoble as Kerry's description of the coalition allies as "the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted." In his speech, Allawi said the situation in Iraq is less chaotic than news reports make it seem, and the country should be able to hold national elections as scheduled in January. Kerry, who has pegged his campaign on persuading the American people that the Iraq war is an unwinnable fiasco, couldn't let such optimism go unchallenged, even when it came from a man who actually lives in Iraq. So he suggested, not so subtly, that Allawi was bending the truth just to give Bush a boost. "The prime minister and the president are here obviously to put their best face on the (Iraq) policy," he said, "but the fact is that the CIA estimates, reporting, the ground operations and the troops all tell a different story." That was "relatively restrained," as Los Angeles Times' Ron Brownstein noted, in comparison to what some Kerry aides were suggesting. Brownstein quoted one of them, senior adviser Joe Lockhart, as saying of the courageous Allawi: "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." What might Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and our other enemies make of such comments? Kerry and Lockhart have played into their hands. To the extent that the Kerry campaign's view of Allawi gets around in Iraq, it will weaken the prime minister's government. It's never helpful to a leader to be seen as anyone's puppet, yet here's Kerry and his crew calling Allawi just that. Are we saying that the Kerry campaign is deliberately seeking to undermine Allawi, destabilize Iraq, embolden terrorists and bring about a U.S. defeat? No. But Kerry's insulting treatment of a key ally shows him to be irresponsible, graceless and obsessively bent on winning office at all costs. Three little words come to mind: unfit to serve. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by imokruok One of those allies, maybe the most important one at this point, is Iraq's interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. Allawi is a true hero, a man who has stepped forward for the hazardous mission of forming an effective Iraqi government and shepherding the nation toward democracy. Terrorists have marked him for death. Even critics of President Bush's policies owe Allawi some respect. |
| quote: |
According to former CIA officers, Allawi's INA organised terrorist attacks in Iraq between 1992 and 1995, allegedly including the bombing of a cinema and a school bus that killed school children. This campaign never posed a threat to Saddam Hussein's rule, but was designed to test INA's capability to effect regime change. |
| quote: |
| A former Ba'athist, Allawi set up and leads the CIA-supported Iraqi National Accord which carried out bombings in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the INA provided intelligence about alleged weapons of mass destruction to MI6. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.