The voting has finished:
Iraqis streamed to the polls Saturday, casting ballots on a new constitution that would fundamentally alter the shape and nature of the nation.
With most vehicular traffic banned, and more than 150,000 American and Iraqi troops deployed, the day unfolded mostly peacefully, with only scattered attacks on polling sites and troops convoys across the country.
The new constitution, which would give the Iraqi state a strong Islamic cast and provide broad guarantees for individual rights, appeared to be heading toward final passage. Voters in Shiite and Kurdish areas turned out in the greatest numbers, with most voters indicating they were supporting the charter. The constitution grants the Kurds broad autonomy in northern Iraq, and is expected to usher in a Shiite-dominated government following elections in December.
I guess now all we have to do is wait. It does seem like the level of violence was below what would be expected.
Brad R.
Weirdly, I think having the Constitution rejected is the best thing you could hope for. If it gets ratified, expect to see an increasingly radicalized Sunni population.
Dexter
Since there weren’t terrorists disruption, and since there was a good turnout — means one thing!
The press won’t be covering it.
Davebo
By golly they’ve voted.
We’re obviously turning the corner right?
aop
Yeah, only the lead story on MSNBC, CNN, NY TImes, LA Times, WaPo…
Wait, Catfancy.com is remaining silent. Fucking MSM.
Paddy O'Shea
That our $1 billion a week plus the lives of hundreds of our military people have given the Iraqi people the opportunity to further empower their pro-Iranian Shi’ite fundamentalist govt under the aegis of Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani (born in theran, by the way), is of great interest to me.
It truly is refreshing to have yet another fine example of govt insanity to support my beliefs that we are ruled by congenital idiots.
Dexter
What if we really have? I know that the White House, especially Cheney has cried wolf about this one too many times, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a possibility of real good news coming out of Iraq, whether the press covers it or not.
db
Was anyone else struck by the fact that prisoners were allowed to vote?
Oh yeah, and they got to vote on the weekend.
Brad R.
What if we really have? I know that the White House, especially Cheney has cried wolf about this one too many times, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a possibility of real good news coming out of Iraq, whether the press covers it or not.
But, you know, the press has been covering it. I get so. Tired. Of hearing people whine about the press reporting nothing but bad news. Guys- they report good news when there is good news. Needless to say, most of the time, Iraq isn’t filled with good news.
Veeshir
I was happy prisoners could vote. Innocent until proven guilty is a good thing.
As somebody said, democracy is a process and not an event and they handled that well. Even offering Saddam a vote.
I loved this Wash Post editorial. It’s tone is mostly that this appears be good but don’t be fooled.
Of all of it, my favorite was this quote
Bullllllllllllshit. The people using “military” means are trying to stop the constitution not amend it. The people trying to amend it are using political means and not military. The Iraqi and Coalition armies are using military means to keep the terrorists from killing. There’s absolutely no truth that allegation and it’s disgusting in its implication that the Iraqis only know how to blow each other up to get anything done.
So yes, fucking MSM.
Brad R.
Bullllllllllllshit. The people using “military” means are trying to stop the constitution not amend it. The people trying to amend it are using political means and not military. The Iraqi and Coalition armies are using military means to keep the terrorists from killing. There’s absolutely no truth that allegation and it’s disgusting in its implication that the Iraqis only know how to blow each other up to get anything done.
You do realize that it’s not just Sunni militias that are engaging in ethnic violence, right? That there’s plenty of nastiness being done by the Shiite majority too, yeah?
DougJ
Great post veeshir.
A day that MSM hoped would turn bloody turned out to be the most peaceful in months.
Cindy Sheehan is deeply saddened, saddened.
Scott Free
“Guys- they report good news when there is good news.”
Sure they do. On page Z-22, right under the announcement for the Okra festival. Bad news is reserved for the front-page bold face.
aop
Which differs how, exactly, from their treatment of domestic stories? I think you guys are missing the mark if you’re saying that there’s a different standard for coverage of the war and national stories. Unfortunately, bad news is usually the news, period.
aop
Besides, it’s stupid to say the press isn’t covering the voting. It’s the lead story on every paper and website I’ve seen.
ppGaz
“News” from Iraq is a little like “news” from a high school football game. The news that counts is the final score. In this case, the final score will depend on whether or not Iraq sustains a stable government that is not repressive, and is congenial to western interests. If not, the whole thing will have been a waste of time and resources and lives.
Since there is no way to predict, or more importantly, to control, the outcome, there is no reason to be celebrating anything now … or not. You’re watching a story play out and it is still early in Act Two.
As for “turning a corner” …. this would be about the sixth “corner” turned so far, I think. That makes a 540 degree turn, which puts us heading in the opposite direction from the one we started out with.
I’ll leave it to DougJ to decide whether that puts the insurgency in its “last, very last, last throes” yet.
Mike
“Davebo Says:
By golly they’ve voted.
We’re obviously turning the corner right?”
Nah, a Middle-eastern nation that spent decades under the tyranny of a brutal dictator voting on a Democratic Constitution is no big deal. Happens all the time.
Dexter
Gee, every fifty years or so I guess. Move along folks, nothing to see here.
Kevin K.
Cindy Sheehan is deeply saddened, saddened.
And the hawks (the ones who were holding bake sales for the Iraqis back when the Kurds were getting gassed) seem to be the only ones keeping her memory alive these days.
Cindy Sheehan is deeply grateful, grateful.
Jimmy Jazz
No, there pretty much isn’t a possibility of that. Heads, the Shi’ites win, tails the Sunnis lose. This constitution will do nothing to stem the insurgency and will probably inflame it further if it passes.
Jimmy Jazz
Link to last blockquote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/15/AR2005101500469.html
Dexter
Freedom is messy. I would be more disturbed if I found there was no disagreement among the various parties. Dissent and disagreement are the hallmarks of democracy.
Jimmy Jazz
Oh, for Christ’s sake. Stick your pathetic Rummyisms where the sun doesn’t shine.
One day:
One. Day.
http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_dailywarnews_archive.html#112914303885629892
Dexter
Jimmmy Jazz, you think the kinds of things you describe didn’t happen under Saddam? Believe me, what you describe woud be a *good* day under Hussein. Hell, it might be a good day in downtown Detroit.
Jimmy Jazz
Actually, they didn’t. One of the few benefits of living under a brutal dictator is that, day to day, there was plenty of security.
Dexter
Tell that to the Kurds who were gassed.
Jimmy Jazz
Yeah, 15 years ago. Forget it, go hit the koolaid. Everything’s wonderful in Iraq. Freedom’s on the march.
Dexter
I love the smell of purple ink in the evening . . . smells like victory!
Mac Buckets
You’re walking proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And the unearned arrogance is the cherry on top!
Al-Sistani left Iran for a reason — he hated the Iranian theocracy. Why else do you think he left his homeland, genius? No Taco Bells in Tehran? He believes it is a sin for clerics to hold political office, and yes, the informal power and the trust the Iraqi Shi’ite Muslims have given him is crucially important — only in exactly the opposite way that you think.
srv
Yup, Mac, you got the first part right.
Uh, Al-Sistani has been in Iraq for a long time. Like decades before the Iranian revolution in 1979. He did not flee from Iran. In the 60’s and 70’s as it was sort of a requirement that you didn’t preach against the state (either in Iraq, or under the Shah in Iran), he was a ‘good’ cleric. This may have helped his advancement. Nevertheless, the Ba’aath jailed him at least once or twice.
While Al-Sistani may not be Khomeini, I wouldn’t believe everything you hear. Right now, we need him, and he needs us. Some day, he’s going to have to make a decision as to whether we’re more important to him or his brethren in Iran are.
Off Colfax
Actually, this was what gave me something to go “Wow!” over.
They took the ballot boxes into the hospitals to ensure that the sick, infirm and invalid did not miss out on the chance to vote. THAT was impressive to me.
Whichever side of the issue you stand on, you have to admit. They’re not letting anyone say that they didn’t give folks a chance to vote on this. And good for them.
Baron Elmo
It matters not whether this constitution passes or fails… as long as the U.S. maintains military bases in Iraq, the insurgency will continue.
And if, by some highly unlikely gift of divine providence, the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds work out their difficulties, they will all very much desire that the American military shut down those bases and leave Iraq.
Of course, that won’t happen on Bush’s watch. Hell, after the oil, it’s the main reason we went to war — to establish a firm military presence in the Middle East.
ppGaz
Well stated. The nutty, pathological idea that the US would go into Iraq, remove the evil dictator, and then leave behind a stable and friendly regime that sells us cheap oil, will soon be viewed with mouths agape by historians as a classic “what were they thinking” moment.
In a word, it’s magical thinking. It is the reason why the war had to be ginned up on false pretenses …. because instinctively the American people would understand the futile nature of this magical thinking.
Christ in a gumdrop! Bush himself ran on the idea of not getting into nation-building, in his first campaign. Why do you think he did this … because the US is a country that yearns to be in the nation-building business? Because nation-building is such a proven, profitable business to be in?
“Oh, but 911 changed everything!” say the Bushmonkeys. Well, that’s a lie. 9-11 actually changed very little about the world. What it changed was the way Americans see the world, and the change was not in the direction of astute perception but toward the direction of reactionary foolishness. A reaction which is now wearing off. Reality has set in.
Paddy O'Shea
Hey, this Mac Buckets guy is quite a hoot! Talk about comedy. I can only imagine what infortuitous mixture of toxic chemicals and natural stupidity has led this poor befuddled sap to conclude that the Shi’ite Islamic fundamentalist cleric Ali al Sistani is a pro-western democrat earnestly working to further George W. Bush’s aims in Iraq. Perhaps he is amongst the select who have pledged to self-administer Karl Rove Kool-Aid enemas on a daily basis?
Here on Planet Earth it is generally understood that even if the trappings of democracy are adopted by the elected Shi’ite fundamentalist officials recently put in charge of the Iraqi govt in Baghdad, our troops ain’t leaving. You see, there is no way we’d leave a pro-Iranian govt to do what it clearly wants to do, align with Tehran and create a Shi’ite superpower in the heart of our South Asian oil interests. Just isn’t going to happen.
And that is what is at the heart of Bush’s wretched Iraqi failure. We’re stuck there for decades. The civil war will go on, our troops will continue to die, and we will spend an untold fortune in national (or borrowed) treasure in a vain attempte prevent the consequences George W. Bush’s madness.
Dexter
I disagree. Once Iraq becomes stable politically, I expect us to withdraw and leave them to their own devices. Freedom is messy — we cannot be sure what the Iraqis will want to do once they become a stable democracy. But one thing is for sure: better a stable democracy than rule by Islamofascists like Saddam. And history shows that, in the main, stable democracies tend to behave responsibly. The idea that an Iraqi government will align itself with Iran to become some sort of terrorist super power seems like a paranoid fantasy to me. It is much more likely that Iranians will look at their neighbors to the west and ask “Why not here? Why not a democracy here?”
ppGaz
“Once they become a stable democracy.” Snort. The Arab world has no history of stable democracy. There is no basis in history for believing that Iraq will become a stable deomcracy no matter what we do there, or how long we stay.
What magical scenario will produce 5 years’ stable democracy there? See Paddy O’Shea’s post above for a more realistic guess at the near term future of Iraq. But whether you prefer your guess, or his, you both have something in common: It’s all guesswork. We are spending a billion bucks a week, or so, on an idea based entirely on guesswork.
You said exactly one correct thing:
Uh, no shit, Sherlock.
Dexter
Are you suggesting that Muslim people are incapable of democracy? You know, prior to the Revolutionary War, one could have said that North America had no history of stable democracy. Would you have considered that an argument against the Revolutionary war?
Darrell
You mean the same military which shed blood so that they could be free? The military seen rebuilding Iraqi schools and hospitals throughout the country? What makes you so sure that they wouldn’t want US military bases there for a long while.. if for nothing else, insurance and backup? Leftist kooks: “The sky is falling!!”
Darrell
Because after 9/11 it became clear to anyone with eyes that leaving the status quo in the middle east wasn’t going to be a very smart idea. You and your fellow leftist loons claim that you supported the invasion and nation building of Afghanistan.
ppGaz
I’m stating a fact. What you make of it is up to you.
And why a US government, headed by a president who ran for office saying that he was opposed to nation-building, would presume to suddenly not only know that such a democracy was “doable”, but then presume to know how to do it, you will have to leave to your imagination …. because there is no body of facts to help you out.
The whole thing is a grandiose and ill-concieved experiment, on your nickel, and in the blood of your armed forces. It’s ax experiment with no precedent, no historical in place, conducted with no planning and no particular strategy in place for achieving the goal when it started, run by people who appear to be completely inept, and dishonest.
The history of neither the Arab world in general, or Iraq in particular, would lead no reasoable person to conclude that attempting to construct a liberal democracy there would be a prudent thing to do.
Off Colfax
And you warmongers on the right always insist that there is no difference between Afghanistan and Iraq.
Afghanistan: Had a government that was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Taliban, an al Qaida ally.
Iraq: Had now unfounded rumors of the same situation.
Afghanistan: Had confirmed reports regarding the presence of not only al Qaida, but of Osama bin Laden.
Iraq: Had unconfirmed reports that at least one al Qaida training facility was placed within the boundries of Iraq.
Afghanistan: The government, as an entity, was corrupt to the very core.
Iraq: Led to believe that the corruption started and ended with the Hussein regime, we now know that the corruption is rampant through and through.
And this one is the kicker for me.
Afghanistan: Directly, and without any publicly available contrary evidence, supported the man who merrily slaughtered Americans on September 11, 2001.
Iraq: Was rumored to, with very little publicly available supporting evidence, have supported the man who merrily slaughtered Americans on September 11, 2001.
Which leads me to this.
Afghanistan: Apples
Iraq: Oranges
I cannot logically compare and equate the two.
Dexter
It’s an experiment, and a grandiose one, but not ill-conceived. Look, I’ll admit that mistakes were made in terms of planning. But those are mistakes that won’t be made again. What this whole grandiose experiment proves is that it *is* possible to bring democracy to parts of the world that have not seen it before. I don’t expect it will be the last time this is done. Iran, Syria, North Korea — there are many other countries where the population, if not the leaders, would be more than happy to be the source of another grandiose experiment. And next time will be smoother, since we can learn from our mistakes.
Mac Buckets
I stand corrected. The main point is that he has rejected Iranian-style theocracy, and issues fatwas saying that the clergy should not hold political power.
Darrell
You forgot this one
Iraq: Known harborer and supporter of terrorists. Kicked out weapons inspectors in 1998 with tons of KNOWN unaccounted for Vx and Chem weapons in violation of 1991 terms of surrender
There were differences in those 2 situations. I don’t dispute that. The entire point of my post was that ppgaz was mocking the general idea of nation building oblivious to the fact that he supported ‘nation building’ in Afghanistan
Dexter
You left out that Saddam Hussein gassed his own people too. And that he made been making ever louder threats against Israel.
ppGaz
Well, says you. But I’ll need a little more evidence than your assertion to believe it to be so.
This is Tim Russert today on MTP:
He is quoting a wire story that is based on “senior officials who wish to remain anonymous.” Whoever you think those people are, it’s clear that there is a great deal of doubt out there across the political spectrum.
A majority of Americans no longer believe that they were told the truth about why this war was necessary. They no longer believe that it is making them safer. They no longer consider it to have been a good idea. They no longer think that keeping large US forces there for an indefinite period of time is a worthwhile committment to be making.
Most citizens of the western world have had these same doubts since the get-go. How is it that the only people who are right about this are a small band of zealots inside the administration of this government? They’re right, and everyone else is wrong …. the same people who didn’t have enough respect for the people three years ago to tell the straight truth about the circumstances leading to the “cause for war” in the first place. Why should I believe them … or you?
Darrell
Small band of zealot must = large majority of Congress which gave overwhelming approval.
Mac Buckets
Woah, take a break! Building all those strawmen must be thirsty work! Have some iced tea.
searp
Time for the Bismarck quote:
The whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier.
Who gives a good goddamn whether Iraq is ruled by a theocracy, democracy or idiocy? Do we get all choked up when Ecuadorians go to the polls?
We declared war because we were worried that Saddam had WMD. Read the enabling legislation. All this stuff about democracy is simply a desperate attempt to defend a colossal mistake that is compounded daily.
Darrell
Who is such a fundamentalist that he encourages free elections to vote on a largely secular constitution
Dexter
I dispute this, but, in any case, all available intelligence suggested that he did.
Darrell
Well, since theocracies and dictatorships in the middle east have spawned terrorists who have murdered thousands of Americans, I can certainly see your comparison with Ecuador.
searp
Darrell:
The murderers were non-state terrorists belonging to a group named Al-Qaeda. Their actions weren’t sanctioned by any country. Sure, they were Middle Eastern, and sure, the governments of the Middle East are terrible by our standards, but let us try to think cause and effect.
If we really wanted to invade a country because of 9/11, it would have been Saudi Arabia. Not one of the hijackers was Iraqi. None of the major al Qaeda figures are Iraqi.
You need a course in logic.
ppGaz
Wake up and get a clue, you icredible moron. Congress voted almost three years ago. That ship has sailed. That party is over.
Stop hiding behind that bullshit and come out into the light of today’s reality, Darrell. If that’s the best you can do, you should just STFU.
Baron Elmo
Darrell–
The Iraqis will want the American troops to leave because
A) the insurgency will continue unabated as long as we maintain a military presence there.
B) the Iraqis will want to run their own damn country, without the aid of what they would surely see as infidel babysitters. For a valuable historic parallel, read about our occupation of the Philippines in the late 1800s. The Filipinos were overwhelmingly grateful when we liberated them from the Japanese… but when we refused to remove our troops, their gratitude soured into protests and riots, to which our troops responded with bullets and martial law. (This campaign was the origin of the anti-war movement in the U.S.)
What you have to remember, Darrell, is that the vast majority of Iraqis don’t believe that our troops “shed blood so that they could be free.” (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here and assuming that you mean their OWN blood, rather than that of the Iraqis.) Even most of the locals who hated Saddam and are happy to see him gone don’t believe that America is occupying their country for completely unselfish reasons. Indeed, why should they, given our track record in the Middle East… or the world, for that matter?
After a century of America’s covert immoralities in (deep breath here) El Salvador, the Philippines, East Timor, Iran, Panama, Brazil, Indonesia, Guatamala, Haiti, Angola, Cambodia, the Congo, Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua, Columbia, AND Iraq, etc. (all too often for the benefit of U.S. business interests), WHY on earth should we or the citizens of Iraq (or, indeed, the world) believe the avowed good intentions of Bush and the neocons now? Especially when the occupied country in question just happens to have tons of a natural resource that OUR country just happens to need in vast quantities?
Another point. To my mind, the overarching irony of “Operation Iraqi Freedom” is this: if Bill Clinton had fought this same war in the same inept way and achieved the same questionable results, 98% of the Republicans in this country would be screaming for his head on a plate. Can’t you close your eyes and HEAR the likes of Sean Hannity blasting Clinton to Hades and back for, oh, something like a “liberal feel-good exercise in kowtowing to terrorism… throwing away American lives and capital to bring freedom to people who despise us.”
And that’s the amazing cultural miracle that the Bush administration has wrought: getting hardcore right-wingers — many of whom would be reluctant to shake hands, much less break bread with an orthodox Muslim — to concern themselves with THE WELFARE OF IRAQIS. No Democrat on earth could have pulled that one off.
The kicker is that, had Clinton waged Operation Iraqi Freedom, the LEFT wing would be enraged at him too — for, well, engaging America in an unjust, foolhardy war. Kinda like now.
Too bad the GOP (and most of our current war’s cheerleaders) didn’t give a tinker’s cuss about Saddam’s vicious little dictatorship back when he was wasting Iranians and Kurds with his chemical weapons. You know, around the time Reagan took Iraq off the list of terrorist nations… back when the likes of Robert Dole, Alan Simpson and Donald Rumsfeld were kissing Saddam’s ass… back when damn near the only anti-Saddam voices heard in America hailed from the left.
If Saddam Hussein had never made the fatal error of invading Kuwait (never mind that G.H.W. Bush’s secretary of state James Baker all but gave him permission to do so), he’d be the neocons’ best buddy in the Muslim world today. And he’d still be the vicious little dictator he always was.
ppGaz
Dead, absolutely wrong. That intelligence could be taken to mean that only if it remained unexamined and unquestioned, or, spun to mean such a thing by people with an agenda.
Unless we are now going to consign democracy — our own — to some scrap heap where we just go along with whatever press releases the Pentagon runs off the copy machine, then those assumptions should have been subjected to rigorous tests and scrutiny. They weren’t and the result is what we have now … a population that basically doesn’t — and shouldn’t — believe its government any more.
searp
Dexter: opening paragraphs of PL 107-243, you tell me what they mean:
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in “material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations” and urged the President “to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations”;
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
ppGaz
Can you show how “theocracies and dictatorships” “spawned” Al Qaeda, Darrell?
Dexter
There is *a* population that doesn’t believe the government, but I wouldn’t say that *the* population doesn’t. The Daily Kos people, the blame America crowd, yes, they don’t believe the government. But they never did. I seriously doubt that anyone who believed the government before doesn’t believe it now.
ppGaz
I was clear, and correct: The majority of the American people no longer will drink this Kool Aid.
You can dismiss that as the “Daily Kos people” and other perjoratives, but you are wrong, or lying, or both.
The opinion trends on these things are clear. You are wrong, people who used to say that they support the war don’t now. People who used to say it was a good idea say it isn’t now. People who used to say that it was making us safer say it isn’t now. People who used to say that the government did not mislead the people in the runup to war now say that it did.
You can pretend that all this isn’t true, but all that does is make you look ridiculous.
And if you think these numbers are bad now, wait about six months and see where they are. You haven’t seen anything yet.
Dexter
I didn’t mean that to sound pejorative. I shouldn’t have said “blame America crowd”. And “daily kos people” is not meant to be pejorative. I respect your right to hold these opinions. But I think you are mistaken if you think you are in the majority.
Paddy O'Shea
Hey, Darrell said something really funny a few posts back!
He thinks that because Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani encouraged his followers to vote, he’s in favor of democracy and secularism.
Uh, Darrell? There could be another reason, you know. Maybe he wants his people to vote because they are in the majority? That maybe the Shi’ite majority in Iraq wants the pro-Iranian fundamentlist theocracy he is offering them, and he knows they’ll vote for it?
I’m sure his fundie buds in Tehran would want it no other way.
Want to know what the Grand Ayatollah will be saying once we pull our troops out because Georgie the Chimp thinks he’s helped install the world’s most expensive democracy?
“Goodbye Iraq, hello Greater Iran!”
And I’m sure the Iranians will help Grand Ayatollah Sistanui deal with his Sunni problem just as soon as we leave. it’s a dirty job, but they’ll be glad to do it.
Paddy O'Shea
Dexter? There is no “blame America” crowd. There is only a growing majority of Americans who think Bush is doing a wretched job.
Bush is not America. He is merely a marginally elected and exceedingly lousy president who has fucked things up around here royally. Osama bin Laden could only dream of doing the kind of damage to this country that the inept Kennebunkport Cowboy has done.
Come up for air sometimes, Dexie. Your current posture is giving you a shitty perspective.
Steve S
It’s sad to see conservatives promoting failed liberal ideology.
Mike
“Paddy O’Shea Says:
Dexter? There is no “blame America” crowd. ”
Bullshit.
There is indeed a Blame America crowd, and these idiots are all the side of Left.
Every stinking one of them.
Dexter
This is the kind of divisive rhetoric the left is using to divide the country. Bush may not *be* America in the strictest sense but he is America’s leader, America’s face to the world. When you mock him as “chimp” or a “cowboy” or as a “brownshirt” (to use Al Gore’s phrase) you mock the institution of the president, and, in a way, yes, you mock America. I think sometimes you may succeed in bringing him down but at a terrible cost to national unity and to our image abroad.
And, Paddy, I took back the “blame America” comment, FYI.
TallDave
Can you show how “theocracies and dictatorships” “spawned” Al Qaeda, Darrell?
It’s not very hard if you think for a few seconds. What do you think the mujahedin were formed to fight? Soviet democracy? And what did they do as soon as they won? They set up a theocracy.
These movements are born out of frustration with dictatorships, and their desired end state is theocracy. Like the Communists before them, their philosophical underpinnings generally serve only as a recruiting tool; I doubt even a tenth of their leadership really believes in anything but their own self-aggrandizement.
Mike
“Baron Elmo Says:
Of course, that won’t happen on Bush’s watch. Hell, after the oil, it’s the main reason we went to war—to establish a firm military presence in the Middle East.”
Yeah, No Blood for Oil. Same old Leftist bullshit.
TallDave
ppGaz offers a perfect example of how the Left always blames America first. Notice the implicit suggestion is that the U.S. is responsible for Al Qaeda, because we armed them against the Soviet attempt to invade Afghanistan and make them another oppressive dictatorial satellite state.
Could we have done a better job in Afghanistan back then, stayed more engaged, tried to push the rebels toward democracy, maybe caused things to turn out better? Of course. But are we responsible for the fact they set up a theocratic state? We weren’t exactly endorsing the idea, so unless you’re of the Noam Chomsky reductio ad Americanum school of thought under which everything bad that happens in the world is America’s fault, no.
But the DailyKos left does by and large belong to that school of thought, which is why they always bring up the U.S. fundng of the mujahedin, and never note that the other result of that effort was the collapse of the Soviet Union, the easing of a constant threat of nuclear armaggedon, and the freeing of Eastern Europe.
TallDave
The history of neither the Arab world in general, or Iraq in particular, would lead no reasoable person to conclude that attempting to construct a liberal democracy there would be a prudent thing to do.
And there’s the new leftist bigotry on display: Freedom and democracy for me, but not for thee.
The fact is, those arguments have been made againt practiclly every attempt to create democracy. Many people thought the Germans were incorrigible militarists, and Truman’s own staff called the democratization of Japan a “failure.”
For decades, we heard how the people of the Soviet Union didn’t want freedom and democracy, or were temperamentally unsuited to it.
It’s never been true, and it’s always been an insult to the oppressed.
Dexter
By all accounts, things are going much better in Iraq than they did in Germany and Japan in the period immediately after WWII. And I can’t help but think that history will judge Bush in much the same way it now judges Truman: as a tough, straight-talking leader who was the right man in the right place to deal with a pivotal moment in the spread of democracy.
Pady O'Shea
Dexter and Mikie are whining up a mighty storm this evening, and it would appear that their emotions may have clouded their ability to appreciate the wisdom of my earlier statements.
One of the great joys and privileges of our great democracy is the ability to firmly hang about the necks of our failed politicians and leaders the consequences of their idiocy, thereby sparing the nation as a whole the blame for their incompetence. It is a great concept that has carried this nation unscathed through the stewardship some of some of the most inept idiots to ever have been entrusted with national power. And certainly we are in one of those periods today.
Now I can understand their desire to try and hide the Mighty Mite O’ Texas (or is it Connecticut) behind the glorious mantle of the state, afterall he certainly cannot stand upon his own achievements. And even a dead fish’s stink can be obscured in flag wrapping, at least for a while. But when a majority of Americans decide that the President of the United States is an ass and is no longer deserving of their support, it is hardly to be taken as a mass outbreak of treason. No, it is actually the body politic healing itself by ejecting that which has caused it harm, and preparing for the healing process of our next round of elections.
Of course, the prospect of more than a few Bush administration officials and their Congressional GOP counterparts getting hauled off to court in the next few month does add some spice to the process. Criminal malfeasance and treasonous betrayals, coupled with rank incompetence, is a particularly nasty brew, and I’m sure those on the extreme right (not to mention the Addled Sons of Rush), are going to suffer some rather debilitating emotional damage.
But gents?? Do try and take it in a manly fashion, OK? Disappointment comes to us all from time to time, and we just have to learn to face it. Bush has been proven unworthy, and the country is moving on. Dry your eyes boys, and try to keep up.
searp
Dexter:
We aren’t “spreading” democracy in Iraq, we are imposing it. The correct historical analogy, it seems to me, is Bosnia, not Germany. Bosnia, where I spent my honeymoon, will never (my lifetime) be a unified democracy.
I have often thought the exact opposite of Bush and history, which just goes to show that we probably should wait a while before making historical judgements. My theory is that Bush is looking more and more like LBJ on foreign affairs and Warren Harding on domestic affairs.
Paddy O'Shea
I’m a bit taken aback by Dexter’s comment above. Bush is an extraordinarily unpopular fellow overseas. How will it hurt our image abroad if we, in Dexter’s term, “bring him down?”
I would think the effect would be the opposite.
Paddy O'Shea
Poor Mike seems to be back on the pipe again. Perhaps he is unaware that in a democracy it is our right to express our disdain for incompetent and corrupt politicians, particularly those in office?
I wonder if he looks at the recent polls showing Bush to be about as popular as genital herpes and sees a nation coming to its senses, or views it as an instance of mass treason?
No wonder Georgie Bush is talking marshall law these days!
Cyrus
Dexter Says:
Coming late to the party here, but I just noticed this comment with its little acorn of stupidity that, if we aren’t careful, might one day grow into a full-fledged mighty oak of blithering idiocy… so I felt I had to comment.
“Islamofascists like Saddam.” Saddam ran a very secular state. His state was more secular than some Western democracies. There are only two ways a person could use that phrase in a positive, serious sense. The first is if “Islamofascism” is a meaningless, Orwellian catchphrase that could be used to mean anything bad happening between Casablanca and Kashmir. And the second is if the person saying it is completely ignorant of the most basic facts about Iraq and Saddam.
Please tell me it’s just a typo, Dexter. Because while on the one hand, of course I shouldn’t generalize from one anonymous guy on one blog to the 38% or whatever that still supports Bush, on the other hand this seems a little like a good example of the thought processes that got the country where it today.
Darrell
Yes Cyrus, Saddam was largely secular, although he would play the noble muslim when it suited him, calling for holy jihad and all
Secular state under Saddam meant the clerics were almost all on the govt payroll, not that there was no religion. If you remove the reference to Saddam being an Islamofascist that you find so objectionable, what is wrong with the remainder?:
Freedom is messy—we cannot be sure what the Iraqis will want to do once they become a stable democracy. But one thing is for sure: better a stable democracy than rule by Saddam
Cyrus
Darrell Says:
Nothing’s wrong with the remainder. “If you ignore dishonest and/or uninformed arguments for the war by some of its supporters, they’re exactly right.”
Other people on this thread have already explained very well some reasons to oppose Bush now and reasons to have opposed the invasion back when it mattered, so there’s no point in me spending better than an hour rephrasing this, just for one example. If the war’s supporters dismiss the opposition as the daily kos crowd when opinion polls on both the war and Bush himself are in the tubes, if they claim the war was all about humanitarianism when every sentence in the resolution to go to war referred to WMDs, if they either don’t know or don’t care about how Saddam related to the more general war on terrorism (or didn’t), why should be believe anything they say?
Harry Atkinson
Our enemies rejoice …
Iran Hails Iraq’s Turnout In Constitution Referendum
http://en.chinabroadcast.cn/2239/2005-10-17/[email protected]
Bush has brought us low in the world.
Kimmitt
Hey, now, you’re discounting the possibility that both are true.