{ 26 } Comments

1. Jared | April 4, 2006 at 1:10 am | Permalink

   How come they didn't mention about the Civil war in Iraq?Or at least mention about 1/2 trillion we are spending in the"Global war of terror"? Or say, the 30 000 Iraqis killed?or the 2300 soldiers who died?

   I am eager to hear them singing about the Mexicans.

   No Issue left behind.

   Oh , I CANT WAIT FOR DEMOCRACY TO PREVAIL IN EGYPT.

   Reply - Quote
2. Rich--- | April 4, 2006 at 2:17 am | Permalink

   Yea and my broken watch is right twice a day, I think that is better than his record

   Reply - Quote
3. raymond | April 4, 2006 at 8:28 am | Permalink

   Catchy tune. They'll make millions. I see a number one.

   God help us.

   Reply - Quote
4. Topo | April 4, 2006 at 11:37 am | Permalink

   Well,I personally prefer to sing Green Day's "American Idiot" or NOFX's "Idiot Son Of An A**hole". But even if I am a fan of Bush, I feel the lyrics are somewhat poor and vulgar propaganda,which remind me of Communist Soviet national anthem.

   Reply - Quote
5. Thomas, a Dane | April 4, 2006 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

   Jared,

   I noticed the 'magic' number of 30,000 being stated by someone from the US administration the other day on CNN (I don't remember who it was). I am not an expert on the subject, but I think it is a very questionable number, to put it mildly.

   The 30,000 is an underestatement of the Iraq Body Count numbers of between 33,800-37,900 killed civilians since the US invasion. As the IBC states "Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports from recognized sources." which means that their numbers are conservative, but more likely very conservative.

   Another important factor to consider is that in more than a year, very few reporters have been able to travel freely in Iraq, which means that there are very very likely civilian deaths that are not being reported in online media and therefore are not included in the IBC numbers.

   I am not a mathemagician, so I cannot judge whether the real numbers are 2, 5, or many more times higher, but I am convinced that the 30,000 is definitely much more misleading than it is indicative.

   The scientific journal, the Lancet, reported that casualties COULD BE in the area of 95,000 based on statistical probability, but that was back in the end of 2004. I suggest that you read "Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?" (http://www.alternet.org/story/31508/) which has a good argumentation and reasoning, why the numbers have to be much higher than the 30,000. The article is written by Les Roberts, who is one of the scientists behind the 2004 Lancet study.

   I can also recommend (http://www.thecatsdream.com/blog/2006_03_01_archive.htm - you have to scroll down to the "Do Iraqi Lives Matter? - an email exchange with the BBC") which contains a lot of links to related articles about the figures and the methodologies.

   Reply - Quote
6. Nas | April 4, 2006 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

   …basking in the warm embrace of Bush's wave of democracy in the middle east.

   Reply - Quote
7. kinzi | April 4, 2006 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

   Couldn't listen, but as a jp closet Bush-backer who doesn't want to be lumped into that stereotype, I at least appreciate the title.

   Reply - Quote
8. Mougly | April 6, 2006 at 4:52 am | Permalink

   Are people so Efin blind and deaf? Didn't Bush and his cronies stand there and time after time tried to convince the world that Sadam had WMD? And that he was supporting Alqaida? Weren’t all these a bunch of lies, which even the administration itself has admitted to?

   My god, these people supporting this idiot must have their heads so deep in the sand. What will it take to make you see the light? Iraq was about Oil it always was and always will be….and by the way is Iraq and the rest of the world any safer today? I think not.

   One more question, who has benefited and continues to benefit from this war? You guessed it Dick and his buddies.

   For the love of God and Humanity take your heads out of your A***s and look at the reality that is so dam obvious.

   Reply - Quote
9. Tamim | April 6, 2006 at 6:02 am | Permalink

   It's high time democracy activists in third world countries knew America is not the country of freedoms they may have taken as an example.

   Reply - Quote
10. kimmy | April 8, 2006 at 5:09 am | Permalink

    We here in NA are free. We are free to do as we are told!

    Reply - Quote
11. kinzi | April 9, 2006 at 9:13 pm | Permalink

    Mougly, just so you know, both my head and my a*** have been working with refugees from Iraq for a couple decades now, doing 'clean-up' for even pre-Bush bad White House foreign policy moves. It was their cries to go and 'finish the job' that motivated me to hold my nose and vote for Bush. (Not to mention wanted no Kerry appointees for Supreme Court, a seeming non-issue for non-Americans)

    And an Iraqi friend (who went back to Iraq when Saddam was discovered, btw) visited Jordan last week told me they are still happier to be without Saddam, even though life is not pleasant. And her head is not anywhere near her a***, either.

    Thanks for all the lovely words of affirmation!

    Reply - Quote
12. Mougly | April 11, 2006 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    Kinzi

    The whole Idea that the US is in Iraq for the betterment of the Iraqi’s is ludicrous, if that was the case then they should have started with Saudi Arabia, then Pakistan, then China.
    And why is it that every time someone says anything against the Bush administration, he automatically becomes a Sadam supporter? I don't and never ever thought that Sadam was a good man or leader, but don't try to tell me that Iraqis are happier now than they were with Sadam, especially when your observations are based on the opinions of someone who does not even live in Iraq.

    I think the administration could and should have used the $200 billion to better the lives of Iraqi's then instead of destroying a country.

    Reply - Quote
13. Mougly | April 11, 2006 at 8:18 am | Permalink

    Bye the way Kinzi
    I do not wish to diminish what you or anyone else have and continue to do for the less fortunate, but I disagree with the fact that the US administration did not have to go into Iraq the way they did, the reasons were based on lies and deception. In addition there was no real understanding of the culture. Now the US forces are stuck with needless lives being lost every day. Changes could have been effected in a better and more peaceful ways.

    Reply - Quote
14. kinzi | April 11, 2006 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

    Mougly, I completely agree with you on most of those points. One difference about Iraq for me is that we put Saddam in power. Not only did we "break" Iraq, we set it up for brokenness while playing God against Iran. I have no rah-rah patriotic illusions that it was for Iraq's good, it was all about oil.

    Most Jordanians (are you?) were by no means 'pro-Saddam', but it seemed the only noise I ever heard was against sanctions, not against him. If I can be completely candid, without exception the Iraqis I knew from that time blamed Arab neighbors for doing nothing but enjoying cheap oil bought by their silence about Saddam's atrocities.

    The person I mentioned DOES live in Iraq. In fact, I continue to hear this from a wide variety of Iraqis who still live there - I mean, we have long-term, ongoing friendships. In fact, my husband met a Sunni a flight recently and he said the same thing, so it isn't just old friends of ours who are trying to make us feel better about what our country did. I'm not happy about how it was carried out, believe me, but I feel an obligation of love to do what I can to pick up pieces and invest in the lives of Iraqis, one by one.

    Just to let you know there is always another perspective. In fact, many Iraqis I know feel Jordanians spin their media about Iraq as badly as the US does. I have also heard more than once, that they would have rathered suffered the war, be given a chance to govern themselves and fail than lived under Saddam. Those are amazing words.

    Reply - Quote
15. Mougly | April 12, 2006 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    Kinzi
    First no I am not a Jordanian, I am an Arab Canadian.

    As to the Arab countries not helping the Iraqis, I do not disagree with you on that, infect the Arab division is what contributed to all the crap that is going on in the Middle East. But the issue now is that Iraq is on the verge of a civil war, more than 60 Iraqis die each day, most of Iraq has no services, Christians are increasingly being pushed out, and women are loosing their rights due to a rise in the extremist groups. In addition to all this the government of Iraq has little or no power to uphold the law or provide order, infrastructure is devastated. And did all this create a safer environment to Iraqis or the rest of the world? Not quite in fact it has become a more dangerous world.

    This war was unjustified, it was illegal, and was based on greed.

    And the END should never justify the means.

    And lastly, are you and those friends you mentioned, prepared to see a fundamentalist government in place? Do you really believe that you can create a democracy by force or by simply removing a tyrant? Democracy has to evolve it can not be imposed.

    Please remember I am not any America, or Americans, in fact many members of my family live in the US, I simply disagree with the current government, and the adjenda that it is trying to imposs on the world, and every time I hear Bush give a speech I just shake my head, and wonder how a man who can't even speak is elected to office by as much as 52% of the voters. although that number is debatable. also remember he curently has the lowest aproval rate of any president in the past 50 years, this has to tell you something.
    And yes Kerry was not the most apealing choice, the Democrats should have picked a better man.

    Reply - Quote
16. kinzi | April 12, 2006 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

    Mougly, thanks for listening and such a giving dignified reply considering the difficulty of the subject. No matter who is president, I believe America is in irreversible moral decline - and it scares me to think what foolish choices will be made by the president of a country trying to scramble back to a place of global significance.

    Reply - Quote
17. Philip | April 13, 2006 at 6:48 am | Permalink

    Here's a short synopsis of the "Saddam" problem. A strategic error was made in US foreign policy in the past. There was the assumption that Saddam, as a secular political figure, would be a benefit to US interests in his opposition to the Muslim fundamentalists in Iran (Haitham…is this good terminology? Muslim fundamentalist? I'm trying to avoid the misuse of the term "Islamic" here…). Of course, this blew up in our faces, because Saddam was an Arab nationalist, which was just another form of evil. So what we ended up with is 2 opposing, yet destructive, tyrannical regimes. Our good relationship with Saudi Arabia at present has this potential, sad to say. Anyhow, Saddam, of course, began showing his true colors, and things came to a head when he attempted to invade Kuwait and other neighboring nations. This began a sort of domino effect, which has to do with the WMDs that Saddam did, in fact, have (those Kurds didn't burn themselves to death), and the programs he was documented to be pursuing (this is not in question; what is in question is the completed versions of these weapons, which some former Iraqi generals have come forward and said left on a convoy to Syria before US troops began accumulating. The reason? Saddam saw he was between a rock and a hard place. He knew it was impossible to defeat the US militarily, so he decided to embarrass us by making the WMDs appear to have never existed. So his Ba'athist buddies in Syria decided to help. I actually saw their foreign minister answer this question: "Are Saddam's WMDs in Syria?" with "No, they are not in Syria. And if they are in Syria, I don't know where." :-o). I agree with Bush's actions in Iraq. It has nothing to do with oil. That claim is tired and silly.
    The fact that Iraqis are happy to be free of Saddam despite all their current troubles is not so strange. These are people who lived under a vicious tyrant for 30 years. I know, I know…but the US is vicious, cruel and tyrannical. The statements are made like that, but they are nonsense. There is no comparison. It's like all these people with Bush=Hitler signs. It's nonsense. Just words, no meaning, no truth. Having lived under this tyrant, they are now suffering the birth pangs of liberty. The opponents to liberty, the Saddam loyalists and the terrorists, are resisting intensely, much more intensely than the US administration (to their own admission) anticipated. Yet they see through the smoke, the screams, the rubble, and see something new and good arising out of it. Is it really such a foolish idea? I like to think it isn't.
    Kinzi, I fear you are right about moral decline in the US. What is the solution? Hard to say. My only hope is a cultural backlash, where one generation gets sick of it all before it becomes so entrenched that we don't even know it is happening.

    Reply - Quote
18. Mougly | April 13, 2006 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    Philip
    Let me begin by saying that even the bush administration has admitted that there were no WMD, and they have stopped short of apologizing for their mistakes, the UN inspectors spent years in Iraq and had no evidence that any WMD were still around.
    As to the oil issue this is not silly tired argument this is a fact, the US never lifted a finger to help in Rowanda as over 1,000,000 people were killed, nor did they try to help when more than 300,000 people were killed in Sudan, the US allows an oppressive tyrant to posses Nukes in Pakistan. Did the Bush administration do this for humanitarian reasons? Is it because they care so much about the Iraqis? I think not this administration has countless allies who are less than human to their own people. China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan Kuwait Just to name a few, please don't be so naive to think that your current government is all about human rights, it is only there to serve the lobbyists. They did nothing for the poor in America, or elsewhere, but yet Cheney and Bush are getting richer and richer by the day.
    Ask your self this, what was the first place the US forces protected after the fall of Sadam, You guessed it the oil fields.
    What company was awarded the bulk of the weapons contracts, and the rebuilding? You gassed it, Halliburton.
    Look I do not deny the US does send aid to many countries, and from time to time they do something’s right, but they really missed the boat on Iraq. Instead they should have made more of an effort to find Osama Bin Laden, and made sure that Afghanistan was a success. (One election does not mean it was a success) it has to be safe for its people and that is not the case.

    I am amazed that anyone could stand up and say I support Bush….it really is amazing, since even economically he had failed the American people.

    And once again, I don't and never did support Sadam or thought of him as a good leader, but there were other ways to deal with him than to start a war and kill tens of thoughsands.

    Reply - Quote
19. Philip | April 14, 2006 at 6:07 am | Permalink

    Mougly,
    I am hoping to avoid a back-and-forth nowhere argument like I have had with "Thomas, A Dane." My general view falls under these basics:
    1) The US cannot dethrone every despot. We are powerful, not omnipotent. The role is to protect our own interests and then to serve those who should benefit through the loss of a tyrant. Iraq is fraught with other problems, almost entirely based upon the actions of Saddam loyalists and terrorists.
    2) I am openly critical of US alliance with any tyrant, and the alliance with Saudi Arabia (while beneficial in the war on terror in the short term) is very dangerous. Allowing Pakistan to have nukes is tricky, but the ousted former Prime Minister gives her nod of approval (cautiously). India provides a balance there, but truthfully that is not quite good enough. I am unaware of Kuwait being ruled cruelly; educate me if I am wrong. The alliances with tyrants who oppose our enemies has been a repeatedly failed (and wrong) policy. We agree on this, more or less.
    3) The oil fields in Iraq got special protection because they are prime targets of the enemy, and they are the backbone of Iraq's economy. Nothing would (nor has) harmed the Iraqi people quite like attacks on the oil production.
    4) The effort to find bin Laden is going strong. It is not as visible, though, because instead of traditional military operations, this is being done almost entirely with special ops forces, very much out of the public eye. Afghanistan needs better stability, but all in all, that has been provided relatively effectively.
    5) Halliburton was award contracts only because they are the ONLY company that has the capabilities to do the variety of work needed in the conditions faced in Iraq. During the Bush-Kerry debates, the "Truth Squad" on (liberal) ABC News pointed this fact out when Kerry (who voted to invade Iraq) tried to accuse Bush of awarding them special favors through a no-bid contract. It turns out the no-bid clause if based on the fact that only Halliburton could do the job.
    6) The Bush administration and past administrations do TOO MUCH for the poor in America. The vast majority of those receiving social services are abusing them. Poor Americans live better than most middle-class people in the world. The typical poor household has 1-2 cars, 2 television sets, at least 1 stereo system, and a fully-equipped kitchen. A large portion also have video game consoles, cars less than 2 years old, and eat fast food regularly. The desperately poor (living on the streets, etc.) are almost all drug addicts or mentally ill.
    7) Sanctions were supposedly used to give Saddam a hard time. Instead, he made billions off of the UN Oil for Food scam and starved his countrymen. So the iraqi citizens suffered (specifically the Shiites and Kurds), and Saddam made billions.
    The UN never found WMDs, because Saddam kept randomly forcing them to leave the country and refusing access to certain locations. If I had a way to make the bet, I would bet Saddam's Ba'athist buddies in Syria are sitting on them now.
    9) Bush has not failed the US economically. A recession had begun prior to his taking office. Now we are at 5% unemployment (which is considered full employment), and the economy continues growing. The worst economic issue in Bush's terms was the initial slow growth (not decline) of the economy. In fact, the US economy is currently in excellent shape. The news reports every negative piece of info that comes out, but when the final analysis is made, it always shows growth.
    10) Um…actually, there is no #10. A list of 9 just seemed kinda lame!

    Reply - Quote
20. Mougly | April 15, 2006 at 2:48 am | Permalink

    Philip

    I also do not want to pointlesly argue with you on these issues,but the whole idea behind this blog is to talk about the deferant points of view, but it seems that you have had your mind made up, you are obviously a Bush supporter, and no mater what evidence anyone will try to show you which are contrary to your beliefs you will find a way to justify the actions of this corapt government. Therefore there is no point for me to continuing this discussion with you, unless you are ready to seriously look at and except the fact that there are other truths than what comes out of the Fox News Network.

    Please note that I am not simply speaking out of some kind of hatered to America, I make a point of reading and following not only main stream news Including Fox and CNN but also alternative news sources, I also look at the history of the conflict, and based on all these bits of information I make up my mind. You will not ever read a post from me that will support outrageous conspiracy theories, like the one about Bush knowing about 9/11 before hand and even planned it with Israel, or that he intends on Americanizing the Middle East or take it over. But I do believe that he is ignorant of the rest of the world and of the cultural deference’s, he is definitely ill advised when it comes to foreign policy, and the intalegence provided has been flaud, in addition, the fact that he has the lowest public support of any president in at least 50 years and who's own party members have began to disance themseleves from him, should say something. Not to mention that most of the world leaders did not agree with him regarding his Iraq policies. But of course I am sure you will find a hidden agenda for every leader who did not support him.

    I hope you do not take offence to my comments and that you will make more of an effort to truly stand back and look at the issues with an open mind.

    Peace

    Reply - Quote
21. Mougly | April 15, 2006 at 3:05 am | Permalink

    Oh one more thing, Just because I disagree with the Bush administration, dose not mean that I support the terrorists, or think that Iraq was great under Sadam, but to say that Iraq is now a better and safer place because they had an election is just ignorant. It does not take a rocket scientist to see the destruction and the violence that is rampant there, (more than 60 people are killed each day) I would not call this freedom or prosperous, not to mention that it is on the verge of a civil war.
    As to Afghanistan I never had an issue with the fact that the Us and it's allies have taken the Taliban out, it was justified, but the resources needed to really effect a change not only in the two main cities but all over the country, were never put into place, and that is why a terrorist like Osama Bin Laden continues to exist and elude the mighty US.

    Reply - Quote
22. Philip | April 15, 2006 at 6:52 am | Permalink

    Mougly,
    I do not watch Fox News. Is it because of their bias? No; they have no more bias than any other network. I simply don't like their flashy style.
    I am open minded on the issues. I have viewed many alternative news sources. I regularly watch a show called "Mosaic" on Link TV. Mosaic shows news broadcasts from the Middle East, including Iran, UAE, Jordan, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, Egypt, Palestine and Arab news from England. Their attitudes vary greatly. I don't trust ANY news source 100%. I do not pay attention to alternative news sources who claim to have secret, otherwise unknown information that only they have, that promote ideas like Israel-US 9/11 plots and the like. I'm pleased to see that you don't either! It's just that, by my analysis, I have to come to very different conclusions than you.
    Do I agree with the Bush administration on everything? No. Do I believe there was faulty intelligence? Yes, but considering the fact that the intelligence sources were a few different nations all with similar data, I believe it was less flawed than one might think. I believe that Saddam was actively involved in developing WMDs. I could not imaging him NOT doing it. As for where those weapons are, or their components, I cannot say for sure. Syria is awfully suspicious for a number of reasons. Here's a piece of interesting info:

    "The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

    'There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands,' Mr. Sada said. 'I am confident they were taken over.'

    Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam 'transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria.' "

    Is it true? Time will tell.
    Don't worry; I know you do not support terrorists, nor Saddam! But I believe that despite the horrors in Iraq now, the good that will come when it passes (and it will pass) will overcome the grief it brings. Being on the verge of a civil war is based on actions of extremists, and those extremists were kept at bay by Saddam's iron fist. But that iron fist crushed everyone (except Sunni allies), not just those who would risk a civil war. These are birth pangs of democracy.

    Reply - Quote
23. Philip | April 15, 2006 at 6:58 am | Permalink

    I finally listened to the song. I agree with the sentiment. Unfortunately, it is a musical (and, frankly, lyrical) disaster. This is probably the worst pop punk I have ever heard. And pop punk is crap. As a fan of old school punk, listening to it was unbearable. I didn't even go to the end. It's what a Sum 41 remake of "We Didn't Start the Fire" by Billy Joel would sound like. If I want to listen to Bush supporters perform, I'd rather listen to The Dickies, Michale Graves, Megadeth, Alice Cooper or Kid Rock.

    Reply - Quote
24. Mougly | April 15, 2006 at 8:30 am | Permalink

    Philip
    As you said, time will tell. and eventualy we will find the truth.

    I just hope that this war will end soon and in a possitive way, for the sake of the Irqi people.

    Reply - Quote
25. Mougly | April 15, 2006 at 8:33 am | Permalink

    As for your opinions about Bush, you are definitely entitled to them. Regardless of whether I agree with you on not I respect you civility

    Reply - Quote
26. Philip | April 15, 2006 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    I wish you well! I think we agree for certain on this statement of yours: "I just hope that this war will end soon and in a positive way, for the sake of the Iraqi people."

    Reply - Quote

Post a Comment