Iraqi President: Thank you for liberating us

[Montgomery Burns]

Iraqi President Thanks 'Heroes Who Came to Liberate Us'

WASHINGTON, Sept. 9, 2005 – Iraq's president today thanked "all the brave American Army" for its sacrifices and losses in liberating Iraq and said his country mourns the loss of American lives in exchange for Iraq's freedom.

"We owe to those American heroes who came to liberate us from the worst kind of dictatorship," Jalal Talabani said at the Pentagon after meeting with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad and other officials.

"Thanks to your brave Army, now Iraqi people (are free)," he said, adding that for the first time Iraqis have freedom of expression, political parties, media -- "of everything."

Freedom of expression, political parties, a free media - everything that the far-left didn't want them to have. After all, they are just brown people. They didn't deserve anything like that.

He said "the glorious American people" have paid the price for others' freedom throughout history. "You in the United States have paid hundreds of thousands of your sons and your boys in fighting against fascism and in liberating Asian people," Talabani said. "Thanks to you, you liberated Afghanistan from the worst kind of reactionary regime; you liberated Iraq from the worst kind of dictatorship."

50 million liberated under Bush's watch. But he has a ways to go to match Reagan's liberation of 110 million eastern Europeans. But he has still has 3 years to go.

Talabani described progress in Iraq's economy and reconstruction, but said that unfortunately the media prefers to cover negative events instead.

"The situation in Iraq is not only black or negative," he said. "I am sorry to say that media was reluctant to reflect the real picture of Iraq."

Talabani wins today's No Shit Sherlock™ award.

Talabani said Iraq is determined to be America's partner in the "fight against tyranny (and) terrorism."

"We are supporting you in your policy in the Middle East; we are proud to be your friends," the president said. "We are proud to be your partners in fighting against terrorism, and we are grateful to you."

But but but, I thought the Iraqis hated America.

[PocketRocket]

Iraqi President Thanks 'Heroes Who Came to Liberate Us'

WASHINGTON, Sept. 9, 2005 – Iraq's president today thanked "all the brave American Army" for its sacrifices and losses in liberating Iraq and said his country mourns the loss of American lives in exchange for Iraq's freedom.

"We owe to those American heroes who came to liberate us from the worst kind of dictatorship," Jalal Talabani said at the Pentagon after meeting with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad and other officials.

Well, gee, this former-nobody is now the president of a country.

Given his circumstances, and new level of income, I'd be thanking my benefactors, too.

"Thanks to your brave Army, now Iraqi people (are free)," he said, adding that for the first time Iraqis have freedom of expression, political parties, media -- "of everything."

Freedom of expression, political parties, a free media - everything that the far-left didn't want them to have. After all, they are just brown people. They didn't deserve anything like that.

Please cite a site which demonstrates that ANYONE on the left, let alone the far-left, didn't want Iraqi's, or anyone else, to have freedom.

He said "the glorious American people" have paid the price for others' freedom throughout history. "You in the United States have paid hundreds of thousands of your sons and your boys in fighting against fascism and in liberating Asian people," Talabani said. "Thanks to you, you liberated Afghanistan from the worst kind of reactionary regime; you liberated Iraq from the worst kind of dictatorship."

50 million liberated under Bush's watch. But he has a ways to go to match Reagan's liberation of 110 million eastern Europeans. But he has still has 3 years to go.

Just for the record, I don't consider myself to be paricularly "left", and I have no problem with the fact that Saddam was ousted, and even less problem with Iraq finally finding democracy.

My beef is with the pretense(s) used to justify a war which BushCo had decided they were going to wage before Bush even came into his first term in office.

Like I said elsewhere, this war was based on hypocrisy and falsehoods.

As for your comparison of Bush/Reagan, you seem to think it's a game of one-upmanship.

Dangerous thinking when such a game involves peoples' lives.

Talabani described progress in Iraq's economy and reconstruction, but said that unfortunately the media prefers to cover negative events instead.

"The situation in Iraq is not only black or negative," he said. "I am sorry to say that media was reluctant to reflect the real picture of Iraq."

Ever hear the expression "No news is good news"???

Not many newspapers would be sold if every headline read "Things are alright".

Newspapers are in the business of selling newspapers.

TV and radio newscasts are in the business of garnering ratings.

Remember this simple fact and it's easy to see why most news we see and hear is bad news.

That's what sells.

Sad, but true.

Talabani said Iraq is determined to be America's partner in the "fight against tyranny (and) terrorism."

"We are supporting you in your policy in the Middle East; we are proud to be your friends," the president said. "We are proud to be your partners in fighting against terrorism, and we are grateful to you."

America has set up presidents in other countries, which in the long run did not turn out to benefit either the countries involved, nor the world at large.

Regarding this particular president and country, only time will tell.

But but but,

C'mon, boy. Spit it out. You can do it.

I thought the Iraqis hated America. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, certainly not this particular Iraqi, who is suddenly rich and powerful thanks to the efforts of US troops and BushCo.

At least some Iraqi's are not particularly thrilled, or else the fighting would have over and done with long ago.

But the fighting goes on.

[Montgomery Burns]

PocketRocket:

Well, gee, this former-nobody is now the president of a country.

Given his circumstances, and new level of income, I'd be thanking my benefactors, too.

I don't know why you call him a former-nobody.

Jalal Talabani is one of the longest serving figures in contemporary Iraqi Kurdish politics

Please cite a site which demonstrates that ANYONE on the left, let alone the far-left, didn't want Iraqi's, or anyone else, to have freedom.

Are you serious? There were protests in Canada, the US, and Europe, millions who demanded that Saddam be left in power. I saw the protesters with their Support Palestine (even though there is no such country) banners; they wanted Saddam to stay in power so he could continue to issue $25,000 cheques to the families of displaced Arab suicide bombers. They called the war illegal (a lie) and immoral (twisted morally bankrupt thinking). They wanted Saddam to continue to ignore the ceasefire he signed; they wanted him to continue to ignore the 17 Chapter VII binding UN resolutions; they wanted him to continue to try and assassinate US presidents; they wanted him to continue to harbor terrorists, they wanted Saddam to continue to fill up mass graves (over 300 in total found so far), and they wanted him to continue to allow Al Qaeda to train at the Salman Pak terrorism training camp.

The message was clear: They wanted Saddam to stay in power, i.e., they wanted the Iraqi people to continue to live under the boot of a brutal massmurdering dictator and his two Spawns of Satan.

And don't forget that Code Pink (the Marxist organization behind Cindy Sheehan) raised $600,000 for the terrorists in Fallujah to support them against the US Marines who were going in to clean up the city.

Just for the record, I don't consider myself to be paricularly "left", and I have no problem with the fact that Saddam was ousted, and even less problem with Iraq finally finding democracy.

I sense an I'm Glad Saddam Is Gone And The Iraqs Finally Have Democracy....But

My beef is with the pretense(s) used to justify a war which BushCo had decided they were going to wage before Bush even came into his first term in office.

Like I said elsewhere, this war was based on hypocrisy and falsehoods.

I sensed correctly.

Ever hear the expression "No news is good news"???

Not many newspapers would be sold if every headline read "Things are alright".

Newspapers are in the business of selling newspapers.

TV and radio newscasts are in the business of garnering ratings.

Remember this simple fact and it's easy to see why most news we see and hear is bad news.

That's what sells.

Sad, but true.

I don't think anyone is asking for every headline to read "things are alright". Just a little balance. There are lots of feel-good stories in the press.

However, the old mainstream media cliche, "if it bleeds, it leads," has been almost completely replaced with, "if it hurts Bush, it leads."

I still remember the headlines and top stories about the great economy/job numbers under Clinton. Yet, Bush has helped to make a remarkable turnaround in the economy, indeed, better than Clinton, and the media is silent.

America has set up presidents in other countries, which in the long run did not turn out to benefit either the countries involved, nor the world at large.

Regarding this particular president and country, only time will tell.

Er, Talabani was elected by the Iraqi Parliament. America did not put him in power.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Montgomery Burns,

Yet, Bush has helped to make a remarkable turnaround in the economy, indeed, better than Clinton, and the media is silent

That is because what you claim is not true. Clinton tried to address the pitfalls of deficit spending, while Bush has followed Reagan's footsteps, 'print more money, don't worry about debt, foreign investment will keep the dollar floating, and will keep people believing that the Emperor is wearing Clothes'.

[newbie]

"33% approve of the way Bush is handling the economy"

http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy

[err]

PocketRocket:

Well, gee, this former-nobody is now the president of a country.

Given his circumstances, and new level of income, I'd be thanking my benefactors, too.

I don't know why you call him a former-nobody.

Jalal Talabani is one of the longest serving figures in contemporary Iraqi Kurdish politics

and president of his high school debating club to boot

Please cite a site which demonstrates that ANYONE on the left, let alone the far-left, didn't want Iraqi's, or anyone else, to have freedom.

Are you serious? There were protests in Canada, the US, and Europe, millions who demanded that Saddam be left in power. I saw the protesters with their Support Palestine (even though there is no such country) banners; they wanted Saddam to stay in power so he could continue to issue $25,000 cheques to the families of displaced Arab suicide bombers.

Did you know that there's a difference between protesting against attacking a country and supporing that country's president.... The protests weren't "pro-saddam"... they were anti-US-policy. Maybe you can get a grown-up to explain the difference to you...

They called the war illegal (a lie) and immoral (twisted morally bankrupt thinking).

According to international law, the war was illegal. There was no justification for the attack.

they wanted him to continue to try and assassinate US presidents;

Who's "they"... your little straw men in your fantasy world...

The message was clear:  They wanted Saddam to stay in power, i.e., they wanted the Iraqi people to continue to live under the boot of a brutal massmurdering dictator and his two Spawns of Satan.

They did ?? I'd really like to know who you thing "they" were...

I still remember the headlines and top stories about the great economy/job numbers under Clinton.  Yet, Bush has helped to make a remarkable turnaround in the economy, indeed, better than Clinton, and the media is silent. 

Wow... maybe you should take your medicine now....

America has set up presidents in other countries, which in the long run did not turn out to benefit either the countries involved, nor the world at large.

Er, Talabani was elected by the Iraqi Parliament. America did not put him in power.

Did they use the same kind of voting machines that Bush's Repulicans used in Ohio.... ??? Where the exit polls predicted that the Republicans had a 1 in 65 Million chance of winning in Ohio, but somehow the voting machines had the Republicans win... With more votes than there were voters....

A good example of America setting up presidents in other countries would be Iran. In the 1950s, the USA organized a coup that took out the democratically elected Massedegh and installed the Shah of Iran. (Massedegh nationalized the oil industry in Iran).

[PocketRocket]

Thank you ERR for saving me the trouble of responding.

MontgomeryBurns: see ERR's response directly above.

I think it hits pretty much all of your points.

Not the wording I would have used, but the message is pretty much all there.

[PocketRocket]

Oh, here's one I missed, from the title of the thread....

Far-left heads exploding worldwide

Hmmm. If this is truly the case, maybe BushCo's next move will be to go after all leftists on the theory that if their heads are exploding, they must all be WMD's.

[Montgomery Burns]

PocketRocket:

Well, gee, this former-nobody is now the president of a country.

Given his circumstances, and new level of income, I'd be thanking my benefactors, too.

I don't know why you call him a former-nobody.

Jalal Talabani is one of the longest serving figures in contemporary Iraqi Kurdish politics

and president of his high school debating club to boot

I find your contempt for this man revealing. But he's just one of those brown-skinned people who deserved to be under Saddam's boot, right?

Please cite a site which demonstrates that ANYONE on the left' date=' let alone the far-left, didn't want Iraqi's, or anyone else, to have freedom.[/quote']

Are you serious? There were protests in Canada, the US, and Europe, millions who demanded that Saddam be left in power. I saw the protesters with their Support Palestine (even though there is no such country) banners; they wanted Saddam to stay in power so he could continue to issue $25,000 cheques to the families of displaced Arab suicide bombers.

Did you know that there's a difference between protesting against attacking a country and supporing that country's president.... The protests weren't "pro-saddam"... they were anti-US-policy. Maybe you can get a grown-up to explain the difference to you...

What a crock. Of course they were pro-Saddam. Did you see any posters demanding that Saddam quit murdering his own people? Any banners demanding he stop sending $25,000 cheques to the families of displaced Arab suicide bombers? Any posters demanding he allow the UN inspectors unfettered access to sites in Iraq? Any posters demanding that he abide by the ceasefire he signed?

Every action has a reaction. Logic 101. Perhaps you weren't paying attention when your mommy and daddy taught you this.

The protesters and anti-war crowd clearly wanted Saddam to continue his rampage of murder, torture and rape.

They called the war illegal (a lie) and immoral (twisted morally bankrupt thinking).

According to international law, the war was illegal. There was no justification for the attack.

Bull. When you sign a legal document and break said document, enforcing said document is NOT illegal, unless you live in Bizarro World.

they wanted him to continue to try and assassinate US presidents;

Who's "they"... your little straw men in your fantasy world...

The protesters and the anti-war crowd. Reading comprehension. Learn it.

The message was clear:  They wanted Saddam to stay in power, i.e., they wanted the Iraqi people to continue to live under the boot of a brutal massmurdering dictator and his two Spawns of Satan.

They did ?? I'd really like to know who you thing "they" were...

This whole post has been about the actions of the anti-war crowd and the protesters. What part of it is so utterly confusing to you?

I still remember the headlines and top stories about the great economy/job numbers under Clinton.  Yet, Bush has helped to make a remarkable turnaround in the economy, indeed, better than Clinton, and the media is silent. 

Wow... maybe you should take your medicine now....

I suggest laying off the Kool-Aid; you're embarrassing yourself again.

America has set up presidents in other countries' date=' which in the long run did not turn out to benefit either the countries involved, nor the world at large. [/quote']

Er, Talabani was elected by the Iraqi Parliament. America did not put him in power.

Did they use the same kind of voting machines that Bush's Repulicans used in Ohio.... ??? Where the exit polls predicted that the Republicans had a 1 in 65 Million chance of winning in Ohio, but somehow the voting machines had the Republicans win... With more votes than there were voters....

Another crock. After the recount in Ohio, Kerry gained 300 votes. So instead of losing by 120,000 votes, he "only" lost by 119,700. You can swig the conspiracy Kool-Aid all you like, but the fact is that only 5 people have been convicted for voter fraud from the 2004 election, and all 5 were Democrats.

As for your sneer against the Iraqi Parliament voting in Talabani, it's jsut another example of the hatred that the left has for democracy.

A good example of America setting up presidents in other countries would be Iran. In the 1950s, the USA organized a coup that took out the democratically elected Massedegh and installed the Shah of Iran. (Massedegh nationalized the oil industry in Iran).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A better example is America liberating all those Eastern European countries, fighting (and beating) the communists in Central America, and liberating Iraq and Afganistan.

But according to err (an apt name, I might add), Talabani was put into power by the Americans.

Meanwhile, I will learn how to use these damn quote tags correctly, but I have no time to dicker around now, as I have to get back to work.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Montgomery Burns,

Meanwhile, I will learn how to use these damn quote tags correctly,

It has something to do with the server and the new format. You cannot use 10 or more quotes in one post or they go wonky. There is a posing under 'nes and announcements' about it...http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3154

[Montgomery Burns]

PocketRocket:

As for your comparison of Bush/Reagan, you seem to think it's a game of one-upmanship.

Dangerous thinking when such a game involves peoples' lives.

I believe Freud had a term for what you are trying to insinuate; projection.

[PocketRocket]

Are you serious?

Probably

There were protests in Canada, the US, and Europe, millions who demanded that Saddam be left in power.

I recall seeing a lot of pictures of protestors. Lots of them saying "Out of Iraq", etc. But none that I recall advocated Saddam's shining example as a ruler.

I saw the protesters with their Support Palestine (even though there is no such country) banners; they wanted Saddam to stay in power so he could continue to issue $25,000 cheques to the families of displaced Arab suicide bombers.

Don't recall seeing any signs advocating cheques to suicide bombers, either.

They called the war illegal (a lie) and immoral (twisted morally bankrupt thinking).

The legality of the war has been debated ad nauseum. I'm sure we'll never come to a conclusion here.

As for it's "morality", well, considering that Bush used UN resolutions as an excuse to invade Iraq, AGAINST the UN's rulings on the matter, well, that kind of makes it hypocritical, don't you think???

Last I heard, hypocrisy is not one of the cornerstones of "morality".

They wanted Saddam to continue to ignore the ceasefire he signed; they wanted him to continue to ignore the 17 Chapter VII binding UN resolutions; they wanted him to continue to try and assassinate US presidents; they wanted him to continue to harbor terrorists, they wanted Saddam to continue to fill up mass graves (over 300 in total found so far), and they wanted him to continue to allow Al Qaeda to train at the Salman Pak terrorism training camp.

Again, never saw any signs advocating any of this.

In a previous post you mentioned a freudian term of reference.

What is the freudian term for what you're doing here in reading all of this into the actions of the protestors???

The message was clear: They wanted Saddam to stay in power, i.e., they wanted the Iraqi people to continue to live under the boot of a brutal massmurdering dictator

Again, to say people who protested against the war were actively advocating rape, murder and other abuse of the Iraqi people is, to use your word, a "crock".

Just like those who have said that all the protestors were "enemies of America".

and his two Spawns of Satan.

You've been reading too much Ira Levin.

[PocketRocket]

MontyBurns: while cruising through another thread, I happened upon this link.....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/10/...ain694345.shtml

....which is a shining example of some of the "morality" at play in the USA during this time of war.

The threat used by the recruiter is only part of the wonderful "morality", the rest is the fact that the military promised that he would be "disciplined", but instead gave him a transfer and a promotion.

Hmmm. Morality.

Recruitment by coercion???

Rewarding coercion???

Strong examples of morality.

I guess it's safe to say that the "morality" of many on BOTH sides of the political fence can be brought into question, even some of those who are enlisted in the military.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear PocketRocket,

What is the freudian term for what you're doing here in reading all of this into the actions of the protestors???

False Dichotomy (though not Freudian, it is the appropos term)