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.'"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Writing the speeches of your conquered enemies. You know this is the exact same tactic Julius Caesar used against the nations he conquered, and he was one of Rome's greatest leaders.
To sum up, worked-for-caesar.
Because I distinctly saw President Bush take a drink of water while he was speaking.
Unknown host pong.
Incidentally, Al Lorentz is under the threat of serious jail time for speaking out.
Well, it is nice to see that someone in Washington watches the Daily Show, I guess. The night after the speech they did a segment showing that several of the phrases in the speech were exactly the same as the president uses.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
Isn't this the Bush admininstration in a nutshell? If you disagree with us, you are un-American, disloyal, unpatriotic.
That's what America is all about: blindly following our commander-in-chief, not questioning their policies, always agreeing.
Just give me my 12 hours of TV, and my low-carb 2000 calorie retired dairy cow hamburgers, and my gas-guzzling SUVs, and I WILL BE HAPPY.
All I ask for are some frickin stories about frickin sharks with frickin lasers on their heads. Throw me a bone guys.
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".
I'm glad President Bush has set upon this crusade at taking out our foes one by one, and remaking it in our image. Their dictators fall, and their citizens live in freedom, meanwhile we gain a foothold in another part of the world.
The sad thing is that America's image in the rest of the world is so bad right now, that as a foreigner, I am not entirely sure that this guy is trolling.
It's the desparate tactics of the people whose candidate is starting to slide
Interesting choice of misspellings - I can't decide whether desperate or disparate fits better here.....
I just assumed it would be obvious from the fact that Allawi repeated not one, but almost every catchphrase that Bush throws into all of his speeches on the "war on terror". Anyway, read the speech for yourself and see if it sounds like chunks of it came from the same speechwriters Bush uses. Mind you, I'd expect Allawi to be thankful and congratulatory, since he needs the US's continued commitment right now, but I wouldn't expect his own speechwriters to parrot back Bush's campaign slogans word-for-word.
Anyway, this doesn't come as a surprise to me, it was just much more blatant and obvious than I would have thought possible. Another poster brought up Julius Caesar, who wrote his conquered enemies speeches for them. His long lived and immensely successful successor, Caesar Augustus, was the master of running an authoritarian regime while maintaining all the dressings of the Republic, practically the inventor of political spin and authoritarianism cloaked in democracy.
Unfortunately, the analogies don't end there. Trading freedom for security under authoritarian regimes was practically pioneered by the Romans. If our schoolchildren were forced to read some of the classics, I wonder how different things might be in America today.
The puppet prime minister of the puppet government of a half-conquered nation is saying what his puppet boss' bosses tell him.
I for one welcome our puppet overlords.
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
Seeing how the comments so far have been moderated, it's quite clear that the moderators are either unaware, or unwilling to be aware of a serious problem in America.
-1 mod for overrated? For posting two editorials critical of the war?
This is a prime example of why America is headed for disaster.
If you're genuinely interested in knowing what's really happening in the world, I would suggest looking beyond CNN, FOX, Wall Street journal and the New York Times. All of America's big media is owned by a very small group with very strong political leanings. When you look to them, you only get one side of the story.
If you want the other side, places like www.cursor.org are a good place to start.
...allegedly wrote...
Is this the part where I get to assume it's already fact?
If the White House wrote Allawi's speech, that would be one thing. If the Bush campaign wrote it, that would be quite another. But the Bush campaign has never been shy about using the power of the White House to get an upper hand in their campaigning, and this is nothing out of the ordinary for them. They're in a position to do it, but they're not supposed to do it. Apparently they see nothing wrong with it. Recall the terror alert they issued within hours of Kerry's DNC speech. Could have been a real terror alert, so they have plausible deniability and Kerry can't say anything. Now we have the Bush campaign quietly putting phrases directly into Allawi's mouth, and Kerry can't criticize this Pollyanna nonsense without "undercutting a valuable ally". (Like ahemcoughFrancecoughcoughGermanyahem never mind.)
Relying on plausible deniability is OK if you only do it once in a while. But as these terribly convenient events pile up, the probability of the null hypothesis (i.e. that these are all just coincidences, and nobody is abusing his presidential powers) gets smaller and smaller. The electorate starts dividing into people with a healthy level of cynicism and people who are essentially hero worshippers.
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.
What exactly does 'lost the popular vote' have to do with anything? The popular vote does not matter. IT NEVER HAS. The citizens of the United States do not vote for the President -- the states do. That is how it works now, and that is how it has always worked.
The elections of 2000 were not the first time a candidate has lost the popular vote yet won the presidency. It happened in 1824. It happened in 1876. It happened in 1888. It will happen again eventually.
I dislike Bush as much as anybody, but Jesus Christ, people need to get over that subject. The Electoral College is in place for a very specific and important reason. If America worked by direct democracy, the candidates would only have to win the huge urban areas like New York and Los Angeles in order to win the presidency. The Electoral College, at least partly, ensures that candidates have to win other places, too, like the Mid-west (e.g., Iowa, where i live and Kerry/Edwards and Bush/Cheney have passed through multiple times in the past few months).
If you want to argue that the Electoral College could be improved (for example, make it proportional instead of winner-takes-all), i might agree with you. (In fact, i do support making it proportional in all states.) Or if you wanted to argue that maybe somehow voters were disenfranchised in Florida and that caused Gore to lose Florida's electoral vote, i might agree with you. (Although i think that's kind of getting worn out too.) But pouting because Bush didn't win the popular vote is just retarded. :/
"Seeing how the comments so far have been moderated, it's quite clear that the moderators are either unaware, or unwilling to be aware of a serious problem in America."
MOD PARENT UP!!!! Exactly right.
You cannot develop an accurate opinion by listening to the innuendo from media employees who would lose their jobs if they seemed to indicate a preference for one candidate over another. Remember, the media exists to make money. Unfortunately, we don't have directly supported media, only ad supported media, and advertisers, understandably, are careful not to alienate anyone.
Please don't be intimidated by someone with unspecified objections, or objections that merely try to draw attention away from the major issues. Consider everything in the light of your own experiences and your own extensive investigation.
If you have never read the books about the Bush family and Bush administration, I suggest you do so. If you read the books, you will see that the corruption is far worse than you are being told.
--
Bush: Borrowing money to try to make his administration look good.
As if ANY politician these days (including Diane Feinstein) writes their own speeches, instead of having them "massaged by their campaign operatives"...
No one is complaining that Allawi didn't write his own speech. What they are complaining about is that it was written by Bush's campaign operatives.
Don't you see a difference between Allawi having his speech written by his own, independent speech writers and having it written by Bush campaign operatives? Allawi is supposed to be the leader of a sovereign nation, not a member of the Republican party giving stump speeches to promote Bush's reelection.
Men elect to become cheerleaders in the hopes of being able to hold a female cheerleader aloft by her crotch. Sometimes they try to sneak a peek up there, too. That hardly seems homosexual to me.
Mod me down if you like, but you know it's true.
THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003:
AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION
"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.
Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
(2003 report)
UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.
There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.
I would now like to turn to the so-called "Air Force document" that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.
The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.
The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.
The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.
I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.
Whilst I am addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19 December 2002, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at Al Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.
Biological weapons
I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.
Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which i
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.
It could be filed two years before for all its importance. Not only this report is a lot of "maybe-coulda-woulda", it is also quite silly that otherwise intelligent people are so easilly fooled by all of this Iraq WMD talk. VX is known to be possessed by just about any two-bit country on the planet, including places like Serbia. Anthrax is produced from cow dung. A few nutcases were able to make it in a bathtub in England. Etc. Etc. If Saddam was truly bent on using this (rather awkward and unreliable weapon), he would have done so looong ago. Actually he did in 1980s on the Kurds and probably like every military before him, decided the thing was useless. Did you ever wonder why during WWII noone used chemical weapons on the battlefield? All sides had them. They are just extremely useless things in combat. Additionally, Iraq had no capability to produce nuclear technology in any meaningful way for a foreseeable future due to constant oversight.
Truly frightening bio-weapons are of genetic nature and at this point in time beyond reach of the terrorists. This will unforunately change in not so remote future and because of the nature of the technology they will become the primary, cheap and widely available weapon of unspeakable terror.
Isn't this the Bush admininstration in a nutshell? If you disagree with us, you are un-American, disloyal, unpatriotic.
I'm tired of linking the following quote : People don't want War by Herman Goering . That in a few sentences covers what you have saidQuidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
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.
I found this refreshing to Bush's repetative and very non-specific "We're going to win!" over and over with no real substance as far as a clear plan and intelligent resolve. . .
What I perceived from Bush:
1) we are right, therefore we are going to win
2) it doesn't matter if we botched the job with no planning and inadequate support because, uh, we are RIGHT!
3) if we are losing it's only because the enemy is hating us more for being right
4) my administration didn't make any mistakes because I am right
5) if you criticize anything we do, I simply mention that it's a hard job and reinforce the fact that I am doing a hard job, regardless of whether it is the right job
6) if you highlight how bad a job we are doing, you are actually perversely on the terrorists side and the public should discount you because the terrorists want to hear that we are doing a bad job
7) since I don't want them (or you) to hear that, I'll just keep repeating that we are doing the right thing
8) a decisive but WRONG course is much better than any indecisive course
9) but that doesn't matter anyway because...I'm right
On the pro side, Bush did come out I think revealing that, yes, he can remember facts and names. Since the bar is so low, this makes him seem ultra smart.
As far as Kerry he's already fucked himself because his statements have been so easy to spin, he can't dispell the myths around him, and the "debate" format doesn't allow him time to. There were many non-rational things Bush said, or foolish misinterpretations (either intentional or unintentional) by Bush of what Kerry had just said, that Kerry didn't have time to rebut. For instance, Kerry said that the test of whether to go to war is a more "global test" (or "universal test" I forget), namely that you have to be able to say to a soldier's family you did everything you could to avoid it, and Bush either intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreted this and played dumbfounded that Kerry was talking about some "global tests" as if he was talking about some world-wide exam. How can you debate somebody that can't even understand what you are saying? I get the feeling if he had said "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" Bush would have started saying: "what is this guy talking about, 'playing with birds', HEY WE'RE AT WAR!"
sigh.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?