You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
Powell warns Iraq off fundamentalist regime
2003-05-13
US Secretary of State Colin Powell warned Monday that the emergence of an Islamist government in Iraq would "not be in the best interest of the Iraqi people or its neighbors."
He said, putting it mildly...
"We believe that an Iraqi government should be created that is representative of the Iraqi people and of all the differents elements of the Iraqi people," Powell said after talks with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. "I think it would be unfortunate if a government rose there that is so fundamentalist that it didn't respect the basic things for democracy," Powell told reporters here. "What we are trying to do is to make sure that we develop leaders to come up and represent all elements of the population." Powell has been on a tour of the region to revive the Arab-Israeli peace process following the US-led war in Iraq in March and April that ousted Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.
Both Powell and Rumsfeld are now on record as saying they're against a fundo government. I hope the people running things realize that to build a real democracy it will have to be a libertarian democracy — Friedman was writing about that about a week ago:
The challenge for the U.S. will be to build such a foundation of liberty in a country with virtually no legacy of it at all. Under ideal conditions that will take years — and it is not clear the Bush team is ready to invest that degree of time, money and people.
Not only will it take years, but it'll have to be done over the screams of anguish of the committed Islamists who're trying to swarm the country and take it away from us. To fight them, it will be necessary to regard them as little different from the terrorists who fight in their name. I'm not sure we're vicious enough to do that yet; maybe after the next high death toll strike within the USA, but not yet. Until we make the commitment to true religious liberty, along with all the other items in our Bill of Rights, we're not going to build a real society anywhere in the Middle East or Central or South Asia. The reason we have a guarantee of religious freedom is so we don't become a society like the ones we're fighting.
Posted by:Fred Pruitt

#10  Let me tell you what I'm enjoying about liberalhawk's commentaries, though I don't buy all he says: his is the voice of what USED to be the mainstream of the Democratic Party: FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Scoop Jackson. Resolute and tough as hell on defense, genuinely concerned about civil rights and minorities.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party took a terrible wrong turn in 1972 when the party changed its rules and opened the door to the radical left. It maybe way too late to go back. Not when you have the teachers unions, far left sexual minorities, race activists, Hollywood, the chattering classes (in and out of the media) and the trial lawyers setting the agenda.

The Republicans have their own problems with the Christian right, but the power of the extreme bible-beaters is far less than the far left's power in the DP. Indeed, if the GOP jettisoned the religious right's agenda completely, ESPECIALLY its hatred of gays (which is a major problem for huge sections of moderate voters), the Dems would be completely finished as a viable party. If Dean is nominated, they ARE finished.
Posted by: R. McLeod   2003-05-14 02:19:10  

#9  Liberalhawk. It wasn't a dig, it was a compliment. I'd rather watch you 2 go at it then 2 washed up pols.
Posted by: tu3031   2003-05-13 14:54:31  

#8  from Andrew sullivan:

"It's clear now that we have seriously under-estimated the difficulties of imposing order on post-totalitarian Iraq. The shake-up in leadership there suggests at least that Washington is aware of the problem. But some of the damage has already been done. It's hard to read stories about continued looting in Baghdad or dangerous chaos in the hinterlands, without wondering if the administration is as committed to the difficult task of reconstruction as they need to be. The real worry, it seems to me, is that some WMDs may have been transported out of Iraq, may be in the hands of terrorists, or simply on the market. We have thousands of gallons of anthrax still unaccounted for. This doesn't retroactively invalidate the war. Such dangers would have existed - and would have been even more dangerous - if Saddam were still in power. But it does mean we cannot afford any lapse in vigilance."
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-05-13 14:35:07  

#7  tu - im trying to discuss iraq and the middle east. One of the things i find annoying about lefties is that they seem unable to talk about this without focusing on Bush, the Florida election, etc. They seem not to really care about the middle east, just domestic politics - if Bush is for it, it must be bad. Idiocy, IMHO.

I dont particularly care for those to whom "if its Bush it must be good" You seem to think I should play the role of Clinton - I simply express concerns that are shared, i believe, by folks from the weekly standard, andrew sullivan etc. I suppose a certain poster isnt familiar with the weekly standard or andrew sullivan - since theyre not on "talk radio" perhaps he thinks theyre "liberals"
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-05-13 14:30:17  

#6  Hey, you two ought to replace Clinton and Dole on 60 Minutes.
Posted by: tu3031   2003-05-13 12:34:47  

#5  Let's face it. The Dems would screw it up with ANY of the nine dwarfs.
Posted by: ColoradoConservative   2003-05-13 10:54:32  

#4  no longer than the knives that have been aimed at failed Dem policies. Bush will not get a pass if he screws this up. And, contrary to your earlier comments, its possible to screw this up by being too unilateralist or too isolationist (pre 9/11 bush's dislike for nationbuilding) as well as by being too soft.

Of course the dems toss it away if they nominate Dean or Kerry. And i am thinking that a Gephardt approach - focus on domestic differences and try to ignore foreign policy - may not work. Dems must make their own forceful arguments on foreign policy - how youd be SAFER (not nicer) under them - Joe L. can potentially make that case.

Of course if the admin sticks to a Wolfie policy and succeeds, I'll congratulate them and agree that they have succeeded in foreign policy. Im not that partisan - unlike some folks on both sides.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-05-13 09:52:28  

#3  Regarding LH's comment: "We may need the UN in Iraq, and going forward - if the admin, in a desire to weaken the UN sacrifices help in Iraq, we (democratic hawks) will have to take up the issue in 2004."

Here come the partisan long knives. Et tu liberalhawk?
Posted by: ColoradoConservative   2003-05-13 09:41:41  

#2  if we're really going to fight the fundies in Iraq, it wont take so much viciousness as patience - to slowly rebuild Iraqi society and build Iraqi democracy - more Wolfowitz and less Rummy. We have to commit seriously to NATION-BUILDING. In an interview in the WaPo today Wolfie makes clear that we have a LONG way to go in Iraq. He is not interested in a war with Syria or Iran now - the battle now is still in Iraq (where Baathist remnants still threaten civil society) If we get bored with Iraq, and with helping muslim arabs, and pull troops and resources out quickly so we can be ready to strike somewhere else, we are quite capable of blowing this.

It also just may take swallowing our anger and cutting a deal with the weasels - if you take Iraqi rebuilding seriously then getting a good UN resolution and real international participation (but not UN control) will be worth letting France getting off without significant economic punishment. We may need the UN in Iraq, and going forward - if the admin, in a desire to weaken the UN sacrifices help in Iraq, we (democratic hawks) will have to take up the issue in 2004.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-05-13 09:05:09  

#1  Let me tell you what I'm enjoying about liberalhawk's commentaries, though I don't buy all he says: his is the voice of what USED to be the mainstream of the Democratic Party: FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Scoop Jackson. Resolute and tough as hell on defense, genuinely concerned about civil rights and minorities.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party took a terrible wrong turn in 1972 when the party changed its rules and opened the door to the radical left. It maybe way too late to go back. Not when you have the teachers unions, far left sexual minorities, race activists, Hollywood, the chattering classes (in and out of the media) and the trial lawyers setting the agenda.

The Republicans have their own problems with the Christian right, but the power of the extreme bible-beaters is far less than the far left's power in the DP. Indeed, if the GOP jettisoned the religious right's agenda completely, ESPECIALLY its hatred of gays (which is a major problem for huge sections of moderate voters), the Dems would be completely finished as a viable party. If Dean is nominated, they ARE finished.
Posted by: R. McLeod   5/14/2003 2:19:10 AM  

00:00