I wonder how this is going to be played - will the press do the usual and accept the proclamations from Bush & Co. like the lapdogs they are, ie. “freedom is on the march” or will they note the obvious - that Iraq is such a steaming mess that they have to shut down the entire country to have a vote, that every day car bombers kill Americans and Iraqis and that terrorists can pick off Americans without having to do the pesky thing and cross the Atlantic?
I’m not holding my breath for the press to be real, for a change.
UPDATE: According to Jeff Goldstein, none of this is happening. The facts, it seems, have a decidedly anti-Republican bias.
Will they use purple again to mark voters, or does the constitution vote require a different color code?
On Monday, the GOP congress members can show up for work with their fingers inked too. That could give Bush a big bounce in the polls.
Let me say that although I have rejected the entire premise of the wrong-headed misadventure of Iraq; I’ve got my fingers crossed.
Jadegold: ZING! Good one
Some GOP administration may have have their fingers inked soon for an entirely different reason.
Of course, any media report that doesn’t paint Iraq as a peaceful, garden spot is going to enrage chickenhawks like Jeffy.
Always the optimist, eh Oliver?
(will you delete this comment?) Man, I’ve never had to deal with such oppressive censorship!
Never tried to argue that John Kerry was *not* a traitor on littlegreenfootballs, did you wendeler?
stwendeler: if Oliver was really practising censorship, there would be a lot of other obnoxious right-wingers on this site who would be booted long before you.
In any case, Oliver’s site, Oliver’s rules. Since you have your own blog, there’s nothing stopping you from posting your opinions over there. Your site. Your rules.
Back on topic: even if the vote goes swimmingly, it proves nothing unless the militants of all stripes lay down arms the next day and agree to follow the new constitution. Otherwise it is just another excuse in corner-turning (have we turned enough corners to be back where we started yet?).
Actually, my post that got deleted was the same wording… Anyway, a vote on a constitution in Iraq is a big step. for you to argue otherwise is ridiculous.
With regard to the “insurgents” (i refer to them as terrorists) laying down their arms after Saturday, you & I both know that that is unlikely. Anyone willing to blow up women & children intentionally isn’t likely to sign up to the political process under a democracy. Regardless of what happens in Iraq, it will always be billed as the Misadventures of Chimpy McBushitler, right?
When will the left turn back to its liberal roots? (Classical Liberalism that is, not the statist pap that you current promote…)
Regards,
St Wendeler
“With regard to the insurgents (i refer to them as terrorists) laying down their arms after Saturday, you & I both know that that is unlikely. Anyone willing to blow up women & children intentionally isn t likely to sign up to the political process under a democracy.”
They used to say the same about the IRA. Things change. And until they do, pompous shows of “democracy” won’t achieve anything.
“Regardless of what happens in Iraq, it will always be billed as the Misadventures of Chimpy McBushitler, right?”
Quite possibly. Because it’s the truth you moron. No one can state with a straight face that Iraq is better off than it was before 2002. Bush did that. It wasn’t us on the Left. History will judge him on his *actions*, not his empty words.
“When will the left turn back to its liberal roots? (Classical Liberalism that is, not the statist pap that you current promote& )”
We already did. When will the right turn back to its conservative roots? (Classical conservativism that is, not the fascist pap that you currently promote …)
“Anyone willing to blow up women & children intentionally isn t likely to sign up to the political process under a democracy.”
But I thought Bush said that the democratic process and a democracy in Iraq would be a crushing blow to the islamofishes. Now it doesn’t matter? Great. Now what? Any suggestions? No wait, let me guess. Just keep on killing on? Perfect. That’s worked so well the last three years. Yup, the terrosurgents are on the run, running so far and so fast we have to lockdown the entire country so the Iraqis can vote. But that’s okay. Because when we get a functioning democracy the insurgerrorists will fade into the hills, ashamed of their islamofishist ways. But wait. “Anyone willing to blow up women & children intentionally isn t likely to sign up to the political process under a democracy.” Damn. Were back here again. Oh well. Let’s just keep on killin’ on …
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5028645
The Economist on the referendum
Islamofishes ….
No one can state with a straight face that Iraq is better off than it was before 2002. Bush did that. It wasn t us on the Left. History will judge him on his *actions*, not his empty words.
LOL - Do you have your Baathist Party card with you?
If you’re surprised that jihadists and islamofascists aren’t laying down their arms, you’re a twit.
I caught this sentence in the Economist article, and I had to laugh:
And more people feel they are being treated as a rubber stamp for the big parties in parliament, with little effort to involve them in the drafting of the constitution.
Sounds like England, doesn’t it?
Despite the decidedly negative view of the article — “The mood in many parts of Iraq is far less enthusiastic than it was in the run-up to the general election in January” — there will be elections, and Sunnis and Kurds will vote.
Will that make the “terists” go away? No, but it might turn more of the locals into informers once they are invested, by voting, in their own country.
It seems that the only way the Left admit that the election is a good thing is if Zarqawi lays down his arms… I’m just pointing out that an election and democracy in the Middle East is a success, despite the continued violence.
And anyone who longs for the days of Saddam’s rule surely is a member (or a sympathizer?) of Saddam’s Baathist Party, right? Either that or they truly do not grasp the hell that is living in a totalitarian society. If it’s McCarthyism to state this obvious fact, you can call me Tailgunner Joe.
Not sure about you, but when I was talking to a guy in a bar back in March of 2003 as the President gave Saddam the ultimatum, I told him that it was likely that we’d have to be engaged for the long-term in Iraq… A quick exit has never been an option on the table. This has been public knowledge since the war began.
St Wendeler
Another Rovian Conspiracy
“Do you have your Baathist Party card with you?”
How is it possible that the Right Wing has changed not one whit since the red-baiting days of Joe McCarthy? Only their vocabulary changes, they never learn anything.
Depressing.
And wendy, I think you have passed your straw man quota for the day with the “twit” comment. No one on the Left is surprised the insurgents aren’t giving up because of the election. Where are you getting this? It’s the only Bush team waving their magic purple fingers who insist everything is going to be hunky dory — as they have been doing for three years now.
The ultimatum was given to Saddam because it was beginning to look like he had no WMDs. Bush had to invade before Blix and other investigators exposed the hollow premise for war.
The Economist is one of the more objective of the world s newsmagaziness.
I can’t affirm or deny that,but the view of the article was pessimistic.
I trust these guys:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2005/10/iraq-051014-usia01.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/10/mil-051014-dod01.htm
Frank;
Frank;
The Economist is one of the more objective of the world’s newsmagaziness.
The situation is not good over there, no matter how badly anyone wants to beilieve it is. As I continue to say, I have my fingers crossed on this referendum.
Actually, The Economist was very supportive of this war at the beginning.
The danger of drinking and being a chickenhawk:
A quick exit has never been an option on the table. This has been public knowledge since the war began.
MTP, 16 Mar 2003:
Emphasis mine.
Of course, who could forget this illegitimate admin’s promise the war would be a “cakewalk” and that it would pay for itself?
Buma;
The ultimatum was given to Saddam because it was beginning to look like he had no WMDs.
Highly speculative, but certainly not inconsistent with what we’ve seen in retrospect, and are seeing now.
More:
Michael Barone: Scales is a military historian, and he has been critical at times of U.S. operations in Iraq. His bottom-line conclusion: “Like a good wine, making an army takes time. I only hope the American people will give our soldiers the time they need to mature this army. Give them time, trust them, and this war will turn out OK.”
Read the whole thing here {Warning: the Washington Times may be hazardous to your health [if you're a liberal]}
I’ve said this before but maybe Saint W. can show me where I’m wrong. Iraq is free now, right? They’re voting today which means they’re a democracy, right? They’re free and a democracy. Great. I’m all for that. Can we declare victory and go home? No because the security situation is out of control. But it’s been out of control for three years and not a single move forward on the political/democracy front seems to have changed that. We could be in Iraq until the last dog catcher has been democratically elected but will that change the secruity situation? The last three years suggests no. Got a plan to deal with that?
Give them time, trust them, and this war will turn out OK.
AWESOME foreign policy! Army=Wine! What about sectarian violence between the grapes?? Is anyone thinking of the GRAPES!!!!
How does he explain the fact that the Iraqi military when from 3 battalions of Level-1 ready grapes down to ONE single battalion?
The grapes of wrath, indeed.
Gen. Abizaid on Meet the Press 10/2/2005
MR. RUSSERT: But if you had three battalions in June that were considered Level I combat ready, why is there only one now?
GEN. ABIZAID: Look, if you were to look at the readiness system of the United States Army and parse it for the American public, you could come to the same conclusion that somehow or other there’s a lack of readiness and a loss of capability. But I’m telling you, there’s more people in the field fighting and participating in operations than at any time in the past and their casualty rate is double, if not triple that of which ours is, which means they’re out there fighting. The operations up in Talifar. The 3rd Iraqi Division did a great job. They were essentially more in charge of that operation than we were.
Washington Tmes Oct 14, 2005
. Their story is only partially told by the recent spike in numbers of Iraqi army battalions from only a few a year ago to 117 today.
Frank;
Why do we continuosly get two sets of figures on Iraq military readiness.
You’re not going to say it’s semantics, are you?
It gives the impression there are two sets of books.
“If you re surprised that jihadists and islamofascists aren t laying down their arms, you re a twit.”
But that’s what Bush said would happen: Democracy = Victory.
Buma;
What you’ve said is true from an analytical perspective, but it is still speculation when you say Bush pushed forward BECAUSE intel was going south.
Understand; I am not saying you are incorrect in your conclusion. But it is still speculative, at this point in time.
buma;
The ultimatum was given to Saddam because it was beginning to look like he had no WMDs.
Semanticleo:
Highly speculative, but certainly not inconsistent with what we ve seen in retrospect, and are seeing now.
Before Bush’s ultimatum, the inspectors were looking for weapons, found none and wanted to continue looking. But Bush would have none of that; he had already registered his contempt for inspections.
The threat of military force was enabling the inspectors to look wherever they wanted, but Bush was not looking merely to ensure Saddam had no illegal weapons. He really wanted war.
It seems that the only way the Left admit that the election is a good thing is if Zarqawi lays down his arms&
Will that make the terists go away? No, but it might turn more of the locals into informers once they are invested, by voting, in their own country.
Interesting. When we realists suggested that continuing the cooperative international effort was wiser than invading unilaterally, rightwingers like Frank and St. snorted, “hmph! that won’t make the “terists” go away.” When we said that showing a little goodwill and good faith might turn moderate people into informants rather than terrorists, they scoffed “you’re naive if you think they’re not going to hate us no matter what we do.”
Now the shoe’s on the other foot. I guess you’ll take any argument you can put your hands on as long as it makes Bush look like less of a fuckup, eh Frank, eh Saint?
OT but within the realm
Long awaited vetting at NYT. Would Washington Times or NRO lance their own
boil on the body politic, publicly?
I don’t think so
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/national/16leak.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=ae9961705f60a5d9&hp&ex=1129435200&adxnnl=0&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1129412957-QnTpNAUwg++aLFEXKc6YXA
stwendler: “Do you have your Baathist Party card with you?”
Perhaps you should rename yourself St. False Dichotomy.
There are (at least) five possible answers to the question: “Whom do you support? Bush or Saddam?”: Bush, Saddam, Both, Neither, and No Opinion. Liberals picked “Neither”.
That False Dichotomy was offensive three years ago. Now it is just sad that you have apparently learnt nothing in all that time.
“If you re surprised that jihadists and islamofascists aren t laying down their arms, you re a twit.”
I’m not surprised at all. I stated that laying down their arms is a precondition for a way out of this mess that ends in true democracy. Which it is. You’re the twit for believing that true democracy for Iraqis is even possible before that precondition is met. History is against you.
Back to the topic
“Iraq under Saddam was better than Iraq under democracy.”
This is an idiotic statement and did not have anything to do with Bush… “Neither” is not an option, either.
It is either good ot live under a government that feeds people to industrial plastic shredders for the personal pleasure of its leader or its not.
Please make a clear decision. Which do you prefer?
A - The totalitarianism of Saddam, or
B - the roots of democracy now taking hold in Iraq.
(This is multiple choice, and these are the only two options you will be presented with. )
Saint:
Did someone say that Iraq was better off under Hussein? I think it’s fantastic that the roots of democracy are taking hold in Iraq. You’d have a lot harder time trying to convinve me, however, that “the ends justify the means” is now a sound basis for foreign policy — especially given that the ends is by no means a fore gone conclusion at this point. You yourself said that mere elections will do nothing to stem the tide of violence. Conservatives are no desperate to convince the world that is was invasion or nothing, there was no other option. That might have worked when Bush and a complicit media were scaring the bejeezus out of everyone with tales of mushroom clouds over Manhattan — or Des Moines!!!! — but now we know better. Now we know that there were other choices, other options that Bush refused to even consider. So now all you guys have left is the ends justify the means as foreign policy. Great. But let’s look at those ends for a moment. You still haven’t answered my question. Iraq is free and Iraq is a democracy. We are we still there?
That should read:
Conservatives are NOW desperate to convince the world that IT was invasion or nothing, there was no other option.
Thee is hope for democracy in Iraq. The majority has obviously been studying our political process and has already applied it. We are the role model and they seem eager to imitate us.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/16/MNG7EF96FV1.DTL
I would also like to point out that bringing democracy to Iraq is, in itself, only a means to an end. At least that’s how it was sold to the American public. Democracy in Iraq, we were told, would have a domino effect (hmmm, where have we heard that before?) and reduce the influence of radical islam in the Middle East — thus reducing terrorism around the world. Well, how are we doing on that front, our ultimate goal? If, as you say, ratifying a constitution won’t stop the terrorist attacks in Iraq then what will? Conservatives are staking a lot of blood and treasure against the workability of a theory that Wolfowitz came up with in the mid-1970s. Surely there were other options to encouraging democratic reform in the Middle East, means with more demonstrable and direct results because so far no one has convinced me that our invasion has accomplished anything except to increase the dangerous uncertainty and instability in the region. Isn’t that why were still there?
No one can state with a straight face that Iraq is better off than it was before 2002.
It’s really amazing that people are not embarassed to write something so goddamned dumb on a public forum.
Bush hatred brings the level of stupidity for some to a whole new level.
Democracy is Afghanistan… (Bush is evil, bush is evil, bush is evil…)
Democracy in Iraq… (Bush is evil, bush is evil, bush is evil…)
Lebanese democracy… (Bush is evil, bush is evil, bush is evil…)
protests in Iran for democracy and women’s rights… (Bush is evil, bush is evil, bush is evil…)
Talk of a real election in Egypt…. (Bush is evil, bush is evil, bush is evil…)
local elections in Saudi Arabia and talk of increased freedoms for women… (Bush is evil, bush is evil, bush is evil…)
HALLIBURTON!!!
Regards,
Your Friendly Rovian Conspirator St Wendeler
And yet, Bush admiration doesn’t seem to improve the level of clarity.
I take it you would make the case that Iraq is, in fact, better off now than in 2002. Care to elaborate? (I’ll even spot you “rape rooms.”)
stwendeler - how exactly is bush responsible for the democracy movements in Lebanon, Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia? The essentials were already present *before* Bush came to power in 2001 - they are coming to a head now due to local factors (e.g. assasination of former PM in Lebanon). The only thing Bush has contributed is the odd “democracy is good” speech. Well, duh! They already know that. In the case of Iran, and argument could be made that they are going backwards - they elected a hardliner recently in part as a reaction against Bush’s tough Axis of Evil rhetoric.
As for Iraq’s democracy - Bush was forced into January’s elections by the Shiite leader Al Sistani. Bush didn’t want them - he wanted a puppet that could pretend to be democratic long enough to become a fiat accompli in eventual “elections”. The Shiites and Kurds outmaneovered him.
Afganistan is the only one that I’ll spot you as being sort of on the way to democracy (in Kabul, if not the rest of the country). But Bush cannot take the credit for that. He left for Iraq before the political process got underway. It is the UN and NATO holding the ball there now.
But none of this changes basic logic. Even evil people can do good things from time to time. That does not in any way negate the evil things. Example: should we let a murderer go free if he helps an old lady across the street while leaving the scene of the crime? Of course not. Bush’s crimes cannot be negated by purple fingers, no matter how much you scream and yell about conspiracies stwendeler.
The Iraqis are free, because their former dictator is dead. That’s all I would need to know if I were an Iraqi citizen, even if the “trolleys don’t run on time.”
I wasn’t talking to you, Frank, but since you piped up with the gem shown above, please tell us how you think it affects the everyday life of an ordinary Iraqi citizen.
I I think I’ve already answered the question. I honestly believe that the reward of freedom is not “stuff”. I believe freedom is its own reward.
FREEDOM is not the right to do what we want, but what we ought. Let us have faith that right makes might and in that faith let us; to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it. Abraham Lincoln
I’m with the tall guy in the big hat.
I guess I shouldn’t have said “dead” (wishful thinking) — I meant gone.
Shorter Frank: Beats me.
Shorter Quaker: Nothing to say, attack Frank.
How’s this: Perhaps you’re one of those materialistic Anericans who measures progress by weekly wages, and the CPI. But, you see, Quaker, I’m a “child of the Sixties”, and, while I’m no “Flower Child”, money is not the “way I roll.”
Democracies are peaceful countries; countries that inevitably become prosperous. But first, they must be free. First, the people must feel invested in their country. The Iraqi’s must feel like, “This not Saddam’s country; this is my country.”
Then all the other things follow. We’re not running a “Baghdad Airlift” here, where the goal is to flood Iraq with goods and services. We’re providing backup for a change in governing style that’s many decades overdue.
Now, if that’s not enough of an answer for you, then all I can say is the “How much does the average Iraqi make an hour?” ship has sailed.
Boy, I’m just amazed at all the glowing press, Oliver. You were right… the media was falling all over itself to spin this as a great success. I had to find news on the election on the back pages of most newspapers…
With regard to democracy spreading… Perhaps you should look at our realpolitik that we have been practicing since Kissinger (or perhaps earlier?). But you cannot accurately say that our success in Iraq and Afghanistan had no impact on Lebanon. Check the Pulse Of Freedom blog if you want some background.
With regard to Saudi Arabia, the clear signals sent by Bush publicly and via back channels is that we’re seeking to transform the region from one of oppression to one in which the universal human desire for freedom is encouraged. Sure, that has no effect… Perhaps you should read Natan Sharansky’s The Case for Democracy, which highlights the effects of Reagan’s words to improve the lives of Soviet dissidents (or traitors to utopia in your eyes).
Please…
Regards,
St Wendeler