What Iraqis Want: Part II
What Iraqis Want: Part II
As President Bush continued to spin developments in Iraq over the holiday weekend, few people noticed an important development in Baghdad, reported by Al-Hayat newspaper — 83 members of Iraq’s transitional parliament supported a demand for a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq.
This represents nearly one-third of Iraq’s democratically elected leaders in the 275-seat assembly.
Though President Bush and many leading Democrats oppose timetables, Iraqi leaders who represent their people are starting to raise the need for timetables for withdrawing U.S. forces.
At the same time, there are signs that the transitional government in Iraq is looking for new sources of outside support — like Iran. Iraqi Defense Minister Saadoun al-Dulaimi visit to Tehran this week unveiled plans for Iran to help with training troops and increasing security in Iraq.
These developments are bound to complicate U.S. efforts in Iraq. They also raise questions about the narrow debate over Iraq we currently have in the United States, a debate that rarely questions President Bush’s assumptions.
(Click here for Part I)
– Brian Katulis, Director of Democracy and Public Diplomacy
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The fact is, President Bush GAVE those Iraqis the right to express themselves on any issue. So they should cut him some slack on the timetable.
July 8th, 2005 at 8:01 amThe fact is that Bush is an idiot and he just makes matters worse, and he got no choice in the matter now because “freedom is on the march”. Do you have any idea who the “democratically elected” Iraqi government is? Worse than our “democratically elected” government, and that ain’t saying much. Criminals, crooks, liars and thieves. Just like here at home, where “freedom and democracy have been on the march” out of town.
July 8th, 2005 at 8:11 amOne has to question the ability of a Republic to impart a Democratic-style institution along to another government…
Especially one coming off the heels of a totalitarian dictatorship. Do Americans really think that a nation with such a history will draft a government that vests as much consolidated power into one man as our system of government does? Will Iraqis be so quick to pattern themselves after us given our recent history (read as a single figure having the power to wage war against another nation based on fallacies)?
I suspect that Iraqis – given the benefit of a tragic modern history lesson – will opt for a real Democracy, one where a Prime Minister can be stripped of his power by an unhappy electorate dissatisfied with his shennanigans. Iraq has already tasted an extreme case of what consolidated power has to offer, therefore I sincerely doubt they will be willing to stick their head into that lion’s mouth again anytime soon.
Even if the lion comes dressed as a sheep, one would have to be pretty blind to miss the extremely sharp teeth (all the better to bite you in a unilateral fashion with).
And before the conservative shills that have been frequenting the boards burst in and start screaming about how I am comparing Saddam to Bush, or Iraq to America, let me make this very clear: That is not what I am saying.
My point is only that I think Iraqis are not going to be likely to model their government after the one that has brought them war and suffering.
July 8th, 2005 at 9:03 amThere are a bunch of other reports from Bart at that link. You get a goo idea of what it’s like over there from reading them.
Other reports from Bart:
Convoy wiped out, media silent
Embassy Without An Ambassador
Valley Girls in Iraq (posted at TAS)
Perverse Incentives
The Rock of Baghdad
Star Wars Cantina (posted at TAS)
Two Kurds walk into a bar (posted at TAS)
Demarche of Bethesda (posted at TAS)
Bart of Iraq (posted at TAS)
Report from Iraq (posted at TAS)
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2005_07_03_patriotboy_archive.html#112067393539491567
July 8th, 2005 at 9:30 amLaddie,
Granted, democracy (if it flourishes in Iraq; that remains to be seen) is a wonderful thing. But when you have an occupying force in your midst that is seen as torturing prisoners and a primary cause for why innocent Iraqis are caught in the crossfire every day, you tend to want things to change, and soon.
The bottom line for everyone, even Americans, is that we care most about the lives and well being of our families first. There’s no reason to expect Iraqis to see things differently.
Oh, and frankly, I think the Iraqis primarily have Sistani to thank for democracy…
July 8th, 2005 at 9:42 amWe need to have a robust discussion here about what “Victory” means. We assume that a U.S. pullout will mean Civil War… how condescending of us to assume that! They’ll do just fine…
Please call you congressman NOW and show your support for BIPARTISAN legislation, H. J. Res. 55, calling on the President to present a plan to withdraw the troops by the end of the year, and begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq on or before October 1, 2006.
If you don’t support that, at least ask for BENCHMARKS or robust discussion for what “victory” is supposed to mean. We owe at least that much to the soldiers.
July 8th, 2005 at 9:53 amSo, more than 2/3’s of the Iraqi National Assembly do not want a timetable for troop withdrawal? Shutter to think that a progressive mind would ever be an open mind…
July 8th, 2005 at 9:59 amShutter to think that a progressive mind would ever be an open mind…
I love the twisted reasoning of a conservative mind…
Somehow they are able to equate conservative (which means favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change) with open-mindedness and progressive (which means moving forward; advancing; favoring progress toward better ideas) with close-mindedness.
With such incredible acumen, it is no wonder we find ourselves in the situation that we are in.
July 8th, 2005 at 10:08 amStrathmore has an open mind. That’s how all his brains fell out.
July 8th, 2005 at 10:10 amStrathmore,
I do believe the article made it painfully, crystal clear that the point is a surprisingly large number of Iraqi National Assembly members want a timetable for troop pullout, NOT that a majority of them are pushing for it.
As regards open-mindedness: the vast majority of progressive blogs allow comments; almost none of the conservative blogs do.
The prosecution rests.
July 8th, 2005 at 10:10 am“President Bush and many leading Democrats oppose timetables?”
Are you sure you got that one right?
July 8th, 2005 at 10:17 amThe number has already increased to 103 MP’s.
http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/103-iraqi-parliamentarians-demand.html
July 8th, 2005 at 10:40 amDUHbya has a timetable but he won’t advertise it. He will let our troops come home when his Daddy has stolen all the Iraqi oil.
July 8th, 2005 at 10:57 amFrom the Wash Times link:
July 8th, 2005 at 11:44 am“Legislators Sunday proposed gradual withdrawal from the cities and towns as a first step towards a complete withdrawal while speeding up preparation of the Iraqi security forces to take control of matters.”
How does that differ from what Bush has said? Where in this source is there anything about a specific date?
I believe we may extrapolate that Srathmore’s inadvertent (possibly) gaffe of:
Shutter to think
May be interpreted correctly as he stated it. Which if we think of the term ’shutter’ in terms of how it is defined, means ‘one that shuts’.
Therefore, Strathmore is clearly stating he is an individual that shuts his mind to thinking. Which is ironic for someone who admits this to be there mentality to decry anyone else as being close-minded.
Not that hypocrisy and irony are concepts conservatives shy away from…
July 8th, 2005 at 11:48 amSteed-
If you are going to “link” to a source, then why don’t you actually link to it?
Perhaps because you are paraphrasing or mistating the “quote” to better represent your position?
And if you are going to try and pawn off a valid compare/contrast argument, then you may want to actually put the comments of both commentators so that one could make a valid comparison.
But then, I suspect validity is not a concept that you prize very highly…goodness knows the Washington (Moonie) Times certainly doesn’t.
July 8th, 2005 at 11:52 amWhy did The Federalist Journal tards list the same P.O. Box address as one used by Ventura County Superior Court Collections Unit in Simi Valley when registering their domain name?
July 8th, 2005 at 11:52 amhttp://www.whois.net/whois.cgi2?d=www.federalistjournal.com/
check it out
July 8th, 2005 at 11:54 amhttp://www.ventura.courts.ca.gov/collections.htm
July 8th, 2005 at 11:54 amnaughty naughty
July 8th, 2005 at 11:55 amCome on, you know the Republican version of democracy. 51% of the people make all the rules. And 48% can STFU because the 51% aren’t going to listen or give any credence to opposing views.
If 51% is a “mandate” then they will simply laugh at 1/3.
July 8th, 2005 at 12:06 pmAs an aside…
Lee “Scratch” Perry (Reggae artist) has a terrific line from one of his songs that fits this situation fairly well:
The one who sh*ts the road, don’t remember it
But the one cleans the sh*t, will remember it
In Rastafarian (or any other belief structure), this is known as wisdom.
Would anyone disagree?
July 8th, 2005 at 12:07 pmJohn S, the Wash Times link is in the topic essay sourced by think progress above (”…time for troop withdrawal…” But I’ll hold your hand, here it is:
http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20050703-085359-8587r.htm
July 8th, 2005 at 12:32 pmSteed-
Spare me your little verbal jabs, and kindly respond to the other part of what I asked you.
So I’ll go ahead and try this one more time…
Qualify your assertion of what Bush’s comments are with cited sources so than we can compare/contrast them with what is contained in the Washington Times article.
And remember that when you attempt to make claims that are supposedly based on factual evidence, that the BURDEN OF PROOF is on you, and not me.
July 8th, 2005 at 12:50 pmI’m sorry, only a moron reads the Washington Times. Even morons don’t take anything printed in it seriously.
July 8th, 2005 at 12:54 pmBesides, it’s a done deal. The Brits are pulling out and re-deplying to Afghanistan. Like it or not, Bushco screwed the pooch bigtime on this turkey, and they are trying to figure a way out as soon as possible. If some in the puppet Iraqi are demanding a timetable for troop withdrawal, it’s because they are being told to do so by you know who. If the loonie moonies are printing it, it’s because that is what they are being told to do. Gives Bushco cover to clear out and blame the ensuing mess on the Iraqis.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a1384df4-ecbc-11d9-9d20-00000e2511c8.html
http://simplyappalling.blogspot.com/2005/06/brits-and-americans-divided-over-iraq.html
July 8th, 2005 at 1:03 pmJohn S, spare me your verbal jabs. The Wash Times source was linked by this site. If you don’t like it should attack think progress rather than me. As for Bush response to time time tables, he just recently responded in a speech on June 28, 2005. You didn’t listen to it? Didn’t read the transcript.? Do you want me to give the link?
July 8th, 2005 at 1:15 pmFrom Bush’s speech on 6/28/2005:
“So our strategy going forward has both a military track and a political track. The principal task of our military is to find and defeat the terrorists, and that is why we are on the offense. And as we pursue the terrorists, our military is helping to train Iraqi security forces so that they can defend their people and fight the enemy on their own. Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.”
“I recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I. Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong message to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out. We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed, and not a day longer.
July 8th, 2005 at 1:18 pmYour point Steed? Bush gives lip-service, nothing more. Highlight it if there is a point.
July 8th, 2005 at 1:24 pmSteed-
Way to spin around in circles…clearly you have no understanding of how to make a rational argument. Here’s a little primer for you:
Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position.
Audiatur et altera pars
Often, people will argue from assumptions which they don’t bother to state. The principle of Audiatur et Altera Pars is that all of the premises of an argument should be stated explicitly.
Given the above two fallacious arguments – and your continual use of them – I not only deem your “quotes” with suspicion, but I consider the conclusions you draw from them to be specious at best.
When you learn how to make a functional argument that an intellegent person can engage in, let me know.
Until then, enjoy the sound of one hand clapping.
July 8th, 2005 at 1:27 pmMy questions regarding the premise and linked source provided by think progress were:
July 8th, 2005 at 1:52 pmHow does that differ from what Bush has said? Where in this source is there anything about a specific date?
If you can’t answer(or don’t want to) just say so.
Steed-
I’ll play your little game this one time…
Legislators Sunday proposed gradual withdrawal from the cities and towns as a first step towards a complete withdrawal while speeding up preparation of the Iraqi security forces to take control of matters.
Some also demanded the U.S. embassy in Baghdad move out of the presidential palace in the “Green Zone” on the grounds it represented a symbol of the country’s sovereignty.
- Link to article
1. Nowhere in the text of Bush’s speech that you posted does Bush discuss a proposed gradual withdrawal from the cities and towns in Iraq.
2. Nowhere in the text of Bush’s speech that you posted does Bush discuss speeding up preparation of the Iraqi security forces to take control of matters. He talks about training the Iraqi security forces, but leaves us with the impression that how this is being done is satisfactory and requires no changes.
3. Nowhere in the text of Bush’s speech that you posted does Bush discuss moving out of the presidential palace in the “Green Zone” as a symbol of Iraq’s sovereignty.
There are three MAJOR differences between what Bush said and what the Iraqis in the story are saying. Did you really need me to point out these glaringly obvious differences, or are you really this obtuse?
July 8th, 2005 at 2:10 pmJust asking for an answer. You don’t have to be a jackass about it. Why did you have post the disrespectful, demeaning comments?
July 8th, 2005 at 2:21 pmSteed,
I try to keep postings short so as to not confuse or bog down the reader, such as yourself. With that said, READ the second sentence in #30. It may not be to your liking, but that is your answer. #33 will clarify that for you if you READ it.
July 8th, 2005 at 2:22 pmOtherwise, you are simply trying to be ignorant, and that demeans your point and perspective upon it.
July 8th, 2005 at 2:24 pmNo where in the sourced article is there a mention of a specific time table as think progress claims. One of my questions that has yet to be answered by these condescending jackasses. Just specific steps to be taken towards complete withdrawal not inconsistent with Bush’s position. As the Iraqiis stand up we will stand down. How do the other 2/3 (majority) of the National Assembly feel? I would want to know that before drawing any conclusions.
July 8th, 2005 at 2:53 pmSteed-
I am sorry to come off as “mean” to you, but I can’t help but feel that you are purposely being difficult/obtuse/ignorant. Let’s assume you are not, and I will address your latest queries…
No where in the sourced article is there a mention of a specific time table as think progress claims.
It actually is in the very first sentence of the sourced article:
“Several Iraqi legislators Sunday demanded the Iraqi government exert pressure for a timetable for the withdrawal of the U.S.-led forces from the country.”
Just specific steps to be taken towards complete withdrawal not inconsistent with Bush’s position.
Bush has no position on withdrawl. He won’t set a timetable, benchmarks or any other type of metric for a timely withdrawl:
“We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed, and not a day longer.”
This is a classic non-answer answer.
“As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.”
Rhetoric is not the same thing as a plan.
July 8th, 2005 at 3:11 pmSteed – true, thinkprogress’ link to Washtimes does not talk about timelines. But a more recent article in the Al-Hayat newspaper reports 103 MPs HAVE called for a timeline:
http://www.occupationwatch.org/headlines/archives/2005/07/103_mps_demand.html
That’s 38%… of mostly Shia and Kurds who supposedly love us…
And it’s not what Bush reads from a teleprompter that counts. It’s the at least 6 permanent or “enduring” bases, possibly even 14 that are being built today. Congress passed the last $82 billion request which included half a billion for permanent bases.
This decision by our government is a DIRECT threat to the lives of the men and women who serve in Iraq.
July 8th, 2005 at 3:33 pmWhy is Stewed Cankersore registered here? –
July 8th, 2005 at 5:17 pmhttp://www.isp.state.il.us/sor/frames.htm
It actually is in the very first sentence of the sourced article:
“Several Iraqi legislators Sunday demanded the Iraqi government exert pressure for a timetable for the withdrawal of the U.S.-led forces from the country.�
But that demand for a timetable is not in the memo signed by 1/3 (minority) of the Assembly is it John S?
I consider your answers to my questions “classic non-answers”. It took you how many tries – 3 or 4? and you still can’t give me a staright answer.
July 9th, 2005 at 2:33 amSteed-
You wouldn’t know a valid answer if it slapped you in the face. As I correctly surmised, you are too dense to be swimming in the big boy pool, where your attempts to tread water leave you sinking to the bottom like a stone.
Your effort (a poor one) to engage in semantical wordplay leaves you looking like the hollow shill that you are, which is a shame. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were able to think for yourself, but I see that is an impossibility.
Now run along and play in the kiddie pool where you belong, and be careful when you open your mouth not to swallow too much pee-laden water. Perhaps one day you’ll get buy a pair of water wings, and be able to float a reasonable argument.
Until thrn…
July 9th, 2005 at 9:09 amWhy is Stewed Cankersore registered here? –
http://www.isp.state.il.us/sor/frames.htm
Comment by The LAW  July 8, 2005 @ 5:17 pm
Illinois is where Stargate.com lists its biz address. I figured there might be a connection. Thanks for the info. not to bright, are we?
July 9th, 2005 at 10:49 amIs that all you have is insults John? You base your conclusions on very thin evidence. You are an irrational paranoid. You’re a bitter little man John. It doesn’t bother me that you take your anger out on me. It pisses you off that you have no answer for a vey simple question. The next questions may be a little harder. I can’t wait to watch you freak out. But I’ll give you one more chance. Yes or no. Does the referenced memo ask for a specific date for withdrawal?
July 9th, 2005 at 6:55 pmStewed-
you give yourself far too much credit if you think that you are making me angry or bitter.
Quite frankly, I enjoy our little exchanges, if only to laugh at your stupidity and be reminded that the world is full of sheep such as yourself.
You do an awful lot of projection though, since your rants clearly show that you are:
- an irrational paranoid
- a bitter little man
- prone to freaking out
You can’t hide from your own posts, and the record is there for all to see. Your reputation preceds you, so you may want to consider posting under another name.
As to your trite “questions”, they are little more than a way for you to collect fodder that you can fling back into someone’s face. A real question is one where you do not know the answer. All your questions are rhetorical, since you have already made up your mind as to what the answers are.
The referenced article clearly states that many members of Iraq’s parliamnent are asking for a timetable for the withdrawal of the U.S.-led forces from the country.
As to your obvious choice to include the term “specific date” in order to change the nature of the question, you know as well as I do that the article does not mention anything about a specific date. But that’s a nice attempt at playing semantics.
As to your original assertion:
No where in the sourced article is there a mention of a specific time table as think progress claims.
Nowhere in TP’s synopsis do they mention that a specific date was demanded. In fact, they don’t even use the term “specific date”. You interjected that into the discussion. So not only are you being false in your hand-wringing over TP’s accuracy, but your own semantical word game has blown up in your face.
Better luck next time.
July 9th, 2005 at 8:23 pmNow you agree with me. You can’t have a time table without addressing a date or sequence of dates for withdrawal.
July 12th, 2005 at 2:28 amHere’s your time table jackass:
July 12th, 2005 at 5:57 pmhttp://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Iraq
Online Payday Loan
Payday EZ pushes for no hassle approvals for payday loans with positively no no credit report necessary; families renting in in Mississippi can now apply on the Internet.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:43 amno credit check payday loan
Well spoken. I have to research more on this as it is really vital info.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:13 pm