Posted on 01/09/2006 8:12:32 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
Is This The Democracy We Are Fighting For? ...Barbra Streisand
Posted on January 3, 2006
Why are we really fighting this war? First it was the search for WMDs. None were found. Then it was hunting for the terrorists and "smoking them out." Weve only created a breeding ground for more terrorists. Finally, President Bush insisted the mission in Iraq was worth it in order to bring democracy to the country and unseat Saddam Hussein, a very bad guy, but one who was contained economically, politically and militarily. Remember, he was our ally in the fight against Iran.
And there are many countries that need democracy, but the United States has not gone in militarily and usurped control. But Iraq has oil and Bush has a lot of big oil friends.
For the past 2 ‡ years, the President has exhausted the public with his rhetoric that building a democracy in Iraq will establish a peaceful civil society that will ultimately be an ally in the war on terror. In speech after speech, the country has heard the message point hammered home from Bush, Cheney, Condi and Rumsfeld: A free democratic Iraq is central to the war on terrorism. But judging by the climate of violence and unrest that still continues in Iraq, that battle is far from being won.
Central to the creation of a free and democratic Iraq was the notion of having the Iraqi people elect their own leaders. Amid great anticipation, the Iraqi elections were held in December. The good news is that there was strong turnout, little violence and large-scale participation by Sunni Muslims, who along with the Kurds, are the underrepresented, minority religious faction in Iraq. The White House heavily supported and hoped for Ayad Allawi to be victorious. While a Shiite, he believed in a modern secular government. The bad news is that the Administration, in their desperation to present the world with a successful and free Iraq election, had largely ignored the growing fury felt by many Sunni Arabs over the dominance of fanatical religious Shiites, who seek to implement their own version of fundamental Islamic law.
The Administrations biggest fear was the possibility of a fundamentalist Shiite controlled Iraqi government, and that is now the likely reality. With the recent Iraqi election, the only regime that we have helped to erect is a theocratic one, where fundamental Islamic law will likely continue to repress the Iraqi people, spread religious intolerance and deny basic rights to women. Is this what we are fighting for?
The result of the December election has plunged Iraq into political turmoil. Preliminary results showed the advancement of the United Iraqi Coalition, supported by the Shiite religious figure Ayatullah Ali al-Seistani. Days after the election, Sunni Arab leaders had angrily rejected early election results, saying that the vote has been fixed to favor the Shiite majority party. Sunni Arab politicians have threatened to boycott the political process altogether, which would be a serious set back for the Bush Administration.
With the religious Shiite faction having gained control of the Iraqi government, religious law will be high on their agenda. The Islamic law that is favored by the Shiite fundamentalists has horrible implications for women. "Personal status" law, which governs marriage, divorce, inheritance, burial, and other issues, will likely replace the uniform civil code. It is possible that the December election may be the first and last "free" election the Iraqi people will participate in.
The fundamentalist Shiites have strong ties to Iran. With the Shiite victory, Iran will now become a close ally to Iraq and even more of a threat to the United States. In addition to proudly announcing their nuclear capability, Irans unstable President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called the Holocaust a 'myth' and pledged to destroy Israel. This new alliance is dangerous for the US and far from the secular democratic government that the Bush Administration naively envisioned for a dictatorless Iraq.
Is this the democracy that we have been fighting for? Or has the Bush Administration failed once more in their mission to make America safer. There are no WMDs, there is an increasing anti-American sentiment in the Middle East and around the world, chances for a true democracy in Iraq are slim and a dangerous alliance between Iraq and Iran is likely. The Bush administration has made a mess in Iraq that they seem incapable of cleaning up. And speech after highly publicized speech by the President will not change this reality.
Your tagline is correct. Why is it that the leftist idiots are always making SO MUCH NOISE? They never shut up. How do they get any sleep?
If memory serves, BS was a HS dropout. Just another NAG HAG Hollyweirdette who thinks she can run the world because her name has been on a movie marquee.
No Barb, we're not laughing with you.
Uh, that would be Bush, Cheney, Secretary Rice and Rumsfeld to you, bimbo.
Oh, and I suppose that the "Nose that Snored" Babs would have preferred those 98% victories in the elections that Saddam had, right? Where were her and the entire left's protests over Saddam's reign of Terror before?
The fundamentalist Shiites have strong ties to Iran. With the Shiite victory, Iran will now become a close ally to Iraq and even more of a threat to the United States.
Gee Babs...wasn't it that Nobel Laureate Jimmah Carter (D :Insane Asylum) that was responsible for toppling the Shah of Iran and installing Ayatollah Khomeni, thereby giving the very Islamazi Shiites their own Nation to do exactly what you described above?
Wasn't it the DemonRAT Admin policies of IMPOTUS X-42 that allowed North Korea to gain Nuclear capability that it then shared...along with Russia and China with these Mad Mullahs?
So, let's just be clear here...do Babs and the left now CONDEMN Sharia Law? Or is this just another convenient fig-leaf?
In addition to proudly announcing their nuclear capability, Irans unstable President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called the Holocaust a 'myth' and pledged to destroy Israel. This new alliance is dangerous for the US and far from the secular democratic government that the Bush Administration naively envisioned for a dictatorless Iraq.
Yup..."fig-leaf".
Does this mean that Babs is in favor of..."GASP"...WAR with Iran now before they gain their full advantage?
Nah...she just wants to Ostrich and blame others until Hillary is installed as the Next "Fearless Leader."
"Remember, he was our ally in the fight against Iran."
Babs is a moron. Stalin was also our ally against the Nazi. Iraq/Iran was a choice betweenthe lesser of two evils - we supported Iraq so the ME wouldn't be overrun by the Iranian Theocracy.
There are days I wish we could ship all the moonbats to Syria, let them experience reality firsthand.
One has to wonder if this tool could even say that phrase on her own, without coaching. She certainly didn't think of it herself.
Babs is referring to Iraq, not the U.S.
Finding Saddam's WMDs and witnessing political stability in Iraq would be her worst nightmare. Dems/leftists can barely contain their rooting interests.
STFU and sing!
From the screed:
" ... from Bush, Cheney, Condi and Rumsfeld: "
Allow me to point out the racism. Back in the 50's and 60's civil rights folks complained that in covering sports, last names were used for whites, and first names for blacks, (i.e. Mantle hit a long fly and Willie made a great catch.)
Condi? I believe Ms. Streisand should be called on her blantant racism!
"A very bad guy." If Saddam were one of those right wing dictators who supported America like Somoza and those Latin American guys during the Reagan era, Barbra and her ilk would have been screaming for his ouster.
"Why is it that the leftist idiots are always making SO MUCH NOISE?"
because empty cans make the most noise! :-]
Perhaps we could direct Babs to the following:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1554540/posts
A small snip from the article that responds to Babs' BS (oops, a redundancy):
"The success of America's democracy seems to us today as almost inevitable. However in 1783 success didn't seem so obvious or assured. Our founders faced many challenges, our original governing document, the Articles of Confederation, agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777 became operative on March 1, 1781 when the last of the 13 states signed on to the document. The Articles of Confederation had many shortcomings. /snip/ No nation in history has made the transition to a free society without facing challenges, setbacks and near failures. It is unreasonable to think that Iraq doesn’t have the complex challenges, dichotomies, conundrums, and paradoxes to sort through in her quest for autonomy as we did."
Historical perspectives can lend considerable context if we have the wisdom and common sense to do so. Unfortunately, both of these commodities are in short supply among those desiring to proclaim themselves out betters.
Hey Babs, if we had just "contained" Hitler instead of destroying him, you might not be here, nor would a lot of innocent Jewish people who were saved from the gas chambers.
The problem is, that no one wants to go near her to make the incantation!
WHat are you talking about? From the same blog..
Stage two..has just begun and its beginning is marked by the emergence of a new large political bloc.. after the largest three blocs of Maram-the Iraqi list, the Accord Front and al-Mutlaq’s Dialogue Front-signed an agreement to form one unified political body
Politicians (will) use this time to organize their lines, probe the pulse of other parties and prepare for the real negotiations that are yet to come.
Everything she said is the worst case scenario, the only scenario that Sociocrats like her can hope for. Its the traitor's fervent wish; failure.
Remote control rabbi-bot........
Barbara, you ain't fightin for democracy. You're fighting for communism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.