A big call from the author of
I’ll go out on a limb and wager your assessment of his credibility doesn’t mean much to him (nor, hopefully, anybody else).
Partisan sniping aside and without intending to rain on the love-fest, how believable is it that 8 million people would risk their lives to vote in an election featuring anonymous candidates?
What do you mean ‘well done Dubya’? Has it escaped your notice that there wouldn’t be any ‘fundie insurgents’ if dear old Dubya hadn’t invaded their country for no legitimate reason?
If the liberation of Iraq was such a grand and noble goal for the nation, why couldn’t the Bush Administration made that the centerpiece of its war-selling efforts back in 2002-2003, instead of dicking around with bullshit about nonexistent WMDs that were going to be turned on the US of A any minute now?
(It’s also a pity that the government can’t be held accountable to “false advertising” laws, because the whole Iraqi WMD bullstuff is 100% pure false advertising any way you slice it…)
Who did that? The US? Or the terrorists?
Then why couldn’t all Iraqis vote?
Which is it then? No one was in danger, but it was illegitimate because not everybody could vote?
Why do you think it’s valid for Sunnis to threaten other Sunnis with death for simply voting?
On the contrary, on this very board serving american troops have expressed that very sentiment.
Support our troops.
Hope you’ve got room on your couch, my planet tickets are already bought. 
Towards the OP: I don’t know anybody who wants the Iraqi society to disolve into total civil war. I don’t know anybody who wants things to be bad so that Bush can be blamed.
If this works out, wonderful. I think that, however, it remains to be seen how this will all play out. Give it another 12-36 months and we should have a pretty accurate idea of how the Iraqis will hold up.
I do worry, however, that if we manage to turn this sow’s ear into a silk purse the Bush team will claim that they were right all along; right to cherry pick intel, right to fabricate risks of global terrorism, right to run a spendthrift war that ended up with too few troops and too little protection for the people we were supposed to be helping.
Still, here’s hoping.
Planet tickets??? Yeeeesh. Can’t even spell a joke right. ~walks off muttering~
Agreed. My thoughts are something like 5 years to truly know.
I still wholeheartedly believe that this Iraqi election is a very positive milestone.
It disturbs me that certain individuals would denigrate it merely for their hatred of Dubya or their will to be right.
You need to get out of that closet you live in. You’re being asphyxiated by your own farts.
Eleusis: I still wholeheartedly believe that this Iraqi election is a very positive milestone.
It disturbs me that certain individuals would denigrate it merely for their hatred of Dubya or their will to be right.
I agree that we all ought to be happy that the elections worked out as well as they did and hope for progress in the future.
However, I don’t think anyone should dismiss all criticism of them as mere “denigration” attempting to discredit the Administration. There were indeed a number of serious problems with the elections, including:
I find it especially troubling that the Bush Administration is cheerleading so loudly for the election outcome as a sign of success and validation of its own policies—especially since the Administration was originally not even in favor of open elections this soon, and had to be persuaded into them by angry opposition from al-Sistani and his followers, among others.
The Administration is consistently ducking blame for what goes wrong in Iraq, and grabbing credit for what goes right. Consequently, they seem to be trying very hard to turn the elections into a new “closure moment”, like the “Mission Accomplished” banner. I worry that the PR goal here is to convince the American public that we’ve now “brought democracy to Iraq” and so we can stop feeling responsible for what happens there.
(bolding mine)
Without trying to be too argumentative, do have a cite for that? Granted that most of it has been within the last six months to a year, but the loudest I’ve heard from him on the subject is that “The Elections Must Go On As Scheduled”.
It’s been clear (to me at least) from Day 1, that if we ever did invade Iraq, the ultimate goal would be to remove Sadam, build a stable democracy, and then get the hell out. I guess the keyword is stability. If they did want to wait, it was likely a consideration of the anticipated difficulties we saw in the Sunni regions.
Nobody in the Evil Empire wanted to deny Iraqis their Og-given right to vote.
What’s wrong with a “closure moment”? To my eyes, it’s moreso that we’ve brought democracy to Iraq, and now we can focus on helping them build strength and stability as a method of getting ourselves the hell out with a strong democratic ally.
Eleusis: *Without trying to be too argumentative, do have a cite for that? *
Sure. Don’t worry about being “too argumentative”—this is Great Debates, after all!
This article from December 2003 describes the Bush Administration’s original plan for “caucus elections” rather than direct popular voting, and the strong resistance by al-Sistani and others: Al-Sistani’s Call for Democratic Elections
Now, I’m glad that the Administration eventually agreed to the “popular-elections” option and followed through on supporting it, but I don’t think we should forget that if they’d had their way in the first place, the elections would probably have been much less democratic.
Eleusis: *What’s wrong with a “closure moment”? To my eyes, it’s moreso that we’ve brought democracy to Iraq *
Sorry, I really can’t agree that holding one election with anonymous candidates, a lot of voter intimidation, and a highly skewed turnout counts as “bringing democracy to Iraq”. To my mind, that’s exactly the problem with promoting this “closure moment” perspective: it enables us to kid ourselves that merely holding an election somehow equates to establishing democracy. Lots of places that we would not consider successful democracies nonetheless hold popular elections.
This election didn’t “bring democracy to Iraq” any more than the signing of the Declaration of Independence in July 1776 brought independent sovereignty to the United States of America. Let us hope that it will prove an equally successful first step, but let’s definitely not assume that the hard part is necessarily over.
Indeed Tovaritsh !
The situation in Iraq is good, with the recent success it’s double plus good.
Iran has always been the enemy.
Why do you Nay Sayers worry so much? Eh? You know comrade Bush is always right.
Surely you don’t want farmer Saddam back, now do you?
Remember Osama bin Snowball is still out there…
Why do you find it troubling? When something goes right, let’s hear it! That’s only fair, isn’t it? For a campaign with so much bad press, this milestone ought to be lauded and credit be given. But I have no idea who or what you’re referring to - who these cheerleaders are or to whom they’re cheerleading. I’ve seen nothing but tears of happiness and joy, not cheerleading by Bush or anyone else. The tone so far has been a humbled and reflective one.
I hardly think we’ll need to wait that long. I’m thinking we should have a pretty good idea in a year, and quite possibly a lot less than that.
I find the idea disingenious that it will take another 5 years, on top of the 2 we’ve invested already, to find out if we screwed up or not in Iraq. It certainly puts off that “accountability moment” to well beyond when those accountable are in office. As the Church Lady used to say, “How convenient.”
Well, this IS the right forum for arguing about religious beliefs…
You know, I’d love to be wrong. The Iraqi people have been through a lot, both under Saddam and under the U.S. occupation. I was relieved when Uday and Qusay were killed, and delighted when Saddam was captured. (I said so here, so you can look it up.) But I think you’ve got a well-organized, well-armed Sunni insurgency that won’t let go of the idea that Iraq really belongs to them, and it’s a much more effective insurgency than it was even a year ago. They’re thugs and ultra-fundamentalists, and I’m not cheering them on; I think their rule could easily be worse than Saddam’s. But who’s gonna beat these guys? We haven’t been able to.
A couple of questions asked and so far, unanswered, that I think might offer some insight…
First, were there any avowedly anti-American political parties on the ballot? Given that the majority of Iraqis view the Americans as occupiers, one would have to think that at least some significant segment of the Iraqi population would be drawn to such a position. Especially when you consider that there are in excess of 100 political parties on the ballot.
If there are, I’ve not heard it mentioned, and one would think one might. Some talking head or another, saying something like “And, of course, the success or failure of the “Fuck the US Out Now Islamic Party” is being closely watched…yadda blah yadda blah blah…”
The absence of such a party would indicate, to me at least, that the roster has been Sanitized for Your Protection. Unless you want to imagine that our presence has universal approval.
As for friend Wrath being unaware of any cheerleading, he must not have seen Geraldo! the other night (a discretion one can only admire), who positively wet himself heaping praise on The Leader for his wisdom and vision.
Okay, but Geraldo is NOT the Bush admin…
Nor am I sure WHO Geraldo IS… lol
Wrath: When something goes right, let’s hear it! That’s only fair, isn’t it?
Sure, as long as you honestly address the imperfections and problems too. I don’t think it’s fair to call the elections a “resounding success” without pointing out that they were in many respects very different from what most democracies would consider a “successful” election. Voting for candidates whose names you don’t even know in an election where large sections of the population are too scared to vote, and where a non-negligible number of people actually got killed for campaigning or voting, is an extremely imperfect way to select a government.
Wrath: *But I have no idea who or what you’re referring to - who these cheerleaders are or to whom they’re cheerleading. *
Well, I think Bush’s own remarks fall into the category of, as I said, cheerleading for the outcome “as a sign of success and validation of its [the Administration’s] own policies”:
In other words, “congratulations Iraqis, you couldn’t have done it without us, and you can be sure we’ll stick around a while to continue helping you out.” I think that’s really sugarcoating the US invasion and occupation of Iraq; it makes it sound as though we just came over out of the goodness of our hearts, to help them achieve a democracy. We shouldn’t let this revisionism obscure our view of what’s really going on.
I still fail to see how offering congratulatory remarks or even sugar-coating amounts to cheerleading. How would you have Bush say it? What would you have him say?
Something tells me it doesn’t matter what he says or how he says it - those who want the whole enterprise to fail and/or blow up in Bush’s face will always try to spin any real achievement into a failure.
And what is that?
Clinton’s fault. Remember?
But let us not get carried away with partisan bickering. Let us hear for Billy-boy, who got the ball rolling.