Wrath:I still fail to see how offering congratulatory remarks or even sugar-coating amounts to cheerleading.
Sorry, I can’t figure out what’s bothering you about the term “cheerleading”. I explained my reaction as well as I could.
NI: *Clinton’s fault. *
Nope. It was simply that if the Bush Administration hadn’t sold us the WMD line, it would not have been able to drum up adequate support for invading Iraq:
Bush hyped the WMD threat because he wanted to convince the voters to support the invasion. Fidelity to Clinton policies (and since when has Bush felt obliged to be faithful to Clinton policies, anyway?) had nothing to do with it.
Whatever this election was, it was not democracy. How can it be called a ‘free’ election, either, when the invading power had a veto over who could stand for election and who could vote? When the USA’s own rules don’t apply to Allawi and Chalabi - both former criminals. http://electroniciraq.net/news/1836.shtml
See above website, especially
Can you really call this a ‘democratic election’???
Intellectual honesty is a rigorous standard, friend Zombie, so I have to retain a bit of suspicion about your cite site. Not that I’m not inclined to agree, I most assuredly am, but for the same reasons cited above: I can’t readily believe any source of information, because everybody has an agenda. This is not a criticism, merely a caveat.
However, that said, if they are telling the truth…then its far worse than I imagined. For instance, they claim to answer my question about a “sanitized” list of parties participating. They say “Yep, sure was.” I don’t doubt it, but I’d like to some corroboration from other sources.
Also brings to mind another lurking suspicion: that the reason there are so many parties involved is to present a false image of openness. This thesis could be entirely blown apart by proof that decidedly anti-US parties did participate, but I ain’t holding my breath.
Thanks for the cite, anyway, I’ll keep an eye on them.
This is easier to dismiss… New “democracies” tend to have way too many parties… since there hasn’t been time for wider political unions. Specific interests, groups and cities end up making their own parties instead of joining a similar one.
Our first elections in Brazil there were like 23 + presidential candidates and many more parties. Other countries I’ve observed have this multitude of parties and chaotic political dispersal.
New Iskander, that was a pretty pathetic attempt at “evidence”: a Google search revealing a whole 16 (!) hits on “Bush follows Clinton”.
Since a Google search of “Bush reverses Clinton”, on the other hand, produces a whole 27 hits, by your line of “reasoning”, my “evidence” is obviously much stronger than yours.
Boy, what a crushing rejoinder, Manny. Poor Zombie with his cites and evidence, rolled over by two whole quotes! From actual Iraqis who agree with you! You really smeared him good, a veritable rhetorical juggernaut!
I only regret that, in your haste to defend the Shining One, you neglected to provide any actual substance, or any basis beyond the personal testimonial of two! whole! Iraqis! for your assertions.
Did you actually read any of Zombie’s cite, as above? Can you actually refute any of it? Or would you prefer to double the weight of your argument by adding two! whole! more!!! Iraqis?
Well, I was trying to be nice and circumspect, but it doesn’t play with lefties. So, here is a full list. 88 matches, read’em and weep. (your cite has 40 matches, not 27, btw)
Now, let’s consider the substance.
Per my list, “Bush follows Clinton” on…
“war in the Middle East”
"social policy on gays "
“Environment”
“Drug war”
“Land For Peace” (Palestine conflict)
Per your list, “Bush reverses Clinton” on…
“Environment”
“FEDERAL AID FOR ABORTION COUNSELLING OVERSEAS”
“basic rights to Medicaid patients”
“Environments” cancel, the final score is 88-40, subscore is 4-2, game over.
New Iskander, you’re just being silly here. At least, I hope you’re just being silly, and don’t seriously believe that comparing lists of a few dozen Google matches actually says anything significant about a President’s deliberate policy choices.
Your instincts were better the first time, when you expressed skepticism about the “cite.” Electroniciraq is a joint venture between longtime pro-terror propagandists Electronic Intifada and Voices in the Wilderness, a “peace” group that’s been kissing Saddam Hussein’s butt for almost a decade, even going so far as providing human shields (free! No compensation from Saddam required!) prior to the liberation.
And no. I’m not the tiniest bit interested in what those scum-sucking terrorist-lovers have to say about anything, even for purposes of refutation.
Of course, someone who didn’t have as much respect as I for your relentless intellectual honesty might find that a wee bit convenient. But if you say they are “pro-terrorist”, well, how can we have any doubt? But, just out of curiosity, in what specific ways are they “pro-terrorist”, other than earning a snide set of quotation marks around “peace”. To be frank, your political leanings are on unabashed display, as are my own. Providing human shields to prevent war may well be naive, even silly, but I hardly see how that qualifies as being “pro-terrorist”.
As to the assertions outlined by friend Zombie’s cite, I am very interested in any light that can be shed on them. If they are mostly true, the election was a farce, if only half are true, the election was a deeply flawed excercise in futility.
For a specific, can anyone point to the existence of and inclusion of a political party that can be clearly identified as being opposed to US policy in Iraq? If none such exists, wouldn’t that cast grave doubt on the validity of the proceedings? And that site is not the only place, IIRC, where I have seen references to the Allawi admin dampening criticism.
Simply screaming “Liar!” is not a refutation, Manny, it is more suggestive of weakness than strength.
Well, I care about getting the Straight Dope even if manny would rather just sling insults, so I can undertake to refute at least one of Zombies’ points:
While it was indeed expected, prior to the election, that elections might not even be held in at least four of the six most strife-filled governorates which do in fact contain about 50% of the Iraqi population—AFAICT, polling places were set up in all 18 of them. Estimated turnouts for 16 were broadcast two hours before poll closings—
Tell ya what. If a credible media organization reports on this, we’ll check it out. While it’s still from the Mouth of Saddam, you feel free – it won’t surprise me a teensy bit. I ain’t giving them a click any more than I would to a Holocaust denial site’s.
