Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Powerhouse GOP firm working to undermine Iraqi PM
CNN.Com ^ | August 23, 2007 | Ed Henry

Posted on 08/24/2007 8:36:32 AM PDT by RDTF

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last
To: rhombus
Bullseye!
21 posted on 08/24/2007 9:43:07 AM PDT by Blue State Insurgent (FRee your mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: montag813

that attitude is so 1970’s.

Perhaps the savages in the USSR and behind the Iron Curtain should not bother with a democratic form of governmetn. (/s)

Perhaps it is the fact they are educated but not literate. There is only an information diet of CNN and BBC and all the other pro-socialist anti-freedom media that keep them from seeing their true potential.

Dumping tea in a harbor was silly to some but it did have meaning.


22 posted on 08/24/2007 9:45:46 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RDTF
Bios of Barbour Griffith & Rogers

Hmmmmm. Client list is interesting, too.

23 posted on 08/24/2007 9:50:21 AM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RDTF; All

If the “GOP” and “powerhouse” labels are legitimate, then I would place my bets on them both being related (directly or indirectly) to such idiot GOP “authorities” as James Baker and would not hesitate that just like a lot of Baker’s work of late, Saudi money is involved there somewhere.

Are there legitimate reasons for shaking up the Maliki government? Yes. Is following the reasons and rational from the likes of James Baker and the Saudis one of those reasons? No. Should the motives of anyone following their leads be as suspect as following the leads Iran’s Mullahs? Yes.

There are few “white hats” among major Iraqi leaders right now, and that will probably continue until those local leaders who are building anti-insurgent/militia coalitions at the grass-roots level can get further along in their success and rise to replace the various thugs who took leadership roles in the beginning.

Meanwhile, I think any concerted effort by anyone “outside” Iraq to get one Iraqi leader out of power is in fact doing nothing other than working to help another incompetent and thugish Iraqi “leader”/”group” over some others. All they are doing is the same thing the west has been doing for sixty years across the Middle East - enabling the money-and-arms-buy-power, power grabbing, back and forth that ALL Middle East politics represents, and will continue to be manifest unless the democratic experiment in Iraq is given time to prove to a Middle East population that there is a better way.

It is important that Maliki be supported, not because he is great, or the best but because of the democratic and consensus selection process gives him his office. It is that process, and with as little outside influence as possible, by which Maliki or anyone else should be replaced.

If the “GOP” label of the lobbying group is correct, Bush should publicly acknowledge it and strongly denounce their efforts.


24 posted on 08/24/2007 11:20:49 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RDTF
I hope this is true. Malaki is turning out to be an incompetent boob. I hope he is turned out of power and the Iraqis form a new goverment. The current one is beyond redemption, IMHO.

Of course, we should never have held those stupid elections a couple years ago in the first place. We should have given Allawi a free hand to consolidate power and unify the country. It's really too bad that we made an idol out of democracy. Hopefully, we've learned our lesson.

25 posted on 08/24/2007 11:31:54 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vigilence
They will call for the ouster or replacement of a legitimately elected official

No election in which the political parties have armed militias at their disposal can be considered legitimate.

You can't have a functioning democracy until you have rule of law. Unfortunately, the Neocons are too stupid to understand this, and so they put the cart (elections) before the horse (rule of law). Historians will hold that up as a particularly stunning example of American naivete.

26 posted on 08/24/2007 11:35:41 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
It is important that Maliki be supported, not because he is great, or the best but because of the democratic and consensus selection process gives him his office.

LOL. Yes, a democratic consensus in a system whereby political parties have armed militias at their disposal. How wonderful.

Why do so many conservatives make an idol out of elections?

27 posted on 08/24/2007 11:37:20 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: montag813
This whole “Iraqi democracy” thing is such a joke and always was. What with the stupid purple fingers and all.

Well said, and it bears repeating.

28 posted on 08/24/2007 11:38:46 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

You cannot extol the legitimacy of the duly elected Iraqi government on the one hand and then, on the whim of being the occupier, arbitrarily replace a Prime Minister....at least not directly. As for the rule of law who do you think the law is? It is legislated and enforced from the top down but only legitimately with the consent of the governed. To impose democracy without consent is more illegitimate than having political parties with armed militias. Seems to me I remember George Washington, after the fall of Cornwallis, at the head of a large army who wanted him to declare himself king. And his greatness is measured primarily in his opposition to such power.


29 posted on 08/24/2007 12:12:32 PM PDT by vigilence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: vigilence
You cannot extol the legitimacy of the duly elected Iraqi government on the one hand and then,

Yes, I agree. Extoling the Iraqi government was stupid, for it is neither legitimate nor freely elected. No election in which the political parties control armed militias can ever be considered free or legitimate.

Holding those elections was one of the stupidest things we did.

on the whim of being the occupier, arbitrarily replace a Prime Minister....at least not directly.

Yes, I agree. It has to be done in a clandestine, back-handed way so as to maintain plausible deniability. I hope the Bush administration is doing this.

As for the rule of law who do you think the law is?

A condition in which laws are clearly spelled out and applied to everyone by a single authority with a monopoly on the use of force.

A situation in which armed militias carve up the country into fiefdoms into which the law enforcement authorities dare not venture is not characterized by the rule of law.

It is legislated and enforced from the top down but only legitimately with the consent of the governed.

Nope. Rule of law is not dependent on democracy or representation. Plenty of dictatorships had the rule of law. Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile, Kamil's Turkey, and post-war South Korea constitute several prominent examples.

History shows that you must have rule of law first before you can have democracy. This comes from the simple fact that rule of law makes it impossible for political factions to resort to armed conflict to acheive their political ends. You cannot have a legitimate democracy when factions can simply ignore the decisions of an elected government or, worse, when they can use force to intimidate voters and or representatives to get the results they want.

To impose democracy without consent is more illegitimate than having political parties with armed militias.

I never suggested we impose democracy. Rather, I suggested that we should have let Allawi impose the rule of law on Iraq. Once the militias were disbanded or brought under the control of the central government, and order was restored, then and only then would it be appropriate to allow elections.

Unfortuantely, we put the cart before the horse, thinking that elections would bring about rule of law. That was really naive and stupid.

Seems to me I remember George Washington, after the fall of Cornwallis, at the head of a large army who wanted him to declare himself king. And his greatness is measured primarily in his opposition to such power.

Our nation already had the rule of law before even the Articles of Confederation were established. There was a long tradition of self-government in the colonies, and the pre-existing colonial structures were able to maintain rule of law both during and after the war of independence.

There was no need for Washington to assume any dictatorial powers, and thankfully, he did not. The situation in Iraq, however, is very different.

30 posted on 08/24/2007 12:50:31 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

I don’t think we disagree on very much here. Unfortunately I have to maintain the facade of actually working and am unable to give this the attention it deserves. Nice talking to you. Cheers!


31 posted on 08/24/2007 1:08:38 PM PDT by vigilence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
"You can't have a functioning democracy until you have rule of law. Unfortunately, the Neocons are too stupid to understand this, and so they put the cart (elections) before the horse (rule of law). Historians will hold that up as a particularly stunning example of American naivete."

Did you happen to catch the round table on Special Report this evening? Charles Krauthammer bluntly stated that the war in Iraq can't be won with Alawai as president.

32 posted on 08/24/2007 3:55:21 PM PDT by blaquebyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: blaquebyrd
Do you mean Maliki?

FYI, I don't regard Krauthammer as a neocon.

33 posted on 08/24/2007 4:00:26 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Yeah, I meant Maliki and like you I don’t consider Krauthammer a neocon. I respect his opinions because he doesn’t come off as a partisan hack (read Bill Kristol). I was trying to make the point that I agree with you and that respected conservatives have also concluded that the current Iraqi government ain’t working.
34 posted on 08/24/2007 4:18:34 PM PDT by blaquebyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: blaquebyrd
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I agree with you. Actually, certain conservatives have been saying Maliki is useless for a long time. I've been saying it since he got elected.

It's hard to tell what would happen if his government fell, but it's hard to imagine how what replaces it could be any worse that what we have now.

We'll just have to see what happens.

35 posted on 08/24/2007 4:23:02 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: blaquebyrd
There seems to be some rumors circulating in the nutroot, left-wing blogsphere that there's a military coup in the works that will replace Allawi.

For once, I hope they're right. Iraq isn't, and won't for a long time, be ready for democracy. It needs a dictator to bring order. From what I know of him, Allawi would be an excellent candidate; he could be Iraq's Attaturk.

Unfotunately, I don't think it's going to happen. Bush is too stubborn to abandon his goal of a democratic Iraq.

36 posted on 08/24/2007 4:31:17 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Sorry, I meant to say, "replace Maliki with Allawi."

I would welcome such a change, but I doubt it's going to happen.

37 posted on 08/24/2007 4:40:23 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner
Read the article.

A senior Bush administration official told CNN the White House is aware of the lobbying campaign by Barbour Griffith & Rogers because the firm is "blasting e-mails all over town" criticizing al-Maliki and promoting the firm's client, former interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, as an alternative to al-Maliki.
38 posted on 08/24/2007 9:30:37 PM PDT by Terpfen (It's your fault, not Pelosi's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

“Why do so many conservatives make an idol out of elections?”

And you would prefer to make an “idol” for representative government out of something besides elections?


39 posted on 08/25/2007 10:37:49 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
And you would prefer to make an “idol” for representative government out of something besides elections?

Actually, it isn't an idol to those folks when Hamas wins. They are hypcritical.

40 posted on 08/25/2007 10:39:39 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson