Jefferson Corner

The neocons got Mr. Bush and got America into this big mess called Iraq, through lies, fraud and misrepresentations, costing the lives of thousands of Americans and Iraqis. Instead of reaching out to the best and brightest in the nation to help him and us get out of this big mess, Mr. Bush decides again, and wrongly reach out to the neocons who made a mess of this nation and of our foreign policy. The neocons are taking the country and its resouces down the drain. The Democrats better come up with a bold answer to Mr. Bush. Let us not repeat Vietnam all over again.
Sami Jadallah

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_011107J.shtml
The Architect of Mr. Bush’s Plan
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t Report

Thursday 11 January 2007

One of the key architects of President Bush’s disastrous Iraq war policy was responsible for writing the president’s new plan calling for an increase in US troops in the region.

By relying on the recommendations of neoconservative scholar Frederick Kagan, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, on what steps the White House should take to address the civil war between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, President Bush has once again ignored the advice of career military officials and even some Republican lawmakers - many of whom in recent weeks have urged Bush to resist implementing a policy that would result in escalating the war - and instead has chosen to rely on the proposals drafted by hawkish, think-tank intellectuals that could very well backfire and end up embroiling the United States in an even bloodier conflict.

Perhaps the most alarming element of Bush’s “new” plan for stabilizing Iraq is how much it relies upon the recommendations of individuals who have never set foot on a battlefield. Much of what the president outlined in a prime-time speech Wednesday evening - specifically, sending more than 20,000 additional soldiers into Iraq - was culled from the white paper, “Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq,” written by Kagan last month.

Some of the key points of Kagan’s proposal include:

We must change our focus from training Iraqi soldiers to securing the Iraqi population and containing the rising violence. Securing the population has never been the primary mission of the US military effort in Iraq, and now it must become the first priority.
We must send more American combat forces into Iraq, and especially into Baghdad, to support this operation. A surge of seven Army brigades and Marine regiments to support clear-and-hold operations starting in the spring of 2007 is necessary, possible, and will be sufficient.
These forces, partnered with Iraqi units, will clear critical Sunni and mixed Sunni-Shia neighborhoods, primarily on the west side of the city.
After the neighborhoods have been cleared, US soldiers and Marines, again partnered with Iraqis, will remain behind to maintain security.
As security is established, reconstruction aid will help to reestablish normal life and, working through Iraqi officials, will strengthen Iraqi local government.
But these recommendations itself aren’t new. In fact, this “new” plan has actually been collecting dust for two years.

In January 2005, Kagan, who at the time was associated with the controversial Project for the New American Century, signed a letter sent to Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and Senate urging lawmakers to deploy an additional 25,000 US troops to Iraq, not so much to quell the violence between Sunni and Shiite factions as to intimidate Iraq’s neighbors in the Middle East by maintaining bases. Kagan, his brother Robert, and PNAC founder and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol wrote that the Bush administration had ignored its suggestions, and chose to stick with a plan drafted by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who said the Iraq war could be won with fewer ground forces and superior air power.

“We write to ask you and your colleagues in the legislative branch to take the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps,” states the January 28, 2005, letter sent to Senators Bill Frist and Harry Reid, Congressman Dennis Hastert, and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. “While estimates vary about just how large an increase is required, and Congress will make its own determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years. The administration has been reluctant to adapt to this new reality.”

As US casualties piled up, Kagan publicly criticized Rumsfeld’s plan for post-war Iraq and began to peddle his ideas for a substantial increase in US troops.

“The secretary of defense simply chose to prioritize preparing America’s military for future conventional conflict rather than for the current mission,” Kagan wrote in the January 17, 2005, issue of the Weekly Standard. “That position, based on the hope that the current mission would be of short duration and the recognition that the future may arrive at any moment, is understandable. It just turns out to have been wrong.”

The lack of soldiers on the ground has been a hot-button issue since the start of the March 2003 invasion. Career military officials believe that is the reason the war hasn’t been a “cakewalk.” They blame former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld for designing a flawed war plan that has resulted in the deaths of more than 3,000 US soldiers and led to deep divisions between senior military officials and the defense secretary.

In Wednesday’s speech, but without identifying him by name, Bush put the responsibility for the quagmire squarely on Rumsfeld’s shoulders. But the president also lauded Rumsfeld’s war plan. In a televised news conference last year, Bush said there was no need to send additional troops into Iraq.

The Genesis of the Iraq War Plan

In October 2002, Rumsfeld ordered the military’s regional commanders to rewrite all of their war plans to capitalize on precision weapons, better intelligence, and speedier deployment in the event the United States decided to invade Iraq.

The goal was to use fewer ground troops, a move that caused dismay among some in the military who said concern for the troops requires overwhelming numerical superiority to assure victory.

Several longtime military officers said they viewed Rumsfeld’s approach as injecting too much risk into war planning and said it could result in US casualties that might be prevented by amassing larger forces. Those predictions have been borne out over the past 33 months.

Still, Rumsfeld refused to listen to his military commanders, saying that his plan would allow “the military to begin combat operations on less notice and with far fewer troops than thought possible - or thought wise - before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks,” the New York Times reported in its October 13, 2002, edition.

“Looking at what was overwhelming force a decade or two decades ago, today you can have overwhelming force, conceivably, with lesser numbers because the lethality is equal to or greater than before,” Rumsfeld told the Times.

Rumsfeld said too many of the military plans on the shelves of the regional war-fighting commanders were freighted with outdated assumptions and military requirements, which have changed with the advent of new weapons and doctrines.

It has been a mistake, he said, to measure the quantity of forces required for a mission and “fail to look at lethality, where you end up with precision-guided munitions, which can give you 10 times the lethality that a dumb weapon might, as an example,” the Times reported.

Through a combination of pre-deployments, faster cargo ships and a larger fleet of transport aircraft, the military would be able to deliver “fewer troops but in a faster time that would allow you to have concentrated power that would have the same effect as waiting longer with what a bigger force might have,” Rumsfeld said.

Critics in the military said there were several reasons to deploy a force of overwhelming numbers before starting any offensive with Iraq. Large numbers illustrate US resolve and can intimidate Iraqi forces into laying down their arms or even turning against Hussein’s government.

According to Defense Department sources, Rumsfeld at first insisted that our vast air superiority and a degraded Iraqi military would enable 75,000 US troops to win the war. General Tommy Franks, the theater commander in chief, convinced Rumsfeld to send 250,000 (augmented by 45,000 British). However, the Army would have preferred a much deeper force.

Kagan Reemerges

Kagan resurfaced in early December with another column in the Weekly Standard, “We Can Put More Forces in Iraq,” which suggested sending more troops to the region and continuing to fight the war for up to two years.

“A study of post-conflict operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and elsewhere conducted by Ambassador James Dobbins showed that success in those operations - characterized by severe ethnic and sectarian violence - required force ratios of 1 soldier per 100 inhabitants,” Kagan wrote. “Iraq poses challenges that are in some respects more severe, at the moment, but it also offers its own rules of thumb. Successful clear-and-hold operations in Tal Afar required a force ratio of around 1 soldier (counting both US and Iraqi troops) for every 40 inhabitants. On the other hand, in 2004, Major General Peter Chiarelli suppressed a widespread uprising in Sadr City (an area inhabited by about 2.5 million Shiites) with fewer than 20,000 US soldiers - a ratio of about 1 to 125.”

Following the publication of Kagan’s column, Vice President Dick Cheney and senior members of Bush’s cabinet began to enter into a dialogue with Kagan to draft an alternative plan for dealing with the violence in Iraq. The move was orchestrated so the White House could avoid adopting the proposals set forth that week by the Iraq Study Group, led by longtime Bush family confidante James A. Baker III, that called for entering into a dialogue with Iran and Syria and redeploying troops in 2008.

Two weeks later, Kagan published “Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq,” the AEI white paper that recycled his public statements and columns from 2005 that were highly critical of Rumsfeld’s post-war planning. Like the January 28, 2005, letter he sent to Congress and the Senate, the 47-page report called for sending more troops into the region to combat the violence between Sunnis and Shiites - which ultimately would ensure the war would continue to rage for at least two years.

Ultimately, President Bush agreed with Kagan, and used the key recommendations of his study as the foundation for his new Iraq policy - a policy that even some staunch pro-war Republicans have distanced themselves from.

Share This

What is going on in the Israel’s occupied Palestine, no doubt shame all Palestinians. The on going fight between Fatah and Hamas and their respective militias and thugs and the ongoing killing and counter killing and murder of Palestinians by Palestinian hands does not make any Palestinian whether living under Israeli Occupation or living in the Diaspora any proud let alone hopeful that one day, the Israeli Occupation will end and the Palestinian people will be the LAST free people on this planet.
While some people did not expect the Palestinians would shed their own blood with their own hands, this was expected, ever since Arafat returned to the Occupied Territories with thousands of armed men, and of course with the build up of the many different and competing security agencies authorized and funded. It was bound to happen.
Arafat promoting competing services sawed the seed for such a civil conflict, and with his preventive securities abusing so many people sawed the seed for the present armed conflict. The issue is no longer one of liberation and independence from Israel and is no longer one of securing funding for the many unpaid employees, but to prevent expansion of the armed fight between Hamas and Fatah and of course their respective militias and thugs.
Hamas and Fatah have turned Palestine into a pool of blood, not one for liberation but one of competing selfish interests. Who said the Palestinians need over some 70,000-armed militias and need so many different security organizations. Beside Israel, these competing militias are the biggest source of threat for Palestinians, they are now the main source of insecurity the Palestinians feel these days. The respective leadership of both Fatah and Hamas do not see that the people have other worries and they are acting as if the people do not have worry with the daily raids and daily killings committed by Israeli soldiers? What is the hell wrong with these people and what is the hell wrong with the leadership of both Fatah and Hamas? What is the hell wrong with the Palestinian street for accepting such reckless behavior?
The leadership of both Hamas and Fatah are acting with reckless disregard for the welfare of the people they pretend to represent; they are acting with so much maleous toward each other and toward the general public at large, that they lost any legitimacy to represent the people. Hamas and Fatah and their leadership are nothing more than armed militias and are not political parties with constituencies at large, with agendas for liberations and independence. They are getting even with each other and the people are paying the price. Fatah want to get back in power to sit at the cash register.
Instead of working together in ending one of the longest occupations in the 20th century, they are fighting each other for “crump of the occupations” for money and dollars. Fatah and Hamas are nothing more than mafias now and are acting like mafias putting the people at risk and cooperating if not darn helping and assisting the Israeli Occupation.
At one time, some times ago, before Arafat and his thugs returned to Palestine, and before Hamas wanted to populate heaven, the Palestinians used to be very proud of their education. The ambition of young students where admission to some of the best schools and universities. Now the ambitions of young men is to join the different armed militias and carry a loaded gun, putting their lives at risk and putting the lives of the people at risk. Never one imagined that the Palestinians people will one-day reach this low. However, for those who forgot, thousands of Palestinians died in internal fighting even during the heydays of the PLO in Beirut. Fatah have engaged in internal fights before and have engaged in armed fights with other “militias” members of the PLO. What is happening now is an extension of the lawless mentality that the PLO and Fatah have instilled in the people. Hamas within a short time, have proven it is no better than Fatah, perhaps less corrupt, but equally guilty of reckless disregard for the national interest and has proven that its priorities are not liberation but power and whatever comes with power.
I only have these words to both Hamas and Fatah and their respective leadership, you shame all Palestinians. Work together to end the Occupation, stupid!

Share This

As an American Arab with private property stolen by Jewish settlers, I am willing to give up any rights I have if these criminal thieves can prove in any US federal or state court that they have the rights to such property and that G-d gave it to them. These Israeli Jewish settlers are nothing but thieves and trespassers. Very interesting article by a very brave Israeli Jew. If only Tom Lantos and Nancy Pelosi knew what these people are doing, they will stop funding these criminal Jewish settlers.
Sami Jadallah

w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m
Last update - 09:40 07/01/2007
The greatest settler
By Gideon Levy
Among the many obituary notices published by various groups after the death of Teddy Kollek, one group’s notice was conspicuous in its absence: the Yesha Council of Jewish Settlements. It is a bit difficult to comprehend this ingratitude by the settlers toward the person who brought approximately 200,000 Jews to the occupied territories - perhaps more than any other person. The settlement enterprise owes a great historic debt to Kollek. Neither Rabbi Moshe Levinger nor Hanan Porat nor Aharon Domb nor Ze’ev “Zambish” Hever are responsible for settling so many Israelis beyond the Green Line as Kollek, the enlightened Viennese liberal.
The fact that most of the eulogies for the former Jerusalem mayor left out this detail and that Yesha did not embrace the mega-settler Kollek is no coincidence. Israeli society has adopted sundry and strange codes to whitewash the settlement enterprise. The settlement of the occupied territories in Jerusalem has never been considered hitnahalut (the term used for Jewish settlement in the territories). And the gargantuan neighborhoods of the capital, which were built during Teddy’s term and span extensive Palestinian territory, have never been considered a controversial issue.
The fact that almost no one in the world recognizes this enterprise and the new borders it charts does not change a thing: In our eyes, but only in our eyes, not every settlement is the same and each settlement has its own moral code. But this is a game we play with ourselves. Every home built beyond the Green Line - in Yitzhar or Itamar in the West Bank, in Nov in the Golan, or in French Hill in Jerusalem - is built on occupied land and all construction on occupied land is in violation of international law. Occupation is occupation. Not everything is legal, even if it is anchored in Israeli law, as in the case of the Golan Heights and Jerusalem.
The Israelis invent patents for themselves, but this sophisticated semantic laundering will not meet the legal and ethical test. The Ramot neighborhood is a settlement. There is no difference between the “neighborhood” of Pisgat Ze’ev and the “settlement” of Givat Ze’ev. This artificial distinction does not end with the Jerusalem region. In the West Bank, distinctions are also made between settlements and “illegal outposts,” another virtuoso but groundless exercise in semantics with regard to an enterprise that is entirely illegal. There are also no settlements (hitnahaluyot) in the occupied Jordan Valley, but rather yishuvim, a generic word for settlements, unrelated to the 1967 borders. An ethical blemish has never been attached to the residents of these Jordan Valley settlements. Why? Because this is the way it was determined by Labor governments at the time, when they established moshavim and kibbutzim in the Jordan Valley - not “settlements.”
Does this make any difference from the perspective of international law? Certainly not. Were the moshavim in the Jordan Valley not built on the land of residents who were disinherited? Have they not crushed the surrounding residents?
With regard to the Golan Heights, we went up another level in the word game we play with ourselves. There are no hitnahaluyot there at all. Why? Because we decided so. There are towns, kibbutzim and moshavim, just like in the Jezreel Valley. But no word game or Knesset legislation can alter the unequivocal fact that the Golan Heights is occupied Syrian land and all of its residents are settlers and that international law regards them as criminals.
This phenomenon reached its peak in Jerusalem, which will celebrate 40 years of its “unification” this year. This act of unification was an act of occupation and the fact that a charming and charismatic figure like Kollek presided over it does not change a thing. Kollek demolished a neighborhood in the Old City and built the new neighborhoods on Palestinian land for Jews only - apartheid at its worst - and this should also be remembered in the balance of his considerable achievements.
The Jerusalem mayor Kollek left behind is a divided and wounded city, despite and because of its enormous development, replete with explosives that will yet explode in our faces. In fact, it was never unified. Like any colonialist city, there is a dark backyard for the natives. To this day, most Israelis do not set foot in Palestinian neighborhoods and the Palestinians avoid Jewish neighborhoods. The city remains divided, despite all of the lofty words about its unification for eternity. Regarding equality, there is nothing to say of course. It is sufficient to travel to the Shuafat camp or even to Sheikh Jarrah to note the outrageous disparity between the services in the eastern and western parts of the city.
Societal neglect, piles of garbage, no playgrounds or community centers, no sidewalk and no streetlights. Gaza in Jerusalem, all on the basis of abominable ethnic discrimination. This did not begin with Ehud Olmert nor with Uri Lupolianski. This began with the wily Kollek. A city whose rule in the Palestinian section is conducted through the strength of arms, with surprise checkpoints and hundreds of violent Border Policemen routinely patrolling the streets, and whose residents are subject to prohibitions that violate their fundamental liberties, is not a “unified” city. Teddy is responsible for this.
The history of the occupation, which has already lasted more than twice the amount of time than the years the state existed without it, is full of “men of peace” from the “left” who are responsible for this injustice. What would the settlement enterprise be without Yigal Allon and Moshe Dayan, Golda Meir and Yisrael Galili and, of course, Shimon Peres? Kollek must now be added to them, belatedly. He brought the wide world to Jerusalem but only to its Jewish part. He loved his city very much, and built and developed it in an impressive way, but on the downtrodden back of half of its residents. Moshe Amirav wrote in his article on Thursday (”Division, where unification failed”) that Kollek said to him in his waning years: “We failed to unify the city. Tell Ehud Barak that I support dividing it.” Better late than never, but why did we not hear a word about this in the lofty eulogies?
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/810113.html

Share This

Congressman Tom Lantos, not known for his moral courage and honesty can learn few things from Israel. If they speak out in Israel why don’t you have the courage to speak in the US.

Hebrew original: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3346283,00.html
Yediot Acharonot, Israel’s largest circulating newspaper
Indeed there is Apartheid in Israel
A new order issued by the GOC Central command bans the conveyance of Palestinians in Israeli vehicles. Such a blatant violation of the right to travel joins the long list of humans rights violations carried out by Israel in the [Occupied] Territories.
Shulamit Aloni
Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what’s right in front of our eyes. It’s simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.
The US Jewish Establishment’s onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies. Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced-in, or blocked-in, detention camp. All this is done in order to keep an eye on the population’s movements and to make its life difficult. Israel even imposes a total curfew whenever the settlers, who have illegally usurped the Palestinians’ land, celebrate their holidays or conduct their parades.
If that were not enough, the generals commanding the region frequently issue further orders, regulations, instructions and rules (let us not forget: they are the lords of the land). By now they have requisitioned further lands for the purpose of constructing “Jewish only” roads. Wonderful roads, wide roads, well-paved roads, brightly lit at night – all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way.
On one occasion I witnessed such an encounter between a driver and a soldier who was taking down the details before confiscating the vehicle and sending its owner away. “Why?” I asked the soldier. “It’s an order – this is a Jews-only road”, he replied. I inquired as to where was the sign indicating this fact and instructing [other] drivers not to use it. His answer was nothing short of amazing. “It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some antisemitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that Apartheid exists here?”
Indeed Apartheid does exist here. And our army is not “the most moral army in the world” as we are told by its commanders. Sufficient to mention that every town and every village has turned into a detention centre and that every entry and every exit has been closed, cutting it off from arterial traffic. If it were not enough that Palestinians are not allowed to travel on the roads paved ‘for Jews only’, on their land, the current GOC found it necessary to land an additional blow on the natives in their own land with an “ingenious proposal”.
Humanitarian activists cannot transport Palestinians either
Major-General Naveh, renowned for his superior patriotism, has issued a new order. Coming into affect on 19 January, it prohibits the conveyance of Palestinians without a permit. The order determines that Israelis are not allowed to transport Palestinians in an Israeli vehicle (one registered in Israel regardless of what kind of numberplate it carries) unless they have received explicit permission to do so. The permit relates to both the driver and the Palestinian passenger. Of course none of this applies to those whose labour serves the settlers. They and their employers will naturally receive the required permits so they can continue to serve the lords of the land, the settlers.
Did man of peace President Carter truly err in concluding that Israel is creating Apartheid? Did he exaggerate? Don’t the US Jewish community leaders recognise the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination of 7 March 1966, to which Israel is a signatory? Are the US Jews who launched the loud and abusive campaign against Carter for supposedly maligning Israel’s character and its democratic and humanist nature unfamiliar with the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of 30 November 1973? Apartheid is defined therein as an international crime that among other things includes using different legal instruments to rule over different racial groups, thus depriving people of their human rights. Isn’t freedom of travel one of these rights?
In the past, the US Jewish community leaders were quite familiar with the meaning of those conventions. For some reason, however, they are convinced that Israel is allowed to contravene them. It’s OK to kill civilians, women and children, old people and parents with their children, deliberately or otherwise without accepting any responsibility. It’s permissible to rob people of their lands, destroy their crops, and cage them up like animals in the zoo. From now on, Israelis and International humanitarian organisations’ volunteers are prohibited from assisting a woman in labour by taking her to the hospital. [Israeli human rights group] Yesh Din volunteers cannot take a robbed and beaten-up Palestinian to the police station to lodge a complaint. (Police stations are located at the heart of the settlements.) Is there anyone who believes that this is not Apartheid?
Jimmy Carter does not need me to defend his reputation that has been sullied by Israelophile community officials. The trouble is that their love of Israel distorts their judgment and blinds them from seeing what’s in front of them. Israel is an occupying power that for 40 years has been oppressing an indigenous people, which is entitled to a sovereign and independent existence while living in peace with us. We should remember that we too used very violent terror against foreign rule because we wanted our own state. And the list of victims of terror is quite long and extensive.
We do limit ourselves to denying the [Palestinian] people human rights. We not only rob of them of their freedom, land and water. We apply collective punishment to millions of people and even, in revenge-driven frenzy, destroy the electricity supply for one and half million civilians. Let them “sit in the darkness” and “starve”.
Employees cannot be paid their wages because Israel is holding 500 million shekels that belong to the Palestinians. And after all that we remain “pure as the driven snow”. There are no moral blemishes on our actions. There is no racial separation. There is no Apartheid. It’s an invention of the enemies of Israel. Hooray for our brothers and sisters in the US! Your devotion is very much appreciated. You have truly removed a nasty stain from us. Now there can be an extra spring in our step as we confidently abuse the Palestinian population, using the “most moral army in the world”.
[Translated by Sol Salbe]

Share This

With very few journalist, let alone politicians who dare to speak out on issues critical of Israel, there are those who have courage. Perhaps the new Democrtatic leadership will not let its blind loyalty to Israel stands in its way of having the ‘backbone” to stand for what is right. Nancy Pelosi and Tom Lantos can learn something from Henry Siegman. Jimmy Carter have courage, when this courage will touch you? Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

Hanging Saddam brought some very strange reactions from the “Arab Street” especially in countries like Jordan, Palestine and Egypt where Saddam “mokhabarat” was very generous ‘buying’ the streets in Gaza, Ramallah, Amman and Cairo. These same streets that also cheered Saddam’s occupation of Kuwait that brought the forced expulsions of some 350,000 Palestinians and Jordanian who where making decent living in Kuwait and who lost some $14 billions as a result of Saddam occupation of Kuwait. These same streets that also cheered Saddam “Scud” missiles as they zipped trough the skies to land with a large thud in Tel-Aviv. Some 30 Scuds where fired on Tel-Aviv and did not result in a single Israeli death and for which Saddam end up paying Israel some $850 millions in damages.
I remember the 80’s when Saddam was waging his war against the Persian at the behest of the Reagan Administration killing and murdering over million of a very educated Iraqis and destroying his country so that he can fight the Persians on behalf of Ronald Reagan. With visits to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and where so many people, average Arabs, where so impressed with Saddam and his war that he was their hero only to discover few years later his killing machines hitting their door steps and their neighbors.
In Egypt with thousands cheering Saddam on, forgetting that he killed and murdered several hundred Egyptians guest workers because they wanted to get paid. Both the government and people of Egypt where silent about these murder and accepted silence rather than face the wrath of Saddam, and his money.
While Saddam was killing and murdering both Iraqis and Persians, and destroying his country, the so called “Arab Streets” where cheering Saddam on, and his fight for Arab honor, whatever that is. The same Arab Street was cheering Saddam on even though his army was noting but total failure in the war with Iran having been routed out of the border with Iran and was very impressively routed during the war for the liberations of Kuwait. The same Arab Street was cheering Saddam on, even though they saw his army run away and surrender by the thousands. They cheered Saddam on even though they saw on television how poorly Saddam army was ill fed and ill equipped. The same Arab Street cheered Saddam on when millions of Iraqi children where facing imminent death because of lack of food and medicine while Saddam and his family where using and wasting billions of dollars on building palaces, buying fast cars and robbing the Iraqi treasury and where his sons where raping Iraqi women. The same Arab Street is now cheering for Qadafi decision to erect a monument in his memory even though Qadafi expelled tens of thousands of Palestinians leaving stranded in the no man zone on the border with Egypt, even though Qadafi is responsible for the cold blooded murder of innocent airline passengers.
The Arab Street never not rise against dictatorship and did not rise and go the streets demanding freedom for themselves and demanding accountability from governments that robbed them blind. The same Arab Streets cheered for so called nationalist leaders like Hafiz Assad even though he murdered over 25,000 of his citizens in Hamah and was too coward to even fire one single shot across the Golan Heights. The same Arab Street cheered for Yaser Arafat even though Arafat wasted billions of dollars on his friends and cronies and was responsible for some 200,000 dead as a result of his failed war of liberation and even though the man was giving tens of millions of the people money to his wife so she can live the good life in Paris while his people where starving in Gaza. No one should take the Arab Street seriously, it never amounted to any thing and it always supported wrong causes and supported so called nationalist dictatorship, the likes of Saddam, Assad, Arafat, Nasser and Qadafi. Never understood why the people of Poland, Hungry, Romania, Bulgaria can go out to the street forcing dictatorship out of power and taking their own liberation with their own hands while in the Arab world, the Arab Streets go out and cheer for a coward and a traitor like Saddam Hussein. I invited psychologists from around the world to study the phenomena that is the Arab Street and find out why they are always supporting and cheering on losers and dictators. The Arab Street needs some serious mental help.

Share This