hey xfer or anyone for that matter

[xfer]

What I suspect they're going to try to do is take a kernel of truth and expand it tremendously.

For example, there is an Iraq/al-Qaeda connexion--but it's extremely tenuous, and not anything like the Administration's made it seem. al-Qaeda does have ties with Ansar al-Islam, and Saddam has funded Ansar al-Islam against his enemies in the north (secular Kurds, et cetera). That hardly adheres to the image of Saddam pouring money into al-Qaeda which immediately gets spent on bombs aimed at Americans in New York City, but it's enough that the phrase "al-Qaeda and Saddam were 100% unconnected" is not really true.

So they'll probably use that, and talk about how Saddam would have passed al-Qaeda a nuke if they managed to develop one, and blah blah blah.

 

[NAD]

The sad truth is that Bush is even a bad conservative. His only real supporters at this point are knee-jerk Republicans who would support a GOP child molestor over a Democrat. And the people they have successfully fooled.

It's true, I'm pretty conservative and I hate Bush.

 

[goatschool]

it's even simpler than that:

blitzer on CNN, to jim bartlett (US communications director): "9/11 panel just said etc, does this undermine president bush's stance"

bartlett: "absolutely not, wolf! president bush made it very clear that there was no specific 9/11 connection, but that doesn't mean saddam didn't have al-qaeda connections or dealings w/ terrorists."

blitzer: "so wait, jim, are you saying that mr bush would agree with the 9/11 panel findings that there was no connection between saddam and 9/11 and any other al-qaeda dealings??"

bremer: "yes, mr bush made it very clear that there was no connection blah blah blah and hey, saddam was a terrible person and he killed his own people and he was an awful awful man"

the intervew ends with a joke about the weather in iraq, how cool it will be on bartlett's 747 waiting in the background, and blitzer sending his "warmest regards to the the president"

...

 

[xfer]

 

[goatschool]

interviewing rep (william harrod) from that ex-admin panel and he's expounding that he is a republican and supports republicans.

meanwhile this is in the middle of some sort of debate between him and danielle pletka, of the american enterprise group. she's ANGRY

 

[goatschool]

harrod: "quite frankly we don't believe this administration is capable of changing the direction of foreign relations"

she's PISSED and trying to point out they are pro-kerry. he readily agrees.

 

[goatschool]

harrop

 

[xfer]

trollope

 

[xfer]

The CNN.com poll RIGHT NOW, while the headline screams "No Iraq/al-Q Connection to 9/11":

"Do you think al Qaeda and Iraq cooperated to attack the U.S. on 9/11?"

Yes 31%
No 69%

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST. And some of my GOP friends STILL insist that Bush & Co. didn't purposely try to mislead the public about a Saddam-Osama connection for 9/11!!!

 

[xfer]

Front page, motherfuckers:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/bush.criticism/index.html

 

[goatschool]

alex, to your knowledge, has anything comparable to this happened before?

i guess i'm asking in modern-contemp US history

 

[xfer]

I think Iran-Contra was the most comparable in recent history...I really would like to read a book about I-C at some point, because I'm criminally underinformed in that area.

And what did Iran-Contra lead to? Ronald of Reagan being canonized upon his death and widely considered one of the five greatest Presidents of all time while trying to muscle FDR off the dime?

I just got back from Control Room, a documentary about al-Jazeera's coverage of the Iraq war, and it made think for a moment about how cool it would be if Bush was handed a defeat at the polls in November. The Arab world would take satisfaction in seeing the downfall of the Administration they've come to hate, but at the same time learn a real, powerful lesson in how a democracy works: you can fire your leaders if they suck. It would probably do more to advance the cause of democratization across the Middle East than any other single thing I can think of.

 

[lizard]

fuck democracy in Iraq; it isn't going to happen. I read an article yesterday about how the guy who's gonna be the new leader will most likely be implementing a moderate arabic govt somewhat like Jordan.

Iran Contra is only somewhat comparable in that it was a secret illegal program, whereas this Iraq thing was a deliberate misleading of the american people into a war for is clearly only for corporate interests. I'm no fan of Reagan but at least his people were doing it for an ideology, not ideology + cash.

To me even more intriguing is the theory that the Reagan Bush campaign conspired with the Iranians to delay the hostage release until after the election.

 

[xfer]

I'm not so sure about democracy in Iraq not happening. I think it's easy to group Iraqis in with Afghans and Saudis and the like, but the truth is that Iraqis are, in general, an educated, cultural, and advanced people with a history of modernized success. Afghan democracy is doomed to fail, I think; that country has been a shitty backwater for thousands of years, and will continue to be a shitty backwater for a very long time. But Iraq is different. I think the culture is ready for democracy on one level, and even if they have to do it in a somewhat different way than the one we envision, I believe they will democratize in the forseeable future.

I grew up thinking it was common knowledge that Reagan-Bush conspired to delay the hostage release, because I asked my parents why Reagan was bad when I was a kid and that's one of the reasons they told me. I'm not sure if it has merit now, but I didn't even question that it had occurred until I was in my teens.

 

[lizard]

well my actual prediction is that, as soon as we pull our military out, the whole iraqi nation will collapse in a three way civil war between the sunnis, the shiites, and the kurds kicking back defending their corner.

 

[xfer]

It depends on how well the UN fulfills their military obligations. Judging by history, not well.

However, would a civil war really be the end of Iraq democracy? An independent Kurdistan is almost desirable, and would certainly follow the mode of secular democracy. The Sunnis might follow suit. The Shiites might descend into psychotic Islamism, but two out of three ain't bad.

 

[goatschool]

iran will take/absorb a share

 

[xfer]

Iran Massing Troops On Iraq Border
http://www.maarivintl.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=8591

 

[mindspell]

However, would a civil war really be the end of Iraq democracy? An independent Kurdistan is almost desirable, and would certainly follow the mode of secular democracy. The Sunnis might follow suit. The Shiites might descend into psychotic Islamism, but two out of three ain't bad.

Kurdistan will not happen only because of Turkey. They don't want anything to do with a Kurd state and will fight for it not to happen.

 

[goatschool]

I think Iran-Contra was the most comparable in recent history...I really would like to read a book about I-C at some point, because I'm criminally underinformed in that area.

yeah. i think i was more asking about a consolidated effort to dislodge someone because of something so drastic, but but