Silence In the Face of Truth

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
mrmom2 said:
Who's numbers are those anyways got a link because if their medias or the USG numbers I don't have much faith in them :?

True that. I remember shortly after the vote, there was some dispute over the numbers the US presented...I did at that time find an independent news report that had the same numbers...but presented differently...something like, of the 8.5 million eligible voters, 40% were registered to vote, but only 30% of the registered voters went to the polls...or something like that...I'll try to find it now...
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Thank you Vanni, but the percentages are a little off.
In the Kurdistan area, voting reached almost 70 percent, which is understandable because they had two separate functioning parliaments before the war operating under the northern no-fly zone.

And the Shi-ite regions were generally closer to 60 percent.

The Sunnis the favorites of Saddam's police state was signficantly low, but no one knows how fearful were those Sunnis who thought this vote might be the better way to go.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Absolutely agreed Vanni. You'll notice in 4 or 5 posts earlier in this thread that I mentioned that Sistani quite insisted on that voting deadline while the liberal press guffawed that it could no way be accomplished.

It appears both Sistani's insistence and respect and Bush having the military put a curfew on the empty streets (amazing how empty the streets of a whole country was that day of the election !!! ) accomplished that deadline.

Quite an unnoticed miracle, just a blip in the world's rush to condemn the true American blundering.

It is a good article, but it doesn't want anyone to get any ideas that such an election will dilute the world's rightful condemnation of Bush.

---------------------------------


Here is your link posted, because it is a good article:

Published on Sunday, February 6, 2005 by the Toronto Star
Iraqis Voted Because They Want U.S. Troops Out
by Linda McQuaig

The fact that millions of Iraqis turned out to vote has led many here to conclude that George W. Bush was right to invade Iraq. What an odd conclusion.

It is indeed stunning and inspiring that so many Iraqis risked death to participate in the elections. This tells us that they're desperate for freedom and self-government. But was that ever in doubt?

To listen to the giddy media commentary here, one could easily conclude that Iraqis voted to show their support for Bush and the U.S. army. Yet, the one theme common to all parties in the election was the need to end the U.S. occupation. "Many of the voters came out to cast their ballots in the belief that it was the only way to regain enough sovereignty to get American troops back out of their country," noted Juan Cole, a professor of Modern Middle Eastern History at the University of Michigan.

If there's a "hero" of the emerging Iraqi electoral process, it isn't Bush but rather Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who doggedly pushed for elections right from the start, seeing them as a vehicle for winning clout for his long-oppressed Shiite majority.

Bush, as it turns out, resisted elections, preferring Iraq be run by a U.S. pro-consul while a few hand-picked exiles drew up a new constitution. "If it had been up to Bush, Iraq would have been a soft dictatorship," according to Cole.

Sistani grew impatient with this, particularly after the U.S. canceled municipal elections across Iraq in June 2003. Angered by the cancellation, Sistani's supporters protested en masse in Najaf, and Sistani issued a fatwa demanding national elections.

But Washington balked at the sort of real elections the ayatollah had in mind, proposing something more indirect, modeled on U.S.-style caucuses. Sistani didn't trust that, and in January 2004 called hundreds of thousands of his supporters out onto the streets of Baghdad and Basra.

Those huge demonstrations unnerved Washington. With resistance from Sunnis and radical Shiites growing, Washington realized it needed the influential and moderate Sistani, so it agreed to direct elections. Sistani issued another fatwa making it a religious duty to vote. So chalk up the big turnout on election day to enthusiasm for democracy — and loyalty to the ayatollah.

Of course, one could say that Bush set the electoral process in motion by invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam. True. But that invasion — and subsequent occupation and anarchy — has resulted in an estimated 20,000 to 100,000 Iraqi deaths.

Perhaps those dead Iraqis would have been willing to die to achieve the new state of affairs in Iraq. Perhaps not. Certainly they weren't consulted. The White House simply decided their lives were worth sacrificing for the sake of "democracy" — or "soft dictatorship" or whatever else Washington was after in invading Iraq. Easy for Bush to decide.

Next time Bush wants to "liberate" a country, we'll no doubt be shown last week's post-election footage of Iraqis dancing with joy.

Never mind that those dancing Iraqis were probably celebrating the first step in pushing foreign occupiers out of their land.

Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and commentator.
 

Jo Canadian

Council Member
Mar 15, 2005
2,488
1
38
PEI...for now
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Genesis of an American Gestapo
Mike Whitney


July 15, 2005

“Tyrants have always some slight shade of virtue; they support the laws before destroying them.” Voltaire

“A dictatorship would be a heck-of a lot easier; as long as I’m dictator.” President George W. Bush

Tyranny has very few indispensable parts; a compliant media, that will regulate information to meet the goals of the state; a “rubber-stamp” Parliament that will endorse the policies of the supreme leader; a judiciary that will adjust the law to serve the requirements of the ruling body, a strong military to seize the wealth of weaker nations; and a security apparatus, that will eliminate any domestic threats to the system.

On June 29 President Bush took the great-leap forward in transforming the nation’s intelligence services by ordering a restructuring of the FBI and putting “a broad swath of the agency” under the direct control of the executive.

Bingo; Bush’s personal secret police; an American Gestapo.

The formation of the new agency was presented as part of 74 recommendations made by the 9-11 Commission on Intelligence. Every member of the so-called “independent” panel was hand-picked by the Bush team and their proposals reflect the narrow interests of American elites. Bush loyalists and Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) members Lawrence Silberman and Charles Robb, (both of whom were directly involved in the 9-11 whitewash) chaired the committee, and provided the rationale for the dramatic changes to the existing system. Astonishingly, Bush was able to unilaterally create the National Security Service without congressional approval as part of his sweeping powers under the new anti-terror legislation.

The freshly minted National Security Service, which has been dubbed the New SS, will operate under the authority of former ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte, whose involvement in overseeing the terrorist activities of death squads in Nicaragua will provide him with the necessary experience for his new task. Negroponte, the new Intelligence czar, will report directly to the President, who in turn will carefully monitor the violations of civil liberties that will naturally evolve from unsupervised investigations.

The formation of the Bush Gestapo overturns long held precedents for maintaining the independence of law enforcement agencies. Those guidelines have been summarily discarded by the administration, just as they have been ignored by the collaborative media. The nation’s steep descent into despotism was barely greeted with a whimper of protest from the mainstream press. The editors of the New York Times applauded the changes as a sign of progress; a step forward in making America safer and “breaking down walls” between foreign and domestic agencies. This is true; there are many cumbersome “barriers” between the President and absolute power but, for all practical purposes, those have now been effectively removed. Notwithstanding the NY Time’s perky assessment, the deleterious effects on the American people will be felt for decades to come.

In a Washington Post article innocuously titled “Bush Approves Spy Agency Changes”, veteran journalist Walter Pincus makes scant reference to the many civil liberties groups that fought the creation of the National SS. Timothy Edgar, from the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) criticized the president’s action saying, "The FBI is effectively being taken over by a spymaster who reports directly to the White House. . . . It's alarming that the same person who oversees foreign spying will now oversee domestic spying, too.

“Alarming to whom?” It’s not alarming to the president or his cadre of corporate benefactors who would rather eschew the nettlesome requirements of the Bill of Rights to eliminate potential dangers to the state. To them, the emergence of the secret police augers stability in the markets; eliminating disruptive elements without recourse to the law. Personal freedom is the sworn enemy of “top-down”, orderly societies. The Bush Gestapo will ensure that the decision-making power continues to be entrusted by those who’ve demonstrated their natural right to lead.

The National Security Service will have unlimited power to conduct the apocryphal war on terror anyway it sees fit. The agency will operate independent of congressional oversight and beyond the bothersome glare of America’s permanently embedded media. It will provide the requisite muscle for maintaining America’s one-party system; spying, harassing and intimidating those dissident elements who dare to challenge the status quo. We should expect to see an up tick in dirty tricks, coerced-censorship and “disappeared” persons in the wake of the new changes.

General Michael Hayden, deputy director of National Intelligence, attempted to assuage fears that civil liberties would be savaged by the Bush brown shirts. Hayden stated unequivocally that the US no longer had the “luxury” of maintaining the divisions between foreign and domestic intelligence structures because, “Our enemy does not recognize that distinction”. In other words, it’s too dangerous to be free any longer.

Isn’t this the unavoidable logic of Fascism?

The creation of the National Security Service comes on the heels of other developments that are equally ominous. Homeland Security’s Michael Chertoff announced this week that the 180,000 public employees in the government’s largest agency would be further corralled under the central authority of the president. Invoking the pretext of “national security”, Chertoff plans to appoint a few new agency chieftains (Bush loyalists) who will be tasked at consolidating the disparate groups under a model of corporate rule. The changes represent even more power for the president.

Similarly, the release of a 40 page document from the Defense Dept. states the intention of the Pentagon to “expand military activity” within the United States; a practice that has been banned since 1878 under the provisions of the Posse Comitatus Act. American’s would be surprised to know that the administration is maneuvering to sidestep the existing law and deploy troops inside the country on the president’s orders. Consider, for a moment, the potential for disaster if Bush is allowed to use the military as his own private resource; dispatching protestors, patrolling cities and supervising elections as happens in third world nations. The Pentagon document clearly “asserts the president’s authority to deploy combat forces on US territory to intercept and defeat threats.” (Washington Post)
Sounds like a military dictatorship to me.

Is there any doubt where all of this is heading?

The National Security Service, which is an autonomous, domestic spy-agency, signals a tectonic shift in the political landscape. The genesis of the Police State marks the end of American democracy; the final wooden stake to the heart of privacy, security and personal liberty. Bush’s meteoric rise to power has been accompanied by a breakdown of traditional safeguards at every juncture; leaving the system vulnerable to incalculable damage. The message to citizens is clear; all of the institutions upon which democratic societies depend (the executive, the Congress, the Judiciary, the media, the military, and law enforcement) have withered beneath the Bush onslaught and been reduced to rubble. The entire system has been corrupted from top to bottom. America is a gaunt, skeletal figure; rattling around in its cage, ready to be blown over by the first brisk wind. Democracy is dead.

Now, will someone please tell the American people?