Centerfield

I agree that Kerry calling al-Sadr a "legitimate voice" shows some lack of comprehension of the situation. Osama bin Laden also has a substantial constituency, but that doesn't mean we have to cater to him.

And yet, the management of the occupation has been ham-handed. The lack of WMD's was embarrassing, but one could imagine that the Bush people knew exactly what they were doing, and weren't being forthright with the American people.

I can't even imagine a conspiracy theory which would posit that the Administration knows what it's doing now, and is deliberately allowing a revolt. This is just a botch.

I wish Wesley Clark were the Democrat nominee. He's been back on TV as a commentator, and sounds authoritative.

Yeah, I view this as an absolute disgrace on Kerry's part, since objectively the democratic nominee was less informed about Iraq than me or a bunch of other Americans.

Since I have never really liked Bush even though I defend unfair characterizations of the man, I had been willing to give Kerry a chance to come round to recognizing the nature of this moment in our history and respond as a would-be leader should. Instead, his reflex is to act as an apologist since it allows him to criticize the administration. This is in essence the final straw for me. And I realize that his statements are more likely attributable to his being uninformed than to actually supporting the likes of Al Sadr. But it's stilll simply inexcusable in my view. Frankly, it shows his true colors, that his first reflex during a tense time for our nation is to criticize for partisan advantage.

Was that paper used to encourage terrorist activity or crime? I ask, beause I truly do not know. If it was than Brenner made the right decision.

On it's face though, I have no problem with Kerry's statement... Print newspapers should not be shut down based on the content of their writings unless that content is explicit encouragement of criminal activity. I have a serious problem with basing someone's legitimacy on whether or not you agree with them. But I guess I believe Iraq should be made into a true Democracy and not a fake one.

Al-sadr should be put in a prison with no outside contact for the rest of his life because of the crimes he has commited as a terrorist, but shutting down his paper? I really would like to better understand the reason behind this action because I don't see what we are accomplishing.

Furthermore, attempts to control the thoughts of the Iraqi people will only be met with more resistance and violent action. The less we try to control how they think the more they will choose freedom and democracy on their own.

This issue kind of brings me back to the Daily Kostroversy. On the one hand I think Kos is a cerifiable moron, on the other I have serious arguments with those people who respond to his statements with anger and act like he had no right to say what was on his mind. It would be a wiser and more logical approach to respond to his statements with sound arguments, rather than call him names, which is what many in the blogosphere resorted to.

This issue exemplifies one of my major problems with Kerry also... I have serious doubts that his comments where made for any other reason, but to disagree with the actions of the Bush administration. He at times stands on the right side of the issue, but for all of the wrong reasons (politics) which is why there are serious questions about his political courage.

Matthew,

I was amazed when I googled how many articles didn't mention why the paper was shutdown. This is the only one I could dig up (albeit my 5 minute attention span may have been a factor). It's from PBS news hour:

The letter ordering the paper's closure, signed by Bremer, charged the newspaper of having "published articles that prove an intention to disturb general security and incite violence against the coalition and its employees."

The letter cited what coalition officials described as false reports, including a Feb. 26 article that said a rocket "fired by an (American) Apache helicopter" was responsible for the deaths of 53 Iraqi police recruits, and not a car bomb, as occupation officials had said. In the same edition, the letter noted, a headline to a different article critical of the U.S. occupation in Iraq read: "Bremer follows in the footsteps of Saddam."

If the paper encouraged violence or was a tool for anti-American forces to organize attacks against the regime, than Bremer is in the right. I have no problems with the "intention to disturb security" statement, whatever the hell that means, or the statement that "Bremer follows in the footsteps of Saddam." I think the opinion that Bremer is a dicator, although I mostly disagree with it, is a legitimite argument. Overall, I hope we do not believe that the way to make Iraq a safe place is to control the thoughts of it's people, because first of all, that is not possible, and second of all, it is just plain wrong.

Well, like you guys I'm operating from 2nd and 3rtd hand accounts, but my sense ius that we've acted with as much forbearance as possible regarding free speech precisely because we wish to foster the idea among the Iraqi people that they have free speech and should aprticipate in the dialogue of where their country should head.

And it looks like so far we've done that. And now we have to draw the line...no lies, no inciting violence. So that makes sense, I just can;t say with a hold lot of reliability how accurate it is. I do know that based on what I see on the news, at least some Iraqis don't seem to have much fear about saying nasty things about the US to reporters.

Of course, these people could just be the STUPID bigmouth anti-americans who'll get picked up after the peacekeepers watch the news. I dunno.