These are two separate, but very important, news items that I picked up from JWN linkees.
First this, from Juan Cole yesterday. He reports on an item from AFP/ ash-Sharq al-Awsat about Ayatollah Sistani’s spokesman Hamid al-Khaffaf, who said at a gathering at the Sadr Center in Najaf on Monday that:
- — Sistani will be forming his own nationwide list of candidates to “contest” the election (against, presumably, the single list that Allawi has been proposing). Khaffaf said, “”A committee of independents has been formed, the mission of which is to help everyone be represented on a unified list that would gain the confidence of the supreme Shiite leadership.” Note the significance of announcing this at the “Sadr Center”.
— No “ideal” parliament can, Khaffaf said, be elected under the election system currently ordained for next January’s election system… (We’ve heard that criticism from Sistani/Khaffaf before).
— But Khaffaf also warned that “the grand ayatollahs would not hesitate to bring people into the streets for the sake of a good result in the elections such that the righteous win their rights.” (The direct quote there is from Juan, and maybe AFSP, though not necessarily from Khaffaf.)
The above is all news that should have been in every headline in the world today. Or yesterday. I haven’t seen it in the WaPo or the NYT.
Another headlining piece of news… This from Matt, filling in for Yankeedoodle at Today in Iraq:
Al hamdu lillah, indeed Helena, for the blogosphere. A very interesting article from Ron Kampeas – thank you for bringing it to our attention!
HC: “Poor baby! Don’t you just gotta feel sorry for her??”
Actually, I *AM* somewhat sympathetic with pre-war proponents of invasion who were mislead. Do you think she wasn’t deceived? I’m not sure what you’re point is.
I’m tired of pre-war opponents of invasion treating others with such derision when they recant and oppose the war. No flip-flops allowed!
Martina, you are quite right that my derisive tone was unnecessary, out of place, and unhelpful. When I wrote that I guess I was thinking more about the pro-Likud groups active in US politics in general, and recalling how strongly they (including JINSA, and many others) had agitated to drag the country into the war. I have no reasdon to believe that Rep. Berkley played any such role.
Yes, many, many people in the US were deceived by the Bush administration into thinking the war was “necessary”, and we should all now welcome their second thoughts.
It would however have been much more helpful if those people had exercized all their criticial faculties a little more actively in the lead-up to the war. There was PLENTY of info available even then pointing to the key facts that (1) the war was NOT necessary, since Saddam did not pose any kind of a threat to global stability but was well “contained”, and (2) that launching a war could– and especially if undertaken unilaterally– lead to all kinds of cascading effects of further violence and instability, such as we have so tragically seen unfold.
You can look back to several of my writings in the pre-war period (especially my CSM columns) to see some such warnings. But I was far, far from the only one!
Sadly, though, my voice and the voices of nearly all of us who know something about the region, and about the nature and effects of warfare, and therefore warned strongly against this one, were drowned out in the national discussion. Some Jewish organizations played a big part in that silencing. Yeah, I’ve been upset about that…
But the main thing, as I think you’re saying, is to be able to put stuff like that behind us so that we can work effectively together with any and all new “recruits” to the anti-war cause and bring the occupation to an end as quickly as possible. The casualties continue to mount, catastrophically, with each day we fail to do that.
The jewish sentiment favoring Democrats is not as surprising as what Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid observes today, in the Saudi press, regarding Palestinian and Saudi preferences for a Bush victory. Abdul writes:
“Everyone has his own concerns and aspirations when it comes to the American presidential election. Palestinians are never satisfied with any American president. In the first month of a president taking over, they start wailing and complaining, declaring that the former occupant of the White House was a lesser evil. Kerry outmatches Bush in his support for Israel. His record as senator speaks of a man who blindly supports that country. The Democratic Party has always been more pro-Israel than the Republican. Kerry hopes to stay for eight years in the White House and this makes him even more obliged to satisfy the Israelis.
In contrast, since Bush cannot be elected for a third term, he does not have to be overly concerned about pressure groups. Further, he is the only American president who has publicly committed himself to the establishment of a Palestinian state. His main problem remains Yasser Arafat. In his second term, he will be less prone to pressure. It is instructive that it was in his second term that Bill Clinton offered the Palestinians the greatest hope in their history
The jewish sentiment favoring Democrats is not as surprising as what Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid observes today, in the Saudi press, regarding Palestinian and Saudi preferences for a Bush victory. Abdul writes:
“Everyone has his own concerns and aspirations when it comes to the American presidential election. Palestinians are never satisfied with any American president. In the first month of a president taking over, they start wailing and complaining, declaring that the former occupant of the White House was a lesser evil. Kerry outmatches Bush in his support for Israel. His record as senator speaks of a man who blindly supports that country. The Democratic Party has always been more pro-Israel than the Republican. Kerry hopes to stay for eight years in the White House and this makes him even more obliged to satisfy the Israelis.
In contrast, since Bush cannot be elected for a third term, he does not have to be overly concerned about pressure groups. Further, he is the only American president who has publicly committed himself to the establishment of a Palestinian state. His main problem remains Yasser Arafat. In his second term, he will be less prone to pressure. It is instructive that it was in his second term that Bill Clinton offered the Palestinians the greatest hope in their history