Let's just recap. What actually happened yesterday:
The insurgent strongholds north of Baghdad were and are still being smoked out by a massive air and ground coalition assault, the largest since three years, very likely targeting al-Zarqawi and his cohorts of terrorist thugs.
The Administration reiterates in no uncertain terms its stance on the War on Terror: Zero Tolerance. This is the unequivocal message in the national security report, released, ahem, the same day.
On the same day. we are being told that "The level of “chatter” by al Qaeda operatives is currently as high or higher than in the months prior to 9-11, and the question in many parts of the U.S. and European intelligence communities is not if al Qaeda will strike again, but when."
Simultaneously, the Iraqi Intelligence Service documents are released giving undeniable proof that the "Bush lied people died" liberal doctrine is DEAD, and that their adopted 'holy man' Saddam Hussein was indeed guilty as charged. The word WMD becomes redundant. Liberals declare another Day of Mourning.
Among the enduring myths of those who oppose the war is that Saddam, though murderous when it came to his own people, had no weapons of mass destruction and no terrorist designs outside his own country. Both claims now lie in tatters. Suddenly the MSM stays conspicuously silent, too lazy or not interested in reviewing the evidence. If it no longer has 'Bush bashing appeal', it becomes utterly irrelevant.
Everyone turns towards each other and says: "Iran is next".
And then, this is probably the most revealing of all, Iran announces that it would like to hold face to face talks with the Great Satan about Iraq. Think about it for a moment. Take into consideration all the rhetoric and blustering over the past many months. One great big f... you. And suddenly, on this very day, Iran wants to talk about Iraq. Ask yourself, why? Could it be that Iran has realized that it has overplayed its hand? That it has just needled the Great Satan one too many times by blowing up the shrine and hoping to throw Iraq into civil war? We don't know, but we do know, that something major is up and that Iran knows it.
The apologists are cringing in the corner, and I am saying "It's about time".
The scene is set for the last piece in the First Strike Doctrine: Do you want to know what the House of Representatives International Relations Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation and their leadership were told the same day in relation to Hamas' strategy after the Palestinian elections? What they were told yesterday about this strategy and its limitations, and what policy recommendations were put forward? What they were told in relation to the War On Terror in the wider region and context?
Thanks to Memri's President Yigal Carmon, we get front row seats during yesterday's Capitol Hill briefing, joining the leadership of the committee, Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA) and Ranking Member Brad Sherman (D-CA) and Rep. Steven Rothman (D-NJ), the Chair of the Middle East and Central Asia Subcommittee Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla) and Ranking Member Gary Ackerman (D - NY).
Let me cut to the chase. They were told:
- That the global War on Terrorism has prompted Hamas' choice of political participation. It "...made Hamas (as part of the mother organization, the Muslim Brotherhood) realize that in the post-9/11 world, terrorist organizations have no future, while political participation could still allow them to achieve some of their major goals."
- That the conditions placed on Hamas after their election victory vis-à-vis Israel (renunciation of violence, recognition of Israel, and respecting prior agreements) are ineffectual for the following two reasons:
- They can be met on a limited tactical and temporary basis - and, indeed, Hamas has begun to do so.
- The limited focus on Israel overlooks the more important, broader issue - namely, the political participation of the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as of secular nationalist movements, in other Arab and Muslim countries.
- That Hamas' success is poseing a regional threat to U.S. interests. "If the West reconciles itself to that victory, the Muslim Brotherhood is likely to repeat that success in Egypt and Jordan. Abu Mazen and the PLO will be further pushed aside, and the current regimes in Jordan and Egypt may be severely threatened. This will have implications for the stability of the entire Middle East."
- That the critical point of no return is deemed to be when Hamas assumes command of the Palestinian security forces. "At that point, the crisis will become much more difficult to manage, as well as more likely to spin out of control. This is liable to happen because Hamas's declared strategy is one of combining political participation with continued resistance, as stated by Mash'al, Haniya, and Al-Zahar ("The hoisted rifle will be in one hand, and politics and authority in the other.")".
- That Hamas is unlikely to undergo a process of moderation; that the tactical/temporary moves currently being stated and made by Hamas in its efforts to gain world recognition for its takeover are just an attempt to hoodwink the West. "Unlike the PLO, which is a distinct, national organization limited to one people and one land, Hamas is bound to the regional - and even global - Muslim Brotherhood movement, with its comprehensive Islamic framework. As such, it is likely to keep the faith."
What follows are the Recommendations:
U.S. demands should focus on internal, ideological, and organizational transformation. They should be directed not only towards Hamas, but, first and foremost, towards its parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood. (Indeed, these demands should be applicable to secular nationalist movements as well.)
Framing these demands as universally applied international standards will garner the support of the E.U. and the U.N.
In order to encourage the Brotherhood and its branches to take the first steps in adapting themselves to international political standards, political recognition should be granted only when the following conditions are met by Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and included in their official political platforms with which they go to elections:
- Endorsement of politics to the exclusion of violence and the use of force. Hamas needs to transform itself from an armed resistance movement into an unarmed political party. The same holds true for Fatah, which was supposed to undergo this transformation in the Oslo process, but has not done so, to this day. Once Fatah takes such a step, the pressure on Hamas and other factions to do the same will gain momentum; in the event that Hamas does not comply, it will be denied international recognition.
- Endorsement of the full package of democratic values. This demand is long overdue. It will reverse the erosion of the notion of democracy, which, in recent years, has been reduced to mean only free elections.
This full package of democratic values should include: equality of all before the law regardless of religion, ethnicity, or gender; and the official endorsement in the organizations' political platforms of all constitutional freedoms, embodied in internationally-accepted conventions, such as the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, the U.N. Charter, relevant E.U. conventions, and other accepted international standards.
And I say "dream on", because Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood isn't going to yield and the West won't have the stomach to stand firm in the face of their repudiation.
The key to this lies in the brilliant observation, "...the notion of democracy, which, in recent years, has been reduced to mean only free elections." That is the prevalent standard to which the West has reduced the meaning of democracy in the Middle East. As long as critics are being admonished with the mantra, "You wanted democracy. You've got it. Your continued criticism even after a fair and free election, only goes to expose your hypocritical xenophobia in all its naked ugliness", and no concerted effort is made to realign public perception with the fundamental and unalterable democratic values of equality for all before the law regardless of religion, ethnicity, or gender, we are just buying Hamas time until they fulfill their stated goals.
Michael van der Galien supports the common left view which is: "I firmly believe that the first step in the democratization process are free and open elections. We had that now."
Obviously I disagree, and the result we had has proven this a dangerous assumption. Filou puts it succinctly explaining my "Dream on" above: " ...we believe that by organizing free elections, the Middle East is going to transform itself into an oasis of peace. The reality is that the main thing we are currently achieving is to help Islamist parties to replace corrupt leaders. Instead of pushing for free elections and of legalizing fascist parties, we should first promote the cornerstones of democracy in the Middle East: freedom of speech, of religion, of press, etc. And we should heavily fund the local groups and parties that are in line with such values."
It is time for us to take a closer look at history and how Hitler and the NSDAP got elected. More and more the tell tale signs command us to take heed of our past mistakes and bitter lessons learned. Make sure you read The Ghost Of Appeasement" where I highlight the tragic similarities between Abbas and Germany's Franz von Papen, who famously and most arrogantly underestimated Hitler; it was von Papen who single handedly paved the way for Hitler's Chancellery and subsequent legal accession to power, all the while boasting, "Within two months we will have pushed Hitler so far in the corner that he'll squeak".
It is Abbas who is set to repeat the same mistaken political calculus when believing he'll outmaneuver Hamas. He won't, which leaves it to the West to stand by Israel and force Hamas to abandon all hope of fulfilling any of its tyrannical goals whilst perverting democratic values and principals at every turn.
Whether the West is up for it is debatable, as Joe Katzman from the brilliant blog 'Winds of Change' pointed out yesterday, "And
at every step, spoken in soft undertones with occasional slips into
open voice, comes the real subtext: You asked for it. Defending
yourselves is criminal"!
Scott Johnson has more @ Powerline, where he has this from Debka:
Hamas leaders decided Thursday, March 16, to form a government without the defeated Fatah and its leader, Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas. They are aware that Abbas is preparing an "ambush" for them and intends to announce the dissolution of the Palestinian Legislative Council and call for new elections in a few months. If Abbas pursues this course, Hamas intends to beat him to the punch: using its majority in the PLC, it will announce new elections for the PA chairmanship. Hamas already has a candidate for the job whom they believe capable of defeating Abbas handily.
More extensive coverage on the Iraqi documents from Ed Morrissey:
All of this emphasizes that Iraq had plenty of connections to terrorism, had secret contacts with the Taliban about al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's efforts to coordinate attacks on America with Iraq, conspired to corrupt at least one of the permanent members of the UNSC, and built elaborate ruses to defy the UN and the cease-fire agreement which kept Saddam in power. Just these few documents show all the reasons why any war on terror had to include toppling Saddam Hussein ... and there are plenty more to come.
James Lewis @ The American Thinker who also has important information on the Muslim Brotherhod organization who run Hamas:
We must pursue a much more vigorous process of democratization in the Middle East, one that is focused on free expression of opinion, equal rights for women, and legal protections against arbitrary power. Doing so in the midst of an international assault by both Sunni and Shiite extremists, willing to kill without conscience, is going to be a major challenge, on par with the Cold War. We are in fact in another Cold War, which may turn hot if it is not handled both aggressively and thoughtfully. The strategic cowardice of Europeans and Democrats are no help, of course. But the Cold War was won when the people of Russia and Eastern Europe found a way to true democracy. That must be our aim today.
Thank you to Hugh Hewitt for noticing.
MARCH 18TH UPDATE: Stephen Hayes @ The Weekly Standard who has been on this from the beginning has the latest from the Iraqi documents:
SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REGIME PROVIDED FINANCIAL support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law in the Philippines in the late 1990s, according to documents captured in postwar Iraq. An eight-page fax dated June 6, 2001, and sent from the Iraqi ambassador in Manila to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Baghdad, provides an update on Abu Sayyaf kidnappings and indicates that the Iraqi regime was providing the group with money to purchase weapons. The Iraqi regime suspended its support--temporarily, it seems--after high-profile kidnappings, including of Americans, focused international attention on the terrorist group.
At the same time that leftists would have us believe that Saddam was safely in a "box" and contained by UN sanctions, he had corrupted the UN's aid program and plundered his own nation for billions of dollars. Obviously, some of this went to Abu Sayyaf until they got a little too notorious and the Iraqis had to pull back. Before that, however, they showed some enthusiasm for not only giving the Islamists money but also smuggling arms into the Philippines for their use.
Hugh Hewitt, quite rightly points out:
The danger in the overwhelming amount of information now flooding from the suddenly available docs is that MSM will simply shut down under the pressure of too many comfortable assumptions upended.
In this respect the new docs are like the oil-for-food scandal trail --so vast and unweildly that ill-trained journalists simply throw up their hands and declare that no sense can be made of the mess.
Pajamas Media has an ongoing team of bloggers seeking to translate the Iraqi documents, and provides videos with background information, so keep an eye on their site for updates.
Another excellent and well researched post from Michael van der Galien on "Hamas: Ready To Rule Alone and Who Is Dr. Mahmoud Zahar?"
More on this @ Power Line The Corner on National, Flopping Aces, The Jawa Report, Gina Cobb, The Real Ugly American, The Strata-Sphere, Politburo Diktat, and Wizbang's talented Kim Priestap, who refreshes our memories about Burnhams.
Linked to Wizbang and Stop The ACLU Carnivals.
[I HAVE NOT DELETED THIS COMMENT DESPITE ITS DESIGN TO PROMOTE THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND THE FACT THAT IT IS SPAM. I HAVE KEPT IT ON ATB TO SHOW WHAT DECEITFUL PROPAGANDA IS BEING PEDDLED TO THE MUSLIM EXTREMISTS AND THE FAR LEFT. ITS GOOD TO KNOW TO WHAT EXTENT THE DELUSION AND THE DECEIT CONTINUES TO FLOURISH AMONGST THE IGNORANT]
The Main office of the official Muslim Brotherhood website is located in London, although the site has correspondents in most countries. Our staff is exclusively made of volunteers and stretched over the five continents.
The Muslim Brotherhood opinions and views can be found under the sections of MB statements and MB opinions, in addition to the Editorial Message.
Items posted under "other views" are usually different from these of the MuslimBrotherhood. Ikhwanweb does not censor any articles or comments but has the right only to remove any inappropriate words that defy public taste
Ikhwanweb is not a news website, although we report news that matter to the Muslim
Brotherhood's cause. Our main misson is to present the Muslim Brotherhood vision right from the source and rebut misonceptions about the movement in western societies. We value debate on the issues and we welcome constructive criticism.
Dr. Mohamed El-Sayed Habib, First Deputy of the Chairman of the Muslim Brotherhood, affirmed that the artificial uproar over the feared establishment of a so-called religious state and the related allegations concerning a resulting threat to Copts’ rights and to arts and creativity, following the big Brotherhood electoral victory in the latest legislative elections in Egypt, is no more than an artificial, unfounded controversy.
He talked about the Brotherhood’s vision of the political and economic reform, how to bring about development in its broadest sense, the Brotherhood’s relations with the U.S. administration and other topics that we discussed with him in this interview.
Q: The latest period has witnessed a clear ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood on the political scene as a result of which it garnered 88 seats in the People’s Assembly -Egypt’s parliament. What are the issues that the Brotherhood will be interested in raising in the People’s Assembly?
A: I would like first to confirm that the presence in the People’s Assembly of 88 Muslim
Brothers will not substantially affect the form or composition of the assembly where the ruling party enjoys, in its own words, a more than comfortable majority. The difference there is that the debate will be serious, the discussions will be fruitful and constructive and the oversight and law-making roles will be more distinguished. This could have a favorable effect on the decisions of the People’s Assembly, enhancing its effectiveness and restoring citizens’ confidence in it. Regarding the main issues that preoccupy the Brotherhood deputies, they revolve around three major questions:
First, the question of political reform and constitutional amendment, bearing in mind that it represents the true and natural point of departure for all other kinds of reforms;
Second, the question of education, scientific research and native development of technology since this constitutes the mainstay of resurgence and the basis for progress and advance.
Third, the question of comprehensive development in all its dimensions: human, economic, social, cultural, etc.
In this regard, we cannot fail to emphasize the societal problems from which the Egyptian citizenry suffers, i.e. unemployment, inflation and increasing prices, housing crisis, health problems, environmental pollution, etc.
Q: There are some people who accuse Muslim Brothers of being against arts and creativity and are concerned that your deputies in parliament will take an attitude against everything implying culture and creativity. What do you think?
A: In principle, we are not against culture, arts and creativity. On the contrary, Islam
strongly encourages refining the public taste and confirms the need to shape one’s mind, heart and conscience in such a way as to bring forth man’s potentialities and prompt him to invent and innovate in all fields of life. There is no doubt that the atmosphere of freedom is conducive to a creative culture and creative arts, particularly if the latter express the daily concerns of the citizen and the challenges he faces and if they reflect the values of society and the public morality observed by people of good nature and sound minds.
On the other hand, the atmosphere of dictatorship and despotism produces a kind of culture and art that is more inclined towards abject trivialities, indecencies, depreciation of people’s minds and deepening their ignorance. A nation that is capable of innovation and creativity is necessarily capable of bringing about resurgence, advance and progress. Some people consider that creativity is born from the womb of suffering. Every society has peculiar cultural identity and has its values, traditions and customs. I think it is the right of the people’s deputies, or rather their duty, to maintain that peculiarity and to play their role in bringing to accountability those bodies or institutions that promote pornography, homosexuality or moral perversion under the guise of creativity. It is essential to subject those so-called creative works to examination and review by specialized and expert people in various fields. Ultimately, it is the judiciary that has the final say as to whether or not those works should be allowed.
Q: Do you have an integral program for the uplifting of the political and economic situation of Egypt?
A: We believe that the political reform is the true and natural gateway for all other kinds of reform. We have announced our acceptance of democracy that acknowledges political pluralism, the peaceful rotation of power and the fact that the nation is the source of all powers. As we see it, political reform includes the termination of the state of emergency, restoring public freedoms, including the right to establish political parties, whatever their tendencies may be, and the freedom of the press, freedom of criticism and thought, freedom of peaceful demonstrations, freedom of assembly, etc. It also includes the dismantling of all exceptional courts and the annulment of all exceptional laws, establishing the independence of the judiciary, enabling the judiciary to fully and truly supervise general elections so as to ensure that they authentically express people’s will, removing all obstacles that restrict the functioning of civil society organizations, etc.
We cannot forget in this regard the need to make constitutional amendments, including modifying the text of article 76 of the Constitution with a view to ensuring equal opportunities and free and true competition among all citizens, through the annulment of all impossible conditions that were arbitrarily inserted in the latest amendment of that article - conditions which have emptied that amendment from its substance. The reform should also include changing the wording of article 77 of the Constitution so as to limit the tenure of the presidency to just one four-year term, extendable only by one more term; changing the articles which grant the president of the republic absolute and unlimited powers and establishing his accountability before the legislative council in view of the fact that he heads the executive branch of government.
As to our program for reviving the economy, it comprises several basic mainstays:
1. Reviewing the role of the public sector and the privatization process;
2. Providing social welfare through the subsidies scheme and the restoration of the
institution of Zakat (poor dues in Islam);
3. Reforming the State’s public finance (public expenditures, fiscal policy, public
borrowing, deficit financing);
4. Correcting the monetary policy track;
5. Balanced opening up to the world economy (liberalization of foreign trade, promoting exports and foreign investments);
7. Intensifying popular participation, through providing support to local councils and
reinstating the rights of Islamic Wakfs (religious endowments);
8. Seeking urgent solutions to the unemployment problem till grow becomes self-propelled;
9. Supporting the private sector as a spearhead for the realization of development
objectives;
10. Confronting corruption decisively; and
11. Catching up with scientific and technological progress.
Q: The political reform program put forth by Muslim Brothers does not differ from those of other political parties, what is then the advantage of your program?
A: Muslim Brotherhood shares most elements of political reform with other political and national forces. This is due to the joint efforts that political parties and forces have deployed during the past decades, which had culminated in the adoption in 1997 of a common document for political reform called “Political Reform and Democracy”.
Certainly, there are differences among political formations as to the priority to be
assigned to those elements, as well as the mechanisms to be employed. There is also a semi-agreement among all political forces on the need to introduce some constitutional amendments- as was mentioned earlier- although some secularists want to change the Constitution in a comprehensive and drastic way, including article 2 of the current Constitution which states that Islam is the official religion of the State and that the principles of Islamic sharia (law) are the main source of legislation. Such a change would be in complete conflict with the desire of the entire people, who are characterized by their strong religious attachment and their willingness to be governed by the provisions of Islam.
We must not, however, forget the belief and morality dimension which the Muslim Brotherhood insists on observing in their practice of politics as well as its compliance with Islamic legal rules and precepts such as the discipline of jurisprudence dealing with priorities and balances, etc.
Q: Some segments of the elite in
Egypt and abroad are worried that the Muslim Brotherhood seeks to establish a theocracy. How would you react to that?
A:This concern stems from a wrong understanding of the nature of Islam. To those who speak about a religious state, in the same ecclesiastical meaning given to it in Europe in the middle ages, when the church had hegemony over a State’s authorities, we wish to say that the issue here is completely different.
The Muslim Brotherhood has gone through the latest legislative elections on the basis of a clear-cut program under the slogan “Islam is the Solution”, given the fact that Islam, as Imam el-Banna said, is a comprehensive program that encompasses all aspects of life: it is a state and a country, a government and people, ethics and power, mercy and justice, culture and law, science and justice, resources and wealth, defense and advocacy, an army and an idea, a true belief and correct acts of worship (Imam el-Banna’s Teachings Message). In fact, this conforms fully to the Constitution which states, in its second article, that the State’s religion is Islam and that principles of Islamic sharia (law) are the main source of legislation. We say that the State that we want is a civic state, i.e. a state of institutions, based on the principles of constitutional government. Imam el-Banna states: “the principles of constitutional government consist of: maintaining all kinds of personal freedom, consultation and deriving authority from the people, responsibility of the government before the people and its accountability for its actions, and the clear demarcation of power of each branch of government. When a scholar considers those principles, he would clearly find out that they are all in full agreement with the teachings, disciplines and norms of Islam concerning the system of government.
Consequently, Muslim Brothers think that the constitutional system of government is the closest system of government in the world to Islam. They prefer it to any other system of government.” (Message to the 5th Conference).
Q: Although the Brotherhood refuses to submit an application for the establishment of a political party under the pretext that the Political Party Committee is unconstitutional, some people submitted similar applications which were approved, what do you think about that?
A: Along with other political and national forces, we seek to amend or change the Political Parties Law. Consequently, the so-called Political Party Committee is unconstitutional and acts as both adversary and judge. It creates more problems than it solves and interferes in the internal affairs of parties in such a way as to paralyze their movement and curb their effectiveness. This is one of the reasons why those parties are weak and fragile.
Furthermore, we don’t want to set up a political party to face the same destiny as existing parties. The problem lies in the general political atmosphere and unless that atmosphere is changed things will remain what they are now. Briefly, we want the party to be established when people want to have it established, just through notification.
Q: Your discourse sometimes mixes between religion and politics which means that you are neither purely religious people nor purely professional politicians. What is the nature of that dichotomy?
A:Politics is part of religion. I remember in this regard Imam al-Banna’s statement that “If Islam is something different than politics, sociology, economics and culture, what is it then?” He also says “A Muslim is not fully Muslim unless he engages in politics, thinks over the state of affairs of his Umma and concerns himself with it.”
Q: Some Copts in Egypt were so alarmed by the recent rise of the Muslim Brotherhood that some of them declared that they would leave Egypt as a result! What is the nature of the Brotherhood’s relations with Copts?
A: We consider our Coptic brothers as citizens enjoying all rights associated with
citizenship and as part of the fabric of the Egyptian society. We consider them as partners in the country, in decision-making and in determining our future. Consequently, the basis for filling public posts shall be efficiency, ability and experience, not religion or beliefs. On that basis, we see no justification or logic for the concern of some Copts over the rise of Muslim Brothers. But this is due to the bad political atmosphere in which the Egyptian people live and which has led to a general state of apprehension and tension. It has been aggravated by the self-imposed isolation of our Coptic brothers and their failure to integrate in public life.
From our side, we are conducting dialogues with them and are trying to take them out of their isolation, by encouraging some individuals among them to take part in the activities of syndicates, conferences and symposiums dealing with public affairs. In addition, we support some of them in legislative and syndicate elections.
Q: From time to time, the question of your relations with the U.S. surfaces. Do you have any relation with them? Have you contacted them through direct or indirect channels?
A:There is no relation whatsoever between us the U.S. There is no contact of any kind with them. We have repeated that several times before. We are not a state within a state and we are very much interested in reinforcing the independence and prestige of our State and in respecting its institutions. We cannot permit anyone to compromise that prestige nor can we allow ourselves to be a reason for that. If the U.S. administration wants to enter into a dialogue with us, they first would have to get the approval of the Egyptian Foreign Ministry. And then what are we going to discuss with them?
Q: Your attitude with regard to Jews is not clear: at times you declare that you are not
going to cancel treaties concluded with them if you take power, and at times you say that the holocaust is a myth, what is exactly your attitude?
A: The Zionist entity (Israel) has usurped the land of Palestine, the land of Arabs and
Muslims. No proud people can accept to stay put when their land is occupied and their sacred places are assaulted. Resisting occupation is required by Islam and sanctioned by international law, agreements and customs. As to the Camp David Accord and the peace treaty that were concluded by Egypt with the Zionist entity (Israel) in the late 1970s, they are presumed to be thoroughly reviewed periodically by international lawyers, strategists and national security experts, taking into account the local, regional and international dimensions of the question. The outcome of their review should be submitted to the democratic institutions of the Sate for decision.
As to the reported statement describing the holocaust as a myth, it was not intended as a denial of the event but only a rejection of exaggerations put forward by Jews. This does not mean that we are not against the holocaust. Anyway, that event should not have led to the loss of the rights of the Palestinian people, the occupation of their land and the violation and assault of their sacred places and sanctities.
[I HAVE NOT DELETED THIS COMMENT DESPITE ITS DESIGN TO PROMOTE THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND THE FACT THAT IT IS SPAM. I HAVE KEPT IT ON ATB TO SHOW WHAT DECEITFUL PROPAGANDA IS BEING PEDDLED TO THE MUSLIM EXTREMISTS AND THE FAR LEFT. ITS GOOD TO KNOW TO WHAT EXTENT THE DELUSION AND THE DECEIT CONTINUES TO FLOURISH AMONGST THE IGNORANT]
Posted by: Muslim Brotherohod | Sunday, September 03, 2006 at 05:34 PM
Whew! Somehow I missed your heated response, Alexandra.
I've never claimed to have proof of the "Bush Lied People Died" meme. I don't know if Bush lied in addition to being unbelievably incompetent. I could make an argument that taking a bath is harmful without actually telling lies.
However, when you claim something is "undeniable proof," well, it means in many circles that it is irrefutable, bullet-proof, rock solid. I simply pointed out the important ways in which the evidence you offered was none of these things. Hence, this evidence held up as "undeniable proof" is pitiful.
Negroponte is not randomly releasing documents, these documents were chosen. It would be odd if Negroponte was reserving real undeniable proof of Iraq's involvement with al Qaeda or WMD for some later date. Maybe he's waiting for Bush's approval to hit the low 20s.
I've already read the reading list you provided. There's a Stephen Hayes article that would work better for your argument, Case Closed. Probably didn't use it because it's been shown to be a hodge-podge of recycled raw data. I've read many of Hayes pieces since the invasion of Iraq, and one thing always comes up... why is Hayes' evidence that isn't downplayed by the Pentagon (as the Feith memo was) soft-pedalled by the Bush administration? Bush could obviously gain alot of capitol if what Hayes writes is credible... why doesn't he come to the American public with the evidence Hayes has supposedly received from "11 government officials?" Those damned anonymous sources again...
You have your work cut out for you, Alexandra. You'll have to convince alot of people of this al Qaeda - Saddam conspiracy to attack the US, including the 9/11 commission, the National Security Council, the FBI, the CIA, and George W. Bush.
(today, in Cleveland, told the audience in response to a question that he never said Saddam was involved in 9/11.)
I'm not scared of a Saddam - al Qaeda relationship. I just don't see any convincing evidence of it. Not even close to be convincing enough to justify a war... even after the fact.
Posted by: Ron Jon Bovi Jovi | Monday, March 20, 2006 at 06:27 PM
Darrell=FUNNY
Thanks for giving me an out loud chuckle.
Thanks Alexandra for your analysis. I found it very helpful in sorting out the news of the past few days.
I dyed my right index finger purple and went to church this morning. Prayed for our soldiers and their families, and am hoping, praying for real Democracy, all over the world.
Jenny Hatch
Posted by: Jenny Hatch | Monday, March 20, 2006 at 12:29 AM
Yeah, undeniable . . . except that the article you link to expressly calls out the biggest problem with using these new documents as "proof" that Saddam was linked with OBL: the sourcing is questionable. After all the intelligence "failures" that have been resposible for events like 9-11 and the Iraq War (oil revenue will pay for the war, WMD, greeted as liberators, etc.) How could anyone describe the documents as "undeniable." They're more like "impossible to view without skepticism."
Posted by: tom | Sunday, March 19, 2006 at 09:15 PM
To answer your question, RL, (with sarcasm noted) is Abu Nidal was found dead in Baghdad. This extremly devout Muslim, to whom suicide outside the service of Allah is anathema, had managed to kill himself by firing six (SIX!) bullets into the back of his head. The bullets were fired from a gun found on the complete opposite side of the room.
The Iraqis adamently deny killing Nidal and stop short of admitting assisted suicide as they are not in Oregon. Either way, Nidal is dead and I slept quite nicely the night I heard the news, thank you very much.
Posted by: Indigo Red | Sunday, March 19, 2006 at 04:02 PM
where was the notorious Abu Nidal's, (a monster who was covered with the blood of innocent Americans, Jews, and Arabs), dead- body discovered; after he had spent several years living over there in comfort and very tight security ?
Posted by: RL | Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 08:17 PM
"undeniable proof" that Saddam and al Qaeda were allies
=
1 unnamed Afghani source, who overheard a conversation.
+
1 document outlining Saddam's concern that al Qaeda is in Iraq.
You don't really believe this is "undeniable proof." The first document is very easily denied, vague, unreliable, and, in the reasonable world, is classified as hearsay.
One of the claims by the unnamed source:
That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.
This is the real kicker. An Iranian told the Afghani consul about Iraq's relationship with bin Laden. Saddam's arch-rival, Iran, who could only benefit by an American invasion of Iraq, told the consul this. This is "undeniable proof?"
The second document is actually much more easily taken to be counter to your claim of collusion between Saddam and al Qaeda.
Saddam was actually searching for suspected al Qaeda members, including Zarqawi. It looks like an APB to me. What the ABC report doesn't mention is that this document also portrays Saddam as worried about Iraqis travelling to Afghanistan to help fight the Americans there. "Undeniable proof?"
Posted by: Ron Jon Bovi Jovi | Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 07:41 PM
it should be noted that by the grace and mercy of the living God, the secular Egyptian dictator Mubarak has survived 7 assasination attempts; none of which have softened his heart enough in order for him to finally place his faith, trust, and hope in His Creator, Christ The King.
if you value the life of your loved-ones and your own life, please don't play Egyptian-roulette by avoiding flying on Egypt air like the plague. their muslim pilots have been known to put their Boeing 767 aircraft into a vertical nose-dive into the Atlantic ocean in the name of "allah" and his false "prophet" (his voice and demonic & frightening message were captured on the CVR) shortly after take-off from JFK; with a full load of civilian and several senior-level Egyptian military officer passengers aboard the 767. "allah" and his false "prophet" made him (the Egypt air first officer) do it, despite his Captain repeatedly begging him to let go of the controls, and desperately fighting the flight-controls against him (recorded on the FDR) in order to save his passengers' lives, up until the final moment that they smashed into the Atlantic Ocean at full-speed. "religion of peace" ?
swiss.com
staralliance.com
(an air france-free airline network)
Posted by: RL | Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 06:06 PM
Btw about those pathetic ABC editor disclaimers listed by Ron above, I wonder if we will see that helpful disclaimer--"this document is of limited evidentiary value"--the next time ABC News or Newsweek or the NYTimes or the Washington Post uses unnamed, uncorroborated informants?
Posted by: Alexandra | Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 02:50 PM
Okay, Alexandra, let's back up. At the risk of being treated by you "with all due respect", I must say that you have simply tangled up the threads of this into an incoherent mess.
The only thing particularly startling in the American Thinker article is how startled James Lewis is by it all. He startles pretty easy.
Are the Muslim Brotherhood a threat to peacefully take over the governments of Egypt and Jordan? Then the obvious thing to do is to support the current governments in power, and to do it in the good old-fashioned way in which we did it throughout the 20th century--quietly, and with a bit of a blind eye to the rough stuff those governments have to pull from time to time in order to manage their own affairs.
Nothing we do to or about Hamas will materially affect this one way or the other. What we do in Jordan and Egypt will. A "first strike war doctrine" is simply beside the point here.
What are we going to do? Depose the governments of Jordan and Egypt simply to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from participating politically in them? And then introduce the people to the great advantages of the American management style as we have developed it over the last three years in Iraq?
And now we have all this "proof" of a link between Al Queda and Iraq dragged in the door to "justify" the mess we have made in Iraq. The point, at the moment, is the mess and not the justifications. Justifications are a dime a dozen and have been so for the past three years. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
A choir of angels serenading us that we were right to depose Saddam Hussein does nothing whatever to amend the chronic fatuity of our actions in doing so, as exemplified by the complete and utter foolishness of "Operation Smasher".
Now I know that most here are "on the side of the Angels". Consequently you miss the simple principle that if you decide to knock over a nation-state--even a bad nation-state run by a psychotic criminal--you had better be ready to put the pieces back together quickly, efficiently, and intelligently.
We weren't ready to do this in Iraq. We still aren't ready to do this anywhere else, because all our talk about "spreading democracy" is merely spreading what they spread on flower beds this time of year. And, worse than that, we are self-deceived by what we spread because we trust our ears more than our noses.
And all our talk of a First Strike War Doctrine is simply more foolishness. We done struck our first strike, and we're still trying to disentangle the consequences. Nobody is going to be doing any first striking at anything [except maybe the Israelis, who actually know when and how to do it] until at least January 2009 and probably at least a year later.
And this will be so no matter what the Muslim Brotherhood does or does not do.
Posted by: Joseph Marshall | Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 12:26 PM
I don't think we have any practical means -- nor do we have any moral obligation -- of pressing for democratic reforms in the Middle East other than free elections. If the Palestinian people wish to elect Hamas then they should reap what they sow. If Egyptians long for the Muslim Brotherhood, they should proceed post haste into infamy. If Mashal really believes that he and Israel have a "date with destiny" (I think he's right) then let him do his makeup. The date is likely to be a lot less pleasant than he thinks -- remember it's not date rape when you are a willing participant.
In fact, he has no idea how ridiculous his statements sound to those of us who realize that the only reason he still draws breath is Israel's forebearance. The beauty of Hamas running the show is that now it is fully reponsible for foreign policy. All we can and should do is to reward and penalize according to our principles. Let the chips fall where they may.
Posted by: PD Quig | Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 11:39 AM
Alexandra,
Sophists never do their own research. They take a statement and use it over and over until they believe it. When confronted with something different from their point of view they sweep it aside.
It gets old but we went through the same thing with American Liberals during Communism's run to the trash heap. They defended communism until it fell apart and then stated: "What, me?"
Posted by: Washington | Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 09:56 AM
pierrerehov.com
tellthechildrenthetruth.com
Sodom was one of the biggest & most consistent financial- supporters of the families of "Suicide Killers" in Israel.
Posted by: RL | Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 08:39 AM
Ron,
With all due respect, f... off and write your own! You do not come onto my blog and tell me we are walking around a dead body. If there is a dead body walking here it's yours, and your "Bush lied people died" meme, which is based on your assertion that the Bush Administration had certain knowledge of the WMD existence being untrue. This, as previously shown many times, has now been forever crushed, and you need to walk away with your tail between your legs instead of now arguing with me about the standard of proof.
ABC analyzed 4 out of 9 released out of a total of 49 000 translated documents (only 2,5% of the total 2mil "exploitable items" available), and even discussing only 4 of those, their opinion is not concurrent with others who have examined the same. Do your own flipping research. I suggest you start with the Stephen Hayes link provided, a man who has been on this from the beginning:
You can then carry on reading Michael Barone's "Why Do Democrats fear the Al-Qaida/Saddam Relationship?" which may help you to understand why you are still flogging a dead horse here, and why it is imperative for you to call any documentation unreliable.
Posted by: Alexandra | Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 08:24 AM
Mr. Marshall offers nothing to the debate because he doesn't have accurate information. The fact that he states "Palestine" is proof of that...
Posted by: Washington | Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 07:44 AM
Joseph,
Your dismissal of the Muslim Brotherhood shows me that you do not have a clue, have you? Nor do you actually read my posts properly or the links I provide, and I see on the other thread you dismiss them as "A bunch of bloggers taken in by this nonsense and arguing about the United Nations Charter, while our beautiful hostess promises constant updates on this whole new phase of our glorious war."
If you don't bother reading these links, your comments remain as uninformed as when you arrived on the thread, and you simply repeat what you are familiar with.
Let me point you to the link I provide in the main post which explains why the Muslim Brotherhood is important in the bigger picture in the Middle East, and that it is not a national organization limited to running Hamas in "Palestine", obviously putting an entirely different spin which you would have missed in your ever present flippant dismissal.
Posted by: Alexandra | Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 06:44 AM
It's pitiful to watch a bunch of people try to feed and talk to a dead body. Which is exactly what's going on here. Quite some "undeniable proof." The Iraq part of this post is pitiful.
Disregarding your other "source," here's what ABCNews (from your own link) had to say about the the documents they analyzed and translated:
About Hussein and al Qaeda:
(Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable — i.e. an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document — four days after 9/11 — is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.)
(Editor's note: This document indicates that the Iraqis were aware of and interested in reports that members of al Qaeda were present in Iraq in 2002. The document does not support allegations that Iraq was colluding with al Qaeda.)
I see now how you can take Bush's word that his illegal NSA spying program is focused specifically on suspected terrorists.
It's because your burden of proof is so low. The word of an unnamed Afghani informant, that's a serious source. A document that Iraq was aware al Qaeda was inside its borders. Too bad you couldn't go to the FBI pre-9/11 and find the same document. The only thing it suggests is that Iraq's intelligence was better than ours.
Posted by: Ron Jon Bovi Jovi | Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 06:41 AM
This has been the basic situation in Palestine...
There is no such thing as "Palestine," there never in history has been such a place, and there never will be such a place until the death cult that currently holds sway there is swept from the historical scene.
Posted by: Saunders | Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 06:33 AM
I think I'm as familiar with it as I need to be. Who on earth doesn't know that Hamas are clearly nasty thugs who do horrible things? But nobody with any sense would expect them to do anything more to be nasty that they weren't already doing when they didn't control the Palestinian parliament.
Try it for yourself. Think up something more that they could do against Israel or anybody else. And, after all, if they are all sitting in parliament at the time, the Israelis know right where they are. Israel has a proven track record of successful retalitory assassination by helicopter rocket, even when the leaders are hiding out in someone else's apartment. So put 2 and 2 together.
The basic fact of the Palestinian situation is as follows: the Palestinians are surrounded and in a state of permanent seige where the Israelis can do anything they please, anytime they want. Israel has merely withdrawn from the Occupied Territories to let them play at government.
This has been the basic situation in Palestine for almost forty years--or longer than some of your commentors have been alive, possibly even longer than you have been alive. It is not likely to change much one way or another
The withdrawl from the OT is convenient for Israel because running the Occupied Territories was a world-class headache, though it leaves the Sabra in some of the more forward settlements a little more exposed.
The future of the situation simply depends on whether the Israelis have enough common sense to keep working on Sharon's Wall. If they do, the successful terrorism will diminish, if they don't it won't.
The tragedy of it is that the Palestinians themselves decided that by making a pointed statement and electing Hamas, things couldn't get any worse. They can, of course. As in any seige, the beseigers can starve you out, and this is essentially the response that the United States and Israel are moving toward.
The windbags of the United States House of Representatives are not contributing anything significant to the situation and are wasting taxpayer dollars doing it.
Posted by: Joseph Marshall | Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 04:27 AM
Joseph,
Your sarcasm brings nothing to the table, especially as you are obviously not familiar with the Muslim Brotherhood organization.
Posted by: Alexandra | Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 03:15 AM
Good points guys, I printed that Hamas charter in one of my earlier posts The Dark Victory when they got elected. Scary.
I always remember my good friend liberal blogger Patrick Belton @ Oxblog, who was bravely live blogging the elections helplessly saying "That wasn't supposed to happen..."
Michael, as for Europe Thy Name is Cowardice I wrote an entire post about it last year here, it's brilliant.
Posted by: Alexandra | Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 03:11 AM
U.S. demands should focus on internal, ideological, and organizational transformation. They should be directed not only towards Hamas, but, first and foremost, towards its parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood.
You bet, Alexandra! And if that don't teach 'em we can always send in the Iraqi army, now that they've been toughened up by the fierce combat of Operation Swarmer!
Posted by: Joseph Marshall | Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 03:00 AM
The above quote is from this page with much more:
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
MidEast Web - Hamas Charter
Posted by: brian | Friday, March 17, 2006 at 09:57 PM
With all the talk about charters and their particular phrasing in the previous thread, maybe it would be useful to look at the Hamas Charter and it's exact wording. That might be instructive as to what the Palestinians voted for, of their own free will.
The principles of the Hamas are stated in their Covenant or Charter, given in full below. Following are highlights.
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."
Ami Isseroff
That doesn't sound very "democratic". What makes people beleive that Hamas will abandon their founding charter? I agree with Alexandra. The purpose of Hamas is clear, in their own words.
Posted by: brian | Friday, March 17, 2006 at 09:52 PM
Darell...Good formula. When applied to life it works!!
Posted by: Raimondo | Friday, March 17, 2006 at 09:48 PM
We should value and promote republicanism more than, and prior to, democracy. A commitment to government by consent of the governed precludes the dreaded one man one vote one time, president for life, syndrome. A commitment to government by consent of the governed precludes sharia, or any other Divine right. (Islamic Republic is an oxymoron)
The challenge, as always, is living what we preach. America's path to political office (our party system) finds limited government, anathema.
Imagine American government if expansion/growth required popular referendum! (If we were still a republic)
Posted by: Ed Landefeld | Friday, March 17, 2006 at 05:12 PM
So, you're more in favor of this: first spread and encourage the 'ideas' of western democracies and then hold elections? Did I get that right?
If so; good point - I did not include that in my line of argumentation.
About "The Ghost Of Appeasement" (I will read it now), did you ever read 'Europe thy name is cowardice'? If not tell me, I will e-mail it to you - it is written by an important German CEO and it is so true.
Posted by: Michael (van der) Galien | Friday, March 17, 2006 at 04:07 PM
Michael,
You have to rewind to the establishment of basic democratic rules prior to taking for granted that your first step will yield the desired result. I don't like to repeat what has already been really well explained, and that I wholeheartedly agree with, so I shall just quote Filou
As for not knowing whether Hamas will yield, or whether the West will stand firm, you only have to look at what has been going on regarding the cartoon jihad, to know the answer.
Having said that, it is a fruitless debate, and I sincerely hope that your belief in the West's staying power will not be disappointed; that it won't fall back into the apologist mode. I really do. But as far as the US is concerned the "Most of us will not accept a 'half-way compromise' anymore" only goes for describing the right, and some of the center; the left as far as I can tell is against anything that vaguely resembles standing up against any aggressor, unless it consists of talking them to death, and even then it seems that they may feel this is too reactionary.
Begging their forgiveness as Hamas & Co burn our Embassies is their way forward thus far; small wonder that Iran feels that it can keep telling us to our face that it will annihilate Israel, and destroy the Great Satan; it seems that every time we get threatened or insulted the Left wants us to apologize, as Joe Katzman from the brilliant blog 'Winds of Change' pointed out yesterday, "And at every step, spoken in soft undertones with occasional slips into open voice, comes the real subtext: You asked for it. Defending yourselves is criminal"!
It is time for us to take a closer look at history and how Hitler and the NSDAP got elected. More and more the tell tale signs command us to take heed of our past mistakes and bitter lessons learned. Make sure you read The Ghost Of Appeasement" where I highlight the tragic similarities between Abbas and Germany's Franz von Papen, who famously and most arrogantly underestimated Hitler; it was von Papen who single handedly paved the way for Hitler's Chancellery and subsequent legal accession to power, all the while boasting, "Within two months we will have pushed Hitler so far in the corner that he'll squeak".
It is Abbas who is set to repeat the same mistaken political calculus when believing he'll outmaneuver Hamas. He won't, which leaves it to the West to stand by Israel and force Hamas to abandon all hope of fulfilling any of its tyrannical goals whilst perverting democratic values and principals at every turn.
Posted by: Alexandra | Friday, March 17, 2006 at 03:55 PM
David, let me clarify...Bush=Good, Saddam=Bad. Hitler=Bad, "Invading" Germany to send Hitler to Hell=Good. IraqWar=Legal, "BushLied"=Stupid.
Left=Stupid=Lying=Sacks of Excrement. Human embryo=Future Human Being. "V is for Vengence"="Syriana"=Euro-Socialist Crap. Terrorism=Bad. Fighting terrorism=Good. Playing the "they are just scaring people" card=Stupid,transparent lie. Left=Not Right=Wrong.
Posted by: Darrell | Friday, March 17, 2006 at 03:07 PM
The love being expressed here is...funny!
I appreciate the work that goes into Alexandra's blog. It's not simply posting-she thinks through her ideas and it shows. Another reason that I visit are the quality of people making comments. Mr. Byron and I will likely not agree on very much but I would defend his right to state his opinions. This blog, and others like it, are one of the principal reasons why I believe that the West will triumph over militants and their nations; we debate! We do not kidnap and kill Israeli's, we do not force religion or politics at the point of a gun and we do not brutalize someone because of their gender. In fact, Alexandra is what Islamic militant states fear; intelligent women who can make a difference.
On the Hamas question it is unlikely that they will yield. I appreciate Michaels point but nothing indicates that Hamas will stop it's reign of terror.
Posted by: Washington | Friday, March 17, 2006 at 02:56 PM
In all the love-fest, let me spoil the party by debating the topic a little bit ;)
I agree with most she says, except for:
"And I say "dream on", because Hamas isn't going to yield and the West won't have the stomach to stand firm in the face of their repudiation"
I can not agree with this. I firmly believe that the first step in the democratization process are free and open elections. We had that now.
The second step is that the newly formed Parliament needs to agree to these natural rights she just pointed out. This second step is still in process. We cannot simply say 'but Hamas will not yield'. How do we know? We cannot know. We can be sure however that if we get into the process with a 'it will not happen anyway' attitude, it indeed will not happen. We must force Hamas to comply.
"The West won't have the stomach to stand firm": I differ on that as well. The attitude in Europe towards terrorist organizations has changed dramatically over the last couple of years. Most of us will not accept a 'half-way compromise' anymore.
Besides that the question what we will and will not accept is our choice as citizens as well. We can put the pressure on our government(s).
David Byron: I think you should try to word your opinions a little bit more nuanced. Luckily I am not a Republican (how could I possibly be, I'm not an American), but if I were there is a fair chance I would feel quite insulted by your "republicans have no principles".
Of course there are people without principles (in every party) but to generalize like that is, excuse me, retarded. I am convinced that quite a lot of Republicans are very principled. Many participating on this blog as well by the way.
North by Northwest seems to be have principles, same goes for Alexandra, to just name a few. The beauty of this blog is that people from 'both sides' (are there both sides, or are there more?, anyway:) come here to debate about and talk with (instead of against) eachother.
Besides that I agree with you in so far that there seem to be quite a lot of people who let themselves be ruled by fear, on both sides of the ocean by the way.
Posted by: Michael (van der) Galien | Friday, March 17, 2006 at 02:06 PM
This blog is one of the best I've seen yet. Alexandra deserves alot of praise for her excellent writing on topics I'm very interested in, and the inclusion of art is just terrific, IMO. You are a lady of great intelligence, eloquence and taste, Alexandra. I will be a frequent commentor as well, thanks to the insufferably foolish DavidByron:)
Posted by: brian | Friday, March 17, 2006 at 11:42 AM
David,"My hypothesis is that Republicans are now terrified people. Living in fear they support their authoritarian leader. Their world is a scary place where nothing makes any sense"
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
Ha Ha....I see even after a night's sleep you are still on your rant! Bless your heart David, to be honest, I think its YOU that is scared! Are you having nightmares or something? I think most of us here are ready to kick some behind if needed because we don't want a drawn out resolution sanction thingy like prior to Iraq! I am sure that alot of Iranians themselves are looking for a regime change! It would be great if we could count on the UN on such matters, but come on, the UN has proven in the past that it needs supervision with things as simple as a canned food drive! *remember the trade an egg for sex with an innocent starving child? OR take some food money and medication money out of the mouths of the iraqi children's mouth??* We gotta do what we gotta do David and Iran's president is a walking looney tune making verbal threats to Israel! Most of us are staying focused on what is going down! I for one, don't know why you are constantly using the words like "fear" or "scared" all the time....seems you are obsessed with those words because it's always the scaredy cat who meows the loudest eh?
Posted by: liquid | Friday, March 17, 2006 at 11:15 AM
Alexandra,
Thanks for the compliment and for the superb job you are doing.
Posted by: Filou | Friday, March 17, 2006 at 10:08 AM
Alexandra..Excellent blog. The important thing, ovelooked for rethorical reasons by the likes of David, is that these people need to be cornered and eventually eliminated.
Posted by: Raimondo | Friday, March 17, 2006 at 09:58 AM
Filou,
Did I just say that without my lips moving? LOL! Couldn't have said it better myself...
Posted by: Alexandra | Friday, March 17, 2006 at 09:57 AM
David,
You are obviously very confused. But you are doing the right thing: Keep on reading Alexandra’s blog, and hopefully at some point you will get it.
‘Dream On’ because we believe that by organizing free elections, the Middle East is going to transform itself into an oasis of peace. The reality is that the main thing we are currently achieving is to help Islamist parties to replace corrupt leaders.
Instead of pushing for free elections and of legalizing fascist parties, we should first promote the cornerstones of democracy in the Middle East: freedom of speech, of religion, of press, etc. And we should heavily fund the local groups and parties that are in line with such values.
Posted by: Filou | Friday, March 17, 2006 at 09:44 AM
Okay, so you agree that these points are very important Alexandra and that they should be our goals instead of just simply 'the majority rules' and that we should press Hamas to adopt these values?
Posted by: Michael (van der) Galien | Friday, March 17, 2006 at 09:39 AM
Well it was a rhetorical question. It's apparent that the views of most opeople here are not based on any principles, whether conservative, liberal or christian. They don't consistently either support or oppose international law, consistently support or oppose torture.
My hypothesis is that Republicans are now terrified people. Living in fear they support their authoritarian leader. Their world is a scary place where nothing makes any sense.
Just as well nobody's going to answer it because I'll be away for a couple of days until Sunday night.
Posted by: DavidByron | Friday, March 17, 2006 at 09:34 AM
Mr. Byron is confused-perhaps his comprehensive education is failing him for he cannot fathom why Saddam was a bad guy. Are there any 10 year olds reading? Care to help Byron?
He turns to simplistic slogans - Bush bad, Saddam good - to continue his assualt on intellectual discourse. Further, in a page right out of a sophists handbook he makes comparisons that are laughable to any thinking person...either on the left or right.
Posted by: Washington | Friday, March 17, 2006 at 09:23 AM
Come on David, you don't really expect anyone to answer you, are you? Let me ask you this, are you saying, that the UN would have dealt with Saddam in a more effective way? What would the world look like today if you had your way?
Posted by: North by Northwest | Friday, March 17, 2006 at 09:09 AM
Now I am getting confused. If Bush invading countries, killing thousands of people and breaking international law are now all good things.... why exactly was Saddam supposed to be a bad guy?
Posted by: DavidByron | Friday, March 17, 2006 at 08:46 AM
Michael,
Nothing wrong with these demands, they are dead on target. This is what I post above:
'Dream On', because Hamas isn't going to yield and the West won't have the stomach to stand firm in the face of their repudiation.
The key to this lies in the brilliant observation, "...the notion of democracy, which, in recent years, has been reduced to mean only free elections." That is the prevalent standard to which the West has reduced the meaning of democracy in the Middle East. As long as critics are being admonished with the mantra, "You wanted democracy. You've got it. Your continued criticism even after a fair and free election, only goes to expose your hypocritical xenophobia in all its naked ugliness", and no concerted effort is made to realign public perception with the fundamental and unalterable democratic values of equality for all before the law regardless of religion, ethnicity, or gender, we are just buying Hamas time until they fulfil their stated goals.
Posted by: Alexandra | Friday, March 17, 2006 at 08:20 AM
Alexandra,
I am so glad that you draw the attention to Hamas' attempted deceit and for putting all of yesterday's events into perspective. This is one hell of an impressive case of citizen's journalism!
Memri's President Yigal Carmon is providing a critical service, best expressed by National Review, "Thanks to the translators at the Middle East Media Research Institute [MEMRI], Americans can get a much better sense of the message coming from the Arabic-language press throughout the Middle East. Their work helps combat those who would murmur messages of peace and tolerance to Western ears, and then incite hatred and extremism to their countrymen in their native tongue", and by Pulitzer Prize winner, Charles Krauthammer,"The single most important resource for understanding what is happening in the Middle East today."
Posted by: North by Northwest | Friday, March 17, 2006 at 07:49 AM
We suggested the talks with Iran some time ago and they have stated that they now wish to consider it. This appears to be another move to stall for time on the part of the Iranians. There is little to talk about except them dropping their nuclear program without exceptions.
They are obviously concerned but they cannot lose face now that their President has been running around telling everyone they will destroy Israel and wreack havoc on the US. They are using "Iraqi" Diplomacy - the type used from 1992-2003.
Posted by: Washington | Friday, March 17, 2006 at 07:45 AM
"And I say: 'dream on'".
The demands seem very reasonable to me and I agree with them. Why 'dream on'? What do you suggest?
Posted by: Michael (van der) Galien | Friday, March 17, 2006 at 07:26 AM