Bush Declares Iraq Election a Success

[The Voice of Reason]

... a shortage of lawyers.

Now THAT, my good friend, is an oxymoron!!

TVOR

 

[Fat Old Sun]

What is the point in telling a lie when you are going to get a foot in your a** either way?

No matter what Bush says, he will be stoned for it. As soon as he opens his mouth to speak, someone launches against him before a word has been said. If he says it's a success, he's being a lying, posturing politician. If he says it wasn't a success, then he is just a miserable failure and he has no confidence in the operation or the people risking their lives carrying it out.

He could announce that he is pro choice and that the gov't. is going to pay for everyone's healthcare and college education, and there would be a line of liberals around the block to criticize him for it. The part that amazes me is that these are usually the same people that insist that the media was brutal on Clinton. :biglaugh:

 

[Fat Old Sun]

Iraq must be experiencing a shortage of lawyers.

I say we send at least half of ours over there immediately.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

He could announce that he is pro choice and that the gov't. is going to pay for everyone's healthcare and college education, and there would be a line of liberals around the block to criticize him for it. The part that amazes me is that these are usually the same people that insist that the media was brutal on Clinton. :biglaugh:

Interestingly enough, I remember there being a lot of press coverage over the lie "I did not have sex with that woman" but nowhere near that much over the lie about "weapons of mass destruction." There's no doubt that that Clinton was a sleaze-bag, but I think the other lie deserves more press coverage.

That's off-topic, I know, but I find it interesting when people blame other groups for things they've done themselves.

Deut (I keep hoping that's okay to shorten your name to), thank you for reminding us of a reason to celebrate.

 

[Faminedynasty]

I hope you're wrong, but I fear you're right. What about the possibility of both a theocracy and a civil war?

I fear that it is not only possible, but likely.
In regards to those who say that there is no place for criticism today, that only celebration should take place, I would like to point out that the same sentiment was expressed when Saddam was captured, and when Bush declared combat over. There were many in the media who acted as if we were in the home stretch and as if the horrors of this gruesome little war were in the past. I think that we can all agree that if this is truly a step towards democracy, then that is a good thing, but to think that everything is going to be ok (and therefore that no criticism is due) is unrealistic.

 

[Majikthise]

I say we send at least half of ours over there immediately.

WHERE DO I SIGN UP TO ASSIST IN THIS NOBLE CAUSE!!!!!!!!:woohoo:

 

[The Voice of Reason]

No matter what Bush says, he will be stoned for it.

I'd say that is a little overly simplistic. If Bush came out and said "I'm going to support the environment, and balance the budget (something that was done as little as four years ago), I'd say the only flack he would get would be from the people that put their money into his coffers. I seriously doubt that you would hear to many Democrats complaining.

I say we send at least half of ours over there immediately.

Now we're on the same page.

TVOR

 

[Mr Spinkles]

What is the point in telling a lie when you are going to get a foot in your a** either way?

No matter what Bush says, he will be stoned for it. As soon as he opens his mouth to speak, someone launches against him before a word has been said. If he says it's a success, he's being a lying, posturing politician. If he says it wasn't a success, then he is just a miserable failure and he has no confidence in the operation or the people risking their lives carrying it out.

He could announce that he is pro choice and that the gov't. is going to pay for everyone's healthcare and college education, and there would be a line of liberals around the block to criticize him for it. The part that amazes me is that these are usually the same people that insist that the media was brutal on Clinton.

Holy smokes!!! A fellow atheist willing to stick up for Bush!

.....brother?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Holy smokes!!! A fellow atheist willing to stick up for Bush!
.....brother?

Spinkles - you know what they say about those Godless Atheists.....

TVOR

 

[TranceAm]

I'll leave it to you and TranceAm to hold high the banner of cynicism and petty ridicule. Today, in my opinion, is a day to applaud the Iraqis.

Well deut.. Get your pom poms out.

A Mixed Story

I'm just appalled by the cheerleading tone of US news coverage of the so-called elections in Iraq on Sunday. I said on television last week that this event is a "political earthquake" and "a historical first step" for Iraq. It is an event of the utmost importance, for Iraq, the Middle East, and the world. All the boosterism has a kernel of truth to it, of course. Iraqis hadn't been able to choose their leaders at all in recent decades, even by some strange process where they chose unknown leaders. But this process is not a model for anything, and would not willingly be imitated by anyone else in the region. The 1997 elections in Iran were much more democratic, as were the 2002 elections in Bahrain and Pakistan.

Moreover, as Swopa rightly reminds us all, the Bush administration opposed one-person, one-vote elections of this sort. First they were going to turn Iraq over to Chalabi within six months. Then Bremer was going to be MacArthur in Baghdad for years. Then on November 15, 2003, Bremer announced a plan to have council-based elections in May of 2004. The US and the UK had somehow massaged into being provincial and municipal governing councils, the members of which were pro-American. Bremer was going to restrict the electorate to this small, elite group.

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani immediately gave a fatwa denouncing this plan and demanding free elections mandated by a UN Security Council resolution. Bush was reportedly "extremely offended" at these two demands and opposed Sistani. Bremer got his appointed Interim Governing Council to go along in fighting Sistani. Sistani then brought thousands of protesters into the streets in January of 2004, demanding free elections. Soon thereafter, Bush caved and gave the ayatollah everything he demanded. Except that he was apparently afraid that open, non-manipulated elections in Iraq might become a factor in the US presidential campaign, so he got the elections postponed to January 2005. This enormous delay allowed the country to fall into much worse chaos, and Sistani is still bitter that the Americans didn't hold the elections last May. The US objected that they couldn't use UN food ration cards for registration, as Sistani suggested. But in the end that is exactly what they did.

So if it had been up to Bush, Iraq would have been a soft dictatorship under Chalabi, or would have had stage-managed elections with an electorate consisting of a handful of pro-American notables. It was Sistani and the major Shiite parties that demanded free and open elections and a UNSC resolution. They did their job and got what they wanted. But the Americans have been unable to provide them the requisite security for truly aboveboard democratic elections.

<snip>
Juan Cole


Officially, the U.S. occupation of Iraq ended on June 28, 2004. But in reality, the United States is still in charge: Not only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the 100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy.

These little noticed orders enacted by Bremer, the now-departed head of the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, go to the heart of Bush administration plans in Iraq. They lock in sweeping advantages to American firms, ensuring long-term U.S. economic advantage while guaranteeing few, if any, benefits to the Iraqi people.

The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life — from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition [Iraq ] from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.

Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi — a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

Further, the interim constitution of Iraq, written by the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, solidifies the orders by making them virtually impossible to overturn.

A sampling of the most important orders demonstrates the economic imprint left by the Bush administration: Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.

Thus, it forbids Iraqis from receiving preference in the reconstruction while allowing foreign corporations — Halliburton and Bechtel, for example — to buy up Iraqi businesses, do all of the work and send all of their money home. They cannot be required to hire Iraqis or to reinvest their money in the Iraqi economy. They can take out their investments at any time and in any amount.

Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations.

Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.

Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.

Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.

Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq." This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap foreign consumer products — devastating local producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared to meet the challenge of their mammoth global competitors.

Clearly, the Bremer orders fundamentally altered Iraq's existing laws. For this reason, they are also illegal. Transformation of an occupied country's laws violates the Hague regulations of 1907 (ratified by the United States) and the U.S. Army's Law of Land Warfare. Indeed, in a leaked memo, the British attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, warned Prime Minister Tony Blair that "major structural economic reforms would not be authorized by international law."

With few reconstruction projects underway and with Bremer's rules favoring U.S. corporations, there has been little opportunity for Iraqis to go back to work, leaving nearly 2 million unemployed 1 1/2 years after the invasion and, many believe, greatly fueling the resistance.

The Bremer orders are immoral and illegal and must be repealed to allow Iraqis to govern their own economic and political future. geovisit();

By Antonia Juhasz, Antonia Juhasz is a project director at the International Forum on Globalization in San Francisco and a Foreign Policy in Focus scholar.

While you are cheering, I keep my eyes on the ball. and if that is "cynism" and "petty ridicule" so be it.. :162: