Friday, November 04, 2005
Faiza and Muslims Gone Wild
Bloghdad watchers used to discuss Faiza a lot. I think we all stopped because her posts became increasingly disjointed, whiney, amorphous....not much to hang a comment on. Maybe a sigh.
Her most recent post is a little different. There's a lot of heat in this one. Check it out.She continues to delude herself that the Federalism in the constitution is a construct being forced on the Iraqi people. It is of no consequence that the Kurds would walk without it; that the Shi'a (a surprise to me, really) seem to like it. No, this is Bremer's plan to destroy Iraq.
Also, that the new constitution doesn't define Iraq as an "Arab" country is galling to her. Apparently, Faiza has not had enough of pan-Arabism, and thinks the Kurds and Turkomen should be content to live in Iraq as step-children. As she says:
then there is the removed identity of Iraq, taken away with a resolution by Premier; no clear declaration of Iraq's Arabic nature, as if he wanted to open a new page for Iraq's history, separating it away from its long history, its Arabic neighbors, and their combined struggle against one enemy.
She talks about Zarqawi...how we haven't heard much from him. I don't know what newspaper she's reading but the people in Iraq seem to hear a lot from him...very loud, very heated comments. She suggests that perhaps he was working with the Americans to pass the new constitution. Hmmm...I suggested the very same thing here. But then IMO that human bomb Michael Moore did a lot to re-elect GWB as well, so it would not need to be Zarqawi's intent for it to have been his effect.
She reiterates the rumors of fraud in the constitutional referendum (which began weeks before the actual election), but to her credit she doesn't go on and on about it. Instead, she goes further, providing added value making this a truly worthwhile post (I'm not being ironic, I mean it). She points out that the Arab League monitored the election. She says:
We do not know whether the Arabic initiative was really a pure, Arabic initiative? Or were there some pressures from Mama America, to get the American administration out of its deadlock in Iraq
We wished that the Arabic Will was truly free, [that] they would have interfered from the beginning to prevent the war on Iraq, [that] they would have stopped missiles from falling over our heads, and the loss of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi victims, the ruin, the distraction, and the bleeding that will take tens of years to stop, and to rebuild the country so as to stand on its feet. Then, came the catastrophe that is not easy to get rid of, as if it is a strong glue that couldn't be easily removed, and be done with: the hateful occupation forces.
Yeah, this American does too, Faiza. But all the Arabic Will did was wag their heads when Saddam consumed another Arab country and threatened his other Arabic neighbors, and then back him and support his Orphans even to this very day. This is more unrealist wishland thinking: "If only there could have been another way." Well, there wasn't. The US had to play the grownup again and get busy with the hard dirty work of diffusing a ticking time bomb (this sort of statement makes unrealists pull out their hair). I'm not going to say more lest people think I'm insulting every Arab for being Arab. Here, read this post by an Arab. Faiza is as immune this kind of talk as are the bone heads passing out flyers on my streets. She says:
We really wish [that the Arab League's Iraqi Reconciliation Conference] would be the beginning of a new Iraqi political era, as the elections are nearby, and everybody is preparing to run and win most seats in the new Parliament and the coming government. When the ghost of the occupation forces looms in the picture, it is capable of thwarting our hopes, and planting doubts about the possibility of achieving our national dreams.
Err...right. And who is more responsible for those upcoming elections, Faiza? The Arab League or the occupation forces? Well, at least these upcoming elections won't be "shallow and superficial" like the ones last January, right?
Does Faiza support the insurgents who are killing Iraqis? Oh yes she does!
But I believe that the Iraqis should knock on all doors, and use all means; peaceful, or not peaceful, political, and non political, to throw the occupation away, and achieve liberating Iraq, land and people.
She sounds like this guy Ghaith interviewed.
She spends a lot space ripping Saddam a new one. This is definitely worth reading. Her son's should read her blog once or twice. They would learn what it means to truly have contempt for Saddam, while hating the occupation at the same time. All it takes is a firm disconnect from reality. Stare into Saddam's evil face with one eye and cover the other eye so you don't have to look at who took him down and what the occupiers have permitted Iraqis to create.
Not that she faults Saddam for being a dictator; only that he was a tyrannical one. As a true pan-Arabist, she likes dictators. How can you have a "Sallahideen" (vile non-Arab Kurd) without a dictator?
WARNING!! Reading unrealist blogs is tricky. I, myself, only do it wearing a helmet and full pads. You think they are only viewing the world through reasonable eyes from a slightly different perspective, and then WHAM!! You realize they have stepped out of a parallel universe:
But the west and its capitalist governments believe only in interests; and when their interests with you are finished, they renounce you as if they have never known you at all. This is their history with a lot of the tyrant leaders, like the Shah of Iran, and Marcus of the Philippines. When their people decided to revolt against them, America renounced them as if they were never her agents one day.
What??? Is she implying that Saddam fell because "the people decided to revolt against him"???
And, guess what Faiza? If the US had not backed away from the Shah and President Marcos (in the case of the latter, insisting on free monitored elections) they would probably have died peacefully in office. It certainly wasn't merely money that caused the US to turn its back on them. Perhaps, in these cases and in the case of Saddam, capitalist countries see their interests in more than who pays them the most money (as Socialist France, Russia, Jordan, and Turkey did*)?
* The linked article states "Independent Inquiry Committee had confirmed that the report would show that 'the country with the most companies involved [in the Oil-For-Food embezzlement] as Russia, followed by France'...Preferential treatment was given to companies from France, Russia and China...Saddam's regime earned $1.8 billion through the oil-for-food scandal but earned even more by sidestepping sanctions and smuggling oil to Jordan and Turkey".
Speaking of time-bombs, this article about the Parisian riot, quotes a Muslim "youth-worker" who compares Paris to one. He says:
"It's a time bomb here! They've created ghettos, shoving all the immigrants together and then just letting things run their course over the years. Now the bomb has exploded."
Hmmm...strange, I heard Muslim immigrants haven't been assimilated into French culture, but this guy sounds more French than the French. Naturally, from a French perspective these acts aren't done by the ones setting the fires. They are done by shadowy forces and unspecified policies. Even a native Parisian presumes against all evidence that the rioters are political protesters and not just criminals and vandals:
"Have those jerks really set [the school] on fire? My daughter goes there!" He begins to gesticulate wildly. "If you really think it's necessary to raise hell, then set fire to the town hall, or a government building, but not a school!"
That's right. To a Parisian, burning down government buildings is an acceptable form of protest. Not the schools, where these battles have been fought by proxy for the last decade.
But my award for the most clueless statement goes to these Parisian Muslims:
The visitors to the mosque, however, are getting angry. Why talk to the press? They only paint a negative picture of Muslims here, they snarl at him.
Outing Joe and Valerie Plame Wilson Was a Public Service
David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey seem to be channeling my thoughts on the Wilson nonsense. I haven't seen the article yet but here is a quote:
"The reason Mr. Fitzgerald did not charge anyone with leaking Ms. Plame's name...because there was in fact no crime as a matter of law. The true scandal here is that, despite Ms. Plame's non-covert status, Mr. Fitzgerald pressed ahead, forcing numerous journalists to testify and actually jailing Judith Miller...
In view of this history, and precisely because the CIA was skeptical of the Niger claims, sending an outside expert to assess them was absolutely correct. The fact that the expert chosen by the CIA was [instead] so closely connected to its own bureaucracy [i.e. the husband of one of the agents who failed to determine Saddam had not huge stockpiles of WMD] was indispensable in assessing the value of that expert's work - especially after he had openly waded into the debate. In short, the revelation of Ms. Plame's name in connection to the CIA was a public service, neither criminal nor unethical."
- That VP Cheney had sent him to Niger; while technically true in the broadest of terms, this was deliberately misleading. Wilson obviously intended to convey that Cheney sat him down and asked him to go to Niger and then ignored his findings. In fact, the VP asked the CIA to vet the "yellowcake" story and the CIA chose him.
- That his wife, Valerie Plame Wilson who worked at the CIA on WMD issues, was not involved in selecting him for the mission.
- That he had determined that there was nothing to the claim that Saddam had procured uranium from Niger. In fact, according to a congressional committee investigating matter, his findings were inconclusive at best, but if anything supported the opinion that Saddam at least tried to buy uranium from Niger. And then there are those 500 tons of low-enriched uranium stores Saddam had.*
* "The United States has informed an international agency that oversees nuclear materials that it intends to move hundreds of tons of [low-enriched] uranium from a sealed repository south of Baghdad to a more secure place outside Iraq...The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program until it was largely shut down after the first Persian Gulf war in 1991, holds more than 500 tons of uranium." -- NY Times 5/22/04
- That he had determined the story was fraudulent because he had determined that documents alleging the sale were fraudulent. Actually, the US didn't get those documents until 8 months after Wilson's trip to Niger.
The irony is that those who are flogging his story are, in effect, insisting that Joe "Liar" Wilson was a whistle-blower and those that set the record straight are treasonous dirty-tricksters.
Joe Wilson, with the aid of his complicit posing wife, attempted to play his part in lying us into losing this war.
Kat from The Middle Ground has an excellent wrap up of the CIA's trouble-making in this issue.