thedrifter
01-28-05, 06:15 AM
Voting Rights in Iraq
January 28, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Michael P. Tremoglie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The January 25 edition of ABC’s Nightline featured a female Iraqi politician who wears a flak vest while campaigning. She does so because Iraqi insurgents –comprised of former Hussein Baathists and other Islamic terrorists - have attempted to kill her for having the audacity to be a candidate in a free election. This same program featured many Iraqis who are determined to vote even though they know to voting may cost them their lives.
A recent New York Times article mentioned that Iraqi insurgents are distributing leaflets stating, "To those of you who think you can vote and then run away… we will catch you, and we will cut off your heads and the heads of your children." Despite such threats, many Iraqis still plan to vote.
Several weeks ago the Washington Post quoted Ali Waili, a taxi driver from Karbala, Iraq as saying, “I swear to God, even if they burn all the elections centers, we will still go and vote….We have been mistreated for a long time, we have been tortured for a long time."
Given such inspirational courageous Iraqis as these, and such horrible threats by the insurgents, how can liberal TV pundits like NBC’s Chris Matthews make statements about Iraqi insurgents such as, "It‘s their country, isn‘t it?"
How can liberal journalists like Norman Solomon, the 1999 recipient of the George Orwell Award for Distinguished Contribution to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language, state, “American media outlets can only bring themselves to confer the term "Iraqi forces" on the Iraqi combatants allied with the United States -- not on the Iraqi combatants opposing the United States.”
How can liberal filmmakers like Michael Moore proclaim, “The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow…. Get it, Mr. Bush?”
How can Democratic Party Senators like Robert Byrd proclaim as he did, “ What makes me cringe even more is the continued claim that we are "liberators." The facts don't seem to support the label we have so euphemistically attached to ourselves.
Are not people like Matthews, Solomon, Byrd, and Moore always talking about disenfranchisement? Are these people not the successors of those who demonstrated for the right of African-Americans to vote?
How did they make the ideological journey from championing the rights of African-Americans to vote to championing the efforts of people to threaten decapitation of Iraqis who want to vote? Why do they utter such encomiums about the Iraqi insurgents?
They claim the insurgents are noble because they are opposing an occupying army. They claim the insurgents are noble because some Iraqi civilians who were not former Baathists are among the insurgents. They claim the insurgents are noble because they are revolting against a government that is allied with the American invaders.
This is sheer casuistry. After all, everything they about the insurgents can be said about the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).
The KKK opposed a military occupation just as the insurgents do.
The KKK were led by former Confederates just as the Iraqi insurgents are led by former Baathists.
Many southerners who were not Confederates joined the KKK, just as many insurgents were not Baathists.
The KKK tried to prevent the reconstruction of a government and the inclusion of more citizens to vote just as the Iraqi insurgents are.
Neither the Iraqi insurgents nor the Baathist and Islamists who spawned them are noble patriots. Their ideology is an ideology of hate. These insurgents seek to establish tyranny. Our military seek to establish democracy.
Tyranny is a fundamental tenet of Baathism and other Islamism. They want to reestablish the Islamic Empire. Indeed, the Baathist ideology, as defined by its founder Michel Aflaq, taught that the Arab race was superior.
The Baathists and Islamists have more in common with totalitarians and racists than they do with patriots. The Iraqi insurgents are identical to the Imperial Japanese, Nazis, Fascists, Communists, and the KKK. They share the same beliefs of totalitarianism, racism, as well as a moral and political superiority.
When President Bush addressed the people of the United States after ordering the invasion of Iraq, he said, “My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.” It was obvious the administration believed that the invasion of Iraq involved more than WMD’s (although admittedly WMD’s were the only thing that mattered to me).
Knowing now how much the Baathists hate democracy, knowing how they believe they are morally and racially superior, knowing how the insurgents propose a pan-Arab irredentist philosophy, how can anyone doubt the justness of the cause and the nobility of our military’s sacrifice in Iraq?
Is there any doubt how misguided insurgent’s claque are?
Is it not ironic how the same people who fervidly hated the KKK for terrorizing African-Americans who wanted to vote, now are such fervid admirers of those who are terrorizing Iraqis who want to vote.
Michael Tremoglie
Ellie
January 28, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Michael P. Tremoglie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The January 25 edition of ABC’s Nightline featured a female Iraqi politician who wears a flak vest while campaigning. She does so because Iraqi insurgents –comprised of former Hussein Baathists and other Islamic terrorists - have attempted to kill her for having the audacity to be a candidate in a free election. This same program featured many Iraqis who are determined to vote even though they know to voting may cost them their lives.
A recent New York Times article mentioned that Iraqi insurgents are distributing leaflets stating, "To those of you who think you can vote and then run away… we will catch you, and we will cut off your heads and the heads of your children." Despite such threats, many Iraqis still plan to vote.
Several weeks ago the Washington Post quoted Ali Waili, a taxi driver from Karbala, Iraq as saying, “I swear to God, even if they burn all the elections centers, we will still go and vote….We have been mistreated for a long time, we have been tortured for a long time."
Given such inspirational courageous Iraqis as these, and such horrible threats by the insurgents, how can liberal TV pundits like NBC’s Chris Matthews make statements about Iraqi insurgents such as, "It‘s their country, isn‘t it?"
How can liberal journalists like Norman Solomon, the 1999 recipient of the George Orwell Award for Distinguished Contribution to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language, state, “American media outlets can only bring themselves to confer the term "Iraqi forces" on the Iraqi combatants allied with the United States -- not on the Iraqi combatants opposing the United States.”
How can liberal filmmakers like Michael Moore proclaim, “The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow…. Get it, Mr. Bush?”
How can Democratic Party Senators like Robert Byrd proclaim as he did, “ What makes me cringe even more is the continued claim that we are "liberators." The facts don't seem to support the label we have so euphemistically attached to ourselves.
Are not people like Matthews, Solomon, Byrd, and Moore always talking about disenfranchisement? Are these people not the successors of those who demonstrated for the right of African-Americans to vote?
How did they make the ideological journey from championing the rights of African-Americans to vote to championing the efforts of people to threaten decapitation of Iraqis who want to vote? Why do they utter such encomiums about the Iraqi insurgents?
They claim the insurgents are noble because they are opposing an occupying army. They claim the insurgents are noble because some Iraqi civilians who were not former Baathists are among the insurgents. They claim the insurgents are noble because they are revolting against a government that is allied with the American invaders.
This is sheer casuistry. After all, everything they about the insurgents can be said about the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).
The KKK opposed a military occupation just as the insurgents do.
The KKK were led by former Confederates just as the Iraqi insurgents are led by former Baathists.
Many southerners who were not Confederates joined the KKK, just as many insurgents were not Baathists.
The KKK tried to prevent the reconstruction of a government and the inclusion of more citizens to vote just as the Iraqi insurgents are.
Neither the Iraqi insurgents nor the Baathist and Islamists who spawned them are noble patriots. Their ideology is an ideology of hate. These insurgents seek to establish tyranny. Our military seek to establish democracy.
Tyranny is a fundamental tenet of Baathism and other Islamism. They want to reestablish the Islamic Empire. Indeed, the Baathist ideology, as defined by its founder Michel Aflaq, taught that the Arab race was superior.
The Baathists and Islamists have more in common with totalitarians and racists than they do with patriots. The Iraqi insurgents are identical to the Imperial Japanese, Nazis, Fascists, Communists, and the KKK. They share the same beliefs of totalitarianism, racism, as well as a moral and political superiority.
When President Bush addressed the people of the United States after ordering the invasion of Iraq, he said, “My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.” It was obvious the administration believed that the invasion of Iraq involved more than WMD’s (although admittedly WMD’s were the only thing that mattered to me).
Knowing now how much the Baathists hate democracy, knowing how they believe they are morally and racially superior, knowing how the insurgents propose a pan-Arab irredentist philosophy, how can anyone doubt the justness of the cause and the nobility of our military’s sacrifice in Iraq?
Is there any doubt how misguided insurgent’s claque are?
Is it not ironic how the same people who fervidly hated the KKK for terrorizing African-Americans who wanted to vote, now are such fervid admirers of those who are terrorizing Iraqis who want to vote.
Michael Tremoglie
Ellie