Slashdot Mirror
Senator Alleges White House Wrote Allawi's Speech
Jeremiah Cornelius writes "In a letter to the White House, a leading US Senate Democrat, Diane Feinstein, expressed 'profound dismay' that the White House allegedly wrote a large portion of Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's speech to Congress last week. 'His speech gave me hope that reconstruction efforts were proceeding in most of the country and that elections could be held on schedule. To learn that this was not an independent view, but one that was massaged by your campaign operatives, jaundices the speech and reduces the credibility of his remarks.'"
Incidentally, Al Lorentz is under the threat of serious jail time for speaking out.
Then why doesn't the USGOV release unedited video of all the good things that are happening in Iraq?
Will you ever stop beating your wife?
Read Senator Kerry's testimony to the Senate from 1971. Read it all. Comprehend. Then form an opinion and speak.
If you can read english, you will see that Kerry was relating details of war crimes related to him by over 100 other men. War crimes that they were coerced and abetted in committing by commanding officers. They knew it was wrong, and they admitted it out of shame, and because they knew that it tarnished the credibility of the United States, which they defended because they loved.
Fast forward 33 years. Location: Abu Ghraib Prison, Iraq. Same story. Nothing learned. Our national credibility savaged. Maybe because we have a president who admittedly "doesn't read much".
And that makes it all the more repugnant that Bush and Co. have been complaining about Kerry criticizing the speech. Bush has his puppet prime minister give a campaign speech and Kerry isn't allowed to criticize it? Puh-leeze.
I have seen and listened to GW talk. He is no Caesar!
He was talking about the statements made by other people. From the transcript:
Please read the transcript (hell, skim it) before coming to any conclusions about Kerry's actions in '72. The 'media' sure ain't going to clarify any of this. We need to do it ourselves.
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
In short, no one entity, governmental, military, or otherwise, is calling the shots for the whole country. That doesn't sound like any kind of dictatorship to me -- it sounds more like chaos.
Just look at Africa -- after Britain and France pulled out, everything went to straight to hell.
No, depending on where you're talking about, many countries in Africa did fine and dandy for a couple of decades.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The selections I have checked to exclude still appear. If I reverse all the checkbox selections (in case you have to check them to make them *appear*) - nothing changes. Nothing I do in the section preferences makes a diff what's on the front page - checked or unchecked. Yes, I am logged in and cookies are enabled for this domain. The slashboxes however are working as selected.
http://harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html
Not quite, because the number of electors per state is N+2, where N is (supposedly) the population multiplied by a constant. Thus in a state with a smaller population, each person gets a slightly more powerful vote even if the electors are distributed proportionally. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is another matter.
I do agree tha proportionally distributing the electors, and even allowing fractional distributions, would be a good thing. The previous election could have changed completely with only a few thousand votes changing in Florida (such a small number that it was way below the noise so in fact it really is impossible to tell who won and Gore is just as legitimate of a "winner" as Bush, no matter what anybody says). Under a fractional proportional elector system this could not happen. This would be an enormous improvement, even if it is still possible (but much harder) for the winner to not win the popular vote.
Al Lorentz is the former Chairman of the Constitution Party of Texas. He was against the war in Iraq, because Lorentz believes in isolationism (even after 9/11). So while he is not "some politically idealistic and naÃve young soldier", that's only true because he's not young. He is a political ideologue, with an anti-Bush paranoia.
That made my Bullshit Detector go off like a Claymore in a cattle drive.
Al Lorentz spent most of his career in the Reserves.
A noncomm in Civil Affairs doesn't have a "muds-eye view" of the war at all. He may as well be back in Texas, for all the fighting he'll see. This guy is an armchair General. Why isn't he an officer? Because he's incompetent for a commission, that's why.
Al Lorentz was a Bush basher before he went to Iraq, and he's a Bush basher now.
From another article by Lorentz:sigs, as if you care.
Maybe some of the insurgency is inspired by the feeling that the country shouldn't have a U.S./Israeli mole installed as chief executive, no?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
In which sense does Japan's constitution mirror the US constitution? There head of state (though he is mainly a figurehead) is a hereditary monarch. Also the government is determined by the parliament, not in separate elections. To my limited knowledge it seems to be more similar to the British "Crown in Parliament" system, than the American one.
Launch War on Terrorism
Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq 15033
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
plus
Deaths due to kidnapping and beheading of citizens of countries [ some that have noting to do with war ] - Kenya,Egypt,India,Australia,Britain,France..etc etc.
plus death of military persona of USA,Britain and other countries whose soldiers are present in Iraq.
There are more than 16 U.S. Bases in Germany, but does that make it not free? What about Japan, or Kosovo, or Korea... most reasonable people would concider them to be free. Not having permanent bases there after such a large scale change in governments would be short sighted and extremely hurtful to any chance Iraq has of being free of brutal murdering dictators.
Yes, or maybe BBC News. No registration requiered.
Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
By reports, she of course meant newspaper reports. You know, the things most of us get our information from. From the Washington Post:
Later in the article:
So it seems that it is a bit more than mere suspicion, as you would characterize it. The article makes it pretty clear that Allawi was a mouthpiece for the Bush campaign while he was here in the US. So that's why Ms. Feinstein was dismayed. Frankly, so am I.
The article is here
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)