Full Version: Bush and Allawi
Although yehoshua has started an excellent thread about John Kerry and Iraqi Prime minister Ayad Allawi, I want to approach the subject from the angle of Bush and Allawi.
Positions by two Minnesota Congressmen, Senator Mark Dayton (Dem.) and Rep. Norm Coleman (Rep.) pretty much draw the lines in the sand.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4995560.html
Link may require registration.
There is precedent for foreign leaders, even wartime leaders, appearing before a joint sessions of Congress. Winston Churchill made three such appearances. The first was pre-WWII on December 26, 1941. The second was during the war on May 19, 1943 and the third nearly a decade later on January 17, 1952 at the end of Truman’s administration.
Korean leader Syngman Ree made a joint appearance during the Korean Conflict on July 28, 1954. Although Ngo Dinh Diem made an appearance in on May 9, 1957, no Vietnamese leader addressed Congress in the more than a decade we were involved in combat operations in that theater.
The PDF link below list all appearances by foreign dignitaries before a joint session of Congress on pages 4-8.
http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Special_Ex...ointMeeting.pdf
The year 2004 has been interesting. Three foreign leaders have addressed joint sessions of Congress.
1. President Jose Maria Aznar of Spain on February 4, 2004. (Member of the "Coalition of the Willing.")
2. President Hamid Karzi, Transitional Government of Afghanistan on June 15, 2004. (a counrty where U. S. military operations are ongoing)
3. Interim Prim Minister Ayad Allawi, Republic of Iraq, on September 23, 2004. (another theater of operations for the U. S. military)
These are not the first U. S. allies to address a joint session of Congress, but guess what? From the information in the PDF link, such addresses in an election year are firsts and it’s happened not once--not just with Allawi-but three times.
Questions for debate:
1. Should a foreign leader, like Allawi, speak before a joint session of Congress in an election year, especially this close to the election?
Preface to question 2: One of the difficulties in any presidential campaign involving an incumbent is that it’s often hard to know when he’s being presidential and when he’s being a presidential candidate.
2. Do you think Allawi’s visit to the U. S. and appearance before Congress had more to do with Bush the President or Bush the candidate for president?
Positions by two Minnesota Congressmen, Senator Mark Dayton (Dem.) and Rep. Norm Coleman (Rep.) pretty much draw the lines in the sand.
QUOTE
[Senator Mark] Dayton [D-Minn] described the speech as ‘a production’ staged by the Bush administration and said that Allawi 'ought to be over there running his country.' Dayton made the remarks in a conference call with reporters Wednesday.
QUOTE
‘Even if one disagrees with American policy in Iraq, Prime Minister Allawi deserves to be accorded the respect of our attendance at his historic appearance before both houses of Congress,’ Coleman said.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4995560.html
Link may require registration.
There is precedent for foreign leaders, even wartime leaders, appearing before a joint sessions of Congress. Winston Churchill made three such appearances. The first was pre-WWII on December 26, 1941. The second was during the war on May 19, 1943 and the third nearly a decade later on January 17, 1952 at the end of Truman’s administration.
Korean leader Syngman Ree made a joint appearance during the Korean Conflict on July 28, 1954. Although Ngo Dinh Diem made an appearance in on May 9, 1957, no Vietnamese leader addressed Congress in the more than a decade we were involved in combat operations in that theater.
The PDF link below list all appearances by foreign dignitaries before a joint session of Congress on pages 4-8.
http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Special_Ex...ointMeeting.pdf
The year 2004 has been interesting. Three foreign leaders have addressed joint sessions of Congress.
1. President Jose Maria Aznar of Spain on February 4, 2004. (Member of the "Coalition of the Willing.")
2. President Hamid Karzi, Transitional Government of Afghanistan on June 15, 2004. (a counrty where U. S. military operations are ongoing)
3. Interim Prim Minister Ayad Allawi, Republic of Iraq, on September 23, 2004. (another theater of operations for the U. S. military)
These are not the first U. S. allies to address a joint session of Congress, but guess what? From the information in the PDF link, such addresses in an election year are firsts and it’s happened not once--not just with Allawi-but three times.
Questions for debate:
1. Should a foreign leader, like Allawi, speak before a joint session of Congress in an election year, especially this close to the election?
Preface to question 2: One of the difficulties in any presidential campaign involving an incumbent is that it’s often hard to know when he’s being presidential and when he’s being a presidential candidate.
2. Do you think Allawi’s visit to the U. S. and appearance before Congress had more to do with Bush the President or Bush the candidate for president?
1. Should a foreign leader, like Allawi, speak before a joint session of Congress in an election year, especially this close to the election?
I think it is appropriate for two reasons:
One, Allawi was thanking the US for helping his country. I believe it is important to know that when we went into Iraq, we freed millions of Iraqis. The phrase "millions of Iraqis" means nothing, of course, but Allawi's visit put a face to that phrase.
Second, Allawi has a first hand knowledge of what is going on over there. Although he is personally the target of assassination, he remains optimistic about the future of his country. He wants to ensure that the US continues to help his country in this difficult time period.
2. Do you think Allawi’s visit to the U. S. and appearance before Congress had more to do with Bush the President or Bush the candidate for president?
I am sure it had something to do with the campaign, but not necessarily something bad. Bush must demonstrate to the American people that it was worth it to go into Iraq. One way to do this is by showing how things have changed. He can only get so far by saying these things himself. Having Allawi there to reinforce his story lends credibility.
So this certainly has to do with the campaign, but then doesn't everything have to do with the campaign? Every piece of good news or bad news is a part of the campaign, because the campaign is largely a referendum on Bush's job to date.
I think it is appropriate for two reasons:
One, Allawi was thanking the US for helping his country. I believe it is important to know that when we went into Iraq, we freed millions of Iraqis. The phrase "millions of Iraqis" means nothing, of course, but Allawi's visit put a face to that phrase.
Second, Allawi has a first hand knowledge of what is going on over there. Although he is personally the target of assassination, he remains optimistic about the future of his country. He wants to ensure that the US continues to help his country in this difficult time period.
2. Do you think Allawi’s visit to the U. S. and appearance before Congress had more to do with Bush the President or Bush the candidate for president?
I am sure it had something to do with the campaign, but not necessarily something bad. Bush must demonstrate to the American people that it was worth it to go into Iraq. One way to do this is by showing how things have changed. He can only get so far by saying these things himself. Having Allawi there to reinforce his story lends credibility.
So this certainly has to do with the campaign, but then doesn't everything have to do with the campaign? Every piece of good news or bad news is a part of the campaign, because the campaign is largely a referendum on Bush's job to date.
QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 27 2004, 04:25 AM)
2. Do you think Allawi’s visit to the U. S. and appearance before Congress had more to do with Bush the President or Bush the candidate for president?
I am absolutely CERTAIN that Allawi's appearance had a lot to do with Bush's re-election campaign. I also don't find it appropriate, but for different reasons: there're a lot of rumors circulating around about Allawi's methods regarding opposition to his regime, such as this one:
QUOTE
NEW YORK, July 18 /PRNewswire/ -- Since Ayad Allawi became prime minister of Iraq's interim government last month, stories circulating on the streets of Baghdad include reports that he ordered two suspected insurgents shot in front of him, shot seven captive terrorists himself and personally chopped off the hand of a suspect with an ax, report Correspondent Babak Dehghanpisheh and Middle East Regional Editor Christopher Dickey in the July 26 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, July 19).
U.S. officials in Washington tell Newsweek they've heard the amputation story but have no details. White House officials dismiss it as "urban legend." The Australian newspaper The Age reported last week that two anonymous witnesses saw Allawi shoot seven suspected insurgents as his American bodyguards looked on. Asked by Newsweek if he had killed anyone since taking office, Allawi chuckled and said, "This is a big lie, this is not true, I deny it categorically, No. 1. No. 2, we will spare no effort to secure our people."
U.S. officials in Washington tell Newsweek they've heard the amputation story but have no details. White House officials dismiss it as "urban legend." The Australian newspaper The Age reported last week that two anonymous witnesses saw Allawi shoot seven suspected insurgents as his American bodyguards looked on. Asked by Newsweek if he had killed anyone since taking office, Allawi chuckled and said, "This is a big lie, this is not true, I deny it categorically, No. 1. No. 2, we will spare no effort to secure our people."
1. Should a foreign leader, like Allawi, speak before a joint session of Congress in an election year, especially this close to the election?
Yes. What harm does it do? The foreign leader is doing nothing more then addressing the American people to present his side the world, and his country. Nothing in this has anything to do with the election. Did Allawi's speech to Congress change the minds of Americans as to which way they would vote? I would be hard press to believe that.
2. Do you think Allawi’s visit to the U. S. and appearance before Congress had more to do with Bush the President or Bush the candidate for president?
Neither. Allawi's speech had to do more with a report to the state of his country. He mentions both negative and positives aspects, though spent more time on the positive.
The only way to tie his presidency is to tie the fact that it was under Bush that Iraq was freed and that Allwai was given the opportunity to speak before the house. This is only troublesome if and only if Allawi's speech persuade the American people that things in Iraq are not as Kerry makes them sound.
I believe that those loyal to Bush are still loyal.
I believe that those loyal to Kerry are still loyal.
I believe THURSDAY is the deciding day.
Yes. What harm does it do? The foreign leader is doing nothing more then addressing the American people to present his side the world, and his country. Nothing in this has anything to do with the election. Did Allawi's speech to Congress change the minds of Americans as to which way they would vote? I would be hard press to believe that.
2. Do you think Allawi’s visit to the U. S. and appearance before Congress had more to do with Bush the President or Bush the candidate for president?
Neither. Allawi's speech had to do more with a report to the state of his country. He mentions both negative and positives aspects, though spent more time on the positive.
The only way to tie his presidency is to tie the fact that it was under Bush that Iraq was freed and that Allwai was given the opportunity to speak before the house. This is only troublesome if and only if Allawi's speech persuade the American people that things in Iraq are not as Kerry makes them sound.
I believe that those loyal to Bush are still loyal.
I believe that those loyal to Kerry are still loyal.
I believe THURSDAY is the deciding day.
2. Do you think Allawi’s visit to the U. S. and appearance before Congress had more to do with Bush the President or Bush the candidate for president?
An article in The Washington Post, picked up by Diane Feinstein alleges that the White House wrote at least part of Ayad Allawi’s speech to the joint session of Congress.
If true, the visit, speech and rose garden appearance did in fact have more to do with Bush’s campaign for reelection than Bush the president.
<snip>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...=1521&ncid=1480
Personally, I would put nothing past Karl Rove and company. The real issue may not be Kerry vs. Allawi but Kerry vs. Bush, Rove, Senor and Allawi.
An article in The Washington Post, picked up by Diane Feinstein alleges that the White House wrote at least part of Ayad Allawi’s speech to the joint session of Congress.
If true, the visit, speech and rose garden appearance did in fact have more to do with Bush’s campaign for reelection than Bush the president.
QUOTE
WASHINGTON (AFP) - In a letter to the White House, a leading US Senate Democrat expressed "profound dismay" that the White House allegedly wrote a large portion of Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's speech to Congress last week.
"I want to express my profound dismay about reports that officials from your administration and your reelection campaign were 'heavily involved' in writing parts of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's speech," California Senator Dianne Feinstein wrote in a letter to President George W. Bush.
"I want to express my profound dismay about reports that officials from your administration and your reelection campaign were 'heavily involved' in writing parts of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's speech," California Senator Dianne Feinstein wrote in a letter to President George W. Bush.
<snip>
QUOTE
‘To learn that this was not an independent view, but one that was massaged by your campaign operatives, jaundices the speech and reduces the credibility of his remarks," Feinstein wrote.
Her letter was a response to an article appearing in Thursday's Washington Post, which also alleged that Allawi was coached by US officials -- including Dan Senor, former spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq-- in perfecting his delivery of the speech delivered before a joint session of Congress one week ago.
Her letter was a response to an article appearing in Thursday's Washington Post, which also alleged that Allawi was coached by US officials -- including Dan Senor, former spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq-- in perfecting his delivery of the speech delivered before a joint session of Congress one week ago.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...=1521&ncid=1480
Personally, I would put nothing past Karl Rove and company. The real issue may not be Kerry vs. Allawi but Kerry vs. Bush, Rove, Senor and Allawi.
1. Should a foreign leader, like Allawi, speak before a joint session of Congress in an election year, especially this close to the election?
I think that would depend totally on the situation. A foreign leader seeking help should not be turned away. On the other hand, one seeking to affect the outcome of the election would be pretty easy to spot. This one was doing that but only for his own selfish reasons. Helping Bush helps him retain power.
2. Do you think Allawi’s visit to the U. S. and appearance before Congress had more to do with Bush the President or Bush the candidate for president?
No doubt it was a political move to shore up the sagging truth of the real conditions of Iraq. Along with the debate, came the newest offensives in Iraq. I doubt those moves were coincidental.
I also noticed that both Bush and Allawi mention two DIFFERENT numbers for trained Iraqi police with Bush saying 100,000 and Allawi saying in his speech, AFTER Bush quoted his number, that Iraq had 50,000 trained to date. I actually SAW a feed of the live speech and they did quote the conflicting numbers.
(Allawi Bio = http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922025.html )
I think that would depend totally on the situation. A foreign leader seeking help should not be turned away. On the other hand, one seeking to affect the outcome of the election would be pretty easy to spot. This one was doing that but only for his own selfish reasons. Helping Bush helps him retain power.
2. Do you think Allawi’s visit to the U. S. and appearance before Congress had more to do with Bush the President or Bush the candidate for president?
No doubt it was a political move to shore up the sagging truth of the real conditions of Iraq. Along with the debate, came the newest offensives in Iraq. I doubt those moves were coincidental.
I also noticed that both Bush and Allawi mention two DIFFERENT numbers for trained Iraqi police with Bush saying 100,000 and Allawi saying in his speech, AFTER Bush quoted his number, that Iraq had 50,000 trained to date. I actually SAW a feed of the live speech and they did quote the conflicting numbers.
(Allawi Bio = http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922025.html )
I have some clarification questions:
Has a foreign dignitary ever spoken to Congress and been openly critical of or hostile to an incumbent President?
Does Congress extend invitations to foreign dignitaries to address them, or does the President, or both?
If there have been critical addresses, and if Allawi was invited by the President and Congress agreed (as opposed to extending the invitation themselves without reference to the White House) , then I think perhaps the recent run of complimentary dignitaries may indeed be electioneering.
If, on the other hand, nobody has ever been impolite enough to say uncomplimentary things about an incumbent, even when invited to speak by a hostile Congress (let's assume I mean one where the President is one party, and one or both parts of Congress are held by the other), then I don't see anything underhand going on here.
Has a foreign dignitary ever spoken to Congress and been openly critical of or hostile to an incumbent President?
Does Congress extend invitations to foreign dignitaries to address them, or does the President, or both?
If there have been critical addresses, and if Allawi was invited by the President and Congress agreed (as opposed to extending the invitation themselves without reference to the White House) , then I think perhaps the recent run of complimentary dignitaries may indeed be electioneering.
If, on the other hand, nobody has ever been impolite enough to say uncomplimentary things about an incumbent, even when invited to speak by a hostile Congress (let's assume I mean one where the President is one party, and one or both parts of Congress are held by the other), then I don't see anything underhand going on here.
QUOTE(Julian @ Oct 4 2004, 05:35 AM)
I have some clarification questions:
Has a foreign dignitary ever spoken to Congress and been openly critical of or hostile to an incumbent President?
Does Congress extend invitations to foreign dignitaries to address them, or does the President, or both?
If there have been critical addresses, and if Allawi was invited by the President and Congress agreed (as opposed to extending the invitation themselves without reference to the White House) , then I think perhaps the recent run of complimentary dignitaries may indeed be electioneering.
If, on the other hand, nobody has ever been impolite enough to say uncomplimentary things about an incumbent, even when invited to speak by a hostile Congress (let's assume I mean one where the President is one party, and one or both parts of Congress are held by the other), then I don't see anything underhand going on here.
Has a foreign dignitary ever spoken to Congress and been openly critical of or hostile to an incumbent President?
Does Congress extend invitations to foreign dignitaries to address them, or does the President, or both?
If there have been critical addresses, and if Allawi was invited by the President and Congress agreed (as opposed to extending the invitation themselves without reference to the White House) , then I think perhaps the recent run of complimentary dignitaries may indeed be electioneering.
If, on the other hand, nobody has ever been impolite enough to say uncomplimentary things about an incumbent, even when invited to speak by a hostile Congress (let's assume I mean one where the President is one party, and one or both parts of Congress are held by the other), then I don't see anything underhand going on here.
Would you try that again? That made no sense from a logical point of view.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.