Opinions - Who Supports US Liberal Democrats?...

Discussion in 'Drug Policy Reform & Narco Politics' started by Woodman, Nov 3, 2006.

  1. Woodman

    Woodman A very strange person. Platinum Member & Advisor

    Reputation Points:
    711
    Messages:
    1,430
    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    116 y/o from U.S.A.
    Arabs and Iranians Root For the Democrats Again.

    http://www.nysun.com/article/42657?page_no=1&access=302702

    The MEMRI Report

    By STEVEN STALINSKY
    November 1, 2006

    "The Muslims of America need to get organized and make sure they get out to vote for Democrats for both the House and the Senate. … Every Muslim in the Middle East who has a relative in the U.S. should get the message across to their relatives."

    — Skip Conover, host on Muslim-American Bridges TV, Arab News, October 19


    As the November 7 midterm elections approach, Iranian and Arab officials and journalists are hoping the Democrats will win control of the House and Senate.

    It should be noted that before the 2004 elections, they also overwhelmingly predicted and rooted for a Democratic victory:

    • "I would like to appeal to you, Muslim citizens and voters of America … cast your vote against Bush … in the name of Islam," a former prime minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, said.

    • "We advise the American people … do not vote for Bush and his ilk," Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli of Iran said.

    • "Arab-Americans should rethink their alliance with Bush," an Arab-Israeli member of the Knesset, Azmi Bishara, said.

    • "The most important thing in the coming elections is if Kerry wins and neoconservatives leave," the Lebanese minister of information, Michael Samaha, said.

    • " Bush, Allah willing, will go to hell in this coming November," the editor of the Egyptian newspaper Al-Gil, Nagi Al-Shihabi, said.

    Fast-forward two years, to the current election cycle. Similar calls are being heard, and some articles have even suggested that President Bush may "wag the dog" with an attack on Iran to help the Republicans.

    "The Republican Party is in so much trouble it may risk a major confrontation in the Middle East before half-term congressional elections in November. Republicans are far behind in the polls," an editorial in the October 19–25 Egyptian state-run English-language weekly Al-Ahram said.

    "If the Democratic Party seizes Congress or the Senate. … This might even open the door for impeachment," the columnist Sandy Shanks wrote on Al-Jazeera's Web site on October 22. He asked rhetorically, "How badly does Bush want to win next month?"

    "Will Bush attack Iran by air and sea before next month's elections to prove to his domestic audience that his party is best at preserving and protecting our way of life, thereby ‘ensuring' a Republican victory in Congress?" Mr. Shanks added.

    The August 30 edition of the London-based Arabic-language daily Asharq Al-Awsat featured "The U.S. Republican Party and Defeat," an article by an Al-Arabiya TV host and columnist, Hussein Shobokshi. "The Republican Party is beginning to see the danger signs and recognize that the current administration will cause it to lose … and suffer a defeat in the next elections," he wrote.

    On Sunday, a group of Arab diplomats that included the leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki of Iran met in Damascus. Among the topics of discussion was the American elections. Mr. Mottaki called Mr. Bush a "loser" and said that after next week's elections, the president will be politically paralyzed and unable to initiate any political moves.

    As he discussed the upcoming elections before a crowd chanting "death to America, death to Israel," Hojatoleslam Ahmad Khatami, who led last week's Friday prayers in Tehran, said: "The savage and devilish acts and performances of Bush, as a Republican, have placed his party in a very critical condition."

    An editorial in the October 27 Saudi English-language daily Arab News said, "As the hours tick by to the November 7 midterm election, the Bush administration is wiggling frantically on the butcher's hook." The editorial criticized American actions in Iraq and Mr. Bush for "trying to bolster electoral support for his Republican Party at the ballot box." It added, " Bush went gunning for the Iraqi bad guys who had fooled his pa. He did so in the name of his vengeful war on international terror. He was eagerly supported by an angry America."

    The Kuwaiti daily Al-Seyassah's October 29 "Digest of Public Opinion" discussed the midterm elections, saying that if "extremists such as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and the Republicans at large rule longer, America will likely be transformed into a dictatorship and as such we expect that the situation currently existing in Guantanamo is likely to face the Americans themselves. … Consequently, most political observers are currently expecting the Republicans to incur an overwhelming defeat during the upcoming congressional elections."

    One must ask why so many press outlets and Arab and Iranian leaders that are known to be vehemently anti-American are openly supporting one political party over the other.
     
  2. Nagognog2

    Nagognog2 Iridium Member

    Reputation Points:
    1,936
    Messages:
    7,017
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    This looks like something planted from the neo-con playlist to scare Americans into believing the Democrats are on the side of terrorists. Next up: Rounding up all Arab-Americans and taken zem to ze Kamps! Ya!
     
  3. Nicaine

    Nicaine Titanium Member

    Reputation Points:
    849
    Messages:
    2,355
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2004
    from Rhode Island, U.S.A.
    The whole rotten system is (further) obfuscated by a thick cloud of smoke thrown up by the media. What a noisy racket they put up, which as usual serves to distract people and obscure the real issues.

    Both "liberal democrats" and "conservative republicans" are owned lock, stock and barrel by big business here in the U.S. The Federal Government might as well incorporate and allow the wealthy to buy stock, there's little point to the current pretense. In a fascist state, there's no such thing as less fascistic or more fascistic leadership. The media sure loves their role in creating the illusion of choice, but it's no more than that... an illusion. It's amazing though how some really intelligent people buy into it completely.

    So go out and vote, everyone. Vote democrat, so you can pretend somebody actually still stands for the people / workers of the U.S. If you vote rethuglican, it'll be harder to pretend. They're blatant about who they serve (what have they got to lose?), the democrats are a little bit sneakier about the fact that they're in bed with big oil/pharma and the military-industrial complex. In bed, hell... like the republicans, they're a wholly owned subsidiary.

    There's nobody to support, folks. It's a two-party system with both parties completely sold out to big business interests.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2006
  4. Riconoen {UGC}

    Riconoen {UGC} Newbie

    Reputation Points:
    214
    Messages:
    667
    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2006
    I support no-one. Both parties are corrupt and support paternalistic draconian bullshit. Vote independant or libertarian and take votes away from the fat cats.
     
  5. Bajeda

    Bajeda Super Moderator Platinum Member & Advisor

    Reputation Points:
    4,741
    Messages:
    4,366
    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    from U.S.A.
    I support other parties with more liberal views, such as the Peace and Freedom party in California, but still don't vote for them on important posistions.

    I would like to see politicians more like them, but they don't have a chance of winning really so I'd rather see a transition from the Republicans to the Democrats (lesser of two evils) be realized and then work on getting more support for those lesser known parties.




    As to the article, I found this quote to be hilarious. I love Arabs.

     
  6. AdderallJunkie102

    AdderallJunkie102 Silver Member

    Reputation Points:
    9
    Messages:
    40
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2006
    This article is ridicules, first off why is Steven Stalinsky assuming that because some militant Islamists support Democrats that the Democrats will return the favor or will be weak on terrorism? Second the Arabs and Iranians may want Democrats in office for the same reason that many people myself included vote for Democrats and that is that they want peace or at least no more silly meaningless wars fought in the Middle East. Certainly some Muslims may simply want foreign countries out of their lands and Democrats may lessen our involvement in the Middle East to what might be a more reasonable level, but this is not to say that Democrats will somehow make it easier to bomb America as this article suggests. If anything they will try a lot harder to respect Muslims and not piss them off so much, this too is another reason Muslims may support Democrats.
     
  7. Bajeda

    Bajeda Super Moderator Platinum Member & Advisor

    Reputation Points:
    4,741
    Messages:
    4,366
    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    from U.S.A.
    Hmmm, this whole thing is related to Keith Ellison and fear of Islam permeating into the US government me thinks.

    Christianity, of course, is the only religion allowed in there, with maybe a bit of Judaism thrown in!
     
  8. Nature Boy

    Nature Boy Gold Member

    Reputation Points:
    1,984
    Messages:
    3,931
    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    from ireland
    I'm not surprised the Muslim world are in favour of the Democrats. Nancy Pelosi has taken steps already in moving away from the Iraq conflict and this is what the Muslim world wants. America needs to understand that the war on terrorism, like the war on drugs, can never be won. It can only be subdued and controlled. Therefore, harm reduction i.e. pulling troops out, is the only way forward from here. By clinging onto this conflict people are only allowing the terrorist mindgames to work.
     
  9. Woodman

    Woodman A very strange person. Platinum Member & Advisor

    Reputation Points:
    711
    Messages:
    1,430
    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    116 y/o from U.S.A.
    I'm with you on this one, NB!

    George Bush has had 4 YEARS to straighten out a hell-hole in the desert where groups of petty little people have made conflict a cultural past-time; bickering and fighting amongst themselves, painting murder as a gesture of nobility, while celebrating death.

    He foolishly hamstrung his own forces by making them to adhere to western rules of war, while our enemies face no such restriction.

    Acts of "immoral conduct" by US soldiers are vigorously prosecuted, but when far more barbaric acts are perpetrated against allied forces, the enemy sees the event as a reason for celebration.

    Unfortunately, Bush has been all about trying to appease Liberals (both at home, and abroad) ever since he took office, putting international political interests before any considerations of national security. If he showed half the interest in protecting our southern boarder as he has in forging international trade agreements, there would be no Mexican immigration problem to speak of.

    At a time when decisive leadership was needed, Bush failed, and by lending himself to a disposition of "compromise" in what politicians describe as a "spirit of cooperation", this war was lost before it ever started!