[…] Iraqis For McCain …who was browsing through second-hand books and magazines. “I trust the Republicans more. They’re more capable of establishing democracy in… […]
Iraqis are no dummies. They have suffered a lot with Saddam Hussein and all the terrorists. Now, they appreciate American way of living. They enjoy democracy, freedom and rights. They want to make sure that their country is strong enough before the U.S. leaves. They know that if Obama wins, he will leave them on their own. The terrorists would come running right back to destroy all those great efforts and achievements. Obama has to lose this election for the sake of the whole wide world.
OBAMA MANSION’S, SADDAM’S MONEY
Daniel Pipes
October 29, 2008
“Barack Obama appears to have personally benefited from funds originating in Saddam Hussein’s regime. It’s a complicated connection, but one that deserves the consideration of Americans voters.”
From what Ali and Mohammed are saying about Turkey, I’m guessing they are Kurds. The tribal Kurds have been getting a raw deal in the Middle-East for centuries.
Terrorists did very badly under Bush administration, and it would be the same with McCain.
“I have failed to liberate Iraq, and transform its society into an Islamic society.”
Moqtada al-Sadr (March 20.2008)
HERE IS A DOCUMENT concerning the Surge in Iraq, produced by the Al Qaeda organization, that was intercept by the Americain Army:
“There were almost 600 fighters in our sector before the tribes changed course 360 degrees . . . Many of our fighters quit and some of them joined the deserters . . . As a result of that the number of fighters dropped down to 20 or less. We were mistreated, cheated and betrayed by some of our brothers who used to be part of the Jihadi movement. We lost cities and afterward, villages… We find ourselves in a wasteland desert.
The Islamic State of Iraq [al-Qaeda] is faced with an extraordinary crisis, especially in al-Anbar province. Al-Qaeda’s expulsion from Anbar created weakness and psychological defeat. This also created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight. The morale of the fighters went down and they wanted to be transferred to administrative positions rather than be fighters. There was a total collapse in the security structure of the organisation.”
(AP) — The Bush administration’s hopes for sealing a security deal with Iraq while in office are fading as Iraqis demand changes to a draft text that some U.S. officials consider unacceptable.
“The window for any kind of discussions, negotiations is rapidly coming to a close,” State Department spokesman Robert Wood said Thursday.
Wood said officials continue to review the Iraqi proposal for changes, but he repeated the administration’s insistence that the existing draft is a “good text.”
U.S. spokesmen insist that an agreement governing American troops in Iraq is still possible by the end of the year. At the same time, administration officials are troubled by the proposed Iraqi amendments to a text U.S. negotiators had thought was complete. Those amendments include broader Iraqi jurisdiction over U.S. forces and the elimination of a clause that would let them stay after a tentative 2011 deadline.
Even if compromises can be found on those issues, there is still no guarantee that the Iraqi parliament will approve the so-called Status of Forces Agreement. Failure to bridge the gaps would leave two options: Extend the U.N. mandate beyond its Dec. 31 expiration date or suspend all U.S. operations in Iraq.
I know they are there Leah, I didn’t say they weren’t. I spent time in Turkey. My point was the Kurds always seemed to get a raw deal because IMHO they do. Of all the people in Iraq, they have the most valid reasons for fearing both Iraqis and Turks. Especially those along the Iraq/Turkey border, as they were often attacked by both sides. Turks fly over bombing their villages and Saddam Hussein used them for chemical warfare test subjects. Many mass burial sites we found when we went in were in the Kurdish tribal areas. Kurds have a tendancy to distrust outsiders because they have a history of being preyed upon. The Kurds are technologically-challenged and viewed as a Middle-East verison of “hill-billies”. Nomadic Kurdish tribesmen still use flintlocks and single shot rifles to protect themselves. In his book, “The Ark Of Noah”, David Fasold supplied excellent insight on the Kurdish tribess he encountered while roaming the Ararat mountain ranges of Turkey and Iraq in his search.
After the Liberation of Iraq War, both the Shiites and the Sunnis tried to block Kurds from having a voice in the government. That was why Biden suggested the country be divided into three seperate states. Segregation was a really dumb idea. As bad as it was the last century for America with Southern Democrats suggesting, “Seperate But Equal” concepts as a solution to the Civil Rights movement. As soon as American forces would have been drawn out, Turks, Sunnis, and Shiites would have moved their forces against the Kurds to eliminate them and take their land.
The Kurds are better off when they can mingle with the general populous and disappear into crowds. Not with a country of their own which would be a frequent target for extinction or taken over to be used as hiding places by terrorist factions. After the War, Shiite and Sunni factions were quick to get to work drafting a new Constitution excluding the Kurds. America should be lauded for holding firm that democracy in a future Iraq should have equal government three-party representation to encourage co-operative efforts and “crossing the aisle” to get measures passed.
I know about the Kurds and how they are the “hillbillies” of Turkey – I lived there, Rocky. But don’t take this as me trying to disprove you, because you’re completely right. Perhaps it was the way I was taught or because I was mainly in the crowds of Turks, but I never looked at a Kurd sympathetically before. One of them approached me – I’ll never forget it; it was a few years back when I went to visit there, and I could not understand a single word he was saying. He didn’t look like he belonged in the “normal” society of other Turks. I see what you’re saying perfectly clear.
What were you in Turkey for?
Suggesting segregation of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds just goes to show you the backward and erroneous way that Biden thinks.
Leah;
I was there in support of OPERATION: NORTHERN WATCH. And also had the opportunity to go into town from time to time. So we are on the same wavelength.
(AP)–Iraq wants to eliminate any chance U.S. forces will stay here after 2011 under a proposed security pact and to expand Iraqi legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops until then, a close ally of the prime minister said Thursday.
Those demands, which were presented to U.S. officials this week, could derail the deal — delivering a diplomatic blow to Washington in the final weeks of the Bush administration.
…
Also, Maliki stated yesterday:
“We don’t call it a security pact but an agreement to withdraw the troops and organize their activities during the period of their presence in Iraq.”
Also, Gen. Odierno, stated yesterday, “there is a 20 percent to 30 percent chance” the US and Iraq will reach an agreement.
Funny how they don’t respond when someone finally posts to them. I picture a bunch of zombies, posting messages that may or may not have a hint of something to do with the topic, but everything to do with discouraging Obama’s opposition. Hopefully, this one just moves along.
[…] Iraqis For McCain [Flopping Aces] …at the University of Baghdad, referring to the vine-swinging strongman of the jungle in old Hollywood movies. … “I trust the Republicans… […]
What a load of crap. Three guys want McShame to win, and the headline of the story is “Iraqis for McCain”? More like “Three Iraqis for McCain” What besides these three guys is the headline based on? The grasping for something, anything around here is hilarious.
Kathleen Parker also wrote a column last March entitled “Iraqis for McCain.” In the column she tells of an Iraqi reporter she had met and corresponded with for a number of months, Mayada al-Askari and this is what Parker write that the Iraqi reporter had to say:
“Today she insists that Iraqis who are not Baathist hope that McCain wins the election for one simple reason: “The man knows the job that has to be done in Iraq. If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq now or anytime soon, then that will mean one thing: al-Qaeda won the war.”
She points out that for the first time since Iraq’s monarchy was toppled in 1958, the country has a parliament, a free press, jobs, a true identity “and a better understanding toward where the country should be heading.”
The sectarian divide, meanwhile, is an artificial schism created by al-Qaeda and other non-Iraqis, she says. Many Iraqis are like Mayada, a Sunni, who have married across sectarian lines.
Says Mayada: “When you ask the young people of Iraq — what are you, a Sunni or a Shiite? — the ready answer is: I am an Iraqi.”
There may be a way to safely withdraw troops sometime in the near future, but as McCain insisted in his Wednesday speech to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles, premature departure would be “an unconscionable act of betrayal,” as well as a political gamble with stakes too high to consider.”
So, selective anecdotes from three Iraqis who “support” McCain and two who support Obama adds up to “Iraqis for McCain” in your mind? Is this the kind of intellectual rigor that represents today’s American right, or what?
@ben: Why not, Ben? After all, a single soldier voicing support for Obama is empirical evidence that the military has swung away from Republicans, right?
[…] Iraqis For McCain …to them, and they say that if they could, they would vote for Republican candidate John McCain in next week’s US presidential election. […]
So Iraqi support Mccain cause of Turkey and Iranian military strength, they are idiots, there is nothing to worry about Iran and Turkey. What Iraqis have to worry about is their economy . national resilience and national national security, even national defence stem from strong economic fundamental … not from insignificant Mccain … 🙂
Brandon;
You’re are obviously ill informed, or someone has spiked your kool-aid. Don’t hurt yourself making blanket statements about subjects you know nothing about and are not factually based.
Iran still holds a grudge against Iraq for the 1980-1988 Iran/Iraq War. Perhaps that slipped your mind. The Iran Shia’s constantly send insurgents into Iraq. They wanted Iraq to become solely a Shite Nation. Saddam was backed by the Bath Party Sunnis. And like I said above neither the Shites nor the Sunnis like the Kurds very much, nor do the Turks. Our Democrats demands to pull out our forces cause a lot of fear amongst the Iraqi people. Had we done so, their struggling new Democracy would have fallen apart or soon have been at the mercy of invading forces from neighboring countries Iran, Turkey, or Syria. Invasion and their current security strengths are the largest current threats to their national security. In the Middle-East any destabilization or weakness of fellow nations encourages others to try to take them over. Turkey may be an ally of ours, but they are no different. They would rather take Iraq over for themselves than let it fall to another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War
Their economy is the least of their concerns. The people are now seeing benefits from oil sales that formerly only went to make Saddam’s dictatorship more powerful and oppressive and kept his people in poverty.
An Obama presidency concerns them. Especially after his recent visit when he tried to talk their Prime Minister into stalling any troop pullout agreements until after the election as it would have been better for Obama’s campaign. That BHO holds his own political future more important than his own country’s best interests gives Iraqis the message he can’t be trusted. They don’t trust Obama, why do so many of you Dems?
McCain at least understands how a strong military security works. Iraqis would certainly sleep better with him in charge.
November 02, 2008
Letter to Christopher Hitchens from a longtime Iraqi friend
By Ayad Rahim
Dear Christopher,
I was dismayed and profoundly disappointed — and, on reflection, felt betrayed — when I heard that you endorsed Barack Obama for president of the United States.
For the 20-plus years I have known you, you have been nothing but generous towards me, and I am very fond of you and grateful for your friendship. Our main points of convergence have been my native Iraq, journalism, atheism and our roots in the Left. Your early detection of the nature of Saddam’s fascist rule and your principled and stalwart advocacy for the liberation of Iraq – among many other views and insights, clearly and elegantly expressed — have drawn me to you and deepened my admiration and respect.
It is over Iraq, Christopher, that I feel betrayed by you. Mr. Obama, in particular — and the Democrats and news media in general — have campaigned for the past several years on Iraq as a dirty word; the essence of the Democrats’ and the media’s specious (and thinly veiled) argument has been, “Afghanistan, good; Iraq, bad.”
As I know you fully comprehend, deposing Saddam — and liberating Iraq — was the sine qua non of our response to 9/11 — and that Iraq is far more important than Afghanistan; and Saddam, more important than bin Laden. (I’m amused — and bemused — by the oft-repeated call for a near-total shift of emphasis to Afghanistan and/or Pakistan — if not a complete shift — and by the prevalent belief that capturing or killing bin Laden is the primary goal in the war that 9/11 launched, and that doing so would end our troubles with Arab fascism – the actual source of the terrorism we face, rather than Islam/Muslims.)
In fact, as you well remember, in the days and weeks after 9/11, the question of the day was whether to topple Saddam, first, or the Taliban; indeed, on the afternoon of 9/11 — several hours after the attacks — Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told aides, “Look at Iraq.” Meanwhile, the man you’re supporting responded to the attacks, that same day, by calling for us to resolve our differences through the courts.
You and I know that toppling Saddam was essential, and not only for the many Saddam connections you and I know of to 9/11; his likely sponsorship of the first attempt to topple the Twin Towers, in 1993 (with the biggest bomb in American history, which was laced with cyanide); Saddam’s other acts and support of terrorism; his WMD use and capabilities (being the first ruler to use them — aside from Hitler’s gas chambers — since the 1920s); his genocidal campaigns; Iraq’s outlaw status; his invasions of neighboring countries and threat to the region; the tenuous state of war in which we were locked with Saddam after his invasion of Kuwait; and the freedom deficit of the Arab world. Saddam, as you are fully aware, was the most fascist and extreme ruler — and the Iraq he ruled, the most rotten country — of a rotted, terrorist Arab order – and that is, simply put, the ultimate cause of 9/11. That bottleneck had to be unlocked. I know that none of this is news to you.
Obama, the Democrats and the media, on the other hand, have shown no such understanding; quite the opposite — they’ve escaped from any such notions, and have, instead, made Iraq “the bad war” — in fact, boasting of their opposition to Saddam’s ouster — or, as it’s commonly called, “the Iraq war.”
Nor am I alone, Christopher. You’ve probably seen opinion polls from other countries, showing that Iraq is among the few whose populations favor McCain over Obama (others being Israel, Georgia and the Philippines, all countries that have recently faced terrorism).
As we’ve seen with Iraq, the propaganda — or, to put it more charitably, the reporting in bad faith and the cynical posturing of politicians, pundits and professors — has been very effective, to the point that most people, and especially elite opinion, not only think that it was wrong to topple Saddam, but that it was immoral, illegal — the original sin — that it has been a disaster (why, it’s commonly accepted that more Iraqis have died per annum since Saddam than under Saddam), and that it had nothing to do with 9/11.
So, in this Orwellian world — where good (America’s role in the world, for example) is evil, where right (for instance, toppling Saddam) is wrong — I would expect you, a fellow contrarian, and a scholar of Orwell (by the way, when I interviewed you for my radio show about 9/11 and the Arab world, three years ago, I introduced you “as the George Orwell of our age”), to have been more skeptical of, and seen through, the fairy-tale narrative that Mr. Obama and his camp have constructed for his life. I would also think you would show more skepticism of the quasi-religious campaign and the “believing” devotees seeking a redeemer.
I’ve lived with, and observed, the workings of propaganda among Iraqis and Arabs, my entire life. I’ve now watched it in operation in the United States, and I can assure you, propaganda is far more effective in a free and democratic society, than it is in a dictatorship — and, today, we are reaping the harvest of an essential component of propaganda, demonization
* * * * *
In your endorsement of Obama, you pointed to the candidates’ personalities, rather than issues, as the main reason for your decision; as a main exhibit, you cited the previous occupant of the White House, about whom you authored a book titled “No One Left to Lie To.”
Meanwhile, the aspirant you support has lied about his meetings, dealings and friendship with Antoine Rezko; has lied about his knowledge of Jeremiah Wright’s views; has lied about his relationship and work with a Marxist pedagogue and bomber (as was his wife); has lied about his work with, and support for, ACORN (an organization being investigated in multiple cases of massive voter fraud, and 17 of whose employees have been convicted or indicted of voter fraud); has lied about his statements regarding meeting with Iran’s rulers (and what type of message would it send to the overwhelming majority of Iranians — whom you and I support — who yearn for freedom, if we elect a man eager to meet with the rulers who are an embarrassment to Iranians); has lied about his positions on “the surge” in Iraq; has lied about his reasons for voting against funding for the troops (having previously pledged he wouldn’t vote against such funding); has lied about his votes on legislation to provide medical care to a baby born after a “botched” abortion; and has even lied about his maternal grandmother’s work – she was, in fact, a factory manager, and, for most of her life, a banker.
On top of all of that, he has kept significant portions of his life and background, hidden from public view. To borrow from the title of your book, Is there nothing left to lie about?
You’ve spoken, frequently of the so-called church that Obama belonged to and its former leader’s America-blaming, Afro-centric and bigoted preachings. However, you invariably make excuses for Obama, pinning it, instead, on his wife.
Why would you seek to excuse that when Obama joined the “church” years before his wife (it appears, entirely for cynical political purposes); has called Jeremiah Wright his mentor, adviser and close friend; and said, “I don’t think my church is particularly controversial.”
Then, after Obama’s “major” speech on race, you related that it used to be said of a certain type of politician, that he is so unscrupulous, he would even throw his own grandmother under the bus — and that Obama had figuratively done just that (by equating her “bigotry” to Wright’s).
Finally, there is the Saddam-Obama connection. You, Christopher, are one of the few people who have brought up the connection of Obama financier Antoine Rezko to Nadhmi Auchi, one of Saddam’s chief arms merchants. As I’m sure you know, it appears that Rezko was, basically, one of Auchi’s “bag men,” tasked with buying access and politicians — of which, no doubt, Mr. Obama was a prime target. To put it plainly, Rezko was playing with Auchi’s money (which he got from Saddam, who pilfered it from Iraqis), to do what Saddam did to all of Iraq, throughout the Middle East and around the world – buy politicians, journalists and others. Again, you know all of this, Christopher.
* * * * *
From what I’ve heard and read, Christopher, it appears you are supporting Obama primarily for three reasons: McCain’s temperament, Obama’s intelligence, and Palin’s faith.
About McCain, I know the other side has been painting him as erratic and short-tempered. I cannot speak to those traits. However, this is a person we know in full, whose life is an open book (which cannot be said of his opponent), and what we do know is that he is a fighter, courageous, experienced, strog, honorable, loyal, practical and man of character – not to mention, that he has a clear-eyed view of the world, and what we face.
As for Obama, no doubt, appearing “cool” and calm – and not frightening – has been a key goal of his camp, and, it appears, he has “pulled off” that trick.
In praising Obama’s intelligence, you’ve said that he shows great promise for growth. That may be – he has certainly exhibited discipline (in “staying on message” and remaining focused on his goal); he also reads a speech well.
However, he hasn’t exhibited some basic values that most Americans value. Generally, we tend to prefer our leaders to be truly proud of America, not to be ashamed of its power, military and influence, not to be embarrassed that we cannot say more than “merci beaucoups” in French, to favor a U.S. foreign policy over a United Nations, one-world, Third-Worldist view of the world, and to fully embrace the free enterprise system. In other words, to be patriotic. (I’ll share a little secret with you – when I was a Leftie, and blaming America for most of the world’s ills, I, like Senator Obama, refused to salute the U.S. flag.)
Would prefer a weaker America, with a completely different role in the world than it has occupied for several generations, when you fully know that America is the only power with the willingness to liberate an Iraq. Under Obama, such an America would no longer exist – an America with that view of itself.
I guess, though it really all comes down to faith.
As you know, I share your disbelief in gods and goddesses, but, surely, it cannot be God/”god,” uber alles — there must be other, earthly issues at stake, too.
I’ve been surrounded by faith, my whole life, and I know how oppressive it can be, but I’ve seen how tolerant and magnanimous you are with others’ views. Isn’t that what you and I seek, in a liberal order?
By the way, as I’ve moved from “Left” to “Right,” over the past 15 years, I’ve witnessed and experienced less bigotry and more tolerance and open-mindedness on the right, than I did on the Left.
Turning to Governor Palin, who appears to be the main focus of your displeasure, first, she personifies, better than most, the classic “don’t tread on me” American, and has not imposed her faith, or tenets thereof, on the public – in other words, is not, as you described such people, a theocratic bully.
Second, you described Palin as anti-science, citing her apparent opposition to funding a study on fruit flies and another, on the DNA of grizzly bears. To begin with, you did not say that the sought-after funding was from the government, and, as you know, there are very good reasons for refusing government funds for something that could be done just as well – if not more efficiently – through the private sector. Then, the fact that a person believes in gods or goddesses does not prevent him or her from supporting science, nor does it prevent him or her from supporting the liberation of people, regardless of their beliefs, faiths, or lack thereof.
Your arguments against her beg the question: Are we going to disparage (and maybe disqualify from public office) anybody who isn’t an atheist or a pure rationalist — or, for that matter, anyone who has a belief system different than our own? To bring this to what we both agree is the paramount issue of our time, does atheism trump terrorism? Does ideology trump human life and freedom of belief?
In your endorsement of Obama, you pointed to the candidates’ personalities, rather than issues, as the main reason for your decision; as a main exhibit, you cited the previous occupant of the White House, about whom you authored a book titled “No One Left to Lie To.”
Meanwhile, the aspirant you support has lied about his meetings, dealings and friendship with Antoine Rezko; has lied about his knowledge of Jeremiah Wright’s views; has lied about his relationship and work with a Marxist pedagogue and bomber (as was his wife); has lied about his work with, and support for, ACORN (an organization being investigated in multiple cases of massive voter fraud, and 17 of whose employees have been convicted or indicted of voter fraud); has lied about his statements regarding meeting with Iran’s rulers (and what type of message would it send to the overwhelming majority of Iranians — whom you and I support — who yearn for freedom, if we elect a man eager to meet with the rulers who are an embarrassment to Iranians); has lied about his positions on “the surge” in Iraq; has lied about his reasons for voting against funding for the troops (having previously pledged he wouldn’t vote against such funding); has lied about his votes on legislation to provide medical care to a baby born after a “botched” abortion; and has even lied about his maternal grandmother’s work – she was, in fact, a factory manager, and, for most of her life, a banker.
On top of all of that, he has kept significant portions of his life and background, hidden from public view. To borrow from the title of your book, Is there nothing left to lie about?
and
I guess, though it really all comes down to faith.
As you know, I share your disbelief in gods and goddesses, but, surely, it cannot be God/”god,” uber alles — there must be other, earthly issues at stake, too.
I’ve been surrounded by faith, my whole life, and I know how oppressive it can be, but I’ve seen how tolerant and magnanimous you are with others’ views. Isn’t that what you and I seek, in a liberal order?
By the way, as I’ve moved from “Left” to “Right,” over the past 15 years, I’ve witnessed and experienced less bigotry and more tolerance and open-mindedness on the right, than I did on the Left.
Turning to Governor Palin, who appears to be the main focus of your displeasure, first, she personifies, better than most, the classic “don’t tread on me” American, and has not imposed her faith, or tenets thereof, on the public – in other words, is not, as you described such people, a theocratic bully.
Ayad Rahim is not an Iraqi friend of Christopher Hitchens. He is an American citizen who lives in Cleveland and hosts a radio talk show. Hitchens has appeared on this show.
He was born in London and lived for six years in Baghdad until his family moved to the USA in 1970 and settled in Cleveland.
The only time he spent in Iraq as an adult was for three months in 2004.
I’ll just repeat this part again… nothing to do with Iraq:
Meanwhile, the aspirant you support has lied about his meetings, dealings and friendship with Antoine Rezko; has lied about his knowledge of Jeremiah Wright’s views; has lied about his relationship and work with a Marxist pedagogue and bomber (as was his wife); has lied about his work with, and support for, ACORN (an organization being investigated in multiple cases of massive voter fraud, and 17 of whose employees have been convicted or indicted of voter fraud); has lied about his statements regarding meeting with Iran’s rulers (and what type of message would it send to the overwhelming majority of Iranians — whom you and I support — who yearn for freedom, if we elect a man eager to meet with the rulers who are an embarrassment to Iranians); has lied about his positions on “the surge” in Iraq; has lied about his reasons for voting against funding for the troops (having previously pledged he wouldn’t vote against such funding); has lied about his votes on legislation to provide medical care to a baby born after a “botched” abortion; and has even lied about his maternal grandmother’s work – she was, in fact, a factory manager, and, for most of her life, a banker.
On top of all of that, he has kept significant portions of his life and background, hidden from public view. To borrow from the title of your book, Is there nothing left to lie about?
[…] Iraqis For McCain …who was browsing through second-hand books and magazines. “I trust the Republicans more. They’re more capable of establishing democracy in… […]
If Obama wins, Osama and his Al Qaeda pals will smell the fear and weakness, and they’ll give it another try.
Iraqis are no dummies. They have suffered a lot with Saddam Hussein and all the terrorists. Now, they appreciate American way of living. They enjoy democracy, freedom and rights. They want to make sure that their country is strong enough before the U.S. leaves. They know that if Obama wins, he will leave them on their own. The terrorists would come running right back to destroy all those great efforts and achievements. Obama has to lose this election for the sake of the whole wide world.
How can you understand a region of the world you only visited once for two days? I guess that is a nonsensical question.
OBAMA MANSION’S, SADDAM’S MONEY
Daniel Pipes
October 29, 2008
“Barack Obama appears to have personally benefited from funds originating in Saddam Hussein’s regime. It’s a complicated connection, but one that deserves the consideration of Americans voters.”
Read the rest:
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5996
From what Ali and Mohammed are saying about Turkey, I’m guessing they are Kurds. The tribal Kurds have been getting a raw deal in the Middle-East for centuries.
Craig: There is certainly more to the Rezko story. Sadly, none of it will come out until AFTER the election and by then it will be too late.
And who should be surprised that Arabs are helping Obama. After all, with a middle name like HUSSEIN, it’s only natural he would get Arab support.
And, we’ve already seen the stories of terrorist lovers in Gaza making phone calls to the U.S. to urge a vote for the big O.
Wouldn’t it be kind of creepy to get one of those calls???
You are right, Mike. How many more skeletons in Obama’s closet will it take for the Obamatrons to open their eyes?
Terrorists did very badly under Bush administration, and it would be the same with McCain.
“I have failed to liberate Iraq, and transform its society into an Islamic society.”
Moqtada al-Sadr (March 20.2008)
HERE IS A DOCUMENT concerning the Surge in Iraq, produced by the Al Qaeda organization, that was intercept by the Americain Army:
“There were almost 600 fighters in our sector before the tribes changed course 360 degrees . . . Many of our fighters quit and some of them joined the deserters . . . As a result of that the number of fighters dropped down to 20 or less. We were mistreated, cheated and betrayed by some of our brothers who used to be part of the Jihadi movement. We lost cities and afterward, villages… We find ourselves in a wasteland desert.
The Islamic State of Iraq [al-Qaeda] is faced with an extraordinary crisis, especially in al-Anbar province. Al-Qaeda’s expulsion from Anbar created weakness and psychological defeat. This also created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight. The morale of the fighters went down and they wanted to be transferred to administrative positions rather than be fighters. There was a total collapse in the security structure of the organisation.”
Uh…Rocky? Kurds already ARE in Turkey. In small neighborhoods, but they’re there.
You guys just HAVE to watch this. Just hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nligvgv3Rfw
Mike,
It already is a state.
Hmm, no surprise there. Why expect the Iraqis, who Obama was perfectly willing to abandon to genocide two years ago, to support him?
My dish rag seems to understand the reality of the situation so much better than Obama.
You owe me a new keyboard.
(AP) — The Bush administration’s hopes for sealing a security deal with Iraq while in office are fading as Iraqis demand changes to a draft text that some U.S. officials consider unacceptable.
“The window for any kind of discussions, negotiations is rapidly coming to a close,” State Department spokesman Robert Wood said Thursday.
Wood said officials continue to review the Iraqi proposal for changes, but he repeated the administration’s insistence that the existing draft is a “good text.”
U.S. spokesmen insist that an agreement governing American troops in Iraq is still possible by the end of the year. At the same time, administration officials are troubled by the proposed Iraqi amendments to a text U.S. negotiators had thought was complete. Those amendments include broader Iraqi jurisdiction over U.S. forces and the elimination of a clause that would let them stay after a tentative 2011 deadline.
Even if compromises can be found on those issues, there is still no guarantee that the Iraqi parliament will approve the so-called Status of Forces Agreement. Failure to bridge the gaps would leave two options: Extend the U.N. mandate beyond its Dec. 31 expiration date or suspend all U.S. operations in Iraq.
I know they are there Leah, I didn’t say they weren’t. I spent time in Turkey. My point was the Kurds always seemed to get a raw deal because IMHO they do. Of all the people in Iraq, they have the most valid reasons for fearing both Iraqis and Turks. Especially those along the Iraq/Turkey border, as they were often attacked by both sides. Turks fly over bombing their villages and Saddam Hussein used them for chemical warfare test subjects. Many mass burial sites we found when we went in were in the Kurdish tribal areas. Kurds have a tendancy to distrust outsiders because they have a history of being preyed upon. The Kurds are technologically-challenged and viewed as a Middle-East verison of “hill-billies”. Nomadic Kurdish tribesmen still use flintlocks and single shot rifles to protect themselves. In his book, “The Ark Of Noah”, David Fasold supplied excellent insight on the Kurdish tribess he encountered while roaming the Ararat mountain ranges of Turkey and Iraq in his search.
After the Liberation of Iraq War, both the Shiites and the Sunnis tried to block Kurds from having a voice in the government. That was why Biden suggested the country be divided into three seperate states. Segregation was a really dumb idea. As bad as it was the last century for America with Southern Democrats suggesting, “Seperate But Equal” concepts as a solution to the Civil Rights movement. As soon as American forces would have been drawn out, Turks, Sunnis, and Shiites would have moved their forces against the Kurds to eliminate them and take their land.
The Kurds are better off when they can mingle with the general populous and disappear into crowds. Not with a country of their own which would be a frequent target for extinction or taken over to be used as hiding places by terrorist factions. After the War, Shiite and Sunni factions were quick to get to work drafting a new Constitution excluding the Kurds. America should be lauded for holding firm that democracy in a future Iraq should have equal government three-party representation to encourage co-operative efforts and “crossing the aisle” to get measures passed.
I know about the Kurds and how they are the “hillbillies” of Turkey – I lived there, Rocky. But don’t take this as me trying to disprove you, because you’re completely right. Perhaps it was the way I was taught or because I was mainly in the crowds of Turks, but I never looked at a Kurd sympathetically before. One of them approached me – I’ll never forget it; it was a few years back when I went to visit there, and I could not understand a single word he was saying. He didn’t look like he belonged in the “normal” society of other Turks. I see what you’re saying perfectly clear.
What were you in Turkey for?
Suggesting segregation of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds just goes to show you the backward and erroneous way that Biden thinks.
Leah;
I was there in support of OPERATION: NORTHERN WATCH. And also had the opportunity to go into town from time to time. So we are on the same wavelength.
(AP)–Iraq wants to eliminate any chance U.S. forces will stay here after 2011 under a proposed security pact and to expand Iraqi legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops until then, a close ally of the prime minister said Thursday.
Those demands, which were presented to U.S. officials this week, could derail the deal — delivering a diplomatic blow to Washington in the final weeks of the Bush administration.
…
“The Iraqi side wants to remove any mention of a possible extension of U.S. troops, fearing that the existing clause might be subject to misinterpretation or could bear different interpretation,” he told The Associated Press.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081030/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq;_ylt=AjAks77dHUbjeF9W8xwAPNRvaA8F
Also, Maliki stated yesterday:
“We don’t call it a security pact but an agreement to withdraw the troops and organize their activities during the period of their presence in Iraq.”
Also, Gen. Odierno, stated yesterday, “there is a 20 percent to 30 percent chance” the US and Iraq will reach an agreement.
Jan: Is there a reason why you keep cutting and pasting that same report?
Mike, Jan’s got a job to do. I’m impressed that they are worrying about FA. You guys are on the Obama map.
Missy: I suspect as much too. Thus far she is demonstrating the same level of intellectual ability as the average ACORN employee.
Funny how they don’t respond when someone finally posts to them. I picture a bunch of zombies, posting messages that may or may not have a hint of something to do with the topic, but everything to do with discouraging Obama’s opposition. Hopefully, this one just moves along.
They’re like coackroaches… If you see one, you know there are more lurking nearby. All we can do is SPRAY, SPRAY and SPRAY some more.
[…] Iraqis For McCain [Flopping Aces] …at the University of Baghdad, referring to the vine-swinging strongman of the jungle in old Hollywood movies. … “I trust the Republicans… […]
What a load of crap. Three guys want McShame to win, and the headline of the story is “Iraqis for McCain”? More like “Three Iraqis for McCain” What besides these three guys is the headline based on? The grasping for something, anything around here is hilarious.
You mean the words that spilled right out from between your Hugh Jass? Exactly right.
Kathleen Parker also wrote a column last March entitled “Iraqis for McCain.” In the column she tells of an Iraqi reporter she had met and corresponded with for a number of months, Mayada al-Askari and this is what Parker write that the Iraqi reporter had to say:
“Today she insists that Iraqis who are not Baathist hope that McCain wins the election for one simple reason: “The man knows the job that has to be done in Iraq. If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq now or anytime soon, then that will mean one thing: al-Qaeda won the war.”
She points out that for the first time since Iraq’s monarchy was toppled in 1958, the country has a parliament, a free press, jobs, a true identity “and a better understanding toward where the country should be heading.”
The sectarian divide, meanwhile, is an artificial schism created by al-Qaeda and other non-Iraqis, she says. Many Iraqis are like Mayada, a Sunni, who have married across sectarian lines.
Says Mayada: “When you ask the young people of Iraq — what are you, a Sunni or a Shiite? — the ready answer is: I am an Iraqi.”
There may be a way to safely withdraw troops sometime in the near future, but as McCain insisted in his Wednesday speech to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles, premature departure would be “an unconscionable act of betrayal,” as well as a political gamble with stakes too high to consider.”
http://townhall.com/columnists/Kathleen Parker/2008/03/28/iraqis-for-mccain
So, selective anecdotes from three Iraqis who “support” McCain and two who support Obama adds up to “Iraqis for McCain” in your mind? Is this the kind of intellectual rigor that represents today’s American right, or what?
@ben: Why not, Ben? After all, a single soldier voicing support for Obama is empirical evidence that the military has swung away from Republicans, right?
Troika: Good point but you forgot one thing…. Dems are free to rewrite the rules whenever it suits them.
One story of a soldier praising Obama can be trumpeted across the country and minutes later one story where Iraqis praise McCain can be dismissed.
It all goes back to the meaning of the word “is.”
[…] Iraqis For McCain …to them, and they say that if they could, they would vote for Republican candidate John McCain in next week’s US presidential election. […]
So Iraqi support Mccain cause of Turkey and Iranian military strength, they are idiots, there is nothing to worry about Iran and Turkey. What Iraqis have to worry about is their economy . national resilience and national national security, even national defence stem from strong economic fundamental … not from insignificant Mccain … 🙂
Brandon;
You’re are obviously ill informed, or someone has spiked your kool-aid. Don’t hurt yourself making blanket statements about subjects you know nothing about and are not factually based.
Iran still holds a grudge against Iraq for the 1980-1988 Iran/Iraq War. Perhaps that slipped your mind. The Iran Shia’s constantly send insurgents into Iraq. They wanted Iraq to become solely a Shite Nation. Saddam was backed by the Bath Party Sunnis. And like I said above neither the Shites nor the Sunnis like the Kurds very much, nor do the Turks. Our Democrats demands to pull out our forces cause a lot of fear amongst the Iraqi people. Had we done so, their struggling new Democracy would have fallen apart or soon have been at the mercy of invading forces from neighboring countries Iran, Turkey, or Syria. Invasion and their current security strengths are the largest current threats to their national security. In the Middle-East any destabilization or weakness of fellow nations encourages others to try to take them over. Turkey may be an ally of ours, but they are no different. They would rather take Iraq over for themselves than let it fall to another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War
Their economy is the least of their concerns. The people are now seeing benefits from oil sales that formerly only went to make Saddam’s dictatorship more powerful and oppressive and kept his people in poverty.
An Obama presidency concerns them. Especially after his recent visit when he tried to talk their Prime Minister into stalling any troop pullout agreements until after the election as it would have been better for Obama’s campaign. That BHO holds his own political future more important than his own country’s best interests gives Iraqis the message he can’t be trusted. They don’t trust Obama, why do so many of you Dems?
McCain at least understands how a strong military security works. Iraqis would certainly sleep better with him in charge.
Letter to Christopher Hitchens:
Excellent letter Wordsmith.
I’ll just repeat these two parts:
and
Wordsmith:
Ayad Rahim is not an Iraqi friend of Christopher Hitchens. He is an American citizen who lives in Cleveland and hosts a radio talk show. Hitchens has appeared on this show.
He was born in London and lived for six years in Baghdad until his family moved to the USA in 1970 and settled in Cleveland.
The only time he spent in Iraq as an adult was for three months in 2004.
sandor: Does that make the SLIGHTEST difference?
I’ll just repeat this part again… nothing to do with Iraq:
Thanks for the background info on Rahim, sandormatyo.