Iraq's Historic Vote Begins
- Thread starter Ruined
- Start date
Scrubking
CAGiversary!
Actually the point is that everyone knew that things were most likely going to be bad. In fact everyone expected the worst, but thankfully things went way better than anticipated.
But idiots like you want to point at the things that everyone knew was going to happen and then try to spin it in your anti-bush favor.
Add to that the fact that you libs are the only ones saying that this election is the end all be all of democracy and we have the idiocy that is the liberals on this board.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Scrubking']The best part of all this is that because of the election we are, hopefully, one step closer to getting out of Iraq, and all you people can do is bitch about it.[/quote]
Who's bitching? Someone posted about the Iraq election being a success, expecting high-fives and back-slapping. Well I've heard it all before ("Mission Accomplished" anyone?)
All some people on this board are saying is, to quote Winston Wolf, "let's not start sucking each other's dix quite yet..."
Who's bitching? Someone posted about the Iraq election being a success, expecting high-fives and back-slapping. Well I've heard it all before ("Mission Accomplished" anyone?)
All some people on this board are saying is, to quote Winston Wolf, "let's not start sucking each other's dix quite yet..."
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']Do you even understand how America won the cold war without firing a shot?[/quote]
Without firing a shot?!?!!? Tell that to veterans of Korea and Vietnam!
Without firing a shot?!?!!? Tell that to veterans of Korea and Vietnam!
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
CTLesq
CAGiversary!
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='CTLesq']
And you have brillanty summarized why you beleive we will fail:
Our ideals are not as powerful as the terrorists.
[/quote]
CTL, isn't "strengthening ideals" the entire motivation behind Bush mixing the neo-con and religious agenda together.
Now we can go off on our own democracy jihad, and anyone who disagrees is a or "cowardly athiest liberal" who is against mom and apple pie.
It's that simple, bull-headed "fight fire with fire" attitude that has just gotten America deeper into the hole of debt and world resentment.[/quote]
Perhaps you can write a letter to the Middle East expressing your strong dislike of radical Islam and let us know how that works out.
CTL[/quote]
Do you even understand how America won the cold war without firing a shot?[/quote]
Did you miss Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, Nicuragua, Afghanistan, Grenada...do I need to go on?
Or do you just lack any grasp of history?
CTL
And you have brillanty summarized why you beleive we will fail:
Our ideals are not as powerful as the terrorists.
[/quote]
CTL, isn't "strengthening ideals" the entire motivation behind Bush mixing the neo-con and religious agenda together.
Now we can go off on our own democracy jihad, and anyone who disagrees is a or "cowardly athiest liberal" who is against mom and apple pie.
It's that simple, bull-headed "fight fire with fire" attitude that has just gotten America deeper into the hole of debt and world resentment.[/quote]
Perhaps you can write a letter to the Middle East expressing your strong dislike of radical Islam and let us know how that works out.
CTL[/quote]
Do you even understand how America won the cold war without firing a shot?[/quote]
Did you miss Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, Nicuragua, Afghanistan, Grenada...do I need to go on?
Or do you just lack any grasp of history?
CTL
CTLesq
CAGiversary!
[quote name='alonzomourning23']This is irrelevent. Just because they want to vote doesn't mean they think having their country invaded, their friends and family killed, the streets often not safe enough to walk down etc. is worth it That does not mean they prefer saddam either.[/quote]
And again - anything you can do to throw a wet blanket on the brillant success of the elections you will.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You treat war as nothing, as something minor, "oh they want to vote, well I guess they won't mind being invaded then".[/quote]
Sitting in Baghdad I don't treat war as "nothing". I wonder though sitting in the comfort of your own home when you are planning on dealing with the coming storm which threatens all America.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']As mrbadexample pointed out, the candidates want us out asap. It seems like the dominant opinion in Iraq is they want both gone, saddam and the u.s.[/quote]
And? They don't want us gone before they can control their country. Which is when we said we were going to leave. Only the far American left is confused by this.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Anyway, read what I posted. At least 36 people died, there was a marked division in turnout depending on the area, many poll booths in sunni dominated areas were closed or deserted, since voters stayed away out of fear and opposition. This also shows that many who felt they were risking their life didn't go. Add this to the fact that many candidates were already to scared to publicly declare themselves as a candidate, and instead ran in secret link.[/quote]
Just keep complaining. It illustrates how you grasp at ANY straw to make these elections look bad.
From the Wall Street Journal Online.
Happy Days Are Here Again
Yesterday was a great day to be an American, and an even better day to be an Iraqi. Notwithstanding the best efforts of Osama bin Laden, Barbara Boxer, Jacques Chirac, Ted Kennedy, Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, millions of Iraqis cast their first free ballots. The scenes of joyous Iraqis embracing freedom were as moving as watching Germans dance on the Berlin Wall 15 years ago--and all the more impressive given that Iraqi voters faced real physical danger from terrorists seeking a return to tyranny. A New York Times anecdote from Baghdad tells the story:
Batool Al Musawi hesitated for a single moment.
The explosions had already begun as she rose from her bed early on Sunday. One after the other, the mortar shells were falling and bursting around the city, rattling the windows and shaking the walls.
For an instant, Ms. Musawi, a 22-year-old physical therapist, thought it might be too dangerous to go to the polls.
"And then, hearing those explosions, it occurred to me--the insurgents are weak, they are afraid of democracy, they are losing," Ms. Musawi said, standing in the Marjayoon Primary School, her polling place. "So I got my husband, and I got my parents and we all came out and voted together."
The Times quotes 80-year-old Rashid Majid: "We have freedom now, we have human rights, we have democracy. We will invite the insurgents to take part in our system. If they do, we will welcome them. If they don't, we will kill them."
As an antifraud measure, voters dipped their forefingers in indelible purple ink; the ink-stained finger became the most powerful symbol of the day. (Pictures here and here.) At IraqtheModel.com, one of the Fadhil brothers offers a beautiful description:
I walked forward to my station, cast my vote and then headed to the box, where I wanted to stand as long as I could, then I moved to mark my finger with ink, I dipped it deep as if I was poking the eyes of all the world's tyrants.
Brother Ali, who now has his own blog, pays tribute to those who made it all possible:
Thanks again for your care and may God bless you all and give you a hundred times what you have gave Iraq. I know it seems impossible when it comes to those who lost their beloved ones but I hope they know that their sacrifices were not in vain and that they gave humanity the most precious thing a man has, his life.
WSJ.com has a roundup of Iraqi bloggers' reactions. Reporting from Najaf, the Washington Post tells a story that poignantly contrasts tyranny and freedom:
"My father helped bring this election today," said Farezdak Abdel Nibi, 34, at a whitewashed concrete school building serving as a polling station.
When Nibi was 20, he and his father were eating breakfast when Iraqi security officials burst in and took them away, he said. Their arrest came during a large roundup of Shiites by Hussein's security apparatus. Nibi and his father, speechless in fear, were taken to a police station. Nibi said he was held for 15 days. The last time his father was seen alive was three years later. After that, there was no news about what happened to him, Nibi said.
"We kept our hope that he had survived. But when we saw all the mass graves Saddam had made, I knew that we had lost him," Nibi said.
"This election is the fruit of every drop of blood that was shed in 1991," Nibi said, referring to a Shiite uprising following the Persian Gulf War that was brutally suppressed by Hussein's forces. "I thank my father. He had three sons who married. None of us had a wedding party, out of respect for him. Today, we can celebrate. Today, we will have a wedding party."
The world was watching. Reader Jeff Raleigh writes from the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan:
For those of us who have been privileged to see the exercise of freedom in the face of threats, and also view the cost of freedom borne by the men and women of our Armed Forces here in Afghanistan, or in the U.S. South in the '60s, today came as no surprise. . . .
I can almost guarantee you that none of the men and women serving in Iraq or Afghanistan were surprised by the courage of the Iraqi people today. They are the ones who each day put their lives on the line for freedom.
The Iraqi election was an important act of public diplomacy for the U.S., too, as the New York Times reports from Amman, Jordan:
Sometime after the first insurgent attack in Iraq on Sunday morning, news directors at Arab satellite channels and newspaper editors found themselves facing an altogether new decision. Should they report on the violence, or continue to cover the elections themselves?
After nearly two years of providing up-to-the-minute images of explosions and mayhem, and despite months of predictions of a blood bath on election day, some news directors said they found the decision surprisingly easy to make. The violence simply was not the story on Sunday morning; the voting was.
It seems like only days ago that people were scoffing at President Bush's Second Inaugural Address for its naive idealism--and come to think of it, it was only days ago. But Bush may get his due in Baghdad. The New York Post quotes the Iraqi capital's new mayor--terrorists assassinated his predecessor early this month: "We will build a statue for Bush. He is the symbol of freedom."
[quote name='alonzomourning23']YAY!!! A chest thumping jerk pities me
. With your way of thinking no one can ever say anything negative about the situation in Iraq. I wonder what you think of Colin Powell, he doesn't seem to share your rosy image of Iraq either. No one said the streets were running red, but you act as if nothing happened. You don't care that some areas were to unstable to participate, or that turnoat varied greatly depending on the area and group. You just don't want to see anything that contradicts the little bubble you have created for yourself. Elections aren't something where once they occur everything will fall into place like magic. You need more than elections to sustain a democracy.[/quote]
No what you fail to understand, as the leaders of the world have acknowldged was that for the first time in 50 years Iraq had free and fair elections.
CTL
And again - anything you can do to throw a wet blanket on the brillant success of the elections you will.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You treat war as nothing, as something minor, "oh they want to vote, well I guess they won't mind being invaded then".[/quote]
Sitting in Baghdad I don't treat war as "nothing". I wonder though sitting in the comfort of your own home when you are planning on dealing with the coming storm which threatens all America.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']As mrbadexample pointed out, the candidates want us out asap. It seems like the dominant opinion in Iraq is they want both gone, saddam and the u.s.[/quote]
And? They don't want us gone before they can control their country. Which is when we said we were going to leave. Only the far American left is confused by this.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Anyway, read what I posted. At least 36 people died, there was a marked division in turnout depending on the area, many poll booths in sunni dominated areas were closed or deserted, since voters stayed away out of fear and opposition. This also shows that many who felt they were risking their life didn't go. Add this to the fact that many candidates were already to scared to publicly declare themselves as a candidate, and instead ran in secret link.[/quote]
Just keep complaining. It illustrates how you grasp at ANY straw to make these elections look bad.
From the Wall Street Journal Online.
Happy Days Are Here Again
Yesterday was a great day to be an American, and an even better day to be an Iraqi. Notwithstanding the best efforts of Osama bin Laden, Barbara Boxer, Jacques Chirac, Ted Kennedy, Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, millions of Iraqis cast their first free ballots. The scenes of joyous Iraqis embracing freedom were as moving as watching Germans dance on the Berlin Wall 15 years ago--and all the more impressive given that Iraqi voters faced real physical danger from terrorists seeking a return to tyranny. A New York Times anecdote from Baghdad tells the story:
Batool Al Musawi hesitated for a single moment.
The explosions had already begun as she rose from her bed early on Sunday. One after the other, the mortar shells were falling and bursting around the city, rattling the windows and shaking the walls.
For an instant, Ms. Musawi, a 22-year-old physical therapist, thought it might be too dangerous to go to the polls.
"And then, hearing those explosions, it occurred to me--the insurgents are weak, they are afraid of democracy, they are losing," Ms. Musawi said, standing in the Marjayoon Primary School, her polling place. "So I got my husband, and I got my parents and we all came out and voted together."
The Times quotes 80-year-old Rashid Majid: "We have freedom now, we have human rights, we have democracy. We will invite the insurgents to take part in our system. If they do, we will welcome them. If they don't, we will kill them."
As an antifraud measure, voters dipped their forefingers in indelible purple ink; the ink-stained finger became the most powerful symbol of the day. (Pictures here and here.) At IraqtheModel.com, one of the Fadhil brothers offers a beautiful description:
I walked forward to my station, cast my vote and then headed to the box, where I wanted to stand as long as I could, then I moved to mark my finger with ink, I dipped it deep as if I was poking the eyes of all the world's tyrants.
Brother Ali, who now has his own blog, pays tribute to those who made it all possible:
Thanks again for your care and may God bless you all and give you a hundred times what you have gave Iraq. I know it seems impossible when it comes to those who lost their beloved ones but I hope they know that their sacrifices were not in vain and that they gave humanity the most precious thing a man has, his life.
WSJ.com has a roundup of Iraqi bloggers' reactions. Reporting from Najaf, the Washington Post tells a story that poignantly contrasts tyranny and freedom:
"My father helped bring this election today," said Farezdak Abdel Nibi, 34, at a whitewashed concrete school building serving as a polling station.
When Nibi was 20, he and his father were eating breakfast when Iraqi security officials burst in and took them away, he said. Their arrest came during a large roundup of Shiites by Hussein's security apparatus. Nibi and his father, speechless in fear, were taken to a police station. Nibi said he was held for 15 days. The last time his father was seen alive was three years later. After that, there was no news about what happened to him, Nibi said.
"We kept our hope that he had survived. But when we saw all the mass graves Saddam had made, I knew that we had lost him," Nibi said.
"This election is the fruit of every drop of blood that was shed in 1991," Nibi said, referring to a Shiite uprising following the Persian Gulf War that was brutally suppressed by Hussein's forces. "I thank my father. He had three sons who married. None of us had a wedding party, out of respect for him. Today, we can celebrate. Today, we will have a wedding party."
The world was watching. Reader Jeff Raleigh writes from the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan:
For those of us who have been privileged to see the exercise of freedom in the face of threats, and also view the cost of freedom borne by the men and women of our Armed Forces here in Afghanistan, or in the U.S. South in the '60s, today came as no surprise. . . .
I can almost guarantee you that none of the men and women serving in Iraq or Afghanistan were surprised by the courage of the Iraqi people today. They are the ones who each day put their lives on the line for freedom.
The Iraqi election was an important act of public diplomacy for the U.S., too, as the New York Times reports from Amman, Jordan:
Sometime after the first insurgent attack in Iraq on Sunday morning, news directors at Arab satellite channels and newspaper editors found themselves facing an altogether new decision. Should they report on the violence, or continue to cover the elections themselves?
After nearly two years of providing up-to-the-minute images of explosions and mayhem, and despite months of predictions of a blood bath on election day, some news directors said they found the decision surprisingly easy to make. The violence simply was not the story on Sunday morning; the voting was.
It seems like only days ago that people were scoffing at President Bush's Second Inaugural Address for its naive idealism--and come to think of it, it was only days ago. But Bush may get his due in Baghdad. The New York Post quotes the Iraqi capital's new mayor--terrorists assassinated his predecessor early this month: "We will build a statue for Bush. He is the symbol of freedom."
[quote name='alonzomourning23']YAY!!! A chest thumping jerk pities me
. With your way of thinking no one can ever say anything negative about the situation in Iraq. I wonder what you think of Colin Powell, he doesn't seem to share your rosy image of Iraq either. No one said the streets were running red, but you act as if nothing happened. You don't care that some areas were to unstable to participate, or that turnoat varied greatly depending on the area and group. You just don't want to see anything that contradicts the little bubble you have created for yourself. Elections aren't something where once they occur everything will fall into place like magic. You need more than elections to sustain a democracy.[/quote]No what you fail to understand, as the leaders of the world have acknowldged was that for the first time in 50 years Iraq had free and fair elections.
CTL
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
I'm sorry if I try to look at the whole picture, instead of just the good things. I understand how that could be threatening. You may close your eyes to what you don't want to see, but that won't make it go away. You're complaining that I'm pointing out problems, you're not saying they don't exist, just complaining that I recognize them as such. You have large areas where possibly not even 10% of the population voted, some out of opposition, many out of fear. To say that's a problem is not grasping at straws. Especially considering the group formerly in power, the group that is the main force behind the insurgency, now has the least representation in the government. That is a problem. You still seem to think of democracy as a magic pill, the cure for all problems. A democracy is not created or sustained simply by voting, there are enough failed democracies around the world to show that.
But, you do view war as nothing, in the sense that you say they want democracy so, therefore, they also want to have a military invasion of their country to have that. You don't seem to think that being invaded would influence a persons decision. Then you also have to take into account all the blunders during the occupation, and how many still have only intermittent electricity and other essentials. Considering all that has occured up to this point, I have no idea if they want us gone immediately. From what I've seen I'd guess there are more who want us gone than want us to stay, but I don't have enough evidence to choose one over the other. Personally, I think we screwed it up enough, but that leaving at this point would make it worse. Though it would be interesting to put that to a vote, show how much of a democracy it is, let the people decide the fate of the occupation.
As for the article, a personal account is nice, but it does not provide the opinion of the general population. Individual accounts are useful in finding out why people act a particular way, what makes someone join the iraqi police, what makes someone an insurgent, but not to show the opinion of the general population.
:shock: On a side note, just saw your sig "The homeless exist for my amusement". I shouldn't be suprised.
But, you do view war as nothing, in the sense that you say they want democracy so, therefore, they also want to have a military invasion of their country to have that. You don't seem to think that being invaded would influence a persons decision. Then you also have to take into account all the blunders during the occupation, and how many still have only intermittent electricity and other essentials. Considering all that has occured up to this point, I have no idea if they want us gone immediately. From what I've seen I'd guess there are more who want us gone than want us to stay, but I don't have enough evidence to choose one over the other. Personally, I think we screwed it up enough, but that leaving at this point would make it worse. Though it would be interesting to put that to a vote, show how much of a democracy it is, let the people decide the fate of the occupation.
As for the article, a personal account is nice, but it does not provide the opinion of the general population. Individual accounts are useful in finding out why people act a particular way, what makes someone join the iraqi police, what makes someone an insurgent, but not to show the opinion of the general population.
:shock: On a side note, just saw your sig "The homeless exist for my amusement". I shouldn't be suprised.
CTLesq
CAGiversary!
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'm sorry if I try to look at the whole picture, instead of just the good things. I understand how that could be threatening. You may close your eyes to what you don't want to see, but that won't make it go away. You're complaining that I'm pointing out problems, you're not saying they don't exist, just complaining that I recognize them as such.[/quote]
No, what you do is disproportionaltely focus on a few negative incidents to paint the entire election as a failure. Because that is your agenda - the failure of the US in Iraq.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You have large areas where possibly not even 10% of the population voted, some out of opposition, many out of fear. To say that's a problem is not grasping at straws. Especially considering the group formerly in power, the group that is the main force behind the insurgency, now has the least representation in the government.[/quote]
And you apparently have missed the innumberable comments made by those that have participated in the election that the Sunni's will be invited to participate in writing the constitution. So much for looking at "the whole picture". Or more appropriately, your willful ignorance of facts that don't assist your position.
[quote name='alonzomourning23'] That is a problem. You still seem to think of democracy as a magic pill, the cure for all problems. A democracy is not created or sustained simply by voting, there are enough failed democracies around the world to show that.[/quote]
Show me one democracy that invaded another democracy.
More to the point - I never said the election was the begining and the end of the process. But it is a begining. A begining that you are working overtime to discredit.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But, you do view war as nothing, in the sense that you say they want democracy so, therefore, they also want to have a military invasion of their country to have that. You don't seem to think that being invaded would influence a persons decision. Then you also have to take into account all the blunders during the occupation, and how many still have only intermittent electricity and other essentials. Considering all that has occured up to this point, I have no idea if they want us gone immediately.[/quote]
Yet again you get back to the issue which you can't get over: should we or shouldn't we have invaded.
Bad news for you - that discussion is closed. We did invade - and there is nothing that you can do to change that.
And yet again you get back to the core of the reason you can't accept the victory of the elections: Blah, blah blah - blunders of the occupation, this failure, that failure.
Does it suprise anyone that you view 36 dead (after a promise of the streets running with blood - and the 36 included the dead suicide bombers) as anything less than a loss?
[quote name='alonzomourning23']From what I've seen I'd guess there are more who want us gone than want us to stay, but I don't have enough evidence to choose one over the other. Personally, I think we screwed it up enough, but that leaving at this point would make it worse. Though it would be interesting to put that to a vote, show how much of a democracy it is, let the people decide the fate of the occupation.[/quote]
No you have very little evidence to support your position. Unless it is a generalization (See your comment re: MrBadExample) that supports your opinion of the facts.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']As for the article, a personal account is nice, but it does not provide the opinion of the general population. Individual accounts are useful in finding out why people act a particular way, what makes someone join the iraqi police, what makes someone an insurgent, but not to show the opinion of the general population.[/quote]
There were multiple personal accounts. But I guess that counts as less than your one generalization the Iraqi's want us out? But a single generalized statement (again, see your comment re: MrBE) is more than enough factually to support your view we aren't wanted.
[quote name='alonzomourning23'] :shock: On a side note, just saw your sig "The homeless exist for my amusement". I shouldn't be suprised.[/quote]
And no one should be suprised at your lack of observance. Nor should we be suprised that someone who lacks such basic skills also thinks he has a graps on what is happening in Iraq.
CTL
No, what you do is disproportionaltely focus on a few negative incidents to paint the entire election as a failure. Because that is your agenda - the failure of the US in Iraq.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You have large areas where possibly not even 10% of the population voted, some out of opposition, many out of fear. To say that's a problem is not grasping at straws. Especially considering the group formerly in power, the group that is the main force behind the insurgency, now has the least representation in the government.[/quote]
And you apparently have missed the innumberable comments made by those that have participated in the election that the Sunni's will be invited to participate in writing the constitution. So much for looking at "the whole picture". Or more appropriately, your willful ignorance of facts that don't assist your position.
[quote name='alonzomourning23'] That is a problem. You still seem to think of democracy as a magic pill, the cure for all problems. A democracy is not created or sustained simply by voting, there are enough failed democracies around the world to show that.[/quote]
Show me one democracy that invaded another democracy.
More to the point - I never said the election was the begining and the end of the process. But it is a begining. A begining that you are working overtime to discredit.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But, you do view war as nothing, in the sense that you say they want democracy so, therefore, they also want to have a military invasion of their country to have that. You don't seem to think that being invaded would influence a persons decision. Then you also have to take into account all the blunders during the occupation, and how many still have only intermittent electricity and other essentials. Considering all that has occured up to this point, I have no idea if they want us gone immediately.[/quote]
Yet again you get back to the issue which you can't get over: should we or shouldn't we have invaded.
Bad news for you - that discussion is closed. We did invade - and there is nothing that you can do to change that.
And yet again you get back to the core of the reason you can't accept the victory of the elections: Blah, blah blah - blunders of the occupation, this failure, that failure.
Does it suprise anyone that you view 36 dead (after a promise of the streets running with blood - and the 36 included the dead suicide bombers) as anything less than a loss?
[quote name='alonzomourning23']From what I've seen I'd guess there are more who want us gone than want us to stay, but I don't have enough evidence to choose one over the other. Personally, I think we screwed it up enough, but that leaving at this point would make it worse. Though it would be interesting to put that to a vote, show how much of a democracy it is, let the people decide the fate of the occupation.[/quote]
No you have very little evidence to support your position. Unless it is a generalization (See your comment re: MrBadExample) that supports your opinion of the facts.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']As for the article, a personal account is nice, but it does not provide the opinion of the general population. Individual accounts are useful in finding out why people act a particular way, what makes someone join the iraqi police, what makes someone an insurgent, but not to show the opinion of the general population.[/quote]
There were multiple personal accounts. But I guess that counts as less than your one generalization the Iraqi's want us out? But a single generalized statement (again, see your comment re: MrBE) is more than enough factually to support your view we aren't wanted.
[quote name='alonzomourning23'] :shock: On a side note, just saw your sig "The homeless exist for my amusement". I shouldn't be suprised.[/quote]
And no one should be suprised at your lack of observance. Nor should we be suprised that someone who lacks such basic skills also thinks he has a graps on what is happening in Iraq.
CTL
CTLesq
CAGiversary!
Oh it doesn't appear such a lock that all the politicians in Iraq want us to leave yesterday:
Yahoo Link
But I guess having an indentifiable person saying the US should stay as long as necessary probably doesn't count as much as a "feeling" that someone else can extrapolate from un-named sources to conclude that everyone wants us out yesterday.
Again - we leave when we are asked or the job is done. What is so hard to understand about that.
CTL
Yahoo Link
But I guess having an indentifiable person saying the US should stay as long as necessary probably doesn't count as much as a "feeling" that someone else can extrapolate from un-named sources to conclude that everyone wants us out yesterday.
Again - we leave when we are asked or the job is done. What is so hard to understand about that.
CTL
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='CTLesq']Oh it doesn't appear such a lock that all the politicians in Iraq want us to leave yesterday:
Yahoo Link
But I guess having an indentifiable person saying the US should stay as long as necessary probably doesn't count as much as a "feeling" that someone else can extrapolate from un-named sources to conclude that everyone wants us out yesterday.
Again - we leave when we are asked or the job is done. What is so hard to understand about that.
CTL[/quote]
How much was he paid to say that. Could it be 9 Billion dollars...?
Yahoo Link
But I guess having an indentifiable person saying the US should stay as long as necessary probably doesn't count as much as a "feeling" that someone else can extrapolate from un-named sources to conclude that everyone wants us out yesterday.
Again - we leave when we are asked or the job is done. What is so hard to understand about that.
CTL[/quote]
How much was he paid to say that. Could it be 9 Billion dollars...?
The man who spins the big wheel weighs in 
******
Name Calling
by Pat Sajak
I am about to call someone a name.
This is not a decision I’ve reached lightly. Name-calling is not in my nature. True, I have cast more than my share of aspersions on others, but I have tried to do it with humor, or, even when I was seriously upset, I tried to modulate my tone.
This is not to say that I don’t get angry, but I’m not a screamer. I tend to sulk and plot revenge. I’m sure there must have been times when, as a child, I called someone “stupid” or “ugly” or “fat” or some of the other hateful things that children often say, though I don’t remember specific instances.
And, yet, I’m about to call someone a name.
I’ve always been interested in politics, a rough-and-tumble field where name-calling is not unusual. I enjoy reading and writing about politics, and I have some strong opinions, some of which I’ve shared on this page. However, I try to keep my politics in context. I discuss the subject here, or at overtly political venues. My quarrel with celebrities and politics is not that they voice opinions, but that they often foist those opinions on others in inappropriate settings. I’ve had some tough things to say about people when I’ve spoken at some of these events, but, again, I don’t think I’ve ever just flat-out called someone a name.
Until now.
This sudden shift in my policy is a result of the Iraqi elections. I’m not sure how anyone could look at the lines of voters who, quite literally, risked life and limb to exercise a right many Americans tend to take for granted even without terrorist threats and suicide bombers. I don’t care what your opinions of George W. Bush, the Iraq War or the War on Terror might be, this was, on a strictly human level, a moving event for a region of the world where democracies are not exactly flourishing.
Every voter in those lines was, in ways big and small, a hero, and should be admired and supported. How could anyone look at voters dancing in the streets and proudly holding up their blue fingers to indicate what they had so bravely done, and not be moved? It seems to me that Sunday was not the time to attempt to minimize or trivialize what millions of Iraqis did that day. That could wait at least 24 hours, couldn’t it?
Enter Massachusetts Senator and former Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry. Here’s a man who should know something about heroics, as he reminded us a thousand or so times during the campaign. On the very day Iraqis were voting, most of them for the first time in their lives, here’s some of what Kerry had to say on NBC’s “Meet the Press”: "It is significant that there is a vote in Iraq, but ... no one in the United States should try to overhype this election. This election is a sort of demarcation point, and what really counts now is the effort to have a legitimate political reconciliation, and it's going to take a massive diplomatic effort and a much more significant outreach to the international community than this administration has been willing to engage in. Absent that, we will not be successful in Iraq,"
More Kerry: "It's hard to say that something is legitimate when a whole portion of the country can't vote and doesn't vote." (Sound familiar?)
What a marvelous way to pay tribute to those trying to embrace democracy! I know he’s bitter, and I know he’s not going to say anything that would appear to endorse any of President Bush’s policies, but couldn’t it have waited a day? Or couldn’t he have at least included a kind word of encouragement or congratulations to the millions of Iraqi citizens who voted before he began to belittle the process and the turnout?
His dour demeanor on “Meet the Press” and in another interview Sunday contrasted sharply with images coming from Iraq, and his comments sounded small and petty. You would expect something more from a man who, less than three months ago, lost a race for the Presidency of the United States. It was a despicable performance. So now it’s time for me to get this off my chest.
Mr. Kerry, you are a jerk.
There. I feel better.
******
******
Name Calling
by Pat Sajak
I am about to call someone a name.
This is not a decision I’ve reached lightly. Name-calling is not in my nature. True, I have cast more than my share of aspersions on others, but I have tried to do it with humor, or, even when I was seriously upset, I tried to modulate my tone.
This is not to say that I don’t get angry, but I’m not a screamer. I tend to sulk and plot revenge. I’m sure there must have been times when, as a child, I called someone “stupid” or “ugly” or “fat” or some of the other hateful things that children often say, though I don’t remember specific instances.
And, yet, I’m about to call someone a name.
I’ve always been interested in politics, a rough-and-tumble field where name-calling is not unusual. I enjoy reading and writing about politics, and I have some strong opinions, some of which I’ve shared on this page. However, I try to keep my politics in context. I discuss the subject here, or at overtly political venues. My quarrel with celebrities and politics is not that they voice opinions, but that they often foist those opinions on others in inappropriate settings. I’ve had some tough things to say about people when I’ve spoken at some of these events, but, again, I don’t think I’ve ever just flat-out called someone a name.
Until now.
This sudden shift in my policy is a result of the Iraqi elections. I’m not sure how anyone could look at the lines of voters who, quite literally, risked life and limb to exercise a right many Americans tend to take for granted even without terrorist threats and suicide bombers. I don’t care what your opinions of George W. Bush, the Iraq War or the War on Terror might be, this was, on a strictly human level, a moving event for a region of the world where democracies are not exactly flourishing.
Every voter in those lines was, in ways big and small, a hero, and should be admired and supported. How could anyone look at voters dancing in the streets and proudly holding up their blue fingers to indicate what they had so bravely done, and not be moved? It seems to me that Sunday was not the time to attempt to minimize or trivialize what millions of Iraqis did that day. That could wait at least 24 hours, couldn’t it?
Enter Massachusetts Senator and former Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry. Here’s a man who should know something about heroics, as he reminded us a thousand or so times during the campaign. On the very day Iraqis were voting, most of them for the first time in their lives, here’s some of what Kerry had to say on NBC’s “Meet the Press”: "It is significant that there is a vote in Iraq, but ... no one in the United States should try to overhype this election. This election is a sort of demarcation point, and what really counts now is the effort to have a legitimate political reconciliation, and it's going to take a massive diplomatic effort and a much more significant outreach to the international community than this administration has been willing to engage in. Absent that, we will not be successful in Iraq,"
More Kerry: "It's hard to say that something is legitimate when a whole portion of the country can't vote and doesn't vote." (Sound familiar?)
What a marvelous way to pay tribute to those trying to embrace democracy! I know he’s bitter, and I know he’s not going to say anything that would appear to endorse any of President Bush’s policies, but couldn’t it have waited a day? Or couldn’t he have at least included a kind word of encouragement or congratulations to the millions of Iraqi citizens who voted before he began to belittle the process and the turnout?
His dour demeanor on “Meet the Press” and in another interview Sunday contrasted sharply with images coming from Iraq, and his comments sounded small and petty. You would expect something more from a man who, less than three months ago, lost a race for the Presidency of the United States. It was a despicable performance. So now it’s time for me to get this off my chest.
Mr. Kerry, you are a jerk.
There. I feel better.
******
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
So the guy who awards ceramic dalmatians to people who can spell thinks that Kerry is a jerk... How will Kerry ever live with the humiliation?
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Ruined']The man who spins the big wheel weighs in
******
Name Calling
by Pat Sajak
I am about to call someone a name.
This is not a decision I’ve reached lightly. Name-calling is not in my nature. True, I have cast more than my share of aspersions on others, but I have tried to do it with humor, or, even when I was seriously upset, I tried to modulate my tone.
This is not to say that I don’t get angry, but I’m not a screamer. I tend to sulk and plot revenge. I’m sure there must have been times when, as a child, I called someone “stupid” or “ugly” or “fat” or some of the other hateful things that children often say, though I don’t remember specific instances.
And, yet, I’m about to call someone a name.
I’ve always been interested in politics, a rough-and-tumble field where name-calling is not unusual. I enjoy reading and writing about politics, and I have some strong opinions, some of which I’ve shared on this page. However, I try to keep my politics in context. I discuss the subject here, or at overtly political venues. My quarrel with celebrities and politics is not that they voice opinions, but that they often foist those opinions on others in inappropriate settings. I’ve had some tough things to say about people when I’ve spoken at some of these events, but, again, I don’t think I’ve ever just flat-out called someone a name.
Until now.
This sudden shift in my policy is a result of the Iraqi elections. I’m not sure how anyone could look at the lines of voters who, quite literally, risked life and limb to exercise a right many Americans tend to take for granted even without terrorist threats and suicide bombers. I don’t care what your opinions of George W. Bush, the Iraq War or the War on Terror might be, this was, on a strictly human level, a moving event for a region of the world where democracies are not exactly flourishing.
Every voter in those lines was, in ways big and small, a hero, and should be admired and supported. How could anyone look at voters dancing in the streets and proudly holding up their blue fingers to indicate what they had so bravely done, and not be moved? It seems to me that Sunday was not the time to attempt to minimize or trivialize what millions of Iraqis did that day. That could wait at least 24 hours, couldn’t it?
Enter Massachusetts Senator and former Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry. Here’s a man who should know something about heroics, as he reminded us a thousand or so times during the campaign. On the very day Iraqis were voting, most of them for the first time in their lives, here’s some of what Kerry had to say on NBC’s “Meet the Press”: "It is significant that there is a vote in Iraq, but ... no one in the United States should try to overhype this election. This election is a sort of demarcation point, and what really counts now is the effort to have a legitimate political reconciliation, and it's going to take a massive diplomatic effort and a much more significant outreach to the international community than this administration has been willing to engage in. Absent that, we will not be successful in Iraq,"
More Kerry: "It's hard to say that something is legitimate when a whole portion of the country can't vote and doesn't vote." (Sound familiar?)
What a marvelous way to pay tribute to those trying to embrace democracy! I know he’s bitter, and I know he’s not going to say anything that would appear to endorse any of President Bush’s policies, but couldn’t it have waited a day? Or couldn’t he have at least included a kind word of encouragement or congratulations to the millions of Iraqi citizens who voted before he began to belittle the process and the turnout?
His dour demeanor on “Meet the Press” and in another interview Sunday contrasted sharply with images coming from Iraq, and his comments sounded small and petty. You would expect something more from a man who, less than three months ago, lost a race for the Presidency of the United States. It was a despicable performance. So now it’s time for me to get this off my chest.
Mr. Kerry, you are a jerk.
There. I feel better.
******[/quote]
\
That's very funny man, although Pat still manages to come off sounding dopey (as usual). I'm sure Pat cleared this with whatever network he works for - they're not worried about losing their core audience of the big bloated red mid-section of America, who watch TV while us stiffs in the blue areas work late into the night to fund Bush's crusade.
Now what does Bob Barker think about the cost of the Iraq war? "The price is wrong, bitch!"
******
Name Calling
by Pat Sajak
I am about to call someone a name.
This is not a decision I’ve reached lightly. Name-calling is not in my nature. True, I have cast more than my share of aspersions on others, but I have tried to do it with humor, or, even when I was seriously upset, I tried to modulate my tone.
This is not to say that I don’t get angry, but I’m not a screamer. I tend to sulk and plot revenge. I’m sure there must have been times when, as a child, I called someone “stupid” or “ugly” or “fat” or some of the other hateful things that children often say, though I don’t remember specific instances.
And, yet, I’m about to call someone a name.
I’ve always been interested in politics, a rough-and-tumble field where name-calling is not unusual. I enjoy reading and writing about politics, and I have some strong opinions, some of which I’ve shared on this page. However, I try to keep my politics in context. I discuss the subject here, or at overtly political venues. My quarrel with celebrities and politics is not that they voice opinions, but that they often foist those opinions on others in inappropriate settings. I’ve had some tough things to say about people when I’ve spoken at some of these events, but, again, I don’t think I’ve ever just flat-out called someone a name.
Until now.
This sudden shift in my policy is a result of the Iraqi elections. I’m not sure how anyone could look at the lines of voters who, quite literally, risked life and limb to exercise a right many Americans tend to take for granted even without terrorist threats and suicide bombers. I don’t care what your opinions of George W. Bush, the Iraq War or the War on Terror might be, this was, on a strictly human level, a moving event for a region of the world where democracies are not exactly flourishing.
Every voter in those lines was, in ways big and small, a hero, and should be admired and supported. How could anyone look at voters dancing in the streets and proudly holding up their blue fingers to indicate what they had so bravely done, and not be moved? It seems to me that Sunday was not the time to attempt to minimize or trivialize what millions of Iraqis did that day. That could wait at least 24 hours, couldn’t it?
Enter Massachusetts Senator and former Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry. Here’s a man who should know something about heroics, as he reminded us a thousand or so times during the campaign. On the very day Iraqis were voting, most of them for the first time in their lives, here’s some of what Kerry had to say on NBC’s “Meet the Press”: "It is significant that there is a vote in Iraq, but ... no one in the United States should try to overhype this election. This election is a sort of demarcation point, and what really counts now is the effort to have a legitimate political reconciliation, and it's going to take a massive diplomatic effort and a much more significant outreach to the international community than this administration has been willing to engage in. Absent that, we will not be successful in Iraq,"
More Kerry: "It's hard to say that something is legitimate when a whole portion of the country can't vote and doesn't vote." (Sound familiar?)
What a marvelous way to pay tribute to those trying to embrace democracy! I know he’s bitter, and I know he’s not going to say anything that would appear to endorse any of President Bush’s policies, but couldn’t it have waited a day? Or couldn’t he have at least included a kind word of encouragement or congratulations to the millions of Iraqi citizens who voted before he began to belittle the process and the turnout?
His dour demeanor on “Meet the Press” and in another interview Sunday contrasted sharply with images coming from Iraq, and his comments sounded small and petty. You would expect something more from a man who, less than three months ago, lost a race for the Presidency of the United States. It was a despicable performance. So now it’s time for me to get this off my chest.
Mr. Kerry, you are a jerk.
There. I feel better.
******[/quote]
\
That's very funny man, although Pat still manages to come off sounding dopey (as usual). I'm sure Pat cleared this with whatever network he works for - they're not worried about losing their core audience of the big bloated red mid-section of America, who watch TV while us stiffs in the blue areas work late into the night to fund Bush's crusade.
Now what does Bob Barker think about the cost of the Iraq war? "The price is wrong, bitch!"
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']Now what does Bob Barker think about the cost of the Iraq war? "The price is wrong, bitch!" [/quote]
Nice one! :lol:
[/quote]Nice one! :lol:
Drocket
CAGiversary!
[quote name='CTLesq']But I guess having an indentifiable person saying the US should stay as long as necessary probably doesn't count as much as a "feeling" that someone else can extrapolate from un-named sources to conclude that everyone wants us out yesterday.[/quote]
Would this be the guy who made an appearance with Bush right before the US election and basically gave a campaign speech for Bush? You know, the one in which he said that Baghdad was safer than New York and claimed that the insurgents were nearly defeated?
You remember when I mentioned 'puppet government' a couple pages back? This would be it.
Would this be the guy who made an appearance with Bush right before the US election and basically gave a campaign speech for Bush? You know, the one in which he said that Baghdad was safer than New York and claimed that the insurgents were nearly defeated?
You remember when I mentioned 'puppet government' a couple pages back? This would be it.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='CTLesq']
No, what you do is disproportionaltely focus on a few negative incidents to paint the entire election as a failure. Because that is your agenda - the failure of the US in Iraq. [/quote]
I didn't realize I wanted the u.s. to fail. You completely ignore problems that do occur. I also did not paint the entire election as a failure, I simply said there are many problems that this elections does not take care of. Problems that, if your ideology wins out, will never be dealt with. Anyone stating that everything isn't perfect is immediately denounced.
[quote name='"alonzomourning23"']
And you apparently have missed the innumberable comments made by those that have participated in the election that the Sunni's will be invited to participate in writing the constitution. So much for looking at "the whole picture". Or more appropriately, your willful ignorance of facts that don't assist your position.
[quote name='alonzomourning23'] That is a problem. You still seem to think of democracy as a magic pill, the cure for all problems. A democracy is not created or sustained simply by voting, there are enough failed democracies around the world to show that.[/quote]
Democracies invading democracies has absolutely nothing to do with this, we are talking about building a stable democracy. One that will not collapse, or need to be continually propped up. Ignoring problems does not make them go away.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But, you do view war as nothing, in the sense that you say they want democracy so, therefore, they also want to have a military invasion of their country to have that. You don't seem to think that being invaded would influence a persons decision. Then you also have to take into account all the blunders during the occupation, and how many still have only intermittent electricity and other essentials. Considering all that has occured up to this point, I have no idea if they want us gone immediately.[/quote]
It is relevent since you and others are using election participation to suggest that the invasion, and ensuing occupation, is supported by the Iraqis. This is a perfect example of what I'm saying though, all you do is complain about I'm not cheering about some great victory, while you fail to acknowledge that the problems in Iraq have any importance whatsoever.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']From what I've seen I'd guess there are more who want us gone than want us to stay, but I don't have enough evidence to choose one over the other. Personally, I think we screwed it up enough, but that leaving at this point would make it worse. Though it would be interesting to put that to a vote, show how much of a democracy it is, let the people decide the fate of the occupation.[/quote]
Well that did come from fox news. Though, I haven't seen any real statistic come out of Iraq since early 2004, which supported my view that Iraqi's opposed the occupation. I can't see why, after abu ghraib and everything else, more would support us.
[quote name='alonzomourning23'] :shock: On a side note, just saw your sig "The homeless exist for my amusement". I shouldn't be suprised.[/quote]
So only those who think everything is going great has any understanding of Iraq? Again, what do you think of Colin Powell? He's the one who said we were losing.
No, what you do is disproportionaltely focus on a few negative incidents to paint the entire election as a failure. Because that is your agenda - the failure of the US in Iraq. [/quote]
I didn't realize I wanted the u.s. to fail. You completely ignore problems that do occur. I also did not paint the entire election as a failure, I simply said there are many problems that this elections does not take care of. Problems that, if your ideology wins out, will never be dealt with. Anyone stating that everything isn't perfect is immediately denounced.
[quote name='"alonzomourning23"']
And you apparently have missed the innumberable comments made by those that have participated in the election that the Sunni's will be invited to participate in writing the constitution. So much for looking at "the whole picture". Or more appropriately, your willful ignorance of facts that don't assist your position.
[quote name='alonzomourning23'] That is a problem. You still seem to think of democracy as a magic pill, the cure for all problems. A democracy is not created or sustained simply by voting, there are enough failed democracies around the world to show that.[/quote]
Democracies invading democracies has absolutely nothing to do with this, we are talking about building a stable democracy. One that will not collapse, or need to be continually propped up. Ignoring problems does not make them go away.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But, you do view war as nothing, in the sense that you say they want democracy so, therefore, they also want to have a military invasion of their country to have that. You don't seem to think that being invaded would influence a persons decision. Then you also have to take into account all the blunders during the occupation, and how many still have only intermittent electricity and other essentials. Considering all that has occured up to this point, I have no idea if they want us gone immediately.[/quote]
It is relevent since you and others are using election participation to suggest that the invasion, and ensuing occupation, is supported by the Iraqis. This is a perfect example of what I'm saying though, all you do is complain about I'm not cheering about some great victory, while you fail to acknowledge that the problems in Iraq have any importance whatsoever.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']From what I've seen I'd guess there are more who want us gone than want us to stay, but I don't have enough evidence to choose one over the other. Personally, I think we screwed it up enough, but that leaving at this point would make it worse. Though it would be interesting to put that to a vote, show how much of a democracy it is, let the people decide the fate of the occupation.[/quote]
Well that did come from fox news. Though, I haven't seen any real statistic come out of Iraq since early 2004, which supported my view that Iraqi's opposed the occupation. I can't see why, after abu ghraib and everything else, more would support us.
[quote name='alonzomourning23'] :shock: On a side note, just saw your sig "The homeless exist for my amusement". I shouldn't be suprised.[/quote]
So only those who think everything is going great has any understanding of Iraq? Again, what do you think of Colin Powell? He's the one who said we were losing.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='CTLesq']Oh it doesn't appear such a lock that all the politicians in Iraq want us to leave yesterday:
Yahoo Link
But I guess having an indentifiable person saying the US should stay as long as necessary probably doesn't count as much as a "feeling" that someone else can extrapolate from un-named sources to conclude that everyone wants us out yesterday.
Again - we leave when we are asked or the job is done. What is so hard to understand about that.
CTL[/quote]
Allawai is the best you can come up with? Why don't you look at the people the Iraqi's actually elected, and find out how many of them support continued occupation compared to how many of them oppose the occupation.
Yahoo Link
But I guess having an indentifiable person saying the US should stay as long as necessary probably doesn't count as much as a "feeling" that someone else can extrapolate from un-named sources to conclude that everyone wants us out yesterday.
Again - we leave when we are asked or the job is done. What is so hard to understand about that.
CTL[/quote]
Allawai is the best you can come up with? Why don't you look at the people the Iraqi's actually elected, and find out how many of them support continued occupation compared to how many of them oppose the occupation.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Allawai is the best you can come up with? Why don't you look at the people the Iraqi's actually elected, and find out how many of them support continued occupation compared to how many of them oppose the occupation. [/quote]
And had we not gone to Iraq, none of these people would have been able to freely express those opinions. The irony !
And had we not gone to Iraq, none of these people would have been able to freely express those opinions. The irony !
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='CTLesq']Bottom line people:
All you can do is complain about an election that came off brillantly.
How small your world must be.
CTL[/quote]
Smaller because every other country hates the current US leaders/military/ignorant majority.
We do have something bigger though. It's called the deficit.
All you can do is complain about an election that came off brillantly.
How small your world must be.
CTL[/quote]
Smaller because every other country hates the current US leaders/military/ignorant majority.
We do have something bigger though. It's called the deficit.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
POST-ELECTION BUZZKILL: WHY IRAQ IS STILL A DEBACLE
By Arianna Huffington
Quick, before the conventional wisdom hardens, it needs to be said: The Iraqi elections were not the second coming of the Constitutional Convention.
The media have made it sound like last Sunday was a combination of 1776, the fall of the Berlin Wall, Prague Spring, the Ukraine's Orange Revolution, Filipino "People Power," Tiananmen Square and Super Bowl Sunday -- all rolled into one.
It's impossible not to be moved by the stories coming out of Iraq: voters braving bombings and mortar blasts to cast ballots; multiethnic crowds singing and dancing outside polling places; election workers, undeterred by power outages, counting ballots by the glow of oil lamps; teary-eyed women in traditional Islamic garb proudly holding up their purple ink-stained fingers -- literally giving the finger to butcher knife-wielding murderers.
It was a great moment. A Kodak moment. And unlike the other Kodak moments from this war -- think Saddam's tumbling statue and Jessica Lynch's "rescue" -- this one was not created by the image masters at Karl Rove Productions.
But this Kodak moment, however moving, should not be allowed to erase all that came before it, leaving us unprepared for all that may come after it.
I'm sorry to kill the White House's buzz -- and the press corps' contact high -- but the triumphalist fog rolling across the land has all the makings of another "Mission Accomplished" moment.
Forgive me for trotting out Santayana's shopworn dictum that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it but, for god's sake people, can't we even remember last week?
So amid all the talk of turning points, historic days and defining moments, let us steadfastly refuse to drink from the River Lethe that brought forgetfulness and oblivion to my ancient ancestors.
Let's not forget that for all the president's soaring rhetoric about spreading freedom and democracy, free elections were the administration's fallback position. More Plan D than guiding principle. We were initially going to install Ahmed Chalabi as our man in Baghdad, remember? Then that shifted to the abruptly foreshortened reign of "Bremer of Arabia." The White House only consented to holding open elections after Grand Ayatollah Sistani sent his followers into the streets to demand them -- and even then Bush refused to allow the elections until after our presidential campaign was done, just in case more suicide bombers than voters turned up at Iraqi polling places.
And the election doesn't change that.
Let's not forget that despite the hoopla, this was a legitimate democratic election in name only. Actually, not even in name since most of the candidates on Sunday's ballot had less name recognition than your average candidate for dogcatcher. That's because they were too afraid to hold rallies or give speeches. Too terrorized to engage in debates. In fact, many were so anxious about being killed that they fought to keep their names from being made public. Some didn't even know their names had been placed on the ballot. On top of that, this vote was merely to elect a transitional national assembly that will then draft a new constitution that the people of Iraq will then vote to approve or reject, followed by yet another vote -- this time to elect a permanent national assembly.
And the election doesn't change that.
Let's not forget that many Iraqi voters turned out to send a defiant message not just to the insurgents but to President Bush as well. Many of those purple fingers were raised in our direction. According to a poll taken by our own government, a jaw-dropping 92 percent of Iraqis view the U.S.-led forces in Iraq as "occupiers" while only 2 percent see them as "liberators."
And the election doesn't change that.
Let's not forget that the war in Iraq has made America far less safe than it was before the invasion. According to an exhaustive report released last month by the CIA's National Intelligence Council, Iraq has become a breeding ground for the next generation of "professionalized" Islamic terrorists. Foreign terrorists are now honing their deadly skills against U.S. troops -- skills they will eventually take with them to other countries, including ours. The report also warns that the war in Iraq has deepened solidarity among Muslims worldwide and increased anti-American feelings across the globe. Iraq has also drained tens of billions of dollars in resources that might otherwise have gone to really fighting the war on terror or increasing our preparedness for another terror attack here at home.
And the election doesn't change that.
Let's not forget the woeful lack of progress we've made in the reconstruction of Iraq. The people there still lack such basics as gas and kerosene. Indeed, Iraqis often wait in miles-long lines just to buy gas. The country is producing less electricity than before the war -- roughly half of current demand. There are food shortages, the cost of staple items such as rice and bread is soaring, and the number of Iraqi children suffering from malnutrition has nearly doubled. According to UNICEF, nearly 1 in 10 Iraqi children is suffering the effects of chronic diarrhea caused by unsafe water -- a situation responsible for 70 percent of children's deaths in Iraq.
And the election doesn't change that.
Let's not forget the blistering new report from the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, which finds that the U.S. occupation government that ruled Iraq before last June's transfer of sovereignty has been unable to account for nearly $9 billion, overseeing a reconstruction process "open to fraud, kickbacks and misappropriation of funds."
And the election doesn't change that.
Let's not forget that we still don't have an exit strategy for Iraq. The closest the president has come is saying that we'll be able to bring our troops home when, as he put it on Sunday, "this rising democracy can eventually take responsibility for its own security" -- "eventually" being the operative word. Although the administration claims over 120,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained, other estimates put the number closer to 14,000, with less than 5,000 of them ready for battle. And we keep losing those we've already trained: some 10,000 Iraqi National Guardsmen have quit or been dropped from the rolls in the last six months. Last summer, the White House predicted Iraqi forces would be fully trained by spring 2005; their latest estimate has moved that timetable to summer 2006.
And the election doesn't change that.
And let's never forget this administration's real goal in Iraq, as laid out by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and their fellow neocon members of the Project for the New American Century back in 1998 when they urged President Clinton and members of Congress to take down Saddam "to protect our vital interests in the Gulf." These vital interests were cloaked in mushroom clouds, WMD that turned into "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities," and a Saddam/al-Qaida link that turned into, well, nothing. Long before the Bushies landed on freedom and democracy as their 2005 buzzwords, they already had their eyes on the Iraqi prize: the second-largest oil reserves in the world, and a permanent home for U.S. bases in the Middle East.
This is still the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. And the election, as heart-warming as it was, doesn't change any of that.
© 2005 ARIANNA HUFFINGTON.
DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
By Arianna Huffington
Quick, before the conventional wisdom hardens, it needs to be said: The Iraqi elections were not the second coming of the Constitutional Convention.
The media have made it sound like last Sunday was a combination of 1776, the fall of the Berlin Wall, Prague Spring, the Ukraine's Orange Revolution, Filipino "People Power," Tiananmen Square and Super Bowl Sunday -- all rolled into one.
It's impossible not to be moved by the stories coming out of Iraq: voters braving bombings and mortar blasts to cast ballots; multiethnic crowds singing and dancing outside polling places; election workers, undeterred by power outages, counting ballots by the glow of oil lamps; teary-eyed women in traditional Islamic garb proudly holding up their purple ink-stained fingers -- literally giving the finger to butcher knife-wielding murderers.
It was a great moment. A Kodak moment. And unlike the other Kodak moments from this war -- think Saddam's tumbling statue and Jessica Lynch's "rescue" -- this one was not created by the image masters at Karl Rove Productions.
But this Kodak moment, however moving, should not be allowed to erase all that came before it, leaving us unprepared for all that may come after it.
I'm sorry to kill the White House's buzz -- and the press corps' contact high -- but the triumphalist fog rolling across the land has all the makings of another "Mission Accomplished" moment.
Forgive me for trotting out Santayana's shopworn dictum that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it but, for god's sake people, can't we even remember last week?
So amid all the talk of turning points, historic days and defining moments, let us steadfastly refuse to drink from the River Lethe that brought forgetfulness and oblivion to my ancient ancestors.
Let's not forget that for all the president's soaring rhetoric about spreading freedom and democracy, free elections were the administration's fallback position. More Plan D than guiding principle. We were initially going to install Ahmed Chalabi as our man in Baghdad, remember? Then that shifted to the abruptly foreshortened reign of "Bremer of Arabia." The White House only consented to holding open elections after Grand Ayatollah Sistani sent his followers into the streets to demand them -- and even then Bush refused to allow the elections until after our presidential campaign was done, just in case more suicide bombers than voters turned up at Iraqi polling places.
And the election doesn't change that.
Let's not forget that despite the hoopla, this was a legitimate democratic election in name only. Actually, not even in name since most of the candidates on Sunday's ballot had less name recognition than your average candidate for dogcatcher. That's because they were too afraid to hold rallies or give speeches. Too terrorized to engage in debates. In fact, many were so anxious about being killed that they fought to keep their names from being made public. Some didn't even know their names had been placed on the ballot. On top of that, this vote was merely to elect a transitional national assembly that will then draft a new constitution that the people of Iraq will then vote to approve or reject, followed by yet another vote -- this time to elect a permanent national assembly.
And the election doesn't change that.
Let's not forget that many Iraqi voters turned out to send a defiant message not just to the insurgents but to President Bush as well. Many of those purple fingers were raised in our direction. According to a poll taken by our own government, a jaw-dropping 92 percent of Iraqis view the U.S.-led forces in Iraq as "occupiers" while only 2 percent see them as "liberators."
And the election doesn't change that.
Let's not forget that the war in Iraq has made America far less safe than it was before the invasion. According to an exhaustive report released last month by the CIA's National Intelligence Council, Iraq has become a breeding ground for the next generation of "professionalized" Islamic terrorists. Foreign terrorists are now honing their deadly skills against U.S. troops -- skills they will eventually take with them to other countries, including ours. The report also warns that the war in Iraq has deepened solidarity among Muslims worldwide and increased anti-American feelings across the globe. Iraq has also drained tens of billions of dollars in resources that might otherwise have gone to really fighting the war on terror or increasing our preparedness for another terror attack here at home.
And the election doesn't change that.
Let's not forget the woeful lack of progress we've made in the reconstruction of Iraq. The people there still lack such basics as gas and kerosene. Indeed, Iraqis often wait in miles-long lines just to buy gas. The country is producing less electricity than before the war -- roughly half of current demand. There are food shortages, the cost of staple items such as rice and bread is soaring, and the number of Iraqi children suffering from malnutrition has nearly doubled. According to UNICEF, nearly 1 in 10 Iraqi children is suffering the effects of chronic diarrhea caused by unsafe water -- a situation responsible for 70 percent of children's deaths in Iraq.
And the election doesn't change that.
Let's not forget the blistering new report from the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, which finds that the U.S. occupation government that ruled Iraq before last June's transfer of sovereignty has been unable to account for nearly $9 billion, overseeing a reconstruction process "open to fraud, kickbacks and misappropriation of funds."
And the election doesn't change that.
Let's not forget that we still don't have an exit strategy for Iraq. The closest the president has come is saying that we'll be able to bring our troops home when, as he put it on Sunday, "this rising democracy can eventually take responsibility for its own security" -- "eventually" being the operative word. Although the administration claims over 120,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained, other estimates put the number closer to 14,000, with less than 5,000 of them ready for battle. And we keep losing those we've already trained: some 10,000 Iraqi National Guardsmen have quit or been dropped from the rolls in the last six months. Last summer, the White House predicted Iraqi forces would be fully trained by spring 2005; their latest estimate has moved that timetable to summer 2006.
And the election doesn't change that.
And let's never forget this administration's real goal in Iraq, as laid out by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and their fellow neocon members of the Project for the New American Century back in 1998 when they urged President Clinton and members of Congress to take down Saddam "to protect our vital interests in the Gulf." These vital interests were cloaked in mushroom clouds, WMD that turned into "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities," and a Saddam/al-Qaida link that turned into, well, nothing. Long before the Bushies landed on freedom and democracy as their 2005 buzzwords, they already had their eyes on the Iraqi prize: the second-largest oil reserves in the world, and a permanent home for U.S. bases in the Middle East.
This is still the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. And the election, as heart-warming as it was, doesn't change any of that.
© 2005 ARIANNA HUFFINGTON.
DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='CTLesq']Oh it doesn't appear such a lock that all the politicians in Iraq want us to leave yesterday:
Yahoo Link
But I guess having an indentifiable person saying the US should stay as long as necessary probably doesn't count as much as a "feeling" that someone else can extrapolate from un-named sources to conclude that everyone wants us out yesterday.
Again - we leave when we are asked or the job is done. What is so hard to understand about that.
CTL[/quote]
Allawai is the best you can come up with? Why don't you look at the people the Iraqi's actually elected, and find out how many of them support continued occupation compared to how many of them oppose the occupation.[/quote]
The funny thing is it appears that Allawai is far behind in the vote tally. Bush's puppet is going to most likely lose to an Iran-friendly cleric.
Yahoo Link
But I guess having an indentifiable person saying the US should stay as long as necessary probably doesn't count as much as a "feeling" that someone else can extrapolate from un-named sources to conclude that everyone wants us out yesterday.
Again - we leave when we are asked or the job is done. What is so hard to understand about that.
CTL[/quote]
Allawai is the best you can come up with? Why don't you look at the people the Iraqi's actually elected, and find out how many of them support continued occupation compared to how many of them oppose the occupation.[/quote]
The funny thing is it appears that Allawai is far behind in the vote tally. Bush's puppet is going to most likely lose to an Iran-friendly cleric.
E-Z-B
CAGiversary!
Yeah, Porter Goss is probably out of a job at the CIA. Geez, how hard is it to rig this election? It was done in the U.S. and Ukraine.
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi election officials released a new, partial tally of votes Friday from the weekend's landmark elections, showing candidates backed by Shiite Muslim clerics continuing to roll up a strong lead over other tickets, including one headed by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.
Meanwhile, two U.S. soldiers were killed and eight others were wounded by roadside bombs in the north, and an Iraqi contractor working with the U.S. military was gunned down in a drive-by shooting Friday west of the capital, U.S. and Iraqi reports said.
The United Iraqi Alliance, which has the endorsement of Iraq’s top Shiite clerics, including the widely revered Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, won more two-thirds of the 3.3 million votes counted so far, the election commission said. Allawi’s ticket was running second, with more than 579,700 votes.
The new election figures are based on votes cast at 35 percent of the country's polling stations, said Hamdiyah al-Husseini, an official with the electoral commission. They represent partial returns from 10 of the 18 provinces, all 10 of which have heavy Shiite populations.
Sunni views
No returns have been released from mainly Sunni provinces north and west of the capital. That has sparked fears that the Sunni Arab minority, which forms the backbone of the insurgency, will reject any government and constitution that emerge from the election.
Shiite Muslims, however, turned out in droves to vote, seizing the opportunity to turn their majority status in Iraq into political power for the first time.
The Alliance appears to have reaped the greatest benefit, even though Allawi is a secular Shiite.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6913272/
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi election officials released a new, partial tally of votes Friday from the weekend's landmark elections, showing candidates backed by Shiite Muslim clerics continuing to roll up a strong lead over other tickets, including one headed by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.
Meanwhile, two U.S. soldiers were killed and eight others were wounded by roadside bombs in the north, and an Iraqi contractor working with the U.S. military was gunned down in a drive-by shooting Friday west of the capital, U.S. and Iraqi reports said.
The United Iraqi Alliance, which has the endorsement of Iraq’s top Shiite clerics, including the widely revered Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, won more two-thirds of the 3.3 million votes counted so far, the election commission said. Allawi’s ticket was running second, with more than 579,700 votes.
The new election figures are based on votes cast at 35 percent of the country's polling stations, said Hamdiyah al-Husseini, an official with the electoral commission. They represent partial returns from 10 of the 18 provinces, all 10 of which have heavy Shiite populations.
Sunni views
No returns have been released from mainly Sunni provinces north and west of the capital. That has sparked fears that the Sunni Arab minority, which forms the backbone of the insurgency, will reject any government and constitution that emerge from the election.
Shiite Muslims, however, turned out in droves to vote, seizing the opportunity to turn their majority status in Iraq into political power for the first time.
The Alliance appears to have reaped the greatest benefit, even though Allawi is a secular Shiite.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6913272/
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='coffman']The funny thing is it appears that Allawai is far behind in the vote tally. Bush's puppet is going to most likely lose to an Iran-friendly cleric.[/quote]
It will be interesting to see all of the back-peddling and crazy Bush mumblings if the new guy doesn't keep the oil flowing freely as a big F U to the US. However I'm sure the current administration will be able to use their masterful skills in lies and duplicity to get 51% of the US on their side.
It will be interesting to see all of the back-peddling and crazy Bush mumblings if the new guy doesn't keep the oil flowing freely as a big F U to the US. However I'm sure the current administration will be able to use their masterful skills in lies and duplicity to get 51% of the US on their side.
bread's done