Allawi speech writer revealed...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

After hearing "Prime Minister" Allawi of Iraq, the leader of the worlds truest democracy, speak to congress it left ony one question to ponder...

Who wrote this crap anways?



Editted to keep those sucked in by the Neo-con-job happy!

[Displaced Flames fan]

He's the prime minister and you are probably the first person on the face of the planet to refer to Iraq's INTERIM government as the 'truest democracy' on the face of the planet.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Just needling someone Dis. Allawi is a puppet, and I think that we all kow that deep down. After hearing the speech I said that it had the neo-con hand all over it (I thought it was David Frum) but someone here said that, and I'm paraphrasing, that it was all Allawi and spoken fron the heart. I said he was feed the speech and told what to say. I just wanted to point out that it was indded a planted speech and one that no self respecting Arab would give.

[transplant99]

Dont all politicians have speech writers??

Nothing unusual about that.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 4 2004, 02:14 AM
Just needling someone Dis. Allawi is a puppet, and I think that we all kow that deep down. After hearing the speech I said that it had the neo-con hand all over it (I thought it was David Frum) but someone here said that, and I'm paraphrasing, that it was all Allawi and spoken fron the heart. I said he was feed the speech and told what to say. I just wanted to point out that it was indded a planted speech and one that no self respecting Arab would give.

It was the Washington Post that broke the alleged similarity of phrases between previous Bush statements and the Allawi speech, four days before your man copied it from them and seems to suggest it was his own brainwave.

By the way, I thought you said the government controlled mainstream media would never break a story like this?

The definitive version from the Washington Post with excrutiating detail.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Sep27.html

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 4 2004, 02:18 AM
Dont all politicians have speech writers??

Nothing unusual about that.

Tranny, yeah, I know that when a visiting diplomat makes a speech to a country that the host country's always provides that diplomat the speech they want delivered. They always have one of their speech writers give him exactly what they want said. Or are you suggesting that Allawi has cozied up to the neo-cons and such a good pal that they would "lend" him one of their wordsmiths? I know you don't believ this and are doing your best to save face, but good lord man, consier what you're saying.

Oh, and Cow, it really took a investigative genius to figure out that speech was written for Allawi and how as likely behind it. I suggested it had Frum's hand all over it immediately after the speech. It would have been like not reporting the five seconds of dead air that Bush had during the debate. NOT reporting that fact would have been a hard to do... or made you elegible to be an on-air personality with FoxNews.

[transplant99]

Im not "suggesting" anything.

The guy was talking to the CONGRESS of the US. You know, the guys that are attempting to allow the Iraqi's a democratic process? Of course he is mollycoddling to the US. What should he be saying exactly?

Does this look like a speech written by an American for the ears of Americans? Yup....clearly.

Do you think anyone who was there and heard it were "swayed" to change their positions somehow? Not a chance. Unless the opposition to the Iraq situation are a bunch of sheep that can be led around by the nose, what does it matter?

Im not going to get all flustered because a foreign national is trying to saddle up with the US...even if he is the interm PM of Iraq. Why would I?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Why are you flustered? You're correct, there is nothing to be flustered about. I pointed out that Allawi was a puppet of the Bush Administration and would do and say what he was told to do. A Bush speech writer gives him a speech and Allawi goes out and delivers that speech like a good little lap dog. I was right on the money, even though I was villified for saying the obvious. There is nothing for you to be flustered about. Now Cow on the other hoof, well he might be a little red faced by this admisssion.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 4 2004, 01:50 PM
Why are you flustered? You're correct, there is nothing to be flustered about. I pointed out that Allawi was a puppet of the Bush Administration and would do and say what he was told to do. A Bush speech writer gives him a speech and Allawi goes out and delivers that speech like a good little lap dog. I was right on the money, even though I was villified for saying the obvious. There is nothing for you to be flustered about. Now Cow on the other hoof, well he might be a little red faced by this admisssion.

I don't recall saying a single word about the Allawi speech. Why am I in this conversation? Engaged in your usual habit of inventing positions of your opponents to prove yourself right?

As far as I know, you and I have a modest challege as to whether or not the Iraqi election in January - four months in the future - will be rigged or not.

Unless you're going to claim you've invented a time machine, which wouldn't surprise anyone, it seems to me we're just sitting here waiting to see what happens in January, at which point we'll have something to talk about.

Lastly, it seems to me that being a USA appointee in Iraq probably isn't a surefire way to get local votes. Then again, you're saying the votes won't matter.

We will see. Four months from now.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 4 2004, 02:59 PM
Unless you're going to claim you've invented a time machine, which wouldn't surprise anyone, it seems to me we're just sitting here waiting to see what happens in January, at which point we'll have something to talk about.

Wow, that's freaking pathetic Cow, even for you. Trying to paint me as a fringe wacko to support YOUR beliefs is okay? It wasn't enough for you to try and poke fun at me in almost every thread you start with the old "government controlled media discalimer", which is okay, but the minute I stick it back in your face, you whine and complain. Would you like a tissue?

I have stood by my beliefs through out this whole debacle, saying how I felt it would unfold, and sure enough it is doing just that. But I'm a conspiracy theorist for doing so and reminding some around here of the assinine stance they have taken in this regard (US GOOD, everything they do is right!). Look through history and you'll see the United States has been instilling puppet governments for the past 50 years and not a single one of them has been successful and has usually been more brutal to the people than the one prior to that. That, and a series of published documents from those in power themselves, has laid out an extremely predictable path to how this was/is playing out. But then again, it wasn't within reason because it did not jive with your politics and have the Cowperson seal of approval.

And yes Cow, you have said much on the issue. Just look at "Who's running Iraq" and "CIA asked to fix Iraqi election". There are some classic spinning of jargon by you in there. Man, you spin so much that if you ever tried to give milk, it would come out as butter. I don't think we'll have to wait for January to see how things are going unfold, my fine bovine friend. I think the Afghani elections are going to tell us all we need. Something tells me there will be less strings involved in the production of "Team America: World Police".

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Oct 4 2004, 03:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Oct 4 2004, 03:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Oct 4 2004, 02:59 PM
Unless you're going to claim you've invented a time machine, which wouldn't surprise anyone, it seems to me we're just sitting here waiting to see what happens in January, at which point we'll have something to talk about.

Wow, that's freaking pathetic Cow, even for you. Trying to paint me as a fringe wacko to support YOUR beliefs is okay? It wasn't enough for you to try and poke fun at me in almost every thread you start with the old "government controlled media discalimer", which is okay, but the minute I stick it back in your face, you whine and complain. Would you like a tissue?

I have stood by my beliefs through out this whole debacle, saying how I felt it would unfold, and sure enough it is doing just that. But I'm a conspiracy theorist for doing so and reminding some around here of the assinine stance they have taken in this regard (US GOOD, everything they do is right!). Look through history and you'll see the United States has been instilling puppet governments for the past 50 years and not a single one of them has been successful and has usually been more brutal to the people than the one prior to that. That, and a series of published documents from those in power themselves, has laid out an extremely predictable path to how this was/is playing out. But then again, it wasn't within reason because it did not jive with your politics and have the Cowperson seal of approval.

And yes Cow, you have said much on the issue. Just look at "Who's running Iraq" and "CIA asked to fix Iraqi election". There are some classic spinning of jargon by you in there. Man, you spin so much that if you ever tried to give milk, it would come out as butter. I don't think we'll have to wait for January to see how things are going unfold, my fine bovine friend. I think the Afghani elections are going to tell us all we need. Something tells me there will be less strings involved in the production of "Team America: World Police". [/b][/quote]
So . . . in other words, I said nothing about the Allawi speech?

Thank you.

And yes Cow, you have said much on the issue. Just look at "Who's running Iraq" and "CIA asked to fix Iraqi election". There are some classic spinning of jargon by you in there.

Hope you didn't waste too much time looking for something that didn't exist.

I don't think we'll have to wait for January to see how things are going unfold, my fine bovine friend. I think the Afghani elections are going to tell us all we need.

I'll be interested in the Afghan electoral processes as well although there doesn't seem to be much doubt Karzai is going to win given a recent opinion poll by an independent organization:

A majority of Afghans surveyed approved of the performance of President Karzai and the Transitional Government. 62% of those surveyed rated President Karzai’s performance as either good or excellent, while 57% rated as good or excellent the work of the Transitional Government as a whole.

http://www.asiafoundation.org/Locations/af...tan_survey.html

The polling was done by AC Neilson and Charney Research. Charney was the polling group of choice for Bill Clinton. They also list Nelson Mandela as a past client. Are you going to claim the Asia Foundation or these guys are neo-con fronts?

But . . . . that's the humorous thing. If Karzei wins, you'll claim it was fixed.

Or your head will explode.

See you in January.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Jesus Cow, it all depends on how the elections go. From what has been reported you have people registering to vote multiple times in Afghanistan. Is that the democratic way? Come on. We won't know if democracy is working for another 40 years. And of course the first government is going to be a puppet government. How can it be otherwise? You think that the people have had a chance to make their own nominations? You think there is equal representation? None of these foundations of democracy have been allowed to develop because there is still so much chaos in the region. The US will roll out the candidates they want and get them elected. Those "elected" officials wil then appoint who the US wants so there is a "friendly" government in place. They have done this in the past and will likely do it again. Of course we know the results of these "democracies" as well, but that is another story. If the results of the election prove to be honest and on the up and up I will be extremely happy. Unfortunately history has shown that this is very unlikely and this administration has shown a massive penchant for lying to attain their goals. Put those two together and I just don't see how this election witll be straight.

You know, for a guy that is so "down on Bush" you have a very funny way of showing it. I have not met a single person who is down on Bush and promotes the stuff you do as being good policy. How can you honestly say you are not a Bush supporter yet defend everything the administration does? My opposite here at work is a massive Bush supporter and he laughs at the stuff you post. You say that Bush is bad and that Iraq should not have been invaded, but you support the results of these actions. It doesn't make sense. How can you say one thing and then the other?

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 4 2004, 06:09 PM
Jesus Cow, it all depends on how the elections go. From what has been reported you have people registering to vote multiple times in Afghanistan. Is that the democratic way? Come on. We won't know if democracy is working for another 40 years. And of course the first government is going to be a puppet government. How can it be otherwise? You think that the people have had a chance to make their own nominations? You think there is equal representation? None of these foundations of democracy have been allowed to develop because there is still so much chaos in the region. The US will roll out the candidates they want and get them elected. Those "elected" officials wil then appoint who the US wants so there is a "friendly" government in place. They have done this in the past and will likely do it again. Of course we know the results of these "democracies" as well, but that is another story. If the results of the election prove to be honest and on the up and up I will be extremely happy. Unfortunately history has shown that this is very unlikely and this administration has shown a massive penchant for lying to attain their goals. Put those two together and I just don't see how this election witll be straight.

You know, for a guy that is so "down on Bush" you have a very funny way of showing it. I have not met a single person who is down on Bush and promotes the stuff you do as being good policy. How can you honestly say you are not a Bush supporter yet defend everything the administration does? My opposite here at work is a massive Bush supporter and he laughs at the stuff you post. You say that Bush is bad and that Iraq should not have been invaded, but you support the results of these actions. It doesn't make sense. How can you say one thing and then the other?

Jesus Cow, it all depends on how the elections go.

Unfrickingbelievable that you would come back with something like that.

Making your excuses already?

Wow. That's hilarious.

"It depends on how the elections go?"

That's your answer to an INDEPENDENT opinion poll conducted by pollsters favoured by BILL CLINTON and NELSON MANDELLA showing popular support for Karzai, an indication he would win a FAIR election in a landslide?

Obviously, he's the "puppet" the people appear to want. You can hardly deny that. I've said before in this forum that the election with be chaotic, flawed and deadly but it would appear it will also render a fair verdict. I've also said before in this forum many times that Afghanistan is a generational project.

And America has the money his country needs. It would be passing strange if he weren't doing a little sucking up - with America and everyone else - to get some help for his stone age country. Or is this also part of your "leave 'em alone" principled approach to these issues, letting them wallow in their misery?

By the way, there seems to be a lot of UN and NATO people doing things in Afghanistan as well.

You are something else.

How can you honestly say you are not a Bush supporter yet defend everything the administration does?

Don't like him. Never liked him.

I like balanced budgets. I believe in the separation of church and state and consider Bush a grave danger to that concept. I've argued both points in this forum before from an anti-Bush point of view.

I agree with the decision to go to Afghanistan and Iraq but I said BEFORE the invasion of Iraq that Bush needs to be un-elected for pretty much every other reason.

I've also said in this forum before they've botched the post-war planning. One can also argue that in turfing Bush, you've at least set up the possibility of mending fences with allies and internationalizing the Iraq situation.

Problem with you is that you haven't been paying attention.

In the neo-con survey, I came out as a "realist" with a description that I'm not ideology-driven but rather I approach things on an issue-by-issue basis.

My opposite here at work is a massive Bush supporter and he laughs at the stuff you post.

Probably just nodding his head to get you off his back while he's carrying you at work as you spend all day arguing politics at Calgarypuck. Hahahaha . . . . okay, just kidding.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Maybe you didn't understand how "depends on how elections go". I'm not saying that the outcome is in question. I think the result is done. What I am saying is how the election goes from a logistics point of view. How many people get out to vote, how the whole process works. This will indicate just how much the people are ready to "embrace" democracy. That is what I meant, not on what the result is.

I am an issue by issue guy as well, but this one issue is massive IMO. I think its outrageous that non-elected officials can have the impact on our government the way they do. Its criminal IMO, especially ones that have such radical ideas. This issue just inflammes me. The belief that a country can enforce their views on others because they have a strong military just isn't democratic IMO. The hypocrasy is unbelievable and that's what drives me nuts.

Don't worry Cow, we entertain quite a few people in the office here. The sparring keeps 'em in stiches.

[calculoso]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 4 2004, 12:56 PM
I think its outrageous that non-elected officials can have the impact on our government the way they do.

I'd agree, but I don't see much of a solution. Elect everyone in government? I'd love to see the ballot each person would receive in that case.

In case I misinterpreted your words, I also find it insane that the lobby groups have as much power as they do.... but I still don't see much of a solution there either.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

You know calc, I've been trying to figure a way to limit the number of appointees that the President can make and the only thing I can come up with is to move to a Canadian like system where the President can only appoint congressional representatives to his cabinet. That way everyone has to be elected. An interesting spin would be to have those reps picked from both parties. That would be extremely interesting and would break the partisan ice flow that has America all blocked up. What's your take?

[calculoso]

It all depends on how far you want to go... In Canada's system, there are still hoards of un-elected people... and this isn't great either.

I think that the senior members of the bureacracy have more impact on my life than do other appointed positions. Sure they are "responsible" to the ministers of each branch, but I highly doubt that the ministers are involved in every decision.

For major appointed posts, every requirement could involve Congress and require their approval, but then there's the potential for way too much partisan politics.

I don't have a solution...