NOYB wrote:
Feb. 23, 2005, 12:27PM



Syrian officer says he trained Iraqi insurgents
Associated Press

Yet further proof that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do... wrong
country at the wrong time...

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
NOYB wrote:
Feb. 23, 2005, 12:27PM



Syrian officer says he trained Iraqi insurgents
Associated Press

Yet further proof that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do... wrong
country at the wrong time...

You still don't see the connection?

Poor Doug.

NOYB wrote:
You still don't see the connection?


There isn't one... other than your parrotting of Bush & Cheney's
unbacked assertions.

Do you not see the evidence of your own post?

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
NOYB wrote:
Feb. 23, 2005, 12:27PM



Syrian officer says he trained Iraqi insurgents
Associated Press

Yet further proof that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do... wrong
country at the wrong time...

DSK

Don't worry we'll get to Syria and Iran soon enough.

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
NOYB wrote:
Feb. 23, 2005, 12:27PM



Syrian officer says he trained Iraqi insurgents
Associated Press

Yet further proof that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do... wrong
country at the wrong time...



Egypt and Syria Play Ball -- No Thanks to the Left
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 28, 2005

From Hosni Mubarak's opening up Egyptian elections for the first time, to
Syria's strong efforts to accommodate American demands for withdrawal from
Lebanon and for cooperation in Iraq, the Middle East is changing in ways
unforeseen even last fall. During the campaign, neither candidate discussed
pressuring these two putative allies to create a stable and democratic Arab
presence, yet today both are taking the first steps toward representative
government. Lebanon's Druze Patriarch Walid Jumblatt pinpointed the genesis
of this metamorphosis in the pages of The Washington Post:


It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started
because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when
I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the
start of a new Arab world. The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say
that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it.


In other words, a sea-change is taking place in the Arab world: democracy is
becoming reality for the first time in history - and all this progress came
about because of the determination of President George W. Bush and over the
most vicious objections of the American Left.



The most recent dividends of the Bush Doctrine became evident on Saturday,
when Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak demanded the 1971 (socialist)
constitution be amended to allow multiparty elections for the first time. In
a nationally televised speech delivered at the University of Menoufiya,
Mubarak said, "The president will be elected through direct, secret
balloting, opening the opportunity for political parties to run in the
presidential elections and providing guarantees that allow more than one
candidate for the people to choose from with their own will." Upon hearing
this, the crowd burst out into a chant of, "Long live Mubarak, mentor of
freedom and democracy!"



Just a month ago, President Mubarak intended to hold his fifth national
plebiscite and labeled such reforms "futile." (The 76-year-old, who has
ruled Egypt since 1981, won the previous four elections with more than 90
percent of the vote.) However, President Bush has been unwavering on the
issue, saying in his State of the Union Address, "The great and proud nation
of Egypt, which showed the way toward peace in the Middle East, can now show
the way toward democracy in the Middle East." This emboldened rallies in
Egypt to criticize Mubarak and his son (and heretofore heir apparent),
Gamal. Condoleeza Rice boldly cancelled her scheduled visit after Mubarak
jailed political opponent Ayman Nour. The next day, Mubarak made a
180-degree policy shift.



Though they view his actions as only an opening salvo, Mubarak's political
opponents have embraced this constitutional reform as a turning point in
their nation's history. Nour called it "an important and courageous move."
Hisham Kassem of the Tomorrow Party and editor of the Masr al-Youm newspaper
deemed the amendment "the most important thing he has done in 24 years in
power." National Progressive Unionist Party member Refat Said stated,
"Mubarak has taken one boulder from the road to democracy. It's at least a
change in mentality." Rifaat el-Said of the Tagammu Party proved more
ebullient: "We have moved a mountain," he said. Even ruling party member
Mohammed Kamal admitted, "This is a change in the whole system."



Thankfully, Mubarak's amendment will bar the fascist Muslim Brotherhood from
standing for election.



The winds of democracy are blowing in Syria, as well. President Bush singled
out Syria in his State of the Union Address as a state sponsor of terrorism,
and recalled the American ambassador to Syria after the February 14
assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Massive
protests calling for Syrian withdrawal ensued. At one such rally in the
village of Qana, peasants destroyed a statue of the late President Hafez
al-Assad, and just yesterday Lebanese protestors defied a government ban to
demand an end to Syrian occupation.



Rejecting Syrian backlash, U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state David
Satterfield echoed President Bush's pro-freedom rhetoric. "It is
not...interference for the world to talk of the need for Lebanese to live in
freedom," he said over the weekend.



Out of pressure from President Bush - and still feeling the impact of
neighboring Iraq's elections - Syria has claimed it will either withdraw
troops from Lebanon or bring them into conformity with the ceasefire plan it
adopted in 1989 but never enacted. Over the weekend, the Mideast's other Ba'athist
nation also turned over Saddam Hussein's half-brother, a sought-after Iraqi
"insurgent" leader, in order to curry favor with Washington. A confidence
vote will be held today on the government of Prime Minister Omar Karami.
This could be the beginning of the end of Syria's brutal 30-year occupation
of Lebanon.



As these historic events unfold, or rather are instigated by the Bush
administration, the Left sits on the sidelines cheering for the wrong team.
Ted Kennedy bitterly condemned American "occupation" on the eve of the Iraq
elections. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid promptly seconded Kennedy's
call for Bush to publish an Iraqi exit strategy. Meanwhile, Jesse Jackson
stumped for democracy.in Ohio, telling black audiences their votes had been
discarded by Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, the only black man to hold
statewide office (and a strong candidate to become Ohio's next governor).



After the world viewed the ocean of ink-stained fingers waving over Saddam's
former fiefdom, Sen. John Kerry said we should not to "overhype" the event.
The man who nearly became president told Tim Russert that the elections that
heralded a new era in Arab politics only possessed "a kind of legitimacy - I
mean, it's hard to say that something is legitimate when a whole portion of
the country can't vote and doesn't vote."



Indeed, one could easily construct a depressing alternate history of the
past month by juxtaposing President Bush's strong leadership with Sen. John
Kerry's world tour. Kerry took a 13-day tour of the Arab world in early
January, meeting with officials in Syria, Egypt, and other nations of the
Arab crescent. Rather than pressure Syrian President Bashar Assad to
democratize or end its occupation of Lebanon as the Bush administration has,
Kerry simply hoped to "improve our relationship" with Assad. (And guess who
would have made the concessions?) "I think we found a great deal of areas of
mutual interest, some common concerns and some possibilities for initiatives
that could be taken in the future to strengthening the relationship between
the U.S. and Syria," Kerry babbled. He repeated the same "good relations"
routine after meeting the Egyptian foreign minister. Kerry also demoralized
the troops in Baghdad by castigating the "enormous miscalculations,"
"horrendous judgments," and "unbelievable blunders" of their commander in
chief. Kerry proved his statesmanship by claiming black votes were being
"suppressed" in the 2004 election immediately upon his return to the States.



Imagine Kerry standing in the Rose Garden thronged by Teddy and Jesse, and
you begin to get a sense of what might have been - and what would never have
been. They deemed the first election in the history of Afghanistan unworthy
of notice and the Palestinian elections a non-event. The Iraqi election,
they insisted, could never take place. Now as the ripple effects of their
president's policies move other nations closer to the currents of
liberalization, they give to liberty no quarter. However reforms proceed in
Egypt - and we pray they will usher in democratic, representative government
respectful of the rights of all its citizens - none whatever would have
taken place under the leadership of the Democratic Left. It makes any
history buff weep to see the party of Jefferson and Jackson observe the next
milestones in the history of human freedom in the making - and oppose them
with all its misguided might.

Update: Since the time this story was filed early this morning, Lebanon's
pro-Syrian government has resigned. This is the most hopeful sign yet that
independence will soon return to the Land of Cedars. -- BJ

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sounds to me like it was the right war, at the right time, and in the right
country.

Yet further proof that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do... wrong
country at the wrong time...

NOBBY quote:
Egypt and Syria Play Ball -- No Thanks to the Left
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 28, 2005

From Hosni Mubarak's opening up Egyptian elections for the first time, to
Syria's strong efforts to accommodate American demands for withdrawal from
Lebanon and for cooperation in Iraq, the Middle East is changing

So when are you leaving for that motorcycle trip you cancelled because
it was too dangerous in Lebanon?

BTW Syria has been occupying Lebanon for at least 25 years. Back when I
was in the Navy, and Reagan was President, there was a big operation
against Syrian backed militias, and then almost simultaneously we
intervened to protect Palestinian civilians from the Isrealis. I was
there and saw much of it first-hand.

So why is this a priority for Bush all of a sudden? Why is the remote
possibility of re-opening peace negotiations reckoned as a huge success?
So as to cover up the obvious & continual failure that's prevailed until
now?

I guess the obvious fact that the Middle East is too dangerous, and
terrorism is escalating, "proves" to you that Bush has done a good job.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Yet further proof that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do... wrong
country at the wrong time...

NOBBY quote:
Egypt and Syria Play Ball -- No Thanks to the Left
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 28, 2005

From Hosni Mubarak's opening up Egyptian elections for the first time, to
Syria's strong efforts to accommodate American demands for withdrawal
from Lebanon and for cooperation in Iraq, the Middle East is changing

So when are you leaving for that motorcycle trip you cancelled because it
was too dangerous in Lebanon?


If I wanted danger, I'd ride a motorcycle around Naples in the middle of
season. But I don't drive a motorcycle

BTW Syria has been occupying Lebanon for at least 25 years. Back when I
was in the Navy, and Reagan was President, there was a big operation
against Syrian backed militias, and then almost simultaneously we
intervened to protect Palestinian civilians from the Isrealis. I was there
and saw much of it first-hand.

So why is this a priority for Bush all of a sudden?

Because Syria is the wedge between Israeli and Palestinian peace.

Why is the remote possibility of re-opening peace negotiations reckoned as
a huge success?

You're kidding, right?
With Arafat gone, Abbas seems to be pointing the Palestinians in a new
direction (but Hizbollah isn't cooperating).

So why is this a priority for Bush all of a sudden?


NOYB wrote:
Because Syria is the wedge between Israeli and Palestinian peace.


And they have been for 25+ years. Why ignore that part of my post? They
were there 4 years ago and Bush ignored them. They were there 3 years
ago and Bush decided to invade Iraq instead.

Now all of a sudden, Syria... which was cooperating with US counter
terrorist intel ops... and a secure & stable secular quasi-democracy...
ruled by a progressive & pro-Western group... is on the hit list.

Getting them out of Lebanon would be nice, but it would have been nice
25 years ago. So Bush & Cheney just pulled their head out of the sand?
Or did they decide here's good material for a razzle-dazzle ploy to
distract all but the most gullible (ie you and John H) from their other
miserable foreign policy failures?

And of course, the fact that they *still* haven't caught Osama Bin
Laden, and they *still* have exactly ZERO links between Iraq & terrorism.


Why is the remote possibility of re-opening peace negotiations reckoned as
a huge success?


You're kidding, right?

No

With Arafat gone, Abbas seems to be pointing the Palestinians in a new
direction (but Hizbollah isn't cooperating).


And?

Looks to me like the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" is stuck at
about the same place it was in 1979. Each side is stuck at the same
intractable demands and the same unrealistic expectations.

It would be very nice if Abbas could reign in his terrorists, and Sharon
put a muzzle on some of his hard-liners (except that he's a har-liner
himself).

Of course I am hopeful that *this* time things will go forward, the
violence will die down, resentments will subside, and peace will have a
real chance. But it's not at all due to anything the Bush Administration
has done, and their blustering toward Syria isn't going to help either
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the anti-US terrorism in the region.
It's just a lot of hot air aimed in the wrong direction... and even if
they *were* about to accomplish something, it would be 5 years later
than they could have done the same thing.

But hey, maybe I'm too picky. Considering Bush & Cheney's record so far,
maybe this really is a huge success for them!

DSK

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:22:55 -0500, DSK wrote:

So why is this a priority for Bush all of a sudden?


NOYB wrote:
Because Syria is the wedge between Israeli and Palestinian peace.


And they have been for 25+ years. Why ignore that part of my post? They
were there 4 years ago and Bush ignored them. They were there 3 years
ago and Bush decided to invade Iraq instead.

Now all of a sudden, Syria... which was cooperating with US counter
terrorist intel ops... and a secure & stable secular quasi-democracy...
ruled by a progressive & pro-Western group... is on the hit list.

Getting them out of Lebanon would be nice, but it would have been nice
25 years ago. So Bush & Cheney just pulled their head out of the sand?
Or did they decide here's good material for a razzle-dazzle ploy to
distract all but the most gullible (ie you and John H) from their other
miserable foreign policy failures?

And of course, the fact that they *still* haven't caught Osama Bin
Laden, and they *still* have exactly ZERO links between Iraq & terrorism.


Why is the remote possibility of re-opening peace negotiations reckoned as
a huge success?


You're kidding, right?

No

With Arafat gone, Abbas seems to be pointing the Palestinians in a new
direction (but Hizbollah isn't cooperating).


And?

Looks to me like the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" is stuck at
about the same place it was in 1979. Each side is stuck at the same
intractable demands and the same unrealistic expectations.

It would be very nice if Abbas could reign in his terrorists, and Sharon
put a muzzle on some of his hard-liners (except that he's a har-liner
himself).

Of course I am hopeful that *this* time things will go forward, the
violence will die down, resentments will subside, and peace will have a
real chance. But it's not at all due to anything the Bush Administration
has done, and their blustering toward Syria isn't going to help either
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the anti-US terrorism in the region.
It's just a lot of hot air aimed in the wrong direction... and even if
they *were* about to accomplish something, it would be 5 years later
than they could have done the same thing.

But hey, maybe I'm too picky. Considering Bush & Cheney's record so far,
maybe this really is a huge success for them!

DSK

Personally, Doug, I find it hard to believe that you are hopeful for *any* good
to come to the middle east.

I think you, and many others around here, must pray hard for a succession of
failures. Else, how could you say, "I told you so."

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

John H wrote:
Personally, Doug, I find it hard to believe that you are hopeful for *any* good
to come to the middle east.

I think you, and many others around here, must pray hard for a succession of
failures. Else, how could you say, "I told you so."


You're wrong (again). I am hopeful that both sides will come to their
senses and that peace will arise.

You seem to cling to the illusion that only brainless cheerleading for
Bush & Cheney is "positive." But the facts are against you, which why
you count your ignorance as your good fortune.

DSK