Please explain this...

[bdypdx]

Iraqi constitution that GWB is so proud of...

"CHAPTER ONE: Basic Principles

Article (1): The Republic of Iraq is an independent, sovereign nation, and the system of rule in it is a democratic, federal, representative (parliamentary) republic.

Article (2): First, Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:

a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.

c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution."

....It's what they say; I didn't invent this.....

[andyfox]

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road."

-Bush, October 3, 2000

[Matty]

A compilation recently found on dailykos.com:

Quotes from when Clinton committed troops to Bosnia:

“You can support the troops but not the president.”
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
“Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years.”
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
“[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.”
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush
“I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today”
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
“Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

Funny thing is, we won that war without a single killed in action.

[TransientR]

[ QUOTE ]
Iraqi constitution that GWB is so proud of...

"CHAPTER ONE: Basic Principles

Article (1): The Republic of Iraq is an independent, sovereign nation, and the system of rule in it is a democratic, federal, representative (parliamentary) republic.

Article (2): First, Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:

a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.

c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution."

....It's what they say; I didn't invent this.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Article 2 and 2(a) is what the Iraqi Parliament really believes and wants.

Article 2(b) is crap they had to put in there after endless arm twisting by the administration [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

A huge boiling pot of theocracy with a pinch of democracy thrown in so Bush can say the dish is good and worth the cost of making it.

Frank

[ptmusic]

This deserves its own thread.

-ptmusic

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Article 2 and 2(a) is what the Iraqi Parliament really believes and wants.

Article 2(b) is crap they had to put in there after endless arm twisting by the administration

[/ QUOTE ]

One thing for sure, if this was the plan then it was a bad one. This nonsense takes away the opportunity for Iraq to follow the natural path of democracy and become a secular nation. Religion and government should not be intertwined in this way, a democracy with laws foisted on all, based on something other than the common good, is no democracy at all.

Mack

[Chris Alger]

Thanks for an excellent cache of quotations.

If one really tried, they just might find some Clinton flack in Congress challenging the patriotic merits of the people quoted and those saying similar things. But it was never the staple, standard-issue argument that the right uses to brunt virtually any criticism of military policies they like.

Throughout the right-wing press, such as the pro-war columnists and the talking heads on Fox, any criticism or questioning of the cost and manner of how the war is fought amounts to subversion if not outright treachery, typically on the grounds that it might demoralize the troops and thus "give aid and comfort," etc. There are lots of examples of this (Sinclair media's decision to drop the famous Nightline segment that rattled off the names of the dead, Hannity's constant complaints about Senators who question the tactics of the war, the whole myth about TV news unpatriotically undermining the Vietnam cause, etc.).

When conservatives talk about "character" (as in Peggy Noonan's Reaganite valentine, "When Character Was King"), it's important to note that their real world actions define "character" as including the rankest dishonesty and hypocrisy. It's another indication that what separates left and right increasingly reflects not any difference in values but the difference between right and wrong.

On the question of who should rule, today's "conservatives" have virtually abanonded Burkean skepticism about concentrated power. Real-world conservatism increasingly means a preference for centralized authority and its associated inefficiency, regimentation, conformity and arbitariness. At the same time liberalism has increasingly parted company from its faith in the possibility of benevolent paternalism that reflects the "popular will."

There's also a growing difference between left and right over what constitutes acceptable, ethical behavior. Traditionally, it's been hard to discern a difference, but today America's lefties increasingly wear the white hats while conservatives, at least conservative leaders, are more likely to be hypocrites, demogogues, liars and all around scoundrels.

[m1illion]

So utterly sad.
Worse, this will be claimed as a victory by the President.
The incompetence of this administration shows no boundaries.