Bush/God God/Bush
Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat
-
iaafan
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 7660
- Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm
Bush/God God/Bush
What's the over/under on how many times Bush refers to God in his next address? Or does God now refer to Bush? I forget which.
-
mslacat
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:12 am
- Contact:
Re: Bush/God God/Bush
Now you've done it!! Humor mentioning God and Bush in the same post!!! You're going to hell for sure now!!!iaafan wrote:What's the over/under on how many times Bush refers to God in his next address? Or does God now refer to Bush? I forget which.
You elected a ****** RAPIST to be our President
-
SonomaCat
- Moderator
- Posts: 23999
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
- Location: Sonoma County, CA
- Contact:
Well, with the successful election in Iraq (and the much-needed positive momentum it created), I'm sure his speechwriters will be at least a little mindful of downplaying the whole religious differences thing when the world is watching. I'm sure they realize that being viewed as an evangelical theocracy isn't good for foreign relations (as it makes us look more like invaders than liberators), and since we can't start anymore wars (not enough resources), we need to really focus on the diplomacy bit for awhile. We probably won't be hearing too many references to "crusades" or overtly religious statements for the time being. If we can continue to move towards stability in Iraq while at the same time improving our image in the world, we just might be able to recover from our missteps of the past couple years. That would be very cool. Just one rule for GWB -- no ad libbing!
Last edited by SonomaCat on Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
iaafan
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 7660
- Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm
OK BAC, I've got you down for none then.
MslaCat, you've judged me, so now you must join me. I've always hated that one, because I'm constantly raking someone across the coals. Life's tough livin' by the 10 Commandments.
I like how George bows his head and closes his eyes, then slowly opens one eye to see if he is supposed to be bowing his head or not. What goof ball, he'd never make it as an Alter Boy. (Preist: Psst, ring the bell George.)
The "successful election in Iraq." Not so fast. That's kind of like saying your team has had a great recruiting year or "mission accomplished." Or, "now that we caught Qusey and Udey, we got 'em whupped" or "now that we have Saddam, it's over." Yeah, right. Same ol', same ol' from the Bushies.
MslaCat, you've judged me, so now you must join me. I've always hated that one, because I'm constantly raking someone across the coals. Life's tough livin' by the 10 Commandments.
I like how George bows his head and closes his eyes, then slowly opens one eye to see if he is supposed to be bowing his head or not. What goof ball, he'd never make it as an Alter Boy. (Preist: Psst, ring the bell George.)
The "successful election in Iraq." Not so fast. That's kind of like saying your team has had a great recruiting year or "mission accomplished." Or, "now that we caught Qusey and Udey, we got 'em whupped" or "now that we have Saddam, it's over." Yeah, right. Same ol', same ol' from the Bushies.
-
SonomaCat
- Moderator
- Posts: 23999
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
- Location: Sonoma County, CA
- Contact:
I think the sheer numbers of people who turned out to vote were a very strong positive message, especially in the face of threats of violence. I'm certainly no Bush cheerleader, but I will steal a positive moment when one comes up, and in my opinion, the election was one of those rare positive moments.
-
iaafan
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 7660
- Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm
Some Just Voted for Food
Inter Press Service
Dahr Jamail
BAGHDAD, Jan 31 (IPS) - Voting in Baghdad was linked with receipt of food rations, several voters said after the Sunday poll.
Many Iraqis said Monday that their names were marked on a list provided by the government agency that provides monthly food rations before they were allowed to vote.
”I went to the voting centre and gave my name and district where I lived to a man,” said Wassif Hamsa, a 32-year-old journalist who lives in the predominantly Shia area Janila in Baghdad. ”This man then sent me to the person who distributed my monthly food ration.”
Mohammed Ra'ad, an engineering student who lives in the Baya'a district of the capital city reported a similar experience.
Ra'ad, 23, said he saw the man who distributed monthly food rations in his district at his polling station. ”The food dealer, who I know personally of course, took my name and those of my family who were voting,” he said. ”Only then did I get my ballot and was allowed to vote.”
”Two of the food dealers I know told me personally that our food rations would be withheld if we did not vote,” said Saeed Jodhet, a 21-year-old engineering student who voted in the Hay al-Jihad district of Baghdad.
There has been no official indication that Iraqis who did not vote would not receive their monthly food rations.
Many Iraqis had expressed fears before the election that their monthly food rations would be cut if they did not vote. They said they had to sign voter registration forms in order to pick up their food supplies.
Their experiences on the day of polling have underscored many of their concerns about questionable methods used by the U.S.-backed Iraqi interim government to increase voter turnout.
Just days before the election, 52 year-old Amin Hajar who owns an auto garage in central Baghdad had said: ”I'll vote because I can't afford to have my food ration cut...if that happened, me and my family would starve to death.”
Hajar told IPS that when he picked up his monthly food ration recently, he was forced to sign a form stating that he had picked up his voter registration. He had feared that the government would use this information to track those who did not vote.
Calls to the Independent Electoral Commission for Iraq (IECI) and to the Ministry of Trade, which is responsible for the distribution of the monthly food ration, were not returned.
Other questions have arisen over methods to persuade people to vote. U.S. troops tried to coax voters in Ramadi, capital city of the al-Anbar province west of Baghdad to come out to vote, AP reported.
IECI officials have meanwhile 'downgraded' their earlier estimate of voter turnout.
IECI spokesman Farid Ayar had declared a 72 percent turnout earlier, a figure given also by the Bush Administration.
But at a press conference Ayar backtracked on his earlier figure, saying the turnout would be nearer 60 percent of registered voters.
The earlier figure of 72 percent, he said, was ”only guessing” and ”just an estimate” that had been based on ”very rough, word of mouth estimates gathered informally from the field.” He added that it will be some time before the IECI can issue accurate figures on the turnout.
”Percentages and numbers come only after counting and will be announced when it's over,” he said. ”It is too soon to say that those were the official numbers.”
Where there was a large turnout, the motivation behind the voting and the processes both appeared questionable. The Kurds up north were voting for autonomy, if not independence. In the south and elsewhere Shias were competing with Kurds for a bigger say in the 275-member national assembly.
In some places like Mosul the turnout was heavier than expected. But many of the voters came from outside, and identity checks on voters appeared lax. Others spoke of vote-buying bids.
The Bush Administration has lauded the success of the Iraq election, but doubtful voting practices and claims about voter turnout are both mired in controversy.
Election violence too was being seen differently across the political spectrum.
More than 30 Iraqis, a U.S. soldier, and at least 10 British troops died Sunday. Hundreds of Iraqis were also wounded in attacks across Baghdad, in Baquba 50km northeast of the capital as well as in the northern cities Mosul and Kirkuk.
The British troops were on board a C-130 transport plane that crashed near Balad city just northwest of Baghdad. The British military has yet to reveal the cause of the crash.
Despite unprecedented security measures in which 300,000 U.S. and Iraqi security forces were brought in to curb the violence, nine suicide bombers and frequent mortar attacks took a heavy toll in the capital city, while strings of attacks were reported around the rest of the country.
As U..S. President George W. Bush saw it, ”some Iraqis were killed while exercising their rights as citizens.”
Posted by Dahr_Jamail at January 31, 2005 03:34 PM
Inter Press Service
Dahr Jamail
BAGHDAD, Jan 31 (IPS) - Voting in Baghdad was linked with receipt of food rations, several voters said after the Sunday poll.
Many Iraqis said Monday that their names were marked on a list provided by the government agency that provides monthly food rations before they were allowed to vote.
”I went to the voting centre and gave my name and district where I lived to a man,” said Wassif Hamsa, a 32-year-old journalist who lives in the predominantly Shia area Janila in Baghdad. ”This man then sent me to the person who distributed my monthly food ration.”
Mohammed Ra'ad, an engineering student who lives in the Baya'a district of the capital city reported a similar experience.
Ra'ad, 23, said he saw the man who distributed monthly food rations in his district at his polling station. ”The food dealer, who I know personally of course, took my name and those of my family who were voting,” he said. ”Only then did I get my ballot and was allowed to vote.”
”Two of the food dealers I know told me personally that our food rations would be withheld if we did not vote,” said Saeed Jodhet, a 21-year-old engineering student who voted in the Hay al-Jihad district of Baghdad.
There has been no official indication that Iraqis who did not vote would not receive their monthly food rations.
Many Iraqis had expressed fears before the election that their monthly food rations would be cut if they did not vote. They said they had to sign voter registration forms in order to pick up their food supplies.
Their experiences on the day of polling have underscored many of their concerns about questionable methods used by the U.S.-backed Iraqi interim government to increase voter turnout.
Just days before the election, 52 year-old Amin Hajar who owns an auto garage in central Baghdad had said: ”I'll vote because I can't afford to have my food ration cut...if that happened, me and my family would starve to death.”
Hajar told IPS that when he picked up his monthly food ration recently, he was forced to sign a form stating that he had picked up his voter registration. He had feared that the government would use this information to track those who did not vote.
Calls to the Independent Electoral Commission for Iraq (IECI) and to the Ministry of Trade, which is responsible for the distribution of the monthly food ration, were not returned.
Other questions have arisen over methods to persuade people to vote. U.S. troops tried to coax voters in Ramadi, capital city of the al-Anbar province west of Baghdad to come out to vote, AP reported.
IECI officials have meanwhile 'downgraded' their earlier estimate of voter turnout.
IECI spokesman Farid Ayar had declared a 72 percent turnout earlier, a figure given also by the Bush Administration.
But at a press conference Ayar backtracked on his earlier figure, saying the turnout would be nearer 60 percent of registered voters.
The earlier figure of 72 percent, he said, was ”only guessing” and ”just an estimate” that had been based on ”very rough, word of mouth estimates gathered informally from the field.” He added that it will be some time before the IECI can issue accurate figures on the turnout.
”Percentages and numbers come only after counting and will be announced when it's over,” he said. ”It is too soon to say that those were the official numbers.”
Where there was a large turnout, the motivation behind the voting and the processes both appeared questionable. The Kurds up north were voting for autonomy, if not independence. In the south and elsewhere Shias were competing with Kurds for a bigger say in the 275-member national assembly.
In some places like Mosul the turnout was heavier than expected. But many of the voters came from outside, and identity checks on voters appeared lax. Others spoke of vote-buying bids.
The Bush Administration has lauded the success of the Iraq election, but doubtful voting practices and claims about voter turnout are both mired in controversy.
Election violence too was being seen differently across the political spectrum.
More than 30 Iraqis, a U.S. soldier, and at least 10 British troops died Sunday. Hundreds of Iraqis were also wounded in attacks across Baghdad, in Baquba 50km northeast of the capital as well as in the northern cities Mosul and Kirkuk.
The British troops were on board a C-130 transport plane that crashed near Balad city just northwest of Baghdad. The British military has yet to reveal the cause of the crash.
Despite unprecedented security measures in which 300,000 U.S. and Iraqi security forces were brought in to curb the violence, nine suicide bombers and frequent mortar attacks took a heavy toll in the capital city, while strings of attacks were reported around the rest of the country.
As U..S. President George W. Bush saw it, ”some Iraqis were killed while exercising their rights as citizens.”
Posted by Dahr_Jamail at January 31, 2005 03:34 PM
Last edited by iaafan on Tue Feb 01, 2005 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
iaafan
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 7660
- Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm
Published on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 by the Guardian (UK)
The Vietnam Turnout Was Good as Well
No amount of spin can conceal Iraqis' hostility to US occupation
by Sami Ramadani
On September 4 1967 the New York Times published an upbeat story on presidential elections held by the South Vietnamese puppet regime at the height of the Vietnam war. Under the heading "US encouraged by Vietnam vote: Officials cite 83% turnout despite Vietcong terror", the paper reported that the Americans had been "surprised and heartened" by the size of the turnout "despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting". A successful election, it went on, "has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam". The echoes of this weekend's propaganda about Iraq's elections are so close as to be uncanny.
With the past few days' avalanche of spin, you could be forgiven for thinking that on January 30 2005 the US-led occupation of Iraq ended and the people won their freedom and democratic rights. This has been a multi-layered campaign, reminiscent of the pre-war WMD frenzy and fantasies about the flowers Iraqis were collecting to throw at the invasion forces. How you could square the words democracy, free and fair with the brutal reality of occupation, martial law, a US-appointed election commission and secret candidates has rarely been allowed to get in the way of the hype.
If truth is the first casualty of war, reliable numbers must be the first casualty of an occupation-controlled election. The second layer of spin has been designed to convince us that an overwhelming majority of Iraqis participated. The initial claim of 72% having voted was quickly downgraded to 57% of those registered to vote. So what percentage of the adult population is registered to vote? The Iraqi ambassador in London was unable to enlighten me. In fact, as UN sources confirm, there has been no registration or published list of electors - all we are told is that about 14 million people were entitled to vote.
As for Iraqis abroad, the up to 4 million strong exiled community (with perhaps a little over 2 million entitled to vote) produced a 280,000 registration figure. Of those, 265,000 actually voted.
The Iraqi south, more religious than Baghdad, responded positively to Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani's position: to call the bluff of the US and vote for a list that was proclaimed to be hostile to the occupation. Sistani's supporters declared that voting on Sunday was the first step to kicking out the occupiers. The months ahead will put these declarations to a severe test. Meanwhile Moqtada al-Sadr's popular movement, which rejected the elections as a sham, is likely to make a comeback in its open resistance to the occupation.
The big vote in Kurdistan primarily reflects the Kurdish people's demand for national self-determination. The US administration has hitherto clamped down on these pressures. Henry Kissinger's recent proposal to divide Iraq into three states reflects a major shift among influential figures in the US who, led by Kissinger as secretary of state, ditched the Kurds in the 70s and brokered a deal between Saddam and the Shah of Iran.
George Bush and Tony Blair made heroic speeches on Sunday implying that Iraqis had voted to approve the occupation. Those who insist that the US is desperate for an exit strategy are misreading its intentions. The facts on the ground, including the construction of massive military bases in Iraq, indicate that the US is digging in to install and back a long-term puppet regime. For this reason, the US-led presence will continue, with all that entails in terms of bloodshed and destruction.
In the run-up to the poll, much of the western media presented it as a high-noon shootout between the terrorist Zarqawi and the Iraqi people, with the occupation forces doing their best to enable the people to defeat the fiendish, one-legged Jordanian murderer. In reality, Zarqawi-style sectarian violence is not only condemned by Iraqis across the political spectrum, including supporters of the resistance, but is widely seen as having had a blind eye turned to it by the occupation authorities. Such attitudes are dismissed by outsiders, but the record of John Negroponte, the US ambassador in Baghdad, of backing terror gangs in central America in the 80s has fuelled these fears, as has Seymour Hirsh's reports on the Pentagon's assassination squads and enthusiasm for the "Salvador option".
An honest analysis of the social and political map of Iraq reveals that Iraqis are increasingly united in their determination to end the occupation. Whether they participated in or boycotted Sunday's exercise, this political bond will soon reassert itself - just as it did in Vietnam - despite tactical differences, and despite the US-led occupation's attempts to dominate Iraqis by inflaming sectarian and ethnic divisions.
Sami Ramadani was a political refugee from Saddam Hussein's regime and is a senior lecturer at London Metropolitan University.
The Vietnam Turnout Was Good as Well
No amount of spin can conceal Iraqis' hostility to US occupation
by Sami Ramadani
On September 4 1967 the New York Times published an upbeat story on presidential elections held by the South Vietnamese puppet regime at the height of the Vietnam war. Under the heading "US encouraged by Vietnam vote: Officials cite 83% turnout despite Vietcong terror", the paper reported that the Americans had been "surprised and heartened" by the size of the turnout "despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting". A successful election, it went on, "has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam". The echoes of this weekend's propaganda about Iraq's elections are so close as to be uncanny.
With the past few days' avalanche of spin, you could be forgiven for thinking that on January 30 2005 the US-led occupation of Iraq ended and the people won their freedom and democratic rights. This has been a multi-layered campaign, reminiscent of the pre-war WMD frenzy and fantasies about the flowers Iraqis were collecting to throw at the invasion forces. How you could square the words democracy, free and fair with the brutal reality of occupation, martial law, a US-appointed election commission and secret candidates has rarely been allowed to get in the way of the hype.
If truth is the first casualty of war, reliable numbers must be the first casualty of an occupation-controlled election. The second layer of spin has been designed to convince us that an overwhelming majority of Iraqis participated. The initial claim of 72% having voted was quickly downgraded to 57% of those registered to vote. So what percentage of the adult population is registered to vote? The Iraqi ambassador in London was unable to enlighten me. In fact, as UN sources confirm, there has been no registration or published list of electors - all we are told is that about 14 million people were entitled to vote.
As for Iraqis abroad, the up to 4 million strong exiled community (with perhaps a little over 2 million entitled to vote) produced a 280,000 registration figure. Of those, 265,000 actually voted.
The Iraqi south, more religious than Baghdad, responded positively to Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani's position: to call the bluff of the US and vote for a list that was proclaimed to be hostile to the occupation. Sistani's supporters declared that voting on Sunday was the first step to kicking out the occupiers. The months ahead will put these declarations to a severe test. Meanwhile Moqtada al-Sadr's popular movement, which rejected the elections as a sham, is likely to make a comeback in its open resistance to the occupation.
The big vote in Kurdistan primarily reflects the Kurdish people's demand for national self-determination. The US administration has hitherto clamped down on these pressures. Henry Kissinger's recent proposal to divide Iraq into three states reflects a major shift among influential figures in the US who, led by Kissinger as secretary of state, ditched the Kurds in the 70s and brokered a deal between Saddam and the Shah of Iran.
George Bush and Tony Blair made heroic speeches on Sunday implying that Iraqis had voted to approve the occupation. Those who insist that the US is desperate for an exit strategy are misreading its intentions. The facts on the ground, including the construction of massive military bases in Iraq, indicate that the US is digging in to install and back a long-term puppet regime. For this reason, the US-led presence will continue, with all that entails in terms of bloodshed and destruction.
In the run-up to the poll, much of the western media presented it as a high-noon shootout between the terrorist Zarqawi and the Iraqi people, with the occupation forces doing their best to enable the people to defeat the fiendish, one-legged Jordanian murderer. In reality, Zarqawi-style sectarian violence is not only condemned by Iraqis across the political spectrum, including supporters of the resistance, but is widely seen as having had a blind eye turned to it by the occupation authorities. Such attitudes are dismissed by outsiders, but the record of John Negroponte, the US ambassador in Baghdad, of backing terror gangs in central America in the 80s has fuelled these fears, as has Seymour Hirsh's reports on the Pentagon's assassination squads and enthusiasm for the "Salvador option".
An honest analysis of the social and political map of Iraq reveals that Iraqis are increasingly united in their determination to end the occupation. Whether they participated in or boycotted Sunday's exercise, this political bond will soon reassert itself - just as it did in Vietnam - despite tactical differences, and despite the US-led occupation's attempts to dominate Iraqis by inflaming sectarian and ethnic divisions.
Sami Ramadani was a political refugee from Saddam Hussein's regime and is a senior lecturer at London Metropolitan University.
-
SonomaCat
- Moderator
- Posts: 23999
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
- Location: Sonoma County, CA
- Contact:
You can dig up all of the negative spin that you want, but I was still encouraged that the elections went as well as they did, that as many people showed up to vote as did, and that as little violence (relatively speaking) occurred as it did. This isn't a U.S. government smoke screen -- the press all over the world, including much of it hostile to the U.S., reported favorably on the elections.
I don't think the war has been executed the right way, and I think that a lot of blatant dishonesty has gotten us to where we are now. However, I still hope for the best possible result. People showing up to vote in a free election (even if they are voting for people for don't want us in the country -- I don't want us in the country much longer, either) is definitely a positive thing for the country of Iraq and the region as a whole. If they manage to make a real, working democracy out of that place, it will be a positive move for the region. Further, it may well demoralize the Sunni minority who are nearly all of the insurgents. They perceive democracy to be bad as they used to run the country, but they now will be secondary to the Shiites in terms of a voting block. Their efforts to halt the election for their own perceived political gain have failed. Perhaps they will now be more open to "fighting the power" in more humane ways (power of the pen, voting, etc.) as opposed to killing their fellow citizens.
Of course, my personal preference would be that they carve the country up into three countries along its historical lines and ignore the arbitrary Iraq boundaries drawn by the British, but that idea doesn't seem to be going anywhere. The Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites are just going to have to learn how to get along without a all-powerful dictator instilling fear into them to control their urges to hurt each other.
I don't think the war has been executed the right way, and I think that a lot of blatant dishonesty has gotten us to where we are now. However, I still hope for the best possible result. People showing up to vote in a free election (even if they are voting for people for don't want us in the country -- I don't want us in the country much longer, either) is definitely a positive thing for the country of Iraq and the region as a whole. If they manage to make a real, working democracy out of that place, it will be a positive move for the region. Further, it may well demoralize the Sunni minority who are nearly all of the insurgents. They perceive democracy to be bad as they used to run the country, but they now will be secondary to the Shiites in terms of a voting block. Their efforts to halt the election for their own perceived political gain have failed. Perhaps they will now be more open to "fighting the power" in more humane ways (power of the pen, voting, etc.) as opposed to killing their fellow citizens.
Of course, my personal preference would be that they carve the country up into three countries along its historical lines and ignore the arbitrary Iraq boundaries drawn by the British, but that idea doesn't seem to be going anywhere. The Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites are just going to have to learn how to get along without a all-powerful dictator instilling fear into them to control their urges to hurt each other.
-
iaafan
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 7660
- Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm
-
Bleedinbluengold
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3427
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:24 am
- Location: Belly of the Beast
-
UMfaninkazoo
- BobcatNation Redshirt
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 3:11 pm
Hmm....the one editorial piece was from the UK.....they never see anything positive from the Bush Administration....the voting was a success in Iraq......voting was a success here in the US....but since Kerry lost the election many Democrats don't think it was a success....do we see the cupboard half full or half empty......finally how dare Katie Couric to ask if the Iraqi woman and the mom of the slain soldier from Texas hugging was set up.....this is what riles people against the DNC and their supporters.