A song by Devo came to mind entitled "Big Mess". Anyone know it? Here are the lyrics:
i am cowboy kim
cowboy kim i am
i am a lucky cowboy
let me tell you why
i'm a man with a mission
a boy with a gun
i got a picture in my pocket of the lucky one
i'll announce the winner
on the radio
with my microphone
i do a super show
i wear a cowboy hat
it is my business hat
i'm on till 1:00 a.m.
i must tell you that
i'm a man with a mission
a boy with a gun
i got a picture in my pocket of the lucky one
who doesn't know i'm a big mess
i mean a really big mess
a big big mess he was all mixed up and a
big mess he was a
big mess he was a
he was really mixed up
cowboy kim i am
mr. reality
the most important thing
i put away my toys
with my microphone
i do a super show
i'll announce the winner
on the radio
i am cowboy kim
cowboy kim i am
i am a lucky cowboy
let me tell you why
i'm a man with a mission
a boy with a gun
i got a picture in my pocket of the lucky one
i'll announce the winner
on the radio
with my microphone
i do a super show
i wear a cowboy hat
it is my business hat
i'm on till 1:00 a.m.
i must tell you that
i'm a man with a mission
a boy with a gun
i got a picture in my pocket of the lucky one
who doesn't know i'm a big mess
i mean a really big mess
a big big mess he was all mixed up and a
big mess he was a
big mess he was a
he was really mixed up
cowboy kim i am
mr. reality
the most important thing
i put away my toys
with my microphone
i do a super show
i'll announce the winner
on the radio
IRAQ SELF-RULE TIMETABLE
30 June: Handover from Coalition Provisional Authority to interim government
End of Jan 2005: Elections to National Assembly
Autumn 2005: New constitution voted on in referendum
December 2005: Full elections for new government
January 2006: Directly elected government takes office
I assume that the US military will be there throughout the process.
30 June: Handover from Coalition Provisional Authority to interim government
End of Jan 2005: Elections to National Assembly
Autumn 2005: New constitution voted on in referendum
December 2005: Full elections for new government
January 2006: Directly elected government takes office
I assume that the US military will be there throughout the process.
You guys are just pissed it wasn't Bill Clinton.
Thats the problem with you lefties...good news is not really good news (see economy)
The only thing that makes you happy and feel somewhat righteous is body bags from Iraq,your pretty fxcking discusting.
X...you are right the INC picked before the UN could put their stink on it, but I am sure if their against it..I'm for it.
Anything this new guy does that apears to favor USA...the left will be all over it saying that he is a puppet...I don't care what he is give them their country and they can shit for themselves for now on along with France,Germany and the rest of the criminal UN pygamies.
[This message was edited by Patriot on May 30, 2004 at 02:34 AM.]
Thats the problem with you lefties...good news is not really good news (see economy)
The only thing that makes you happy and feel somewhat righteous is body bags from Iraq,your pretty fxcking discusting.
X...you are right the INC picked before the UN could put their stink on it, but I am sure if their against it..I'm for it.
Anything this new guy does that apears to favor USA...the left will be all over it saying that he is a puppet...I don't care what he is give them their country and they can shit for themselves for now on along with France,Germany and the rest of the criminal UN pygamies.
[This message was edited by Patriot on May 30, 2004 at 02:34 AM.]
President Bush said yesterday that he would transfer "complete and full sovereignty" to an interim Iraqi government in barely a month. But nothing even close to that is likely to happen. Recent developments suggest that this "sovereignty" will have little substance and that the president still has no coherent plan to create the security and political trust required to negotiate a constitution and hold fair elections. The sovereignty timetable remains driven by the American electoral calendar and growing Iraqi impatience with an incompetent and deeply unpopular occupation.
That unpopularity also taints the American-appointed Governing Council, which makes the council's announcement yesterday of the selection of Iyad Alawi, one of its most prominent members, as interim prime minister disheartening. The choice of Mr. Alawi, a Shiite exile with close ties to former Baathist generals and to the Central Intelligence Agency, hardly signals a fresh start. The manner of his designation raises questions about the authority of the United Nations' special representative, Lakhdar Brahimi. Paul Bremer III, Washington's proconsul, didn't even give Mr. Brahimi time to announce his support for Mr. Alawi before striding into the council's meeting to offer congratulations.
Mr. Alawi and the other appointees — who are expected to be named shortly — will have to overcome serious obstacles to establish legitimacy in the eyes of Iraq's people. These include the interim government's lack of an electoral mandate and its dependence on a huge, American-dominated military force, over which it will have little authority.
Because Washington left this issue largely out of the draft resolution now before the Security Council, one of the first acts of the interim government will have to be a one-sided negotiation over American forces that is unlikely to enhance its stature. Under current plans, the new government would have no authority to stop American forces from attacking any Iraqi target. It would have a theoretical right to request a full American withdrawal, which would leave it virtually defenseless.
The United States is handing the interim government a deteriorating military situation. American commanders, desperate to avoid clashes heading into the June 30 transfer, have granted dangerous concessions to Sunni and Shiite insurgents, greatly strengthening the hand of sectarian militias answerable neither to Baghdad nor to Washington.
The latest deal, reached on Thursday in Najaf, handed a partial victory to an anti-American Shiite firebrand, Moktada al-Sadr. The arrest order against him has been "suspended," and he has been allowed to keep his Mahdi Army intact. In return, Mr. Sadr agreed to pull his fighters off the streets of Najaf, and most American soldiers will leave Najaf as well. Mr. Sadr offered a similar deal in mid-April, but Washington turned him down. In the ensuing weeks, relations with Iraq's Shiite majority grew increasingly — and, it now appears, unnecessarily — strained as American fire pressed ever closer to Najaf's sacred sites.
The climb-down in Najaf seems like a repeat of the cynical deal American commanders cut four weeks ago with Sunni rebels in Falluja, effectively turning the city over to former Baathist commanders acceptable to the insurgents. If America's military role is now reduced to partnering with the best-armed insurgents, it is doing nothing to make Iraq more governable by its future elected leaders.
The only comfort to be drawn from the problematic nature of the June 30 transfer of sovereignty is that it at least points in the right direction, toward the eventual end of a mismanaged occupation whose costs mount with every passing day.
NY Times Oped
That unpopularity also taints the American-appointed Governing Council, which makes the council's announcement yesterday of the selection of Iyad Alawi, one of its most prominent members, as interim prime minister disheartening. The choice of Mr. Alawi, a Shiite exile with close ties to former Baathist generals and to the Central Intelligence Agency, hardly signals a fresh start. The manner of his designation raises questions about the authority of the United Nations' special representative, Lakhdar Brahimi. Paul Bremer III, Washington's proconsul, didn't even give Mr. Brahimi time to announce his support for Mr. Alawi before striding into the council's meeting to offer congratulations.
Mr. Alawi and the other appointees — who are expected to be named shortly — will have to overcome serious obstacles to establish legitimacy in the eyes of Iraq's people. These include the interim government's lack of an electoral mandate and its dependence on a huge, American-dominated military force, over which it will have little authority.
Because Washington left this issue largely out of the draft resolution now before the Security Council, one of the first acts of the interim government will have to be a one-sided negotiation over American forces that is unlikely to enhance its stature. Under current plans, the new government would have no authority to stop American forces from attacking any Iraqi target. It would have a theoretical right to request a full American withdrawal, which would leave it virtually defenseless.
The United States is handing the interim government a deteriorating military situation. American commanders, desperate to avoid clashes heading into the June 30 transfer, have granted dangerous concessions to Sunni and Shiite insurgents, greatly strengthening the hand of sectarian militias answerable neither to Baghdad nor to Washington.
The latest deal, reached on Thursday in Najaf, handed a partial victory to an anti-American Shiite firebrand, Moktada al-Sadr. The arrest order against him has been "suspended," and he has been allowed to keep his Mahdi Army intact. In return, Mr. Sadr agreed to pull his fighters off the streets of Najaf, and most American soldiers will leave Najaf as well. Mr. Sadr offered a similar deal in mid-April, but Washington turned him down. In the ensuing weeks, relations with Iraq's Shiite majority grew increasingly — and, it now appears, unnecessarily — strained as American fire pressed ever closer to Najaf's sacred sites.
The climb-down in Najaf seems like a repeat of the cynical deal American commanders cut four weeks ago with Sunni rebels in Falluja, effectively turning the city over to former Baathist commanders acceptable to the insurgents. If America's military role is now reduced to partnering with the best-armed insurgents, it is doing nothing to make Iraq more governable by its future elected leaders.
The only comfort to be drawn from the problematic nature of the June 30 transfer of sovereignty is that it at least points in the right direction, toward the eventual end of a mismanaged occupation whose costs mount with every passing day.
NY Times Oped
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The only comfort to be drawn from the problematic nature of the June 30 transfer of sovereignty is that it at least points in the right direction, toward the eventual end of a mismanaged occupation whose costs mount with every passing day.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed
