But you must agree that yet another 'corner' has been turned.

Hey, Shakes'Sis!

Ambassador Gerald Helman writes about how Iraq demonstrates the administration's new-world-order, boot-up-yer-ass foreign policy (my words, not Helman's).

Now, I know "new world order" is a religiously and emotionally loaded phrase... but, I can't help thinking that those who want more money and power wouldn't hesitate to take advantage of other peoples' motivations.

"I continue to be amazed and impressed by the Iraqis who risk bodily harm to cast a vote, and wonder what the hell is wrong with Americans who can’t be bloody bothered."

Too right.

I can't help thinking that those who want more money and power wouldn't hesitate to take advantage of other peoples' motivations.

So cynical. That never happens...does it?

No god bless the people of Iraq.

It will be interesting to watch the Democrats crawl off the limb.

I'm amazed by those Iraqis too, although I think the comparison with American (non)voters is inaccurate. Voting in Iraq can logically be seen as a legitimate way to have influence on the government. When they get to the point where big money and fraudulent voting machines become mainstays of the political process, I suspect we might see a drop-off in participation.

Of course, with all those weapons floating around, they might be less willing to put up with this crap than us fat-and-happy 'mericans might be.

Just sayin.

If we pull out now, who will defend the Burger King we've built in the Green Zone?

Seriously, I'm impressed by the number of Iraqis who risk life and limb to vote.

From everything I’m reading this morning, the Iraqi elections had a high turnout, including strong Sunni participation

Quuuaaaaagmiiiire!

Unwiiiiinaaaable!

Al & Mike -

One election does not a victory make. Let's perhaps wait till the results are known and the new government is seated. I understand you guys have taken a beating lately, but try to keep your hopefulness from obscuring reality.

While this is certainly a good sign - the outcome is still going to be a shiite-dominated theocracy.

So, Iraq had elections.

Big deal.

Iran has elections too. And their holocaust-denying elected president is buying Russian anti-aircraft missiles, building nulcear weapons, and calling for the destruction of Israel.

In 10 years, tell me why Iraq won't be posing exactly the same problem that Iran is posing today? Tell me why we won't have Bungling Bush to blame for it?

Quuuaaaaagmiiiire!

Unwiiiiinaaaable!

...well, we've been on the Korean peninsula for half-a-century. No reason to expect any less from Iraq.

...will the "reverse-domino" theory work? Well, Israel's been a democracy in the Middle East for fifty years and there's been no "blossoming." No reason to expect any less from Iraq.

...I remain dubious of Dubya.

Spencer Ackerman has another nice piece on the New Republic site this morning detailing the latest evidence that this election is simply the official starting gun for the Sunni-Shiite civil war -- this time centered around statements to that effect from the biggest Shiite and Sunni political organizations:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w051212&s=ackerman121405

Not to worry too much, though: it promises to be every bit as much of a landmark for democracy as the 1860 US Presidential election.

Iyad Allawi, by the way, is now saying the same thing. (You may remember him: former Prime Minister in the provisional government?)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10456753/

Bush has called for "Total Victory"! I guess we'll have to wait and see what that is( A lot of us won"t be around but our kids or grandchildren may find out)!

Regardless of who is elected or who is not the one thing it appears all the Iraqis will be voting for is

America must leave Iraq now!

But, what they don't realize is that Bush & Co. will probably spin this as

We won!

and then the real kicker

So, now we will be able to safely stay in Iraq forever!

Ain't it a hoot?

One election does not a victory make.
One election? So much for keeping up with the news.

Tell me, how many elections does it take? Always one more than they've had?

So, Iraq had elections.

Big deal.

More proof that the extreme left wing simply doesn't care about democracy.

This is another historic day. The high turnout shows how wrong all the negative anti-war spin from the MSM really is. Enormous progress has been made in Iraq, and as long as extremist white-flag wavers like Dean, Pelosi, Kerry and Murtha are kept as far as possible away from anything having to do with this country's foreign policy, we will succeed.

it promises to be every bit as much of a landmark for democracy as the 1860 US Presidential election.

Any comparison with American hostory has to be taken in the context of military occupation. We carried out our revolution and our civil war without the "help" of an occupying and controlling military force.

Tell me, how many elections does it take? Always one more than they've had?

Until the first election during a Democrat administration. Duh.

Ah, yes that "Watershed" election of 1860. Peace and prosperity for all. Well received by all.

Tell me, how many elections does it take?

The minimum standard -- one that does not demonstrate a firmly established democracy by any stretch -- is at least one peaceful transition of power between a government elected under a system to a new government, preferably one not the chosen successor or of the same party or coalition as the prior government -- elected under the same system.

I guess Dean declared defeat too early.

This really is good news for advocates of withdrawal, unless we continue to have losers like Dean undermining serious proposals like Murtha's.

elected under the same system

What does "system" mean? A different constitution? When a country writes a new constitution, does that mean it is not a democracy for until the second election after passage of the new constitution?

Actually, I continue to be impressed with the Americans who defy their unfair voting system to spend hours queueing to vote. It's my own British countrymen whose apathy I'm ashamed of. We have no problems (read: excuses) at all, we stroll into a quiet polling station and cast our votes. You poor bastards have to spend, effectively, fifty dollars or more of your time (many of you can ill afford that, either) to use the few machines your corrupt masters have allocated to you.

Owen:The Iraqi war, as part of the war on terror IS lost. Nothing can really stop terrorist training camps in Iraq focused on getting their pound of flesh.

And at worst, we could see Iraq is a directly hostile nation.

Besides. All it takes is one accusation of election fraud, and all this positive stuff is lost.

our civil war without the "help" of an occupying and controlling military force.

The "south" was separated into several military districts during the euphamistically-called reconstruction... which took several decades to transmogrify into reintergration.

I continue to be amazed and impressed by the Iraqis who risk bodily harm to cast a vote, and wonder what the hell is wrong with Americans who can’t be bloody bothered.

Iraq has an electoral system that, I believe you will find, is designed specifically promote and support a wide array of viable parties to represent the interests in a diverse population, rather than the duopoly promoted by the US electoral system. Further, the perceived threat of actual death if the election goes the wrong way in Iraq is probably harder.

So, Iraqi voters have both greater immediate fear from bad election results than American voters and are more likely to have viable options that reflect their actual preferences. Is it any surprise they are more likely to vote, for reasons that have nothing to do with the personal merits of the voters themselves?

What does "system" mean?

It means "system".

A different constitution?

A different Constitution may, or may not, work a change in the system as relates to the succession of governments. Democracy vs. nondemocracy isn't the only feature of a Constitution. Further, a Constitution may not determine the electoral system at all, or may not actually exist in a fixed form.

When a country writes a new constitution, does that mean it is not a democracy for until the second election after passage of the new constitution?

The empirical conclusion that it remains a functioning democracy should probably be considered tentative until that point with substantial changes to the system of choosing governments, though the fact of long-established democracy and democratic values and an analysis of the nature of the changes in the system may in some cases warrant a high degree of confidence that that test will be successfully met.

Juan Cole had this to say today:

The LA Times probably reflects the thinking of a lot of Americans in hoping that these elections are a milestone on the way to withdrawing US troops from Iraq. I cannot imagine why anyone thinks that. The Iraqi "government" is a failed state. Virtually no order it gives has any likelihood of being implemented. It has no army to speak of and cannot control the country. Its parliamentarians are attacked and sometimes killed with impunity. Its oil pipelines are routinely bombed, depriving it of desperately needed income. It faces a powerful guerrilla movement that is wholly uninterested in the results of elections and just wants to overthrow the new order. Elections are unlikely to change any of this.

The only way in which these elections may lead to a US withdrawal is that they will ensconce parliamentarians who want the US out on a short timetable. Virtually all the Sunnis who come in will push for that result (which is why the US Right is silly to be all agog about Fallujans voting), and so with the members of the Sadr Movement, now a key component of the Shiite religious United Iraqi Alliance. That is, these elections lead to a US withdrawal on terms unfavorable to the Bush administration. Nor is there much hope that a parliament that kicked the US out could turn around and restore order in the country.

I tend to agree with the poster (several above).

If the election helps quell the insurgency, then it only quiets the critics, and emboldens Bush to hang around as long as he likes. Any pull-out talk in recent months has been completely driven by his dismal approval ratings.

We didn't get in to beat Al Qaeda (no link), or to eliminate WMD's (proven false), or to instill democracy (never a pre-war justification given to either the U.N. or the U.S public).

(Oil?)

What does "system" mean? A different constitution? When a country writes a new constitution, does that mean it is not a democracy for until the second election after passage of the new constitution?
Posted by: Al on December 15, 2005 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

As war-victors, we should have dictated a constitution, like we did for Japan, and then given them a mechanism to change it (like our own). Best of both worlds. The constitution they came up with sucks. It does not equate to "freedom" in any sense of the word that most reasonable people would use. And it will make the terrorism problem worse. And it will multiply the Iran problem twofold.

And we're not going to be leaving Iraq any time soon. The minute US troops leave, the Shiite militas start butchering Sunnis. I guarantee it. Iraq needs a real security force, that's multiethnic. They need a fucking draft with no exceptions or special treatment for spoiled rich kids like Bush got.

I'm all about the gay stuff?

The "south" was separated into several military districts during the euphamistically-called reconstruction... which took several decades to transmogrify into reintergration.

The "south" still doesn't seem very integrated to me. It seems more like we accidentally left them in the 19th century.

It will be interesting to watch the Democrats crawl off the limb.

so, has the Mission been Accomplished ? if not, tell us the conditinos under which it will be accomplished, some ways of meaningfully measuing progress towards that point.

if you can't do that, STFU

As war-victors, we should have dictated a constitution, like we did for Japan, and then given them a mechanism to change it (like our own). Best of both worlds. The constitution they came up with sucks. It does not equate to "freedom" in any sense of the word that most reasonable people would use. And it will make the terrorism problem worse. And it will multiply the Iran problem twofold.

I wouldn't say that all this is true on its face; while the Constitution has some worrisome provisions, they are mostly directly contradicted by other provisions. Assuming that a stable government can be established -- which is a question largely independent of the text of the Constitution -- a lot of what the Constitution means will be developed by practice under it, just as for our own Constitution.

That's not to say there may not be long-term problems in there, but I think the fundamental shrot-term problems Iraq faces dwarf the textual problems with the Constitution and are likely to render them irrelevant.

Juan Cole had this to say today:

Is that the same Juan Cole who thought that bin Laden moved up the date of the 9/11 attacks to retaliate for the "Jenin Massacre" (which, of course, occurred after 9/11, in 2002)? Yep, he's a reliable analyst of Middle Eastern affairs. *snicker*

The constitution they came up with sucks. It does not equate to "freedom" in any sense of the word that most reasonable people would use.

Prove that.

so, has the Mission been Accomplished ? if not, tell us the conditinos under which it will be accomplished, some ways of meaningfully measuing progress towards that point.

if you can't do that, STFU

Actually cmdicely gave a nice rendering of success. If you haven't read it, STFU and do so.

It means "system".

Well, then, since Iraq basically has the same "system" now as it had for the january elections (change in constitutions from the TAL to the October constitution notwithstanding), then it seems that the government elected by today's election (which will undoubtedly be different that the Jaafari government now in place) will meet your minimum criteria.

*snicker*

That's the same reaction I have to your opinions!

The Americans had this ace up their sleeve, they have 150,000 combat troops. The implied benchmark was, "vote us out and we start leaving."

It is the desire to end the occupation a main driver causing high turnout among the Sunni.

What does tell us? You put the American Army somewhere, and tell folks to vote them out, folks will do that. It kinda works.

The reason it works, is because there is no underlying ideological world view that is in conflict over there, except for Jihadi. In other words, no insurgency. This is not communism vs capitalism. It is people with short term greivances. Iraq is no more a supporter of the Jihadi world view than any other country in that region. There is no ideological conflict.

I have four pertinent questions:

(1) Did we invade and occupy Iraq at a cost of $200 billion and 2,100 American lives to ensure they could hold democratic elections? (if so, please provide a link to the news story)
(2) Why do American conservatives want to slash spending on domestic programs that benefit the poor, but not bat an eyelash over spending massive amounts of American taxpayer money on helping Iraq?
(3) Where in the Constitution does it say that the U.S. Congress can appropriate one nickel for foreign elections?
(4) Where's Osama, George???

"Ah, yes that "Watershed" election of 1860."

Yes, that prick Lincoln and the Republican party. Seriously, in the midst of civil discord, to form a new party only diminishes that party in later decades.

Lincoln and the Civil war, followed by Grant created what we now know as Big Government Republicanism. Had we just cooled our heels a decade longer, we would have had the Republicans of limited government, and the Bush, Reagan crowd never would have haunted us.

"Ba'athist insurgents to protect Iraq elections" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/11/uirq.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/12/11/ixportaltop.html

... "(Ba'athist) guerrillas in the volatile Anbar province say they are prepared to protect voting stations from al-Qa'eda fighters."

I'm totally depressed about the situation in Iraq.
It looks like they are going to vote, get a government and all this will do will make Bush look good.
It's much easier to convince my right-wing co-workers that Iraq is a mess when Americans are dying by the dozen each week and the Iraqis just squabble. But when they vote and look like they are enjoying it (damn those purple fingers), it gives me the willy-nillies.

I love Howard Dean and everything he stands for.
I still believe that victory in Iraq is impossible, but I fear that the American people will not agree with him when they see this kind of voting, and this will make our electoral chances in 2006 and 2008 diminish.

I think we Democrats could take over one (or if all goes really badly, two) of the houses next November, but only if the situation in Iraq really deteriorates.

Go insurgents!! Kill lots of Americans!! Make sure Al-Jazeera shows lots of gore!!! Maybe then we can win a few House and Senate seats.
Seems like a good tradeoff to me.

Another day, another election.

I'm very happen that the Iraq elections are a success! Al is practically declaring the WOT to be won and over. I guess we can bring the troops home immediately.

Power and Interest News Report on the subject:

What to Expect in Iraq After the December 15 Elections

Short answer: more of the same, if not worse.

we keep turning all these corners over there, and they can't help telling us everytime we do, what they leave out is that they see Iraq as a myriagon.

Hey, congratulations on this big time guest spot. Despite your great writing and blogging abilities, I can't help but think I deserve most of the credit, though.

yes..

Mission Accomplished
Time to bring em on home George!!

Another item of note is:
Much less violence today than on normal days in Iraq (where an average of 80 Iraqis are killed in bombings EVERY SINGLE DAY).

Whatever we're doing TODAY in Iraq to secure this country, we should be doing EVERY DAY. And if we cannot sustain that level of security with the number of troops - THEN WE FUCKING NEED MORE TROOPS.

Hey, OBF, how are we supposed to have more troops in Iraq when John Murtha says they should all be redeployed to Okinawa?
How are troops in Okinawa going to keep the security situation in Iraq under control?

It is an important day for the Iraqi people, who in my mind, are the ones who are going to make this experiment succeed or fail. At this point, they seem determined to succeed.

King George's "Total victory" rhetoric is idiotic because there will be no ticker tape parade.

The only hope for the insurgency I think, is a civil war. So they will do all they can to make that happen. They don't care about elections.

Iraq is a place US troops will be in for decades to come, no doubt, as we try to prop up what is sure to become a failed state.

Its a hopeful day for Iraqis, but I always ask myself, is it worth 2300+, 17000+ wounded, 50K dead Iraqis?

I supported the war but wish Bush had gone in with the UN and the world's help.

Yeah, Sven Hedin, I know what you mean.

I feel the same way.

I hate it when Bush looks good. Damn, did you see where he was back up to 50% approval in some polls.

I hate that. I feel much happier when things are going really badly in Iraq and his poll numbers were in the mid-to-high 30s.

Whatever we're doing TODAY in Iraq to secure this country, we should be doing EVERY DAY.

Giving the country a one-day event where even the insurgents are probably wanting to see how it turns out to decide how to move next probably isn't something you can do every day.

Whatever we're doing TODAY in Iraq to secure this country, we should be doing EVERY DAY.

You mean we should ban all vehicles PERMANENTLY? What a silly idea.

Does this turnout include the truckloads of forged ballots?

Does this turnout include the truckloads of forged ballots?

Turns out that story was just a MSM lie.

Hey, are you supposed to post stuff that can be spun to help Bush? I mean Kevin would never post this kind of stuff. The usual stories are: why we are losing, why we need to pull out, we are torturing innocent jihadis, we are abusing innocent civilians, if we do kill al Qaida it's no big deal, etc...

Prove that.
Posted by: Red State Mike on December 15, 2005 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

http://www.christiansofiraq.com/men82605.html

"One election does not a victory make."

That's right! There's hope for defeat yet.

Turns out that story was just a MSM lie.
Posted by: Al on December 15, 2005 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Like the WMD?

Have you lame ass wingnuts ever read Robert Conquest? Ever even heard of him? His take on what is required for democracy is the real conservative view. And the rational view.

You mean we should ban all vehicles PERMANENTLY? What a silly idea.
Posted by: Al on December 15, 2005 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

If you were sitting in an Iraqi hospital, enjoying the pungent aroma of rotting flesh from your stumps after having limbs blown off in a car bombing attack while you were waiting in line for a job at a police station, you'd think it was a good idea.

"Short answer: more of the same, if not worse."

That's the hope at least. Gotta have something to look forward to for Fitzmas...

I admit to having an irrational hatred of Bush which I try to control when posting. But at this point I don't see Iraqi success as a sign that Bush foreign policy was correct. The success is a result of the military's push back against the "Mission Accomplished" mindset of the Admin.

Iraq has been completely mishandled and that has cost lives. Consider how Bush has changed, from "Mushroom clouds" to "intelligence was bad."

Finally, Iraqi policy is based in realism, not cowboy slogans. Bush was forced into that thinking by his poll numbers and the military. Unfortunately, 2300 guys paid with their lives.

But that could be considered irration hatred of King George, who in my minf, BTW, looks greatly humbled. A good sign.

That's not to say there may not be long-term problems in there, but I think the fundamental shrot-term problems Iraq faces dwarf the textual problems with the Constitution and are likely to render them irrelevant.
Posted by: cmdicely on December 15, 2005 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

The other problems, the chaos, the corruption, the lack of working infrastructure, the Iranian influence, that's all "just part of the democratic process" - just birth pains - to the Republicans.

The security issue is one we simply have to agree to disagree on, because the Republicans don't see it as a problem. All they're seeing is purple fingers.

But you can't argue that Freedom is On the March with that constitution in place. Freedom is on the March - but that march is a full retreat from Iraq.

Reposting: I was thinking about all of this "turn the corner" nonsense and just wanted to run through the various ways we have "turned the corner" over the past couple of years. Feel free to add more.

1. We turned a corner when Baghdad fell. That it fell so easily and quickly was "proof" that the Bush administration had been right all along and that this really was going to be a cakewalk.

2. We turned a corner when Saddam's sons were killed. This was supposed to be proof that the U.S. meant business and this was going to intimidate the insurgents. Plus, they were undoubtedly leading the insurgency, so their loss would leave the insurgency leaderless.

3. We turned a corner when the insurgency bombed the UN headquarters in Iraq. This was supposed to be a sign of how desperate they were and how they were nearly at the end of their rope.

4. We turned a corner when Saddam Hussein was captured. This was going to be another big blow to the insurgency, since Saddam was, theoretically, leading it, and even if he wasn't, he must have known something about it, and even if he didn't, it still was very symbolic and would take the wind out of their sails. [When Howard Dean told the precise and predictable truth that we were no safer, he was excoriated by war supporters, using much the same language now being used against Murtha.]

5. We turned a corner when we handed over sovereignty to the Iraqi interim government. This was supposed to show everyone that we really weren't there to occupy the country and when the insurgents realized this, they'd drop their attacks. Or maybe it was that when the Iraqi people realized this, they'd go after the insurgency themselves. I'm not too sure, really.

6. We turned a corner when the insurgents started going after Iraqi security forces. Since the insurgents were now attacking other Iraqis, the idea went, that showed how "desperate" they were. [The fact that this was actually the first signs of a low-scale civil war didn't seem to have occurred to the war supporters.]

7. We turned a corner when we launched a full-scale assault on Fallujah. This would show the insurgency that we meant business. We'd kill 'em and drive 'em out of their stronghold and be all manly and stuff and they'd simply whimper and cower down in fear.

8. We turned a corner when we re-elected Bush. And yes, I'm serious. There actually were a few war supporters who quite seriously argued that if Bush were re-elected, the insurgents would just give up and go home.

9. We turned a corner when the Iraqi people voted in January for the transitional assembly. The insurgents were "desperate" to prevent that election, since it would mark the beginning of the end for them in some [unspecified] way. And since they hadn't prevented it, that was a sign that they really were through.

10. We turned a corner when the U.S. launched "Operation Lightning," a joint exercise with Iraqi forces to take back control of Baghdad to make it more safe. Nearly 50,000 troops and police were involved and (depending on which news source you believe) anywhere from 800 to 1700 people were arrested. A relative cessation of terrorist activity in Baghdad for a few weeks after the operation was trumpeted far and wide as a sign of complete success.

Unfortunately, the operation more resembled the "rounding up of the usual suspects" scene from the movie "Casablanca" than it did a serious counter-insurgency, with the overwhelming majority of those arrested quietly released in the weeks following, and with violence quickly returning to its former levels.

11. We turned a corner when a new Constitution was approved, this despite the fact that it was guaranteed to piss off the Sunnis, that it enshrined Islamic Law into the Constitution, that it essentially split the country into three autonomous regions, and that it was nothing like what the Bush administration had wanted and had predicted.

12. We turned a corner when that new Constitution was approved, even though the Sunnis overwhelmingly rejected it, further inflaming the deep divisions already present.

13. And we will turn another corner when the Iraqis vote in national elections again.

There were other things that weren't quite corners, too, including Basra. Now Basra was supposed to be a model city -- pacified, quiet, under control -- the model of what all of Iraq would one day be. Alas, Basra was pacified and quiet solely because the Shiite militias had taken over almost complete control of the city, with the British unable to exert much influence and with the police chief admitting that he was not in control of his own men.

In every single one of these instances, one or more of the war supporters on this blog and elsewhere trumpeted the "turning the corner" meme and scoffed at our skepticism, accusing us of "wanting Bush to fail" and "ignoring the many good things happening" and "not supporting our troops" and all those other mindlessly partisan statements that have been tossed around here and elsewhere. And in every single one of these instances, the skeptics were shown to be correct, while the war supporters had to wait for the next "corner" to turn to go through the same ceremony again.

Now maybe these elections truly will mark the turning of a corner, but why on earth should I believe it when none of those other "corners" meant diddly-squat to the insurgency, to the violence, or to the future and security of Iraq?

Good gawd, it's nothing but a troll clusterfuck in here.

Here's a clue for the trolls-- you weren't invited here, your presence isn't welcome here, and all you do is hang around so you can be rude and condescending to complete and total strangers. I know you like to think it's your opinions we don't like but that really isn't the problem-- it's your attitudes. Considering everything I can't help but wonder how extraordinarily popular ya'll must be in real life.

Seriously, don't you have something more interesting or productive to do with your lives? You're not going to convince anyone here of anything, this is not a place people go who don't already have strong opinions. You really are just wasting your life-- if you support the war so much why aren't you over there?

Here we go again.

Another BIG EVENT which is the TRUE SIGN of REAL PROGRESS in Iraq.

And we're all supposed to pretend that, yes, we feel inspired beyond the power of words to express in the belief that something deeply wonderful has just now taken place in Iraq, and that we are, of course, of course! rooting for democracy and the Iraqi people.

Can't we just shoot this stupid charade through the neck and dump it in a shallow grave somewhere?

I mean, look, the problem has NEVER been whether Iraqis would come out to vote in numbers. The problem is in Iraq is the INSURGENTS. If there were no insurgents, nobody would even much care how many people happened to vote, and to what purpose, because there would be peace and harmony enough.

Does anybody in their right mind believe the insurgents will go away after this, or that they will diminish in strength? Absolutely nothing we have seen in the past has had that effect, right? Why should this election?

A month from now, and six months from now, and as long as American troops exist in their current strength, essentially the same number of Americans will be killed. The Iraqis will continue to be largely unprepared to do battle with the insurgents themselves.

And as we withdraw from Iraq, the insurgents will begin to target more exclusively the levers of power in Iraq. because it is power they are interested in -- the power they feel is their right by history and capability.

Truly, how else can this turn out? Why do we have to pretend it's going to take another route? Why do we have to engage in the false cheer of toasting an election that has virtually no prospect of materially altering this future?

But it seems that the Iraqi themselves aren't concerned about the crap that splashes about in the blogosphere and pretends to be rational thought; they insist upon voting. They live in the true reality-based world.

A few words of unsolicited advice to those individuals who seem to be expressing regret at the apparently smooth Iraqi electoral process:

- Americans, of every political persuasion (liberal, moderate, conservative) should be hopeful that Iraq becomes a stable, self-sufficient democracy. However, let us never forget that in the United States, the ends should never, ever justify the means.

Even a favorable outcome does not justify the lies, subterfuge and innocent blood that have been used to get us here. We are all poorer, literally and figuratively, because of the criminal in the White House!!!

frankly0 -

Stop making sense. It hurts the wingers feelings.

At first, I couldn't get behind Murtha. The defeatist tone was too overpowering. Democrats already had enough problems with that image. But I was reminded of his intentions: the safety of our fighting sons & daughers.

The CiC (along with Congress, in a perfect world) has the responsibility for their safety and well being. When Murtha heard the President totally abandon that responsibility in 2003 by issuing his hyper-macho "Bring 'em on" challenge to the insurgents, he knew the safety of our troops would be up to someone else.

Stephen Kriz wrote: "A few words of unsolicited advice to those individuals who seem to be expressing regret at the apparently smooth Iraqi electoral process"

Nobody here, or anywhere else, for that matter, has said anything like this. We do not "regret" that the Iraqi electoral process is running smoothly with high participation rates, assuming that such is indeed the case. We are simply skeptical that it will make any real difference to the state of affairs in Iraq.

Thus far, the war supporters here and elsewhere have been unable to come up with any real evidence that anything will change in Iraq, other than simply repeating the same old stuff that's been repeated (and proved wrong) during past similar events.

"Americans, of every political persuasion (liberal, moderate, conservative) should be hopeful that Iraq becomes a stable, self-sufficient democracy..."

"We are all poorer, literally and figuratively, because of the criminal in the White House!!!"

The message I got, from one Iraqi voter at least, is that: you should "go to hell".

Oh, and PaulB, nice one as well.

Of course, listing facts is no defense against faith, as we relearn ever day.

Excellent. Can we go home now?
Mission Accomplished and Total Victory is Ours.

Found Bin Laden - Nope
Found Zawahiri - Nope
Found WMD - Nope
Vanquished Al Qaeda - Well, they weren't in Iraq prior to us coming and they may have gotten some training
Found Zaquarwi - Nope, but we did make him famous by coming to Iraq
Victory in War on Terror - Well, there's only about 5% "terrorists" in Iraq and they are only there because we are.
Thwarted Hussein Threat - Well, he wasn't a threat more like an impotent little despot

Geez, don’t they know that our soldiers are listening…and the enemy is, too?

It isn't a "corner" being turned, it's a "benchmark". As you undoubtedly know, most places that have peaceful voting in Iraq today have no American soldiers providing the security.

For a day, enjoy the election, third peaceful election this year in Iraq, just the latest benchmark, and quit with the bitchy despondency. You can go back to crabbing tomorrow. Tomorrow you can tell us how Lieberman is benighted, if not positively delusional, and how Dean is on the mark; for today, take the advice of the Jefferson Airplane and "just let it happen".

good grief: let us never forget that in the United States, the ends should never, ever justify the means.

The ends do not justify every means, but surely what justifies the means has to be the ends. What else? a feel-good sense of symbolic superiority? Do you really think that anything has ever been accomplished only by pure motives and pure people?

Does anybody in their right mind believe the insurgents will go away after this,

No

or that they will diminish in strength?

Yes

Absolutely nothing we have seen in the past has had that effect, right? Why should this election?

Because Sunnis are participating this time.

A month from now, and six months from now, and as long as American troops exist in their current strength, essentially the same number of Americans will be killed.

No. yes, if they continue in their same roles, but no if they move to remote bases to provide backup.

The Iraqis will continue to be largely unprepared to do battle with the insurgents themselves.

The insurgents are the Iraqis.

And as we withdraw from Iraq, the insurgents will begin to target more exclusively the levers of power in Iraq. because it is power they are interested in -- the power they feel is their right by history and capability.

When 60+% of Iraqis vote, they obviously feel they have some say in the future.

Truly, how else can this turn out? Why do we have to pretend it's going to take another route? Why do we have to engage in the false cheer of toasting an election that has virtually no prospect of materially altering this future?

Well, is going to materially alter the future one way or another. Could be the final pause before full civil war. Could be something else. But the idea you appear to have that full Sunni participation changes nothing...I just don't agree. It appears the Sunnis don't either.

I'm betting that because of the successful elections that violence in Iraq will completely cease as of midnight tonight.

PaulB wrote: "Nobody here, or anywhere else, for that matter, has said anything like this. We do not "regret" that the Iraqi electoral process is running smoothly with high participation rates, assuming that such is indeed the case. We are simply skeptical that it will make any real difference to the state of affairs in Iraq.

Point taken.

Sometimes listening to Bush supporters, you really do just get the sense that they believe that all the world's problems can be solved by clapping your hands loud enough. If we fail in Iraq, somebody wasn't clapping their hands hard enough, and I'll bet it was a Democrat!

For people who want to pretend they're big tough guys, the are the sappiest sentimentalists of all, who grow all weepy when you talk about democracy, and freedom, and dying in war, and the flag, even if they don't exhibit the slightest understanding of the real meaning of any of these things. They just get creepy and excrete bodily fluids when they talk about such matters.

And here they are again, demanding that we all join them in a big cheer for democracy, when we know the team is down five touchdowns with a minute to go.

Really, these creatures are just icky.

All it takes is one accusation of election fraud, and all this positive stuff is lost.

The unifying theme of Political Animal has got to be despair. Not only is "the glass" always empty, but it's always in the process of emptying further.

Here's a clue to the Bushies.

YOu want to impress me with progress in Iraq. It's simple. SHOW ME A TRUE DIMINISHMENT IN THE STRENGTH OF THE INSURGENCY.

If and when you show THAT, then you've shown peace and harmony and real democracy in Iraq might be possible. If you can only show me stuff that somehow, in your minds, you've convinced yourself will lead to peace and harmony and real democracy in Iraq, then you have shown me NOTHING.

frankly0, didn't Cheney or some Bushie say you can't measure success in Iraq based on the number of insurgent attacks?

To me success is today's elections. Insurgent attacks are not a measure of success. So even if the attacks continue, success has been achieved. Time to get the heck out of there.

Yea papageorgio, I do feel some despair when my country has been "led" so far astray that an American President has to declare "We don't torture"... and no one believes him.

When 60+% of Iraqis vote, they obviously feel they have some say in the future.

Er, no, that doesn't follow. When 60% of Iraqis vote, they obviously (presuming rationality) believe that there is some chance that their voting will have some effect on their future that warrants the cost of voting in time and any marginal risk involved, for sure.

That's not the same as believing they actually have a say, its merely believing that the chance that they might justifies the cost of voting.

YOu want to impress me with progress in Iraq. It's simple. SHOW ME A TRUE DIMINISHMENT IN THE STRENGTH OF THE INSURGENCY.

I can't, but I CAN MATCH IT WITH AN EVEN GREATER INCREASE IN THE NUMBERS OF VOTERS THAT THE INSURGENCY HAS ATTEMPTED TO DETER THROUGH INTIMIDATION, AND IN THE GROWTH OF IRAQI ARMED FORCES THAT THE INSURGENCY HAS ALSO ATTEMPTED TO DETER THROUGH INTIMIDATION.

When 60% of Iraqis vote, they obviously (presuming rationality) believe that there is some chance that their voting will have some effect on their future that warrants the cost of voting in time and any marginal risk involved, for sure.

Do you really think that's how it occurs? They do the calculus, weight risk -v- benefit, flip a coin weighted appropriately, and vote?

That fails to explain the celebrating by participants, fierce pride in the purple fingers, etc., etc. There is clearly an emotional content to their acting.

Here's a nice list of quotes from Al Jazeera on why they voted.

AND IN THE GROWTH OF IRAQI ARMED FORCES

You're using the plural. Did they manage to sign up and train a second guy?

papageno wrote: for today, take the advice of the Jefferson Airplane and "just let it happen".

When did the Jefferson Airplane give that advice? I've been a big Airplane fan since the first time I listened to Crown of Creation in 1969, one of the greatest rock albums of all time, and I'm very familiar with the lyrics to all of their songs, and I don't recall that line.

As for despair, you can't get much more "despairing" than the lyrics to the last song on the Crown of Creation album, about nuclear war:

Everything some day will be gone except silence
Earth will be quiet again
Seas from clouds will wash off the ashes of violence
Left is the memory of men
There will be no survivor my friend
Dead center
Deep as death
All the idiots have left

-- "The House at Pooneil Corners"

All this opprobrium for the phrase "Turn a Corner" is truly striking.

Especially in light of the fact that the words deepening, worsening, increasing (and several others, I'm sure) are joyously repeated. You know, like when the MSM reports on the "increasing toll of US casualties" or "worsening violence in the Anbar province" or some such?

It's almost as though the one rhetorical flourish is okay because you're rooting for it. But the other is not okay because it doesn't fit your pre-determined world view.

Never fear, LLL's! Perhaps tomorrow will be bad in Iraq and you can return to your regularly scheduled programming.

I'll tell you that I think a MUCH more positive development in this whole fiasco also happened today.

Bush is (finally) turning reconstruction over to the State Department, instead of the Pentagon. Something might actually get done now.

A small sampling of Bush's cult of personality, which seems to find silver linings everywhere (with a simple rebuttal at the end):

"It will be interesting to watch the Democrats crawl off the limb."

Posted by: Mike K on December 15, 2005 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

"Well, is going to materially alter the future one way or another. Could be the final pause before full civil war. Could be something else. But the idea you appear to have that full Sunni participation changes nothing...I just don't agree. It appears the Sunnis don't either."

Posted by: Red State Mike

"For a day, enjoy the election, third peaceful election this year in Iraq, just the latest benchmark, and quit with the bitchy despondency. You can go back to crabbing tomorrow. Tomorrow you can tell us how Lieberman is benighted, if not positively delusional, and how Dean is on the mark; for today, take the advice of the Jefferson Airplane and "just let it happen".

"The ends do not justify every means, but surely what justifies the means has to be the ends. What else? a feel-good sense of symbolic superiority? Do you really think that anything has ever been accomplished only by pure motives and pure people?"

Posted by: papageno

[Can you point to an example in human history in which democracy was succesfully installed by a foreign invader in a country that has never previously known it? Just one.]

"The unifying theme of Political Animal has got to be despair. Not only is "the glass" always empty, but it's always in the process of emptying further."

Posted by: papageno

"But it seems that the Iraqi themselves aren't concerned about the crap that splashes about in the blogosphere and pretends to be rational thought; they insist upon voting. They live in the true reality-based world."

Posted by: Zhombre

The rebuttal:

"Shiite parties also had urged a large turnout. Iraq's leading Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, told Shiites to support candidates who defend their principles — a veiled warning against turning toward secular politics."

Talk all you want, this is the reality in Iraq.

Got fundamentalist theocracy?

As I said about the Afghan elections last year:
The elections are a simulacrum, the outward appearance of the democratic condition. They are a talking points success. They exemplify no organized state and inject no democratic form into functional institutions.

But that is not quite right for Iraq because the Iranian-allied majority will be the winners.
Words like “election” and “constitution” imply stability, cooperation, and organized government; they are words that provide the context of hope for the viewing audience. The purple fingers are an operatic leitmotif. But they have no connection to the Hobbesian world that is Iraq.

The voters are turning out because the factions are competing for hegemony or against it. Sistani has given clear instructions to his followers to turn out and not to split the vote so he can secure the dominance of the religious United Iraqi Alliance. (Unfortunately Sistani can’t vote because he is an Iranian citizen)

Listening to the cheerleaders of George Bush’s excellent election you would think the Iraqis were voting for Jeb, or at least Allawi.

frankly0,

I don't think many conservatives are worried about impressing you. Today was merely another in a line of election victories for Republicans. Iraq is well in it's way to becoming a prosperous and strong democracy. Their military has made tremendous progress the last year and will by the end of 2006 crush the insurgency. Today showed the total lack of popular suppport for them.

They will make more noise but influence nothing.

Got fundamentalist theocracy?

The UIC fundies will only get 40% of vote max.

Got negotiating, coalition building with give and take, and backroom dealing?

frankly0 wrote: "YOu want to impress me with progress in Iraq. It's simple. SHOW ME A TRUE DIMINISHMENT IN THE STRENGTH OF THE INSURGENCY."

It's not quite that simple, actually. If the insurgents have been diminished because of the increased use of death squads, the increased influence of Shiite militias, the increased use of authoritarian tactics by the central regime, is that truly a sign of progress?

That's why it's worth asking questions about the true state and nature of the Iraqi troops and security forces. Whom are we arming? How are we arming them? How are we training them? To whom are they loyal? What is their conduct as they carry out their missions? What missions are they being given and who is assigning those missions to them?

If all you can say is that the Iraqi security forces are growing or that the insurgency is diminishing, you haven't said nearly enough. To truly get at the reality, you have to go beyond the Bush administration's sound bites to what is actually happening on the ground in Iraq.

papageno wrote: for today, take the advice of the Jefferson Airplane and "just let it happen".

When did the Jefferson Airplane give that advice?

I think papa's getting Airplane mixed up with former Texas gubernatorial candidate William Clements. ("bad weather is like rape: if it's inevitable, sit back and enjoy it.")

I would like to get past your incorrect use of the word 'whom' in your first attempt at its use, above, PaulB.

Then I'll listen to your pronouncements about the security forces and the insurgency.

You know what I'm concerned about? That the Shi'ite religious coalition is essentially balanced against everybody else.

It's not considered very likely -- but not impossible, either -- that the Shi'ite religious coalition (forget what it's called, but it's led by Madhi) gets a gnat's moustache of a majority.

This happens, and the Sunnis have little chance to amend the constitution. They have no bargaining chips to pry the ruling coalition apart with.

I'm very happy for the Iraqi people today. I think *all* of us wish them the best. But if the religious Shia win, I think that spells the beginning of civil war for real ...

Nobody else wants a Shi'ite theocracy imposed throughout the country.

Bob

Birkel, rather predictably, wrote: "All this opprobrium for the phrase 'Turn a Corner' is truly striking."

Is it? Why so? We've heard the phrase over and over and over again and each time we've heard it in the past, it was shown to be completely false. Why were you not capable of dealing with that fact in your post?

"Especially in light of the fact that the words deepening, worsening, increasing (and several others, I'm sure) are joyously repeated."

Ah, so you're a mindreader now? How nice for you. And your evidence for this is ... what, exactly?

"You know, like when the MSM reports on the 'increasing toll of US casualties' or 'worsening violence in the Anbar province' or some such?"

Assuming, for the sake of argument, those are actual quotes (they do not appear to be), do you have any evidence that would contradict either statement, in the appropriate context, of course?

"It's almost as though the one rhetorical flourish is okay because you're rooting for it."

Really? And your evidence for this is ... what, exactly? And your point is ... what, exactly?

"But the other is not okay because it doesn't fit your pre-determined world view."

You mean like writing a post that completely ignores all of those other failed "corner-turnings," offers no evidence of any kind, and simply smears those who disagree with you with a stream of ad hominem attacks? That kind of "pre-determined world view?"

Birkel, rather stupidly, wrote: "I would like to get past your incorrect use of the word 'whom' in your first attempt at its use, above, PaulB."

ROFL... Actually, it's quite easy to do this, Birkel. Your inability to actually deal with the substance of what I wrote is entirely predictable and entirely hilarious.

"Then I'll listen to your pronouncements about the security forces and the insurgency."

No, dear, actually, you won't. Because you simply cannot deal with anything that contradicts that little "pre-determined world view" you've created.

Wow...talk about a pathetic response....

This is a crappy election. It proves nothing, except that Bushitler got everything wrong again.

Until you wake up to that simple fact, just STFU! Got that? Just STFU!

Al Gore is my President!

Dario

PaulB:

Well Paul, you *did* use "whom" incorrectly.

gf

All this opprobrium for the phrase "Turn a Corner" is truly striking.

Especially in light of the fact that the words deepening, worsening, increasing (and several others, I'm sure) are joyously repeated. You know, like when the MSM reports on the "increasing toll of US casualties" or "worsening violence in the Anbar province" or some such?

Yeah your right. It wouldn't have anything to do with the REALITY that US casualties are increasing and violence in Iraq is worsening. While we've turned many a corner with no change (except for the increasing casualties and worsening violence)

Do you really think that's how it occurs?

I'm talking about the logic of your statement that 60%+ voting is a basis for concluding a particularly belief is widespread. I'm not talking about anything else.

That fails to explain the celebrating by participants, fierce pride in the purple fingers, etc., etc.

Which, if you had said, "when 60% of Iraqis celebrate the elections, etc., etc.", might be relevant to something, but then I'd be charging you with false premises rather than (or perhaps in addition to) faulty logic.

There is clearly an emotional content to their acting.

I'm not sure what "emotional content to their acting" means, whether it refers to an emotional motivation to their action, or an emotional response to having acted or whatever else. But since I didn't say that there was not an "emotional content", but was addressing that your claim of widespread Iraqi belief in a particular factual condition that was allegedly evidenced by the fact of voting turnout, not any claim about the emotional content , I don't see the point of that complete non-sequitur.

dano347 seems to have said:
"Can you point to an example in human history in which democracy was succesfully installed by a foreign invader in a country that has never previously known it? Just one.] "

Nothing like trying to limit your sample set...

Does Japan not qualify?

OK, back up to our original exchange.

RSM: When 60+% of Iraqis vote, they obviously feel they have some say in the future.

CMD: Er, no, that doesn't follow.

I think it does. I think people vote because they think it has an effect, and don't if they don't. Could be just me thinking.

Got negotiating, coalition building with give and take, and backroom dealing?

Right. Because, as we all know, "Islamofascists" just love the give and take of politics. Look, if that's what happens, great. Really.

But when you have Sadr's militias in there as a political force, it's no different than if you suddenly started gushing about how Hezbollah only got 40% of the vote in Palestine. It's cool. They'll just horsetrade like anyone else.

You guys shriek in terror over the great caliphate threat, how Iraq is the central front on terror, but then crow in glee that "only" 40% of the people there actively support the hardliner Islamists who have the full support of the totalitarian Iranian mullahs — you don't really follow your own logic. What are they but profoundly and utterly anti-democratic?

"Democracy" only works when you actually believe in perpetuating it, not using the system to undermine it — and there are plenty of historical examples to back this up.

I'm interested to understand why you think that religious parties in Iraq are doing anything else but biding their time before ultimately destroying the democracy that's being propped up by US guns.

Unless you think that hardline, fundementalist Islamists have suddenly grown fond of secular government, in which case, what are we fighting against in the War on Terror?

I think people vote because they think it has an effect, and don't if they don't.

I think that people are considerably less binary than that.

"Can you point to an example in human history in which democracy was succesfully installed by a foreign invader in a country that has never previously known it? Just one.] "

The U.S.

Grammar Fascist wrote: "Well Paul, you *did* use 'whom' incorrectly."

Yup. It's one of those grammatical rules that I occasionally have trouble with. That, of course, has nothing to do with the substance of my remarks, as dear little Birkel knows all too well. Anytime someone highlights a grammatical error or a typo as reason to ignore someone's post, they are simply revealing the bankrupt nature of their own arguments.

"Just let it happen"

From the album, Jefferson Airplane Takes Off, released Sep 66.

It is on the song, "Don't slip away" by M.Balin and A.Spence.

(break)
"Don't slip away, oh no don't slip away,
Now that your here, we should,
Just let it happen,
Now that your here."

noltf:

I understand what you're saying (and please don't use me as an anti-Islamic straw man; I'm the last thing from it) but I think you're wildly conflating flavors of Islam.

There's a big difference between the conservative Shia spiritually led by Sestani and the nimrod Sunni Salafists. I don't think there's much support for the latter even among the Sunnis in the heart of Anbar.

I think the religious Shia want a conservative Islamic state, but not an Iran-style theocracy, exactly -- although it will certainly look anti-democratic if you're a northern city-dweller. The Sadr people appear more rhetorically extreme -- but they also despise Iran and are probably more politically malleable because theirs is more properly-speaking a social than a religious movement.

I, too, fear theocratic tendencies, especially if the Shi'ite religious coalition headed by Mahdi wins. But I don't think it's a choice between radical jihadis and secularism, either.

Bob

A free and democratic Iraq is obviously a noble objective we should all support. But is there anyone who honestly believes that a democratically-elected government is going to survive in Iraq if it tries to follow its own independent path in the Middle East?

It seems to me that most Americans applauding the election believe the Iraqis are going to be so eternally grateful to the US for being granted freedom and democracy that they will support US policy in the Middle East down to the last Iraqi. What if that doesn't happen and Iran exerts more influence in Iraq than the US can?

The US has a sorry record of undermining national governments which refuse to play the US-appointed role in extending and maintaining the American empire. If such happens, how are we going to explain to the world that we helped overthrow the very government we so bloodily put into place months or years before? I would be angry about it but, when it comes to realpolitik, our nation has never had much trouble living with those kind of contradictions.

I think people vote because they think it has an effect, and don't if they don't.

Let's suppose your an Iraqi. Elections with more than one candidate are a pretty new thing to you, though going to vote probably isn't.

Maybe you vote out of habit from when it was (presumably) enforced. Maybe you vote because it's a big novelty to do so in an electtion with many candidates. Maybe you vote because you think it might possibly have an effect. Maybe you vote because your religious leader told you to do so. Maybe you vote because so many of your friends are voting, and you want to talk about it with them.

There are about a gazillion reasons people might be voting in Iraq.

But the sad thing is, even if every last one of them voted because they genuinely believed it would have an effect, they might every last one of them be utterly wrong, because the insurgency is far too powerful for democracy to flourish in Iraq, and when we do finally leave, the insurgent Sunnis will take power, just as they had done many decades ago.

It seems to me that most Americans applauding the election believe the Iraqis are going to be so eternally grateful to the US for being granted freedom and democracy that they will support US policy in the Middle East down to the last Iraqi.

Hey, it worked that way with US gratitude toward France, didn't it? I mean, even to this day, Americans would die to a man (and woman, surely) for the interests of France, right?

Paul:

Why are you bothering to respond seriously to an obviously spoofed poster with a clear facetious intent?

Bob (aka Grammar Fascist)

frankly0, I don't think the evidence supports your assertions about the ability of the insurgents to take power in Iraq. I doubt that they have what it takes to tackle both the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south and successfully beat and suppress both, particularly with the support from Iran that the latter can count on.

The insurgents can certainly destabilize the country, resulting in a violent and insecure, or even failed, state, but I'd need to see some hard evidence before accepting that they can successfully take over again.

rmck1 wrote: "Why are you bothering to respond seriously to an obviously spoofed poster with a clear facetious intent?"

Mostly to rub Birkel's nose in his own stupidity, actually.

frankly:

Well, I think the last thing anybody has to worry about are the Sunnis seizing power again -- for better or worse.

Voting, from what I understand, is taking place as an amost total exercise in identity politics. If you're religious, you vote religious. If you're a member of a tribe with candidates, you vote for those candidates. If you're a secularized city-dweller, you vote for the secular slate, etc ...

May as well be a goddamned census.

Bob

Voting, from what I understand, is taking place as an amost total exercise in identity politics. If you're religious, you vote religious. If you're a member of a tribe with candidates, you vote for those candidates. If you're a secularized city-dweller, you vote for the secular slate, etc ...

Yeah, so? People vote based on perceived interests, and identity communities often have well-developed perceived commonality of interest. Heck, elections everywhere are largely driven by identity politics, much of solidifying the base of a political party is creating an identity to tie it to (which, incidentally, is one reason why the Republicans in the US has been so successful; they've done a lot better than the Democrats at playing both sides of the identity politics game, developing identities tied into the Republican Party and undermining identities that support Democratic voting.)

It's not quite that simple, actually. If the insurgents have been diminished because of the increased use of death squads, the increased influence of Shiite militias, the increased use of authoritarian tactics by the central regime, is that truly a sign of progress?

True enough. Let me put my point differently: reducing the power of the insurgency is a necessary condition of success in Iraq, but not really sufficient.

However, I would at least think it's worth talking about whether we've made progress in Iraq if the insurgency reduces. That would be a REAL sign of some kind of movement in the basics, if not necessarily a true sign of impending democracy and harmony.

rmck1;

Thanks. You raise good points. And you ably clarified something I should have mentioned -- that there is, as you say, plenty of room between 'conservative' Islam and the Taliban.

But your response also shows the immense difficulty that Iraq will have in building a stable democracy, or anything resembling what we could consider worthy of so much American blood and treasure.

I think the religious Shia want a conservative Islamic state, but not an Iran-style theocracy, exactly -- although it will certainly look anti-democratic if you're a northern city-dweller.

Or a woman. And is a 'conservative Islamic state' something we really wanted to create?

The Sadr people appear more rhetorically extreme -- but they also despise Iran and are probably more politically malleable because theirs is more properly-speaking a social than a religious movement.

Probably. But they are very well-armed and very radical.

I, too, fear theocratic tendencies, especially if the Shi'ite religious coalition headed by Mahdi wins. But I don't think it's a choice between radical jihadis and secularism, either.

It's also a matter of payback and the Shia think they are owed. The more radical end of that movement have already taken arms against the Sunni, others, one feels, are just waiting for the U.S. and the Brits to leave.

Okay, I'm sure I'm mostly just echoing what franklyo, and other articulate posters have been saying, but, Jesus Christ...

We've had more than half a dozen points when Iraq was proclaimed ULTIMATE BUSH VICTORY (and that's the terminology for many on the right -- they could give a good goddamn about the Iraqis, except insfoar as it boosts their LEADER). At each of these "turning points", the trolls have rushed in and shouted, Hoo-ha, you Dems, you suck big-time, Bush was right! And when we (Dems or otherwise) respond, actually, this incident isn't over yet, and it's extraordinarily premature to declare it a success, we're bombarded with You're-a-bunch-of-traitors-who-want-to-lose. Then, some patch of time later (an ever-decreasing one, it seems), it turns out our skepticism was well-warranted: Iraq is back to the hellacious Groundhog Day it's been from summer '03 on -- 2.5-3 Americans die every day, the number of trained Iraqi troops stays frozen, and Bush tells us we're winning with no discernible progress.

What is it that makes it so easy for Republican to fall back on this rinse-and-repeat pattern? Memento-like memory? Or just pure shamelessness?

if you can't do that, STFU

Actually cmdicely gave a nice rendering of success. If you haven't read it, STFU and do so.

i wasn't asking you to quote someone else's work. commence STFUing.

cmdicely:

And to the extent that the GOP have done this (play the identity politics game) they have undermined US democracy -- by making emotional ties more significant than material and at times even ideological interests.

Identity politics is something that mature democries at least trend away from and towards more rational bases of interest.

Of course there's always France which tries to pretend that identity politics doesn't exist ...

But still ... unless a group identity is congruent with a concrete material and/or ideological interest, it's a form of irrational political theater.

Bob

frankly0, I don't think the evidence supports your assertions about the ability of the insurgents to take power in Iraq. I doubt that they have what it takes to tackle both the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south and successfully beat and suppress both, particularly with the support from Iran that the latter can count on.

PaulB,

I'm not sure either that they necessarily now have the strength to take over as they had before. On the other hand, why should we believe that anything basic has changed in Iraq? When we go, what will have been installed permanently that will alter the fundamentals here? Apriori, you'd think the Sunnis never would have had a chance for domination, because they are such a relatively small minority, but you'd be wrong. The fact is, the Sunnis DID manage to grasp power and maintain it for many decades, so underestimating them seems like a pretty bad idea, don't you think?

I certainly wouldn't expect them in any case to take over any time soon, not least because the US would be too embarrassed to let that happen.

And of course there might be a "compromise" of sorts, in which the Sunnis take over a portion of the country, and the Shiites and Kurds do likewise. Now, my bet is that that would prove to be pretty unstable too, and the same things that made a unified country seem important to, say, Saddam, before will seem so again.

But what's hard to envision is for the insurgent Sunnis to feel satisfied with anything less than domination of some kind of independent nation. Whether it happens is less important than that they will very likely refuse to give up the fight short of its achievement.

my biggest hope for the Iraqi people,
is that they can figure out a way to get us out of their country.

Boy oh boy, the mewling by all the proper, progressive liberal commenters on the Political Animal in this thread has been priceless.

MOST enjoyable!

Now then, it's hard to imagine how one can spin the election in a negative way, but Juan Cole and most of you have. It's a historic day, a great day for the Iraqi people and a great day for people everywhere who understand that Islamofascism brings nothing good to the world.

The Iraqi people seem to understand what all of you do not: they'll make things work somehow. The new government is going to be a mix of secular Sunnis, Kurds, secular Shi'a, and religious Shi'a. There will be coalitions, compromises and intrigue. In other words, it will be much like most western democracies.

The Iraqi people have made it clear: they want a country that works, and that they'll put in the effort to make it work. The combination of Iraqi and coalition security forces saw to it that the election could be done peacefully, and we're going to see more days like this.

The Sunnis are getting the message: want to be left alone? Stop sheltering the jihadis. Want a share of power? Vote. Want a seat at the table? Work with others and support enough federalism so that you can be left alone and still share in the oil revenue. The Ba'athists are on the run with this election, and when Sadddam and his cronies are swinging from a rope (and they will swing), Ba'athism in Iraq will be dead. Thank goodness.

The Shi'a are splitting power between secular and religious parties. Think that's an accident? Nope. The Iraq Shi'a don't want another Iran; they've already lived under repression and aren't going to vote another thug into power. The Kurds are setting themselves up to be left alone.

While this is a cornerstone event, there are others. The Iraqi security forces are being handed responsibility, and unlike in 2004, they're stepping up. More and more districts are being turned over. When our Marines clear a town, the Iraqi forces come in right behind and maintain control. They're getting better, and as they do coalition forces are leaving. Much of the south and Kurdish regions are already barren of coalition forces. That will happen more and more.

The Iraqi economy is blossoming. Don't believe it? Look at the cars crowding the streets, the internet cafes in small villages, the many Iraqis carrying cell phones, the farmers making money with their crops, the new businesses opening everywhere. The Iraqis were traditionally industrious people and it shows.

Political success. Security success. Economic success. It doesn't happen all at once, it doesn't happen in a smooth, straight line, and there will still be days when it's two steps forward, one step back.

And Americans are going to remember who were the naysayers along the way: all the people who advocated immediate withdrawal (even today in this thread), who advocated surrender, who advocated a policy of cut-and-run. In the summer of 2006 it's going to dawn on Americans that they really were lied to: by liberals, progressives, Democrats, and the MSM. I wouldn't want to be a Democrat in the 2006 elections, even in a 'safe' district or a blue state.

I'm enjoying today, I really am. The Iraqi people are showing us the best of humanity, and it's a bitter, bitter pill for all the regulars at the Political Animal.

Yes, I'm gloating :-)

Oh, and by the way: how 'bout that nuanced, smart Bush policy on Syria? The one that is going to topple Pencilneck from power in the near future. The one that has us cooperating with Lebanese, the UN, and even (gasp!) the French!

Heh.

And to the extent that the GOP have done this (play the identity politics game) they have undermined US democracy -- by making emotional ties more significant than material and at times even ideological interests.

Define "democracy" -- by no meaning that I understand does "democracy" require material or ideological interests to be superior to any others.

Identity politics is something that mature democries at least trend away from and towards more rational bases of interest.

I don't think that's even remotely true anywhere in the real world. It may be the case that some democracies tend to align subjective identity more with, e.g., economic class and less with, OTOH, region or ethnicity. But I'd argue that, insofar as the former are more "mature", its in the fact that material and ideological interests are less tied to ethnicity, region, religion, etc., not that voting is somehow more distinct from identity.

But still ... unless a group identity is congruent with a concrete material and/or ideological interest, it's a form of irrational political theater.

Whether or not if everyone was tolerant and mature it would be, I think its pretty clear that the identities underlying Iraqi voting blocs are at least as closely tied to real common interests (particularly, immediate personal security and survival interests) as those underlying voting blocs in Western democracies. Surely, in a more stable and secure state, the salient interests are at different points on Mazlo's heirarchy, and the types of identity around which voting blocs coalesce reflect that.

And all this has to do with Osama Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda thugs that attacked us on 9/11 how exactly Mr. White?

I thought Pres. Bush told us he wasn't into "nation-building"

i wasn't asking you to quote someone else's work. commence STFUing.

You were asking someone else to do your work for you, as you are either too lazy to do it for yourself, or you actually don't care about the answer. In either case, you should STFU.

ckelly: Mr. Bush had to change his mind on nation-building. It happens.

As to Osama, you're sadly missing the two key points: 1) we've been getting after al-Q with considerable success and 2) long-term reduction of terrorism required us to remove Saddam.

I realize that few of us would read a GWB speech, but the one he gave two days ago at the Woodrow Wilson Center answers your question very well. You might want to take a look.

For the trolls up-thread:

Just because we on the "left" oppose this war, we do not - I repeat not oppose the troops or have any ill-will toward the Iraqi people. I hope they pull it out and the situation stabilizes and we can bring the troops home...Before I see any more in the VA hospital. When I am in the blood bank, I am very conscientious of my job, so I personally collect all specimens to be crossed for FFP and PRBC's (Fresh Frozen Plasma and Packed Red Blood Cells) transfusions, rather than have a phlebotomist do it. (I am not a specialist in blood banking - I'm not that anal retentive. I am an ASCP certified Clinical Lab Scientist, however. Most lab scientists don't have patient contact, the phlebs do. But in the Blood Bank, I take no chances. Blood Bank is the part of the lab where you can do everything right, triple check your results, get two supervisors to sign off before the unit is issued, and still kill the patient. Give me Micro or Chemistry any day...But when the agency calls for the VA, it's always for Blood Bank.)

It's fucking depressing to see these kids younger than my son maimed for life by burns and bomb blasts. I've been turning down occaisional assignments because it's tearing me apart. I turned down two of the six shifts that they called for this month. (Then I feel just as terrible, but in a totally different way.)

Mike K, you are a physician. I understand you also support this war. Are you donating any time to the VA?

I heard his speech yesterday. He invoked 9/11 five times and we all know that's a conflation of issues and has been debunked.

However, he did just cave to McCain. I danced a little jig, bad knees and all. That was the best news I had heard in a while.

Global Citizen writes: Just because we on the "left" oppose this war, we do not - I repeat not oppose the troops or have any ill-will toward the Iraqi people.

I believe that you believe that. There are people at 'peace' rallies that carry signs along the lines of, 'we support our soldiers when they shoot their generals.'

You seen those, I'm sure. As long as you reject that sort of thing, then I believe you.

As to the VA, I'm also a a physician, and I've trained in and worked in VA hospitals. Sad places and doubly sad today. I hope you understand that those of us who support the war (and I do) are fully aware of the terrible cost that we ask some Americans to bear. It's brutal and difficult to justify. It's interesting to me that the people who justify it the best are our soldiers in Iraq, who say clearly and consistently that they believe in the job we've asked them to do. They believe it's important, and I find it difficult to argue with them.

Steve White,

Your post could have been written almost identically after all the other corners we've turned in Iraq, and indeed they were so written. Look at the posts we heard after the very first election, and after the second.

Please tell us how this election is going to stop the insurgency -- I mean, outside your fantasy world? Alternatively, shut up until you can?

Actually cmdicely gave a nice rendering of success.

Actually, no. Cmdicely gave a recitation of the bare minimum qualifications, in terms of elections, for there to be a tenable argument that success had been acheived, at least in terms of a functioning democratic government. A description that is of necessary, but not sufficient, conditions.

At each of these "turning points", the trolls have rushed in and shouted, Hoo-ha, you Dems, you suck big-time, Bush was right! And when we (Dems or otherwise) respond, actually, this incident isn't over yet, and it's extraordinarily premature to declare it a success, we're bombarded with You're-a-bunch-of-traitors-who-want-to-lose.

Whether or not the trollery are guilty of declaring too many turning points, the hometown team is guilty of failing to recognize any progress at all. In short, if it is extraordinarily premature to declare it a success, it is also extraordinarily premature to declare it a failure.

cmdicely
Actually, no. Cmdicely gave a recitation of the bare minimum qualifications, in terms of elections, for there to be a tenable argument that success had been acheived, at least in terms of a functioning democratic government. A description that is of necessary, but not sufficient, conditions.

The orginal question was...

...some ways of meaningfully measuing progress towards that point

Yours is one of the ways. Necessary, but not sufficient.

Matt: "This is not communism vs capitalism. It is people with short term grievances. Iraq is no more a supporter of the Jihadi world view than any other country in that region. There is no ideological conflict."

Well, there IS that "short-term" conflict between the Sunnis and the Shiites, which has been going on for a millennium and a half (and, in Iraq itself, for about 400 years). There's also the similarly short-term one between the Arabs and the Kurds.

cmdicely: "Hey, it worked that way with US gratitude toward France, didn't it? I mean, even to this day, Americans would die to a man (and woman, surely) for the interests of France, right?"

Yes, of course, it did and I won't be surprised if it works equally as well in Iraq too! The world is rich with such international gratitude, isn't it?

2) long-term reduction of terrorism required us to remove Saddam.

Why? Because he gave a couple of bucks to Palestinian suicide bombers? Since he was a secular despot and ideological antithesis of Al Qaeda - I don't see the connection no matter how hard Bush/Cheney try to conflate the two. Bad as he was, Saddam was a secular force against the Islamic fundies in the region. There is absolutely no evidence that removing Saddam will have any positive effect on fighting terrorism. Although, I believe many have made the case that it will exacerbate it.

Here's a post after the election in Iraq in January of 2005, from Political Animal, basically at random:

This was a great victory. Vindication for everything our leaders have ever been criticized for. And who cares about the Sunnis, really? You just want to urinate on the latest proof of our goodness.

I'm sure the violence will stop now, and that Democracy will march onward. Look at the steady progress we've made. The Arabs are beginning to love and respect us. They want our Chevrolets. Now the infrastructure will get built. Now an economy will grow. Now a justice system will develop. And Freedom will spread - as it always has. It is so, so fully worth it to spend hundreds of billions on this country.

What else will we do with this money, spend it on health care for the undeserving underworking untrying "middle class" and (guffaw) "poor"? You liberals hate Bush and hate America and finally you hate us precious few Americans who make America great. If you cannot submit, you hate. When will you just submit and listen to your bettors?

Now, for all practical purposes, this is just the same kind of gloating blather that Steve White just posted.

Somehow, things didn't take such a wonderful turn in Iraq after those elections, despite all the chest thumping, did they Steve? What makes you think this is going to be any different?

Steve, your speech kinda reminded me of Bluto's speech from Animal House:

D-Day (Bruce McGill): War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.

Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

Otter (Tim Matheson): [whispering] Germans?

Boon (Peter Riegert): Forget it, he's rolling.

Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough... [thinks hard] the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go! [runs out, alone; then returns] What the fuck happened to the Delta I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Wormer, he's a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Niedermeyer -

Otter: Dead! Bluto's right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.

Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.

D-Day: Let's do it.

Bluto: LET'S DO IT!!

[Chaos ensues--for most of the rest of the movie]

This part in particular:

Steve: It's a historic day, a great day for the Iraqi people and a great day for people everywhere who understand that Islamofascism brings nothing good to the world.

Windhorse: Islamofascism? Iraq was a secular society prior to our invasion. Saddam hunted down terrorists and Baghdad was known for its nightclubs and cafes.

rmck1: Just go with it, he's on a roll.

Hey frankly0, as long as we are randomly picking quotes...

I'm going to be brutally honest, as I fear few liberals are. I hope the Bush administration fails miserably in Iraq. Perhaps the reasonable liberals who unaccountably supported this psychosis on the part of the Busheviks (Kevin Drum for one) hope to save some face by pointing to at least a partial success. But any outcome that can be twisted and stretched to be called success in nation building will teach the wrong lesson to everyone involved. For the good of the world, for the good of future generations, the Busheviks and the people who come after them must learn this lesson unequivocally: you cannot invade a nation, kill people and expect any kind of a good outcome.

Posted by: James of DC on January 7, 2005 at 3:39 AM | PERMALINK

The "south" still doesn't seem very integrated to me. It seems more like we accidentally left them in the 19th century.

Most of my family is Southern, so I get to say this.

We didn't leave anyone. We offered 'em a ride out of there and they said, no, thanks, we're fine right here by the fire, polishing the candlesticks on our Braxton Bragg shrine.

The orginal question was...

Not what I was responding to when I corrected the characterization of my statement as a "rendering of success".

I also see that Franklin Foer on the New Republic blogsite agrees with the point I've been repeating with the regularity of a parrot for the last three years -- namely, that even if (against the odds) Iraq becomes a halfway workable democracy, it's likely to be remembered as one of the biggest Pyrrhic victories in human history. http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=4418 :

"My question is this: where is the outrage over Iran? Strangely, I hear Europeans reacting with greater anger and fear than the American right--or the left, for that matter. (Big ups to Matthew Yglesias for continuing to trumpet the issue.) Iran represents as good a reason as any to be pissed with Bush. Under his watch, the world's leading anti-Semite is poised to get nukes. There doesn't seem to be anything we can say to talk Ahmadinejad out of the bomb. And given his ideological/religious disposition, the odds of him using it against Israel are far greater than zero. What's worse, a wide swath of neocons and other foreign policy hawks seem to agree that these weapons are too dispersed and too hardened to be vulnerable to a preemptive attack. So, I ask again, where's the outrage? And more to the point, does anybody have a plan?"

There is a strong and unpleasant possibility that THIS is what historians (assuming there are any by 2050) will remember the Iraq War for. Of course, as Marshall Wittman points out, the Democrats haven't been uttering a peep on the subject either. (Also, I doubt that even the Loony Toon that Iran currently has for President will be allowed to launch a nuclear attack on Israel -- the real danger will come when the Iranian dictatorship starts getting shaky.)

As for Foer's plaintive question: "Does anybody have a plan?", I suspect that at this point it's too late for any plan to stop Iran, short of
threatening to nuke the country. Three years ago it might have been a different matter.

And as for Steve White's downright drunken optimism (as a physician, Steve, you should keep in mind that drinking that much Kool-Aid at a sitting is bad for your health), let me again note Spencer Ackerman's observations on how eager the leading political organizations of both Sunnis and Shiites publicly are to embrace peaceful democracy. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w051212&s=ackerman121405 :

"As with January's vote for an interim assembly, American perceptions of the election emphasize the simple fact of turnout while obscuring the motivation for that turnout. In January, the Shia and the Kurds voted en masse in order to build their sectarian agendas into the architecture of the Iraqi political process--that is, the constitution. Now, the Sunnis are voting in the hope of rolling back the achievements of their sectarian rivals--that is, to reassert their dominance over Iraq. Both the Shia and the Sunnis portray their own sectarian control as the true national consensus, ensuring that Iraqi politics after tomorrow will remain a brutal zero-sum game.

"An excellent example of this dynamic comes from the National Dialogue Council, a Sunni organization. Its most prominent member, Saleh Mutlaq, led the Sunni delegation in drafting the constitution until its Shia-and-Kurd-centric provisions led him (and the rest of the Sunnis) to reject the document. Earlier this week, the Council urged the insurgency to allow the election to go forward:

" 'We also call on the zealous, auspicious Iraqis, who dedicated themselves to defending their religion, homeland, and honor for the sake of God, to stop the jihadist operations against the occupation forces and their allied forces for five days, starting 13 December 2005. This is in order for them to prove to the entire world that they have a message and are seeking rights, and that they are neither rabble-rousers nor terrorists as they are described by the occupiers and their agents...'

"Notice that the Council didn't say that as the Sunni parliamentarians stand up, the 'zealous, auspicious Iraqis ... defending their religion, homeland and honor for the sake of God' should stand down. Instead, the Council basically said that after 'five days' the Sunni insurgents can return to killing U.S. troops and 'their allied forces' -- that is, Shia and Kurds -- as the new Sunni parliamentarians press the attack through different means.

"Which should be unsurprising. The mechanism that the Shia and the United States used to entice the Sunnis into contesting today's election is the prospect of 'amending' the constitution through a one-shot rewrite attempt early next year. Yet the offer was hardly made in good faith: As Saad Jawad of SCIRI, the leading Shia political faction, put it, 'This is not a negotiation about changing the constitution directly. It is more of a political assurance.' More importantly, even with an anticipated increase in Sunni representation, it's extremely unlikely that the Sunnis will possess the votes necessary in parliament to enact the wholesale constitutional revisions they desire. Such an overhaul would come at the direct expense of the Shia political ambitions that have fueled the political process since Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani forced the United States to accede to direct elections (benefiting the Shia majority) in January 2004. That's why, as The Washington Post observed this week, the Shia have closed ranks behind their sectarian political bloc, the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), despite widespread dissatisfaction with its performance in office over the past year. SCIRI, the largest UIA component, has used the prospect of a return of 'Baathists' (read: Sunnis) to power as a way of bolstering its own flagging support. And its militia, the Badr Corps--increasingly, in the words of one senior U.S. military official, an anti-Sunni 'death squad'--promises to 'take up arms' against resurgent "Baathists.' In other words, Badr will prosecute the Shia struggle against the Sunnis in the streets even as the parliament sits in Baghdad. Welcome to the next several years of Iraqi politics--if 'politics' is the right word."

Let me add only that the descriptions we're getting from all sides -- including JCS Chariman Pace -- of the activities of the Badr Corps confirm in no uncertain terms that Ackerman is right when he says that for it and SCIRI, "Baathists" really means "all Sunnis".

Here's another post from the same thread from Jan 2005 (though one never knows what's parody and what isn't when it comes to conservative belief)

Today is a bad day for the butt monkeys, the naysayers, who are trying to limit the success of the Iraq election. If they were smart, and there is no reason to believe they are, they would just shut up and let the world rejoice without trying to throw cold water on it. They are, last I looked, Americans just like us but they act like they are not and that what is good for America is somehow bad just because it was brought about by President Bush. What they fear is the truth about President Bush being a great man and a great president will somehow come out. That by doing what they are doing it will somehow suppress that truth. They fear that they will lose even more power and are desperate to stop it.

I also imagine that a scene something like this a few years ago took place in the Oval Office:

Rumsfeld: It's over. The Taliban are toppled and bin Laden and his top lieutenants escaped.

Bush: Over? Over? Was it "over" when Iraq attacked us on 9/11? Hell no!

Powell: Iraq?

Wolfowitz: He's rolling, just go with it.

Bush: And it ain't over now. When the going gets tough [thinks hard]...fool me once...won't get fooled again. What the fuck happened to the neocons I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you George, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Saddam, he's a dead man! Fuck him, we're taking him out!

Rumsfeld: The president's absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons that could take years and cost millions of lives, but it will mean billions in government contracts [winks at Dick]. But we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part in addition to the lives and the weapons. I say we whip up support for this thing by telling people that Saddam has horrific WMD's -- tooooons of 'em. Sure, we'll be found out eventually but by them we'll all be knee deep in this thing and we'll figure out how to spin it somehow -- we'll tell 'em it was about freedom or something. Don't worry boys, your skyrocketing defense stocks will more than make up for any beatings you take in the press....

[Chaos ensues--for most of the rest of the war]

The orginal question was...

Not what I was responding to when I corrected the characterization of my statement as a "rendering of success".

Well, to paraphrase the true expert...

'When I use a quote,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make quotes mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

I AM the master.

"This is a crappy election. It proves nothing, except that Bushitler got everything wrong again.

Until you wake up to that simple fact, just STFU! Got that? Just STFU!

Al Gore is my President!

Dario"

Heaven forbid that anyone disagrees with you, Dario. Nice Hitler reference, too. Where, exactly, do you live and how are things going for the Gore Administration?

Come to think of it, I forgot to mention NBC's piece on Iyad Allawi's today. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10456753/ :

"On Tuesday, the Supreme Council's armed wing, the Badr Organization, appeared to warn that it would fight to overthrow Allawi if he emerged as the ultimate winner in Thursday's elections. 'We are warning now: We will raise our weapons as we did before if the Baathists come to power again,' said Haidi Amery, leader of the Badr Organization, which now describes itself as a political movement...

" 'When we all agreed that the ballot box will be the decisive factor for Iraqis to pick the next government, then we should respect it,' Allawi said, wearing a pink tie and suit and speaking the fluid English of Iraqis whose time in exile was spent in the West. 'It's like me saying, "If the Islamists win, I'll declare war." How can this help?'

"Allawi, who for years worked closely with the CIA, was installed as prime minister last year by the U.S. occupation authorities. He was unseated in January elections for a transitional government that for the first time brought Iraq's Shiite majority to political dominance. He earned a reputation for toughness during his time in office, particularly for moves against armed Shiite militias.

"Allawi blames those militias for a mob attack that he narrowly escaped during a visit to Najaf this month. He also said that some of the attacks on his followers were carried out by men in police cars belonging to the Shiite-dominated Interior Ministry. He offers documents that he says are proof that the current government of Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari ordered surveillance of him and his followers.

"A British-educated neurologist, Allawi is affable and polished. His backers fear that a consolidation of power by Shiite religious parties would deepen the role of Islam in politics and society and boost the influence of hard-line leaders from neighboring Iran. They also fear Shiite proposals to transform the government into a federal system with highly autonomous regions, and a growing influence of armed Shiite and Kurdish militias.

" 'People do have this concern that Iraq may splinter and split and be dismembered, and this is what we want to avoid at all costs,' Allawi said. 'Because if Iraq fragments, God forbid, it will fragment not into two or three, it will be even more fragments. And it will be a fragmentation that will be quite chaotic, and it will spill over into the region and also affect the stability of the world at large,' Allawi said, alluding to the global dependence on Middle East oil...

"Abdul Mahdi, now a vice president in Jafari's administration, said Allawi's attacks have instead helped to unify the religious alliance. 'We were much more confused before the campaign, but when he started to attack...'...

"...[I]n almost any outcome, the religious Shiites are expected to hold enough seats to block any candidate for Iraq's top political spot. If Shiite religious parties fail to win a commanding majority, other candidates, such as Abdul Mahdi or Ahmed Chalabi, a secular Shiite, might have a better chance.

"Whether all that can play out without the country descending into civil war is an open question."

Yes, I'm sure the Sunnis would be willing to peacefully accept Chalabi as Iraq's leader. After all, didn't he convince much of the current Administration of that?

'Al' posted:

"Turns out that story was just a MSM lie."

Not according to the BBC.

My only question, was this an Iranian operation to stuff the ballot boxes, or was this a Bushie operation to make it LOOK like the Iranians were trying to stuff the ballot boxes ?
.

Oh, goody, another brain-dead jingoist joins the fray. Let's take him down a peg, shall we?

Steve White, inanely, writes: "Boy oh boy, the mewling by all the proper, progressive liberal commenters on the Political Animal in this thread has been priceless."

So let's see... Displaying an appropriate degree of skepticism, pointing out just how wrong the jingoists have been in the past, pointing out that nothing has changed substantively, pointing out that no evidence has been provided to support the massively positive spin that the jingoists are spinning ... all of this is "mewling." And of course, Steve quite conveniently ignores all of the points raised on this thread since he has no answer for any of them. Just another mindlessly partisan troll post.

"MOST enjoyable!"

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing.

"Now then, it's hard to imagine how one can spin the election in a negative way,"

Steve, dear, nobody is "spinning" the election in a negative way. We're simply pointing out, appropriately, that the positive spin that you are employing is not backed up by anything resembling concrete evidence and that there is ample reason for skepticism.

"but Juan Cole and most of you have."

No, dear, we haven't. It might seem that way to you since you are a) incapable of actually reading, and b) interpreting lack of positive spin as negative spin, but that's not the way things work out here in the real world.

"It's a historic day, a great day for the Iraqi people and a great day for people everywhere who understand that Islamofascism brings nothing good to the world."

It's also a great day for meaningless, mindless sloganeering, as you and others have amply demonstrated.

"The Iraqi people seem to understand what all of you do not:"

Do they, Steve? And your evidence for this is ... what, exactly? So far, your fellow compatriots have fallen down on actually providing anything substantive. Are you up to the challenge?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

"they'll make things work somehow."

Will they? And your evidence for this is ... what, exactly?

"The new government is going to be a mix of secular Sunnis, Kurds, secular Shi'a, and religious Shi'a."

No shit, Sherlock. Got anything substantive to say?

"There will be coalitions, compromises and intrigue."

Will there? And your evidence for this is ... what, exactly? Got anything substantive to say?

"In other words, it will be much like most western democracies."

ROFLMAO.... Oh my ... this is just too good to be true. Poor Steve...

"The Iraqi people have made it clear:"

Have they? And your evidence for this is ... what, exactly?

"they want a country that works,"

Do they? And your evidence for this is ... what, exactly?

"and that they'll put in the effort to make it work."

Will they? And your evidence for this is ... what, exactly?

"The combination of Iraqi and coalition security forces saw to it that the election could be done peacefully, and we're going to see more days like this."

Will we? And your evidence for this is ... what, exactly?

"The Sunnis are getting the message: want to be left alone? Stop sheltering the jihadis."

Are they? And your evidence for this is ... what, exactly?

"The Ba'athists are on the run with this election,"

Are they? And your evidence for this is ... what, exactly?

"and when Sadddam and his cronies are swinging from a rope (and they will swing), Ba'athism in Iraq will be dead. Thank goodness."

Will it? And your evidence for this is ... what, exactly?

"The Iraq Shi'a don't want another Iran;"

Don't they? And your evidence for this is ... what, exactly?

"While this is a cornerstone event,"

Is it? And your evidence for this is ... what, exactly?

"The Iraqi security forces are being handed responsibility, and unlike in 2004, they're stepping up."

Are they? And your evidence for this is ... what, exactly? And your evidence about the exact nature of those security forces is ... what, exactly?

"The Iraqi economy is blossoming."

Is it? And your evidence for this is ... what, exactly?

"And Americans are going to remember who were the naysayers along the way:"

Ah, you mean the majority of Americans?

[A bunch of truly mindless jingoistic nonsense deleted, since it was truly mindbogglingly delusional, not to mention incredibly stupid.]

Yup, I was right; Steve, like his fellow trolls, wasn't up to the challenge. Alas....

Steve White wrote
"listen to your bettors"

Listen to my WHAT? Look, if you're going to pose as an elitist, you have to at least fucking spell simple words correctly. This kind of thing is fine for faux-populists like Fat White Guy, whose whole shtick is that he's just a "regular guy", but reading someone so pompously refer to himself as a "bettor" is just hilarious.

As for the Iraqi vote, what kind of moron wouldn't go out to vote in such a situation? The more people stay home from the polls, the longer US troops will be around. But if you think people can't go to the polls while still supporting an armed insurgency, you haven't studied much history. Most militant minority groups treat the various forms of political activity (violent and non-violent) in the same way that Fat White Guy treats a Chinese buffet. The earlier petulant refusal of Sunnis to participate in the election was just stupid. It seems like a lot of the Sunni leaders seem to believe they are in the position where they have have their cake and eat it too, calling for their supporters to vote while still also giving verbal support to the insurgents.

Windhorse is rolling...I think I'll just go on laughing.

Steve White, continuing his trend of writing absolute nonsense, wrote: "As to Osama, you're sadly missing the two key points: 1) we've been getting after al-Q with considerable success"

Have we? And your evidence for this is ... what, exactly? By most accounts, including those of our own intelligence agencies, we've doing a pretty piss-poor job blocking the flow of arms, money, and recruits. Certainly, terrorist incidents have not decreased since we began this so-called "war on terror." In fact, they've dramatically increased. I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "success."

"and 2) long-term reduction of terrorism required us to remove Saddam."

ROFL.... Oh my goodness... That you can still say this with a straight face with what we know now is quite revealing.

Steve White, continuing to display a massive degree of cluelessness, writes: "Oh, and by the way: how 'bout that nuanced, smart Bush policy on Syria?"

ROFLMAO.... No comment necessary.

Frankly0 writes, Please tell us how this election is going to stop the insurgency -- I mean, outside your fantasy world? Alternatively, shut up until you can?

First, no, I won't shut up. Thanks for asking.

Second, the election alone does not stop the insurgency. Stopping the insurgency is a multi-layer, multi-level process. It takes time, and fortunately we've been taking that time. It means 1) elections (emphasis on the plural) 2) increasing security 3) increasing inclusion 4) increasing prosperity and economic success. All of that takes time, and patience is something you progressive liberals don't have an abundance of ;-)

The Iraqis have had 3 elections. Fifteen million Iraqis voted today. The Sunnis are joining up rather than fighting, at least for today. The security forces are slowly getting better. The country has some prosperity.

I see lots of reasons to be optimistic. I was optimistic a year ago, and events like today remind me that I was right to be optimistic. Even if you can't figure it out, the Iraqis can.

What pisses me off, is that even though Bush has handed Iraq over to Iran on a silver platter, he wasn't able to work any quid-pro-quo off of it like; increase oil production, or stop being a buttmunch towards Israel, etc.

I'm impressed that papageno and theThirdPaul know the lyrics to songs from Jefferson Airplane's first (pre-Grace Slick) album.

Windhorse writes, Islamofascism? Iraq was a secular society prior to our invasion. Saddam hunted down terrorists and Baghdad was known for its nightclubs and cafes.

That displays a stunning ignorance of Iraqi society in the 1980s and 90s, but if that's what you believe, fine.

Saddam hunted down anyone who opposed him. Terrorists who worked with him got along fine. Remember the mook who got away in the first WTC bombing of 1993? Where did he live afterwards? Baghdad.

If your measure of success is nightclubs, then I suppose you would indeed turn a blind eye to the mass graves.

I was browsing around other "turn the corner" moments here at the Washington Monthly and absolutely loved this post by FlipYrWhig:

I'm tired of hearing about why I have to respond to news events not only by doing a happy dance, but by carefully performing only the right kind of happy dance, because the wrong kind of happy dance makes Baby Jesus cry.

Amen....

As to Osama, you're sadly missing the two key points: 1) we've been getting after al-Q with considerable success

yeah, whatever. I guess I don't see any of that stuff because my head, unlike yours, is not up your ass.

Look, all this back-and-forth isn't going to convince anyone.

The real proof of which point of view is the more persuasive one will come at election time (in the US, that is, not in Iraq).

Since the GWOT began, the score is Elephants 2 -- Donkeys 0, so it is safe to say that the Republicans and hawks' view of the world is the more persuasive one so far.

Let's see if that changes next November.

For the record, kokblok, I didn't write the phrase, "listen to your bettors", quoted above. Frankly0 dug that out of the archives, but someone else wrote that, not me. Just to keep the record straight.

I don't support the war in Iraq, but I sure as hell don't support fragging of Commanders - I'm married to one! (Now retired) That was just a stupid thing to say.

(Steve White is a physician...of course he is elitist. Ever met one that wasn't? But his kind are helpless without my kind...I take the guesswork out of his job.)

Steve White, still drinking that Kool-Aid, wrote: "Second, the election alone does not stop the insurgency."

No shit, Sherlock. Got anything substantive to say?

"Stopping the insurgency is a multi-layer, multi-level process."

Ah, I see that the answer to my last question is clearly, "no."

"I see lots of reasons to be optimistic."

Well, sure, if you shut your eyes, your ears, and your mind, it's ridiculously easy to be optimistic.

"I was optimistic a year ago, and events like today remind me that I was right to be optimistic."

Only if you ignore the reality of events in Iraq over that same time frame.

"Even if you can't figure it out, the Iraqis can."

Can they? And your evidence for this is ... what, exactly? Sigh... more jingoistic nonsense, devoid of logic, devoid of facts, and devoid of reason. Can we get some smarter monkeys, please?

howie wrote: "Since the GWOT began, the score is Elephants 2 -- Donkeys 0, so it is safe to say that the Republicans and hawks' view of the world is the more persuasive one so far."

The problem is that you are comparing apples to oranges. These are two separate issues: the reality of events in Iraq vs. the political impact of Iraq here in the U.S. That's why those who supported the war are so often reduced to pointing to November, 2004 when they have nothing left with which to argue.

Paul-3 knows a lot of stuff like that. He's a pretty astute guy and he deffinitely knows the score!

PaulB is no schlub either...definitely raises the tone around here...Glad you have time to join us again, PaulB. Miss you when you aren't around. Sometimes Pale Rider, Paul-3, and I need you!

More wisdom from Steve White, from another thread:

Yet progressives are defending Saddam, defending the Ba'athists, defending the jihadis, and defending the people who explode bombs in the midst of innocent people. Why is that?

I, like you (I strongly suspect) am too old to carry a rifle in Iraq. Sure, fine, denigrate that however you wish. Spill your bile and whatever wit you possess on me and others who think, like I do, that in the end, our country has done something good and noble in Iraq.

Progressives used to defend the common man. They're not doing that today. That's a shame.

It's fascinating reading his posts of the past couple of years. They are so unrelentingly jingoistic, so unrelenting mindless, so unrelentingly devoid of thought; sad, really.

Since the GWOT began, the score is Elephants 2 -- Donkeys 0, so it is safe to say that the Republicans and hawks' view of the world is the more persuasive one so far.

Depending on how you count (specifically, whether you count midterm Congressional elections or only Presidential elections), there have been either 1 or 3, but not 2, national elections since 9/11.

So your 2-0 count is rather improbable.

Further, national elections are not generally referenda on single issues, and treating them as if they were is, in general, at best naive and at worst grossly dishonest.

Um, forget that first part. For some reason, I had mentally fast-forwarded past 2006.

All of that takes time, and patience is something you progressive liberals don't have an abundance of ;-)Posted by: Steve White on December 15, 2005 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

Hm. Who didn't have the patience to let the new inspections and sanctions work?

The Iraqis have had 3 elections. Fifteen million Iraqis voted today.

Again, the elections aren't very meaningful when they're just electing more theofascist thugs.

The Sunnis are joining up rather than fighting, at least for today.

Because they know that the day the Americans leave, and the government is left to the Shiites, the militas are going to go up and down the street pulling Sunnis out of their houses and butcher them like animals. (see quotes of why Iraqis voted from link upthread).

The security forces are slowly getting better.

Too slowly. Every day that goes by, another 50-100 Iraqi civillians are blown into quivering, bloody bits of hamburger. We could have prevented this by either waiting until we knew the real intelligence (no WMD, no programs, no support for Al Qaeda), we could have prevented this by putting enough force on the ground, we could have prevented this by not torturing innocent people, we could have prevented this by securing the hundreds of sites like Al Qa Qaa that have armed the insurgents, we could have stemmed this and halted it by now, had we done a better job of recruiting and training Iraqis. But we did none of that, and there's really only one reason. INCOMPETENCE.

The country has some prosperity. Pumping less oil than during sanctions. And the economy is limited mostly to a few cronies and insiders who are buddy buddy with Chalabi. Yeah, the economy is prosperous for Chalabi. Sucks to be anyone else. Especially anyone who had his house blown up, or her husband's throat cut because he was a barber, etc.

I see lots of reasons to be optimistic.

No doubt chief among them: It's a requirement for membership in the Church Of Bush.

I was optimistic a year ago, and events like today remind me that I was right to be optimistic.

I think you mispelled "naive".

If your measure of success is nightclubs, then I suppose you would indeed turn a blind eye to the mass graves.
Posted by: Steve White on December 15, 2005 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

Apparently your measure of success (and Bush's) is more madrassas.

Not to mention that at the state level, the Democrats actually gained ground in 2004.

I kinda took the special elections we just had in November as a stinging rebuke to the right...Remember that one?

"I continue to be amazed and impressed by the Iraqis who risk bodily harm to cast a vote, and wonder what the hell is wrong with Americans who can’t be bloody bothered."

Oh god, spare me the hysterics. Were you born yesterday?
We have seen this a hundred times in countries from South America to Africa to Asia; and it pretty much never ends happily. What Iraq needs now, just like every other fledgling democracy, is a whole lot less emphasis on voting and a whole lot more emphasis on such issues as a free press, the operation of the judiciary, limits on the power of the state along with, conversely, state power that works in the areas where it is many to work, transparency in governing and so on.

Given that the Bush administration is not especially enthusiastic about any of these things, I doubt we're going to see much improvement in them in Iraq, meaning that they're well on their way down the standard pattern. Compare Nigeria:
1960 Federal govt formed (cf say Iraq 2004)
1963 Republic formed (cf say Iraq 2006)
1966 Military takeover
1967 Civil war starts

Global Citizen wrote: "PaulB is no schlub either"

Thanks for the compliment, Global Citizen. Alas, I fear I rarely have time to indulge in this kind of debate anymore, not to mention the fact that the quality of debate here from those who disagree with me is almost uniformly abysmal, this thread being a case in point. I miss the days when you could actually find some intelligent conservative participants here.

I am much more concerned about whether we will ever again have free, fair and clean elections in the USA than I am about elections in Iraq.

The last two presidential elections in this country were blatantly stolen. Control of the national government was seized by a criminal gang, using intimidation, fraud and outright theft.

Not too many people seem to care.

Rock on, Secular Animist. That kind of talk will doom your side to perpetual minority-dom.

I miss the days when you could actually find some intelligent conservative participants here.

You cut me deep with that one.

We exempt you, Red State Mike...You're okay. In fact, you are loved:)

Secular
The last two presidential elections in this country were blatantly stolen. Control of the national government was seized by a criminal gang, using intimidation, fraud and outright theft.

Not too many people seem to care.

That's becaue not too many people seem to agree with you.

You are truly out standing in your field...alone.

On the good news front, they've almost finished installing my geothermal heat pump system. Bring on those high oil prices!

Portugal: Did you see the Harper's article a few months ago, None Dare Call it Stolen.

I haven't jumped on the 2004 was stolen bandwagon, but that article gave me pause, to say the least. If you haven't read it, it would be worth googling.

Portugal wrote: "That kind of talk will doom your side to perpetual minority-dom."

Funny that dear little Portugal should show up. Let's look at what he said on that earlier thread, shall we?

it is a bigger day by far for the Iraqis, but at the rate the Dems are going, it will turn out to be an equally big day for the Republicans. If Democrats can't say anything good about today's outcome except for through clenched teeth, they will continue to lose relevance in the foreign policy discussion of the nation. Since, like it or not, foreign policy is on the front burner in US elections, not being taken seriously on a major issue can only hurt the Democrats.

They're stupid. Bush isn't running again. They can afford to support his policies, as he can't use their support to his personal advantage again. Instead, they moan and whine, and as a result, they hurt themselves badly.

Rock on, Portugal. That kind of talk will doom your side to perpetual minority-dom.

I'll skip past the Tinkerbell Calloused Clapping Hand Brigade and get to a point RSM made:

That fails to explain the celebrating by participants, fierce pride in the purple fingers, etc., etc. There is clearly an emotional content to their acting.

Yes, there is an emotional content. However, you appear to think its predominately "Hooray, We've Thrown Off The Shackles Of Tyranny, Praise Allah!" as if the Iraqis were late 18th century American voters.

Whereas I (and many others here) witness the emotional content and see "Hooray, We Can Finally Install Sharia, Praise Allah!", "Hooray, We Can Get Our Revenge On The Sunni Infidels, Praise Allah!", "Praise Allah, Let Us Vote Enough Sunnis To Keep The Shi'ites From Slaughtering Us Wholesale", and "Independent Kurdistan With Mosul Oil Fields Or Fight, Praise Allah!" along with the guys throwing off their shackles o' tyranny.

In short, it's still not that simple and the future path still isn't strewn with rose petals. We've empowered the Iraqis even more, its what they do with that power that's going to make the difference. Forgive me if I sound like a downer, but given past results, I still remain highly skeptical.

I always read the english version of Al Jazeera. Nice article here.

One passage (not representative of whole thing)
----------------
The instability gripping the country is leading to direct challenges to the religious authority as well, something unheard of in recent years.

"Islam is the solution," said an Islamist politician after last week’s Friday prayers at Al-Shawi Mosque in Baghdad. "We have experienced everything else and failed."

But a man in the congregation shouted back: "But our present government is religious and look what's going on".

An argument quickly ensued, with many deeply divided on the role Islamic governance should take in Iraq.

And then were these little gems from dear little Portugal:

$100 says Bolton gets confirmed.

Oh, and by the way....all the nominees for the Courts are going to be confirmed as well

Just like the Democrats' delight in our defeat in Vietnam cost them political power for a generation (with the exception of four years of Carter which was a Watergate phenomenon, not a national security endorsement), the lefties of today are setting themselves up for a couple of decades in the wilderness by rooting so actively for America's downfall (or comeuppance, as they would probably prefer to call it). Can you say fringe party by 2016?

The more I read threads like these (and those at Kos & Atrios, etc.), the more I'm convinced that the GOP will win big in 2006 and big again in 2008.

Dems lose Senate seats in ND, WA, FL, NE and MN next time (and, if the country is lucky, in WV).

If I read all the comments on this thread I am left wondering whether the Republicans will pick up 4 or 6 seats in the 2006 Senate elections. The Democrats are so reactionary, so obviously driven by an anti-Bush agenda rather than a problem-solving one that they are going to make the 2002 midterms look rosy.

Dems were wrong on the politics of Iraq (notice their silence now that the elections have taken place) and are wrong on the politics of Social Security.

At the rate things are going, we could see a Republican majority for the next twenty years, and , should that come to pass, a great deal of the blame will deservedly fall on the shoulders of the Democratic leadership of 2001-2005 (Daschle, Kerry, Kennedy, Byrd, Boxer, McCauliffe, Pelosi, etc.).

He is nothing if not consistent, isn't he? Notice the complete lack of thought, of logic, of reason, of facts, of anything substantive in these posts. And I assure you that this is a representative sample. Our dear little friend Portugal, in his entire time on this blog, has had not one intelligent thing to say.

You remember when I said that I miss the days when you could actually find some intelligent conservative participants here? I still miss 'em.

Well guys, I love you, but I gotta go - duty calls. The VA just called - I musta talked 'em up earlier - I'm going to go work in - you guessed it - the blood bank from 2000-0230. The tech who is on right now is coming down with the same bug I just shook off.

Cross your fingers for no new admits needing FFP for burn treatment after being burned by little 3 and 4 pound bombs that take out the rear axel of a Humvee and blow up the gas tank. Seeing way too much of that...Why are we fighting a war in jeeps?
href="http://bluegalinaredstate.blogspot.com/2005/06/going-to-war-in-jeeps.html

Read this and let me know what you think...

Sorry about the messed up link, but I gotta go...if it doesn't work right, just humor me and use the cut and paste.

the score is Elephants 2 -- Donkeys 0

where are the WMDs?

right.

Well that's why they have to keep bringing up the 2004 elections, cleek. They can't really can't muster too many arguments on the actual merits of the Bush administration's proposals or record, so they have to focus on the political successes in a vain attempt to muddy the waters.

Well that's why they have to keep bringing up the 2004 elections, cleek.

Actually, Paul, that's all that really matters to most of the wingnuts. The Iraqis come secondary to keeping The Party in power.

My God, there are more wingnuts here than at Powerline. What's the deal? Why does this site attract so many nutjobs with so much time on their hands?

cleek,

Aside from libs, who cares? They can't swing a vote so they don't count.

That displays a stunning ignorance of Iraqi society in the 1980s and 90s, but if that's what you believe, fine.

Sorry Steve, that description was verbatim from my Iraqi friends, who, you know -- actually lived there during that time.

It's funny how Americans have built up fantasies about Iraq from a few stories they read in the press. Did you know that in 1980's people in the Soviet Union were told by their government that the United States was nothing but a country of broken down inner cities on the verge of a race war?

If you think the Iraqis are taking it well now despite 90 attacks/day, IED's, kidnappings, revenge killings, lack of electricity, fuel, and water --

-- you should have seen 'em when they're country was safe and peaceful on the whole.

Yeah I know -- Saddam bad blah blah blah. The isolated events of Saddam's craziness were not the reality for most of the country every day. For those who weren't his political opponents he was the typical middle eastern strongman. Speaking of, didn't a poll come out just two days ago saying the overwhelming majority of Iraqis would prefer a strongman to a democratic government?

Funny that.

Here they are in the middle of elections and they say they'd prefer a strongman. If that ain't harshing your gloat, it outta.

wildhorse,

so why did 11M bother to vote? Your poll, if it exists, is obviously nonsense.

I wonder if you even appreciate the rotten political position you are in? Liberals have to hope everything fails and if it does not make it look as if it did. This creates two problems. Americans hate unrelenting pessimism and Iraq ain't failing.

Once upon a time you could have depended on the MSM to deliver the defeat you are hoping for. Those days are long gone. Even ABC has figured that out. They can see what is happening and they are not going to do a Dan Rather hari kari job for the cause. They have been very optimistic for several few days and are covering much more of the good news.

I saw Night Line the other night and Ted Koppel had to be sick. They talked about 62% cell phone penetration and showed cafe's filled with people relaxing and moving about without a care in the world. They predicted a very large Sunni turnout and they were correct.

Think about it. We have major media figures like Rush Limbaugh, Brit Hume, Sean Hannity, Chris Wallace, Bill Bennett, Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Charles Krautenhammer, Mark Steyn, Victor Davis Hansen, etc.

Gone are Walter Chronkite, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Ted Koppel, Sam Donaldson, Tom Brokow and at least 10% of the editorial staffs of every major newspaper the last 3 years as well as the networks.

The difference between now and 1992 when Slick Willie was elected is night and day. Rush himself has more listeners than the 3 networks combined and their ratings are still sliding.

rdw,

This post, even more than usual for you, sounds like dialogue spoken by a Nazi officer in an old WWII flick, telling the heros how they are doomed.

Let me make one thing very clear to you, you miserable fucking jackwad. I do not now, nor have I ever -- ever -- cared about "my" political position in the matter of Iraq. I am not party affiliated, but more to the point: the only thing I've ever cared about is the lives of Iraqis, particularly the relatives of my friends.

You've made it very clear that the loss of human life means nothing to your larger plan. Well, you will live with your choices and values, and I will live with mine.

and now for some comments that matter.

A great day for Iraq!!!! Freedom and end of dictatorship!!! End of Baathest!!!! many thanks to Bush and Blair..well done to Iraqies, Arabs, Kurds, Turkmans and Christians
Farhad Shikak Hawlery, London

We are sincere in our request that the world stop playing its games of politics, and support the Iraqi people. We are a new nation that needs support to ensure our legitimacy. It seems opponents will not doubt ask questions as to the legitimacy of this election, and will look for any issue to make it seem a failure. I tell you that today I saw many of my brothers and sister vote for the first time, and it was inspiring. The people of Iraq do not follow the insurgents and in time. They fight against us to prove a political point, but they will not win. We are thankful to the USA and UK for their help, and look forward to our destiny.
Mahmoud, Baghdad, Iraq

As an Iraqi who voted today, I say YES, the government will be ABSOLUTELY legitimate, why is it more legitimate in the UK or the US when the turnout is much lower? Democracy is shining in Iraq, please support it. Ironically many want to kill the newly born freedom and democracy in Iraq in the name of freedom and democracy!

Finally, I am deeply touched by many of the comments defending Iraq and Iraqis by many of you fine people. The names are too many to list but you will never be forgotten. THANK YOU!
Mohammed Al-Hakim, London, United Kingdom

I'm as an Iraqi Kurd very proud has gone to vote. I beleive that this election will be an opportunity for the elected people to play their part to be sincere and provide security and other necessities of life as millions of Iraqis have done their part by voting today.
Hosheng, Arbil-Iraq

I am an Iraqi and I voted here in London. The queue outside the polling station lasted for over an hour. Unlike last year’s elections, no groups are boycotting this time. Shias, Sunnis and Kurds all took part to get their voice heard.

All eyes of the world are on these elections. The polling stations have been observed by all kinds of analysts and national observers, there’s no room for illegitimacy!
F Jawad, London, United Kingdom

I keep hearing it "Is the Iraqi government legitimate? are the elections legitimate?" Why Iraqis are subjected to such skeptical scrutiny? I know why, because the world hates America and they want the Iraqi experiment to fail just to spite George Bush.. Well let me tell the world we Iraqis are going to the polls, we deserve our democracy because we paid for it in blood. And before I close WE IRAQIS say thank you AMERICA.
Abbas Bin Ali
Abbas Bib Ali, Toronto, Canadfa

Once again iraqis have prooved themselves as democracy-loving nation, the reasonable turnout has exhibitted their apptitude towards peace and each vote cast for a politician is actually a vote against terrorism. It has become now crystal clear that a very limited number of people is engaged in terrorism. Regardless of the results of electionBoth Sunni and shia participation in election will creat unity between these two sects.
Talib Naqvi, Lahore Pakistan

Now you can say these people are lying, or they are fools. You can say this vote means nothing to the people of Iraq or other Muslims around the world.

I just wonder if those of you that do are fools, or if you are so cynical that you can't see the light of day.

No matter what happens tomorrow this was a great day for the people of Iraq and for Democracy in the world.

There is nothing you can say or do to take it away.

Ugly Ass American--

Are you back to spam our threads with your bullshit and your inane thoughts? Do you still have a blog or did a third person show up and comment on it?

Take a look at rdw. Mr. Wootten is a parody of a crazy old man who's read one book. He posts some of the stupidest shit every washed out of the base of a portapotty.

And he's still better than you.

Good night to you, sir.

I'm so new to this I just figured out that MSM means main stream media. As a formerly fairly successful free lance writer of op-ed columns that I sold around the country, I can testify that the bottom has fallen out of that business as well. The ugly truth is that newspapers are going out of style, especially the non-tabloid publishers that have a sense of responsibility about the world.
Worse yet, on the shrinking op-ed pages that remain the dominant columnists tend to be the name-familiar talking heads who get a lot of TV exposure. Making it on pure analytical talent and writing skill becomes harder and harder. OK, Pale Rider, I left you the opening to remind me how lacking I am in those areas anyhow. . .

And he's still better than you.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 15, 2005 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

Typical democrat ad hominem response - to the fact that they were wrong.....

---------

Yup, I was right; Steve, like his fellow trolls, wasn't up to the challenge. Alas....

Posted by: PaulB on December 15, 2005 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

Paul. You are a loser.

You are in support of the insurgents who kill childeren and blow up mosques to stop a democratization process that 15 million people voted in.

Keep making smart-ass comments, you can tell a lot about a person by the company he keeps and your opinions are well on the side of a militant minority commiting inhumane acts against an elected government.

History books will record these years as the final descent of once proud liberalism into a morally nihilist agenda of hatred of dissenting views or leadership...there's no logic but knee jerk bush-bashing left in your politics.

McGriddles--

You suck so bad at blog commenting, they had to invent a special category for you at the upcoming Winter Olympics.

Then, they cancelled the event due to lack of interest. It had something to do with playing ping pong and getting a bowl haircut, and I am glad they cancelled it because those are ugly stereotypes that don't need to put on display for the world to see.

What you, rdw and the Ugly Ass American bring to the table is a hilarious combination of misinformed political analysis and outright wingnuttery disguised under a cheap veneer of self-righteousness fueled by a desire for attention.

OK, Pale Rider, I left you the opening to remind me how lacking I am in those areas anyhow. . .

No, you should change your business model to reflect the times.

If the bottom has fallen out of a market that you were successful in, move on to the next thing.

Learn a new skill. Go to one of the start-up blogs and go through a tutorial. You can start your own blog and add content and get people to evaluate your work--but please don't spam a major blog looking for readers. Contact everyone you ever did business with and see what you could do to show them that you still have the ability demonstrated by selling your work previously.

Half of these bloggers are just failed journalists and writers anyway. Many of them don't change their status by blogging.

So long as you have a point of view, you can pretty much do whatever you want these days.

The world is sort of flattening out. When you can read the likes of McGriddles, rdw and The Ugly Ass American, it should prove to you that if THEY can get on a blog thread, you could certainly use your proven talents and writing skills to do something worthwhile.

And that, sir, is what you get for asking a good question.

Ugly American wrote: "Now you can say these people are lying, or they are fools."

Why on earth would we say anything like that, when those statement don't have anything to do with anything that anyone on this thread has said? It's really easy to argue with a strawman of your own creation, isn't it?

"You can say this vote means nothing to the people of Iraq or other Muslims around the world."

See above. Care to address what we have actually been saying rather than dealing with those voices in your own head?

"I just wonder if those of you that do are fools, or if you are so cynical that you can't see the light of day."

Well, since none of your remarks bear any resemblance to anything discussed on this thread, forgive me if I say that the only fool I see here is the one I'm responding to.

"No matter what happens tomorrow this was a great day for the people of Iraq and for Democracy in the world."

Sigh... And more jingoistic slogans. Got anything substantive to say?

Sheesh...this one isn't any better than the others. Is there really no supporter of the war who is able to actually look at reality, read what we are actually writing, and put together a rational argument?

And, back on topic--

Iraqis voted. The Shia majority voted, and why did they vote? Well, they're the majority and they know that if they don't vote, their dominance of the country would be in jeopardy. Did they vote because of a love of democracy?

No. They voted because Grand Ayatollah al Sistani told them to and issued a fatwa telling all Shia to vote. al Sistani wants Sharia law and he'll get Sharia law by forcing the issue. Hmmm, a fatwa you say? What's the contradiction between a fatwa and democracy?

What's so difficult to understand? Just like America, when a holy man tells his followers to vote against their best interests and common sense for people who want to bring religious fundamentalism into an otherwise secular world, you get a third rate leader who can't tell his ass from the hole in the ground he just bombed.

Guess what Iraq? Democracy works better without the holy men.

PaulB,

Oh great heavy hitter that you are--

We are scraping the bottom of the barrel here with trolls tonight.

Now, Mr. Cook actually brought a little thought to the discussion tonight--care to take a stab at what he had to say?

All my best to you PaulB--missed you terribly on the old threads.

McAristotle, determined to show that he's just as much a fool as his compatriots are, writes: "Paul. You are a loser."

Why thank you, dear. Coming from you, that's quite a compliment. Now what was that you were saying about a "typical ... ad hominem response," dear?

"You are in support of the insurgents who kill childeren and blow up mosques to stop a democratization process that 15 million people voted in."

Why no, dear, I'm not, nor can you find a single post of mine that in any way supports anything that any of the insurgents have done, which is why you didn't even bother to look. So much easier to demonize someone and issue ad hominem attacks rather than dealing with the reality of what they are saying, isn't it?

"Keep making smart-ass comments,"

Oh, I shall, dear one, I shall.

"you can tell a lot about a person by the company he keeps"

Why yes, dear, I can.

"and your opinions are well on the side of a militant minority commiting inhumane acts against an elected government."

Why no, dear, they aren't, which is why you can't point to a single opinion of mine that displays such attributes. So much easier to demonize someone and issue ad hominem attacks rather than dealing with the reality of what they are saying, isn't it?

"History books will record these years as the final descent of once proud liberalism"

Well, those you'll be reading and writing, sure. Out here in the real world, though, I fear that history will not be treating you quite so kindly or me quite so unkindly as you would wish. Such is life.

"into a morally nihilist agenda of hatred of dissenting views or leadership"

ROFLMAO... This is priceless. Nothing but mindless jingoistic rants, as though he is absolutely determined to prove my point!

"...there's no logic but knee jerk bush-bashing left in your politics."

Dear heart, had you actually bothered to read my posts, you might be in for a surprise, since there was actually substantive material there -- substantive material that you and your cohorts are determinedly ignoring on this thread. Why is that?

ROFL... This was just too good. Poor McA.

Stephen Kriz wrote:

"(1) Did we invade and occupy Iraq at a cost of $200 billion and 2,100 American lives to ensure they could hold democratic elections? (if so, please provide a link to the news story)

(2) Why do American conservatives want to slash spending on domestic programs that benefit the poor, but not bat an eyelash over spending massive amounts of American taxpayer money on helping Iraq?

(3) Where in the Constitution does it say that the U.S. Congress can appropriate one nickel for foreign elections?

(4) Where's Osama, George???"

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on December 15, 2005 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Ditto

Pale Rider wrote: "We are scraping the bottom of the barrel here with trolls tonight."

I know. Not one of them has been able to raise a single substantive point. Well, other than wishful thinking, of course. And not one of them has been able to bring themselves to acknowledge how much their jingoistic nonsense resembles what they've said so many times before, nor how many corners we are supposed to have turned in Iraq, nor how little has actually changed.

The best of the lot is Red State Mike, who at least has the intelligence and the decency to avoid the kind of mindless jingoism provided by so many supporters of the war, and the best that he's been able to come up with is: "Because Sunnis are participating this time."

Who knows? Maybe he's even right. But the preponderance of evidence thus far is against him. And he does not and we do not have any real evidence that the insurgency has been affected or will be affected by this election in any way. So it still all comes down to wishful thinking.

I've been wasting some time browsing around the Washington Monthly archives, looking for some of those earlier corner-turning moments. It's been rather interesting reading, since those earlier threads contain many of the same participants saying precisely the same things said on this thread. What's been most interesting, though, is how none of the supporters of the war apparently recognize this repetition or experience any feelings of deja vu by what was said here or elsewhere. Does it really not occur to them that we've been here before, many times over? And that each of those earlier times, their confident pronouncements, repeated here ad nauseam, were wrong? The mind boggles at the level of self-deception that is required.

papageno wrote:

"The unifying theme of Political Animal has got to be despair. Not only is "the glass" always empty, but it's always in the process of emptying further."

Posted by: papageno on December 15, 2005 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

To the extent that's true it's just the personality of Kevin Drum coming through. Ya see, he's not really very Liberal. He has to be pushed to it. He's more of a Bushy sympathizer at heart. But, shown proper reasoning he does tend to come around to the Light.

Also, we don't always feel pessimistic. After the indictment of Libby I was absolutely joyous!

Merry Christmas.

Says Pale Rider:

"Iraqis voted. The Shia majority voted, and why did they vote? Well, they're the majority and they know that if they don't vote, their dominance of the country would be in jeopardy. Did they vote because of a love of democracy?

No. They voted because Grand Ayatollah al Sistani told them to:"

Yet several of the people I qouted said they loved Democracy, that this vote was about Democracy.

So who is to believed Pale Rider the man who sent me to a web site of "vets against the war" who represent all of a dozen people?

Or these Iraqis who went to the polls at the risk of their very lives?

There are thousands more Iraqis who have said the same thing today on the Web. 15 million of them said so with their ballots.

Again I ask who is to be believed?

Assuming Pale Rider, and Paul B. and all the other cynics are right. If Iraq falls into civil war tomorrow you are still pathetic little men tonight for diminishing the efforts of the Iraqi people.

The Ugly American, still determined to prove that he has nothing to say, writes: "Yet several of the people I qouted said they loved Democracy, that this vote was about Democracy."

Uh-huh, which does nothing to disprove Pale Rider's point or do anything to substantiate your own. And, of course, you're still ignoring the fact that you're simply knocking down a strawman of your own creation, and a rather pathetically obvious one at that.

"Assuming Pale Rider, and Paul B. and all the other cynics are right."

Dear heart, since you obviously haven't read or understand a single word we've heard, how on earth could you possibly know whether we are, in fact, right or not?

"If Iraq falls into civil war tomorrow"

Dear heart, Iraq is already in the midst of a civil war. Have you really not been paying attention?

"you are still pathetic little men tonight for diminishing the efforts of the Iraqi people."

ROFL.... Oh my ... I guess I should feel hurt or insulted or some such, but really, this is just such a pathetic comment at the end of a truly pathetic post that I find myself unable to feel anything but amusement. Do come back when you've got something substantive to say, won't you?

Something that keeps recycling through my totally outdated mental processor (I hate it when others validate my wife's opinion on that subject) is the possibility that Bush may luck out in Iraq rather like Clinton did in the Balkans.

Which is to say, jump into the mess late in the day with both feet and no plan, then have everything come right because, well, even in the Balkans and maybe even in Iraq armed insanity tends to exhaust itself after so many years.

Could it be that proto-democratic Iraq could succeed because of a cyclical historical weariness with the type of carnage that has been the main fare since the Iran vs. Iraq war?

Barring complications from a nuclear Iran, of course. Maybe Iraq just needs a rest, the majority of the population know it, and the majority intends to have its way for a spell.

Oy. This may not be the thread to "come home" on. Keep giving the trolls hell, and I'll pop back in later...Pale Rider, PaulB - Carry forth the banner.

Now, if I don't get my ass to work Global Citizen is never going to cover a shift for me again.

via Fafblog:

The Zen of Iraq

Today's koan comes to us from none other than the aged master George Bush, bodhisattva of gratuitous bloodshed:

One day a young monk came before Bush and said to him, "There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no threat from Saddam. Why then is there a war?"

Bush replied, "True, there was no threat to justify the war. But still there was a threat, and the war is justified."

A moment, now, to pause and reflect on the teachings of the war-buddha.

Like many of Bush's parables, this one plays with the contrast between reality and illusion: the tax cuts will shrink the deficit but the deficit is bigger than ever, America does not torture but America must keep torture legal. The worldly eye sees these as contradictions, lies, and distortions; the enlightened mind sees them as multiple facets of the same transcendent truth.

To those bound to the material world, there must be a material cause for a material war: physical weapons held by a physical enemy, actual ties to actual terrorists, a palpable and existing threat. The enlightened mind, however, sees past the facade of the Real to the broader world of Hypotheticality that lies beyond it. Thus, the enlightened man does not inspect the world of matter for physical weapons. He searches, deep within the unscapes of the mind, for Weapons of Mass Possibility, hypothetically ready to be used by imaginary terrorists on the helpless pretend citizens of the world. Bush does not invade Iraq to destroy weapons that aren't there, but to not-destroy the non-weapons that could have been there if things were entirely different.

The student now asks, "But if the threat is imaginary, shouldn't the war be imaginary as well?" Here we reach the crux of the dilemma: for while worldly life tries to convince us that the war is "real," costing billions of "real" dollars and killing thousands of "real" people, we must remind ourselves that the true war exists only in the mind, where abstract Freedom defeats conceptual Terror with idyllic idea-bombs. We must be as Bush, who turns the Real war lightly in his meditations, until it achieves the lightness of the lotus blossum and the butterfly and the air itself, and two thousand American fatalities and thirty thousand Iraqi corpses drift effortlessly from his thoughts.

To close, then, a final mystery to ponder in silence:

A young monk approached Bush and showed him an old dog. "Does this dog have buddha-nature?" he asked. Bush shot the dog and replied, "The dog was a threat, and you said he was, too." Years later they were both eaten by larger, angrier dogs, and the monk was enlightened.

¶ posted by Medium Lobster at 7:09 PM Comments (11) Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Could it be that proto-democratic Iraq could succeed because of a cyclical historical weariness with the type of carnage that has been the main fare since the Iran vs. Iraq war?

There was plenty of carnage in the Afghan War, and we saw how well the "cyclical historical weariness" worked out for us there.

the monk was enlightened.
¶ posted by Medium Lobster at 7:09 PM Comments (11) Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Or beheaded in Southern Thailand by muslim insurgents who were 'provoked by Bush'...to kill members of a pacifist religion....and praised as freedom fighters by Michael Moore Democrats...

from the WaPo: There were no boycotts this time and insurgents were providing security at some polling places. In Ramadi, for example, guerrillas of the Iraqi Islamic Army movement took up positions in some neighborhoods, promising to protect voters from any attacks by foreign fighters.

The last sentence is a gem. If the guerillas would do that every day, there wouldn't be a war, and Iraq would be a country.

Pretty soon, each section will have its own legislature, own police, own national guard (probably called a "militia'), and the national army will be devoted to defending the nation against foreign invasion.

Of course, it could turn out as bad as Cyprus or (heaven forbid!) Slovenia and the Czech Republic. It could even be as bad as the Swiss Civil War of 1850; or the breakup of the USSR into Russia, Byelorus, Ukraine, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, ... . So many possibilities.

You have to admire the millions who had to wade through the quagmire to get to the polls.

well said: There are about a gazillion reasons people might be voting in Iraq.

Probably the same reasons exist in Syria, but without the American troops having thrown over the Baathist dictators. In almost every region of the world, the dictators must be militarily overthrown in order for democracy to start. Even then there is no guarantee that democracy will flourish (current Iran, Weimar Germany). Even the birth of the US enatiled a proxy war between France and GB.

For today, it's still Wed, let's share the joy of the Iraqis, and hope for more in the future. It is a happy day.

PaulB wrote this: Notice the complete lack of thought, of logic, of reason, of facts, of anything substantive in these posts. And I assure you that this is a representative sample. Our dear little friend Portugal, in his entire time on this blog, has had not one intelligent thing to say.

You could at least point out the assertions that you disagree with. Or do you wish also to avoid writing anything intelligent? Today you didn't write even one fact, which would be ok if you didn't belittle others.

PaulB: We do not "regret" that the Iraqi electoral process is running smoothly with high participation rates, assuming that such is indeed the case. We are simply skeptical that it will make any real difference to the state of affairs in Iraq.

You are not "sceptical". You are credulous of all bad news, and actively disbelieving of any potentially good news, until the "potential good" can be proved (to your satisfaction) to be "actual bad". Any reasonable sceptic has to acknowledge the substantial potential for a future of Iraq at least as bright as the recent history of Turkey.

wildhorse,

So they discussed media shifts and political influence in old Nazi movies? I missed that batch. And silly me, I thought this blog was about politics.

I was reading the latest issue of Time Magazine
and wondering if Joe Klein is going to be one of the staff reductions. What a waste. Do him a favor and put him out of his misery. As clueless as he is even Joe recognizes the massive ineptitude of Kerry and Dean. He is furious wih his party incoherance. He lament at the end over the While Flag was as priceless as it was transparent.

Joe is now lamenting the intrusions of politics into the war. It was OK the prior 11 months. Allow me ot interpret, "Please, Have Mercy, We're getting our asses kicked here!!! STop!!!

The democrats made a massive tactical error that will soon be seen as an important strategic error. For 12 days heading into the vote all talk is of the Democrats and their 'Cut and Run instincts". Then we have elections that are beyond impressive. We know they were fabulous because no Democrat wanted to talk about them. We head into Xmas with great news on Iraq, great news on the economy and an opposition party in self destruct mode with most of it's leadership in hiding.

Strategically we enter 2006 with the Democrats burdened with a reputation for constant doom and gloom tactics and cut and run instincts deeply ingrained in the electorate just a we've achieved historic success in Iraq and begin a troops drawdown and as the economy booms.

You are back to the party of national malaise and Jimmy Carter. The contrast with the GOP could not be more dramatic.

You have not reached bottom yet.

liberal bloggers know disaster when they see it

Kevin and SS are the exceptions in the liberal blogging community. Few made mention and those few tried to degrade the story. But don't take my word for it. Many conservative sites are linking ot proteinwisdom.com for a long summary of the blogging community as well as a list of Senators like Chuckie studiously ignoring the biggest story in months. Speaks volumns doesn't it?

This is a repeat of the SBV's. The MSM told Kerry after the convention to ignore the SBVs. "If we don't cover them no one will know!"

Of course that's not the reason why Kerry is quiet now. He's in a secret location with Dean. We're trying to find out if this is voluntry or if two party officials with working brains got together and kidnapped them.

Sorry people, it does not work that way. Rush gets more listeners than the 3 networks combined. He's been predicting the lack of courage and will spend the next two weeks mocking the lack of coverage. We get to see the great news in Iraq and your miserable reaction to confirm how very good it was.

Doom and Gloom! Cut and Run! Retreat and Defeat!

Short, catchy and memorable. Everyone knows what they mean. Get used to hearing it because they so well define yor party. This is not just for the 2006 election cycle but through at least 2008 and as long as the current leadership is around.

Reading Joe Klein end his essay begging the GOP to stop with the White Flag visuals one could easily visualize what Joe was doing and thinking as he hit his enter key to submit the story. His face contorted with anger an his eyes wet with sadness muttering to himself. "We're so screwed!"

Um, SS, in case you didn't notice, the insurgents have been actively encouraging the Sunni Arabs to take part in the election. The little puff piece by John Burns in the New York Times, about how the Sunnis were suddenly "turning their back on the insurgents," is one of the most laughably incompetent pieces of journalism I've ever seen in recent years: The insurgents are themselves encouraging the vote, of course they're not going to attack the voters!

The insurgents have in fact encouraged the vote in an attempt to get more Sunni Islamists in the government, to help rein in some of the Shiite militias and, most of all, to put some additional political pressure on the Americans. They are categorically *not* ceasing their attacks on Coalition forces, in fact, the very insurgents who were encouraging the vote also demanded that the Sunni Arabs continue the insurgency afterward.

Remember, too, that this isn't the first time the Sunnis have turned out in high numbers-- they did so for the Constitutional referendum a couple months ago, as well. But this didn't do squat to attenuate the insurgency. In fact, it only intensified it, since the Sunnis had the frustrating sense that their participation did little for them, and in any case, the United Iraqi Alliance would stuff the ballot boxes and "lose" the ballots from Sunni areas anyhow. There are, in fact, already accusations of voter fraud floating around from this election, which will embitter the Sunnis and expand the insurgency even further, since the Sunni Arabs know that the capacity to fight with weapons and bloody the Coalition forces (and the UIA-led government) is the one true power card they have to avoid being left out of the oil revenues altogether.

The Ugly American, others:

So why no mention of the al Sistani fatwa ordering the Shia to vote for candidates who favor the implementation of Sharia law?

I'd really like someone to take a shot at explaining how there is supposed to be democracy in Iraq when the country's Grand Ayatollah can order people to vote.

Don't confuse me with the anti-military, anti-success crowd. I would love to see a free, independent Iraq set up as a bulwark against radical Islam and Iran. I would love to see us with a major ally in the region beyond Israel. The real problem in the region is Iran and we need to have allies and a plan to deal with the threat from a radicalized and nuclearized Iran.

But also, don't confuse me with the crowd who can't see reality.

A great response to the sickening gloating from the warmongers yesterday over these Iraqi elections -- What Exactly Do Iraqi Elections Prove?

This really shoves the smugness right up the assholes of these war crazed pigs.

robichard,

You can't put earrings on that pig. These elections were a huge deal. What the insurgents were doing were practicing politics as they've been doing for quite some time in the background. This time it was in full view for the world to see the stunning rebuke to Al Qaeda and a stunning example in the Arab world. What a combination, purple fingers and long lines!

The Sunni aren't stupid. They know the Shite and Kurds are developing a very effective military thay can't hope to defeat and in a war of attrition they run out of people 1st.

We have an example of the political process advancing faster than anyone could expect and at the same time the process of training security forces is proving highly professional. The Iraqi people was Iraqi security providing for their safety. All body checks were done by Iraqi's and monitored by iraqi's.

The Iraqi's saw an iraqi's election. The US was invisible. The entire middle east saw the same thing. The battle has been won on ALL fronts. Iraqi's are opimistic abot their future, they have confidence in Iraq and like the Jordanians they hate Al Qaeda.

troy,

at least greenwald has the courage of his convictions. it was smart of him to point out the total silence of the rest of the lefty blogging community. Do they really think that will make these elections go away?

Few people have ever heard of greenwald for a reason. He's an enraged lefty devoid of any common sense. The entire point of democracy and elections is to get people to practice politics instead of violence, to settle things with a ballot rather than a bullet. If you can't see these elections as a step in the right direction you are blinded by partisanship.

Besides the fact greewald is devoid of common sense he's just as clearly consumed by misery. Americans only have so much tolerance for constant misery. We've had a steady diet of the likes of Kerry, Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, etc. and no one can stand it anymore. Dean and kerry have been wisely sent to their rooms but the message remains the same. Today most of the political world and the entire conservative media is laughing at Chuckie whowe know cannot pass up a shot at a camera. He is studiously ignoring the election and it's comical.

You know that saying how sometimes who you don't say is far more eloquent....? Well Chuckie was especially eloquent yesterday.

No one is saying it's all peaches and cream but over 2,000 brave men dies to make this happen and it was a beautiful thing. There are times you've got to stop and appreciate the things that go right.

To do otherwise makes you into an even bigger fool.

We are heading into Christmas on the tailwinds of hugely successful elections in Iraq, with over 25,000 troops on their way home and a very robust economy. Americans are tired of your nonstop doom and gloom, cut and run antics. Sending Dean and Kerry to their rooms won't save you. You need to find a few adults to run the party.

pale rider,

Smart to change the topic from Iraq. Clearly you agree with Joe Klein you're getting your teeth kicked in.

I'd have thought you'd have been a huge fan of GWBs Iran policy. I'd have thought you'd vote his decision to have the UN and the EU lead in the negotiations as the ONLY time GWB has exhibited a shred of common sense in his entire life.

Think about it. Is anything more important than SOFT power? Does anyone have more soft power than the EU? He has Kofi Annon and Jacques Chirac leading here. In your entire life have you ever seen two people better prepared and better placed at this point in history to deal with Iran?

If you want nuance and sophistication you have the two most nuanced people God ever created (can I say that?) heading the two most sophisticated oganizations that have ever existed representing the Good Guys! (can I say that or is it too judgemental?)

I am very disappointed. I know GWB did everything else wrong. He not only did everyhing else wrong he did it as wrong as could possibly be. This is the one thing I thought he did right. He actually announced to the world, "This is over my head. I'll leave it to my betters. Jacques, Kofi please help".

Are you trying to destroy my world?

Pale rider,

About sistani, He can order anyone he wants to do anything he wants therm to do. So can you. It's called free speech.

They can listen, or not, It's called freedom. The ballots are secret. It's called democracy.

I'd be careful picking Sistani as your target. This might be as smart as picking Dean to head the DNC. Sistani could have started a civil war at any time. He's embarrased a small army of liberal pundits who've been predicting it for over two years now. Thomas L. Freidman is under the impression he's been the indispensible man in Iraq regarding the advance of Democracy.

Sistani is the reason the Sunni are still 20% of the population rather than 10%. Sistani will be the reason if the Sunni don't join the democracy and abandon the insurgency they will become 10%. And if they don't join it then they'll become 5% and then they'll get only one more chance. This isn't rocket science.

Steve White and other Bush worshippers: Elections, as such, don't mean dick. The Soviet Union had them all the time, and chattered on about "democracy," too.

I repeat, go read Robert Conquest.

Dear Dustbin, insensitive to nuance as I am, I detect a note of skeptical cynicism (which I think I will designate "skepcyn" due to its prevalence on this site, about the reality of Afghanistan today.

Two months ago Afghanistan had a major election and I was able to speak at length to an acquaintance who had just returned from being an official United Nations election monitor there. She imparted to me a greater sense of appreciation that the U.N. is actually able to do some things quite well, particularly when it comes to holding a meaningful democratic elections in a nation that is mostly illiterate. She also spoke encouragingly of ex-patriate Afghans who are returning to their homeland with a pocketful of cash after driving cabs and such in Brooklyn because they love their nation and actually are concluding that the time is right to go back and make it work. Pat Tilman did not die in vain, you see.

But skepcyns may have a real point to make if they focus on Syria. What the heck is this deal of continuing to blow up Lebanese you don't like when the U.N. is closing in on you for blowing up the last Lebanese you didn't like? These hoodlums have chutzpah than Russian gangsters I have met!

Smart to change the topic from Iraq. Clearly you agree with Joe Klein you're getting your teeth kicked in.

Pointing out that Iraq has now voted based on direction from Grand Ayatollah al Sistani, who is an Iraqi born in Iran--that was changing the subject?

Sorry, old man--you're the one endlessly spamming threads with your ill-informed screeds about France and old Europe and changing the subject.

About sistani, He can order anyone he wants to do anything he wants therm to do. So can you. It's called free speech.

Free speech, Iraq style. The Grand Ayatollah says to go vote. Yeah, you addressed that topic very clearly and very directly. Now, when James Dobson and Pat Robertson tell you to go vote, I'm sure you'll embrace their version of democracy as well.

Let's see--you've linked me with Klein and Friedman, who I don't read at all. You've brought up Chirac, Annan, Dean--who else? Who changed the fucking subject by bringing up France? For the hundredth fucking time, Wooten--get this fucking France fetish out of your system and just go have someone French kiss you on the lips so you can stop feeling like such a pathetic small town loser who can't think of anything clever to say or do.

You are a pathetic old man who has nothing to add to the discussion. You are a parody of someone who can think clearly.

Pale Rider,

As I've explained before when I am talking about France I am talking about you. France is a metaphor for feckless, empty-headed libralism. Be it the socialists of Old Europe or the socialists of Canada or Fidel or Hugo or the god citizens of Hollywood or Manhatten it's all the same. You are the intellectual and cultural elite. Everyone of you is wiser and morally superior to everyone of us.

I can't very well explain all of this everytime I write something so I need a symbol and 'France' fits the bill perfectly. Everyone knows exactly what I mean. There isn't a shred of difference between an American Lib and the average Parisian. EVERY single idea or leaning aspired to by the American left is designed to move us into capability with the French. Intentional or not them's the facts.

It is good to see that even Drum's crowd has come on board with Bush's strategery of creating a stable representative govt, then getting out when they could handle the jihadis on their own, and probably in their own way, BTW, which would make Abu Graib look like a frat party, er wait..

It was too much to expect you guys to be graceful about it though.

You are the intellectual and cultural elite. Everyone of you is wiser and morally superior to everyone of us.

Oh, so that's where you're coming from.

You have an inferiority complex that you have decided to inflict on other people, via posting endless screeds about things you cannot begin to understand.

Well, I guess we just have to ignore you now and scroll past your comments. Thanks for clearing that up.

smart people make me feel dum
smart people make me feel dum
smart people make me feel dum
smart people make me feel dum
smart people make me feel dum
smart people make me feel dum

smart people bad
france bad
old europe bad
george bush is dum and he no like smart people, france or old europe

george bush good
smart people bad

must rub belly after eating donut because smart people make me feel dum...

pale rider,

Not only is it free speech Iraqi style but it's going to be Democracy Iraqi style and Security Iraqi style. And you'll see how well it works in a few years when they kick the sh*t out of Syria Iraqi style.

For the past two years liberals have been warning
everyeone we can't shove American style democracy and values down their throats. GWB listened to your wise council and you're still bitching.

You think the elections were bad news for liberals? Try going to a few military websites or listen to the military advisors that have been over there at regular intervals the last few year. Stock up on some prozac 1st. Iraq has a highly professional, highly motivated, well armed and extremely well trained army. The insurgents cannot defeat them. They can only die and they can only get their families killed. The Iraqi Army only lacks scale and that gets corrected a little bit each day.

There is absolutely no doubt as to how this ends. It will be the Sunni's choice to be 5% or 10% or 20% of the population. The Iraqi army will accomodate the full range of choices. But there will be democracy and the Sunni will get the representation they deserve.

Iraq has a highly professional, highly motivated, well armed and extremely well trained army.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

So our troops are all coming home, right?

And you'll see how well it works in a few years when they kick the sh*t out of Syria Iraqi style.

So it's war you love. Bloodthirsty killing, war war war. Arabs killing Arabs and blood running in the gutter.

rdw loves war, craves it, loves to see shattered bodies every night on TV and the Internet.

Of course, rdw's children would never had to serve in the war that he craves and lusts for. His children don't need to join the military or make a sacrifice of any kind so that rdw can watch war war war on his TV and jerk his little pecker off to a picture of an Arab teenager cut in half by a car bomb.

War is your pr0n, smart people make you feel dumb, what else do you want to reveal about the fact that you are inferior and know it?

pale rider,

Joe and Tom might not speak for you but the 3 Time pulitzer prize winning columnists for the NY Times has a slighly bigger audience than you.

Tom is no fan of GWB and has in fact been quite enraged quite often but he is also enraged at the Dean and Kerry wings of the party or anyone who thinks anything can be accomplished in the Middle East using "Soft" power. He has been contemptable of them as well as is own editorial board. Tom for example is very well aware of the dire straits the UN is in regarding their relevency. He understands the continued existance of the UN is not a foregone conclusion having himself pointed out we now have a 2nd generation of Americans with no example of any positive accomplishment by the UN and public opinion polls in the toilet. The older generations seeing the grand dream are begin replaced by generations aware only of massive corruption with little redeeming value.

Joe is just as liberal as Tom if not moreso. He is in fact a true blue believer in soft power. All the worlds problems can be solved if we can just cobble together the right combination of words and phrase and show our love.

As chief political correspondent for Time magazine his audience is slightly larger than yours. If Joe had a magic wand Dean and Kerry would disappear. Not that he disagrees with them but at the leadership people have to be in control of their own mouths. It's fine to think our troops are terrorists but you cannot say it.

Joe Klein is sick. He saw GWBs poll number collapse. He saw the MSM FINIALLY having an impact. He knew Congress was getting hammered as well including the democrats but 1/2 a victory is more than they've had in 5 years. Now he see's GWB moving back over 42% with a strong wind at his back. Congress is still down and there's no wind. The 'retreat and defeat' campaign scored a bullseye. You are still the party that can't be trusted. You are morose and you appear to be wishing for defeat in Iraq. Joe also sees the economy.

In less that 10 days Joe's world has collapsed and that article was written before these incredible elections which have exceeded all expectations. Even ABC reported the Sunni's told Al Qaeda if they interfere with the elections they'll kill them.

Joe is not going to have a happy Christmas. Leiberman called it. Bush's plan is working.

rdw: Bush's plan is working.

Bush's plan was to secure WMDs and stop international terrorism.

Neither was accomplished yesterday.

You keep moving the goal posts closer and closer, and it is easy to score.

The "victory" yesterday is less significant than Bush's current approval polling.

Keep patting yourself on the back though, because delusion is a lonely road with only yourself as a companion.

Within the margin of error, the percent of the American public that believe Bush should be impeached is the same as believed Clinton should be impeached and the poll on Clinton was taken during his impeachment proceedings.

Bush remains an ineffective leader, but your BIS is as strong as ever.

Really, get treatment soon.

PR,

Will you please cut Wootless some slack - Ever since he was down sized out of the phone company, he has had to try to fix his bidet - No wonder he hates the French - why do they set their drinking fountains so low?

tools,

I see this as graceful although I thnk elegent is a better word.

I'm always struck that there's no condemnation of the insurgents by liberals. They butcher little kids and other innocents but the left prefers to call them insurgents rather than terrorists. That of course would be judgemental and what sophisiticate would be judgemental? What would the French think?

Am I upset by this? On one level yes. It's terribly unfair to those innocent Iraqi's and holds back progress. But on the other hand there's a very good reason you are the minority party and this is it. Americans view librals as weak and feckless. It is what you are. We know this because your concern for the remaining insurgents rather than the innocent kids or the American heroes in uniform is but one in 3 decades of examples of liberal cowardice.

You would prefer to be popular than do the right thing.

In fact I do relish the choice faced by the insurgents. They are either going to change completely or die. And it's going to happen sooner rather than later. It's my hope that anyone who took a shot at our troops or assisted in any way the shooting of our troops be killed. Justice is a powerful message.

If it's delivered quickly and without prejudice it may be that war between Syria and Iraq can be avoided. The Syrians will not commit suicide.

The fact is the iraqi troops, many of whom are sunni, have been butchered by the insurgents as has their families in many cases. I expect when they go into a region of insurgent activity they will be extremely aggressive. The populace will cooperate fully or they will regret it. I hope not a single innocent suffers. I hope every one of the guilty is punished.

The reason I am so hopeful and thing this thing is all but over is the clear choice these people have. They can choose freedom and prosperity or death. There are still many who will make the wrong decision and they will be accomodated. But they have already lost. They are already dead. They just don't know it.

advocate,

GWBs plan is working. Ask Joe Leiberman.

PR,

I see the problem - Wootless has hooked up his bidet to the Kool-Aid pipeline from Rove.

Don't worry Ptto, Advocate,

Wooten is just expressing his inferiority complex on these pages. When his family shuts him down, he'll stop endlessly droning on and on about things he cannot understand.

Didn't you see that huge piece of the puzzle that he revealed?

Apparently, Pale Rider is part of the cultural elite. Tell that to the people who run the bottle washing factory. How did I join the cultural elite after spending more time on active duty than he did? And how did I join the cultural elite when I've never been in a labor union while he has?

When you can think for yourself, you've joined the cultural elite in this country.

Watched a neatly done program on the history channel last night concerning operation Sea Dragon, which is the international naval force that makes sure that 99% of the oil Iraq exports
gets to the offshore platforms our special forces seized in the first hour of the intervention so that Saddam's diehards would not blow them up. Now I have to run fill up my truck with regular for $2.05 and I must thank Italians, New Zealanders, and Aussies for the privilege.

rdw: I'm always struck that there's no condemnation of the insurgents by liberals.

You can't be struck by something that isn't real.

rdw: They butcher little kids and other innocents but the left prefers to call them insurgents rather than terrorists.

So, every single Iraqi fighting the US is a terrorists and has engaged in these acts?

Lie.

You are also calling Bush a liar (as well as half his administration), since he refers to them as insurgents also.

Which simply means that again, you are lying, because you know that insurgent is the proper term for many if not most of those Iraqis opposed to the American occupation of their soil.

rdw: Justice is a powerful message.

Not powerful enough to impact conservative self-centeredness as you well demonstrate.

rdw: We know this because your concern for the remaining insurgents rather than the innocent kids or the American heroes in uniform is but one in 3 decades of examples of liberal cowardice.

More lies by a piece of shit who wouldn't lift a finger to help an Iraqi of any type unless it benefitted Bush.

You are your fellow conservatives, rdw, are why Saddam existed in the first place.

You financially and politically supported him when he was butchering the Kurds.

You financially and politically supported him for decades while he murdered his own people.

This has never been about helping the Iraqis or you would have done that a long time ago by not supporting Saddam when he was doing most of his killing.

Instead you waited until after most of his killing had been done and he was an easy mark to disassociate yourself from him and then it was merely to get revenge because he didn't do everything that the GOP wanted him to do and stepped out on his own.

It's what you are, arrogant, self-centered, self-serving, self-interested, and without any moral values other than those that further your own interests.

You are a liar and a hypocrite, the moral equivalent of a turd laying in the hot sun.

Hitler and Saddam won elections also.

That didn't make them righteous or right.

And winning elections, past, present, or future will never make the GOP righteous or right either.

It is not in their nature to care about anything other than themselves.

Your are proof positive of that.

PR,

To be part of the cultural elite means that you were never involved in phone company overbilling schemes.

The Repugs in Connecticut are very proud of their Repug Senator Joe. They used to have an "honest" Repug Gov as well didn't they?

rdw,

GWB's plan is not working. Ask a multitude of former military and foreign policy experts who aren't Bush asslickers, including many from the Bush administration and GOP.

Leiberman's loyalty to the Jewish homeland is what drives him to adopt the policy positions he has, not a competent and objective evaluation of Bush's policies and plans.

Everybody knows this and citing to him shows just how frivolous your thinking is.

I apologize for sounding that callous about the price of gasolene, but I deeply believe that relatively inexpensive energy is the most egalitarian force in our society today--it sustains what little social equality there is in the sense that both Bill Gates and I can jump in our vehicles and drive from one end of Seattle to the other to look for work for an acceptable personal cost. Iraq policy somehow plays a part in our lifestyles here at home.

rdw Soundbite Philosophy 101:

It's called free speech.

It's called freedom.

It's called democracy.

------------

Advocate's Soundbite Philosophy 102:

It's called lying.

It's called defamation.

It's called delusion.

It's called arrogance.

It's called self-centeredness.

It's called torture.

It's called sham democracy.

It's called stealing elections.

It's called election fraud.

It's called incompetence.

Those "its" are the methods of operation, characteristics, and values of American conservatism.

pale rider,

You really need to get out of the echo chamber. Iraq is going to have a very well trained and highly motivated Army. The progress over the last year has been amazing and they have the core of a very strong security apparatus. The model is set. They need time to add more talent and for the non-comisioned and commissioned officers to get experience.

gotta love the irony.....

on the day many people.....especially republicans cheer on iraq for voting...

in n.h. a "former" gop national operative is found guilty of hindering voters in the 2002 election...

GOP's Tobin guilty on 2 charges

(AP)Concord - A jury yesterday convicted a former national Republican official of two telephone harassment charges for his role in a phone-jamming plot against New Hampshire Democrats on Election Day 2002.

......

The state GOP’s former executive director, Chuck McGee, who admitted hatching the plot, has completed a seven-month sentence for conspiracy. After speaking with Tobin, McGee hired Allen Raymond, former president of Viginia-based GOP Marketplace LLC, to carry out the jamming. Raymond pleaded guilty to his role and hopes a five-month sentence will be reduced in exchange for his cooperation with prosecutors.

Tobin was President Bush’s New England campaign chairman last year..... faces a maximum seven-year prison term and $500,000 in fines when he is sentenced in March.

unfortunetly....dead enders don't do irony....

rdw: Iraq is going to have a very well trained and highly motivated Army.

Just like the South Vietnamese.

Really!

Cause conservative patriots are all going to clap very, very hard over the next two years to make it so.

Trust them!

rdw: You really need to get out of the echo chamber.

This from one of the commentors who can't write anything that isn't a parroted version of what is on the White House press release web page.

rdw: The progress over the last year has been amazing and they have the core of a very strong security apparatus.

See what I mean?

rdw is either a White House staffer, a Young Republican who lives and dies with GOP.com and WhiteHouse.gov, or an RNC operative assigned to promote conservative spin on "liberal" blogs.

What he is not is an objective and independent thinker.

Thinking is bad, rdw. Bush says so. Listen to papa!

advocate,

we really don't need the anti-semite act.

I do listen to the milirary experts and to a man they are impressed with the progress. It' a shame wasted so much time in the beginning but General Paetreus set up an outstanding program which is getting high marks from everyone.

The aggressive campaigns to hunt down and kill the insurgents is keeping them on defense and providing the Iraqi troops the experience they'll need to grow and become the cohesive force every commander is predicting they will become.

IN fact if you read about or actually listened to these experts talk it would warm your heart. There is now a genuine respect between both the American armies and Iraqi Armies for what each can and will do. I've heard not less than 20 advisors and trainers say they would go inot battle with the Iraqi's in a heartbeat.

Obviosly when they take over they have many advantages besides just speaking the language. They can differetiate those who do not belong. They have a much higher motivation and most important they have a different set of rules. Sunni insurgents are well aware capture by Iraqi troops has the potential to be more unpleasant than capture by American troops. Sunni villagers benefit from the same life experience.

Moreso than any time in their existance they know they have a clear choice between freedom, liberty, peace and democracy or death at the hands of a very powerful Iraqi military detemined to protect the innocent. Many of these men have suffered at the hands of the insurgents so they understand the importance of extermination. If the Insurgents are dead they cannot kill another child. Only then can there be true peace.

These men are enlisting to make all of this so. They are a very proud people. They will do what is necessary. If the insurgents give them no choice they will be exterminated and the world will be a better place.

Few things in life are as black and white.

thisspaceavailable: GOP's Tobin guilty on 2 charges.

Ahhhh, some timely validation of conservative election fraud.

It's going to be tough to govern, rdw, with most of your leadership in jail or under indictment.

Now if we could just add four impeachments (Bush, Cheney, Condi, Rumsfeld) to the list, good could triumph and Iraq could be successful.

Talking Points Memo:

President Bush says Congress saw the same intelligence he did in the lead-up to the war in Iraq. So Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asked the non-partisan Congressional Research Service to look into the matter and report back whether or not what the president said is true.

They reported back today. The verdict: not true.

And yet more timely proof that conservatives, especially Bush and rdw, are liars.

advocate,

That wold be true if there as a credible opposition. Are you going to get Dean out there to offer up more of his bile? He did that 2 weeks ago and now he's harder to find than Osama.

Please drag him out again. GWB could use another 10 points.

rdw: . . . we really don't need the anti-semite act.

I knew it wouldn't take you long to lie about what I posted and falsely call it anti-semitic.

That's who you are.

Predictable as rain in Seattle.

rdw: . . . to a man they are impressed with the progress.

Another outright lie.

Doesn't it get tiring to have to make up lies, instead of simply telling the truth which is much easier?

But I forget myself, a liar is what you are.

rdw: . . . a very powerful Iraqi military detemined to protect the innocent.

From everything but torture, I guess!

rdw: . . . the importance of extermination . . .

Now, talk about racism and nazi-like thinking!

Yes, conservatives are big into holocaust denial and extermination of anyone who gets in the way of their self-aggrandizement.

Which is why conservatives defended Hitler until Hitler's ally attacked the US and defending him became impossible.

Just like they (conservatives) defended Saddam, until they lost control of him.

Just like they defended Noriega, until they lost control of him.

And just like they will defend the "brave Iraqis" (who never lifted a finger against Saddam until after Americans arrived), until they lose control over them.

Then they will turn on the Iraqis in a heartbeat.

advocate,

Here's why Bolton is a STAR!!!!

John Bolton, America's ambassador to the United Nations, may very well be Israel's greatest friend in the US government. Last Sunday, in a glittering ballroom at a New York hotel, Bolton gave the keynote speech at the Zionist Organization of America's annual dinner.

Bolton's address was refreshingly blunt. He pulled no punches in his criticism of the UN and its endemic anti-Semitism. Bolton allowed that the election of Israel's ambassador to the UN, Danny Gillerman, to the post of one of 15 vice presidents of the General Assembly and the passage of Israel's resolution to establish an official UN Holocaust Memorial Day are "positive steps." But at the same time, he stipulated that "to say that Israel can be said to be treated as a normal nation at the UN would be a statement of fantasy." Bolton noted with evident disgust the fact that remarks by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calling for Israel to be wiped off the map draw "almost no attention at the UN." They have been met with inaction in spite of the fact that "this is a president of a government that has for nearly 20 years been pursuing a strategic policy of trying to acquire nuclear weapons." Bolton emphasized that the Iranian nuclear program threatens not only Israel, but all the nations of the region and may eventually threaten the US itself.

BTW: in terms of shrewd tactical politics GWB deserves a lot of credit for shaking the democratic control of the jewish bloc. He has been far more supportive of the most popular leader in Israels history and it's showing especially among younger jewish voters fully aware of what a butcher Arafat was and of your parties full support for him.

demographic alone help Rove. DNC support is highest among the oldest jews. The under 40 crowd is up for grabs and Rove has ben reavhing out. Pretty soon he'll have Joe Lieberman in the fold. Moveon.org has done many stupid things but trashing this serious anfd thoughtful man, who is proudly jewish and widely respected ranks up there at the top. Karl Rove has TREASURE TROVE OF SOUND BITES.

rdw: They are a very proud people.

So proud they never lifted a finger against Saddam and never lifted a finger against the Baathists until after the US captured Saddam.

Wow! Those Iraqis are something to be proud of!

rdw and his ilk blame welfare moms for being poor and saying the government shouldn't do anything to help them, even when they are trying to help themselves, but conservatives will send 2000+ Americans to their deaths and spend $300 billion to help an Iraqi populace that never lifted a finger to help themselves, all in the name not of democracy but to save Bush's skin from his lies and incompetence regarding WMDs and terrorism.

Just cut and paste from WhiteHouse.gov and GOP.com, rdw, if you can remove your lips from Bush's ass long enough to see the entire keyboard.

rdw: John Bolton, America's ambassador to the United Nations, may very well be Israel's greatest friend in the US government.

And here I thought he was supposed to put America first.

Bolton emphasized that the Iranian nuclear program threatens not only Israel, but all the nations of the region and may eventually threaten the US itself.

You mean like Iraq's "nuclear program" threatened the US?

How many times can a conservative be fooled?

Apparently as many times as their are stars in the sky!

He pulled no punches in his criticism of the UN and its endemic anti-Semitism.

Interesting, since it was conservatives who were the biggest anti-semites before, during, and after WWII and the reason why Israel was created instead of Jews immigrating to the US and Britain. Conservatives didn't want them here or in Britain.

Which just goes to show, like they befriended Saddam, conservatives will get into bed with anybody (including a drug-dealing Noriega and a murderous Pinochet), if they think it can be a wedge to greater partisan success.

But make no mistake, they will cut the throats of these temporary allies the moment they cease to be useful, because conservatives care nothing for anything except themselves, and that includes the Iraqi people who are simply being used, just like American soldiers, for GOP partisan purposes.

rdw: Here's why Bolton is a STAR!!!!

And this (among many other reasons) is why you are an ASS!!!!!!

rdw: GWB could use another 10 points.

Which implies he's already gained 10 points, which he hasn't.

Again, don't you get tired of the falsehoods and dissembling?

Thou shalt not bear false witness . . .

Bush wins! Clap louder! Glory to our Leader!

From CNN:

Filibuster of extension of controversial measures successful

Friday, December 16, 2005; Posted: 12:44 p.m. EST (17:44 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate on Friday rejected attempts to reauthorize several provisions of the USA Patriot Act as infringing too much on Americans' privacy and liberty, dealing a huge defeat to the Bush administration and Republican leaders.

In a crucial vote early Friday, the bill's Senate supporters were not able to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened filibuster by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and their allies. The final vote was 52-47.

President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Republicans congressional leaders had lobbied fiercely to make most of the expiring Patriot Act provisions permanent, and add new safeguards and expiration dates to the two most controversial parts: roving wiretaps and secret warrants for books, records and other items from businesses, hospitals and organizations such as libraries.

Feingold, Craig and other critics said that wasn't enough, and have called for the law to be extended in its present form so they can continue to try and add more civil liberties safeguards. But Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert have said they won't accept a short-term extension of the law.

ADVOCATE,

You are perfect. Please don't change. There's some old adage that says we get the reputation we deserve. You certainly did.

The Senate Democrats insisted the CIA put together a special review/summary of all the intelligence on Iraq prior to the vote on the resolution. I believe Daine Feinstein was leading on this. It happened. a top secret binder was put together for Senate eyes only. They had to go to a special room and sign for a copy of the report prepared for them.

6 Senators bothered to get off their asses.

I'm not quite sure why anyone would for a senator willing to confess "I'm a sap" or "I was too friggin lazy to do a little research before I signed a war resolution" but it is a free country.

pale rider,

Remember the 1st time the Democrats blocked the Patriot Act?

I do. I know a few others who remember. Does the name Max Cleland ring a bell?

He was the acting Senator from South Carolina when he cast the deciding vote AGAINST the Patriot act before the 2002 elections. Max was also running a campaign for a six year extension. Seems Tommy Daschle wanted more union protections in the bill. The good people of South Carlina, a right to work state. Were not impressed with Max on that vote. That's why Max is no longer in the US Senate.

If Frist wanted this to pass he could have made a couple of deals. They want the Democrats to vote for terrorists rights. This is an argument they want to have to drive home the fact democrats are weak on security.

Anderson Cooper Gets an Earful From the Troops
12/15 10:50 PM
At least he reported what they told him:

"Every soldier I talked to today said the media hasn't done a good job of telling the full story from Iraq. It's a complaint I've heard before, and certainly understand. I do think television tends to focus on the bombs and the bullets, the most dramatic headlines. So much of what happens here never makes the nightly news."

rdw: I'm not quite sure why anyone would for a senator willing to confess "I'm a sap" or "I was too friggin lazy to do a little research before I signed a war resolution" but it is a free country.

Another implied lie.

Congress can't force the intelligence community to give them reports that Congress doesn't know exists.

Bush hid these reports.

It's proven.

We know you will keep lying about it, but you still have to live with the truth of it.

Congress doesn't control the intelligence agencies; the White House does.

The truth hurts as does finding out that your hero is a liar, but you will get used to it, since more lies will be exposed.

Now, here's some real anti-semitism for you, from the real anti-semites, the GOP . . .

In the midst of the war in Iraq, the Katrina catastrophe, the staggering deficit, the climate change talks, the torture scandal, the Plamegate scandal, the Abramoff scandal, the Delaygate scandal, and the (fill in blank) scandal, the House of Representatives has decided that its first priority is to pass a resolution defending the symbols of Christmas.

It's about time to call the Republican Party's staged hissy-fit over Christmas for what it is: thinly-disguised anti-Semitism.

. . . several Representatives asked the House leadership to amend the resolution to protect the symbols of Chanukah as well, and it refused. That means that the leadership explicitly decided to protect Christmas and not Chanukah.

You can pretend that you aren't racists all you want and try to distract from the fact you are by raising false charges of racism against "liberals", but in the end, your actions and the action of those you support show the truth.

rdw: They want the Democrats to vote for terrorists rights.

In other words, they, like you, want to engage in deliberate dishonesty and deception by calling Constitutional right the rights of terrorists, which shows exactly how much disdain conservatives have for the Constitution and the rights guaranteed therein.

You want a totalitarian society.

We know it.

You know it.

The American public is waking up to it.

rdw: Every soldier I talked to today said the media hasn't done a good job of telling the full story from Iraq.

Yep. When the military brass, on orders from Bush, punishes every soldier who speaks out against the war effort or criticizes the administration, it's hard to find quotes from soldiers who will speak the truth, but only from those whose partisan loyalties lead them to parrot what they've been told to say.

Thanks for once again bringing that point home.

Bush hid these reports. It's proven.

Exactly correct, Advocate. In fact, it was proven again just yesterday. Here's the report by the Congressional Research Service that concludes Congress did NOT receive the same intelligence as the White House:

http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm

Truly believe that phone company back in PA land forced Wooten out because he was brain dead.

Really up on the facts Wooten - Cleland from South Carolina - Right

And little ricky sanctimonious is from Colorado.

And you wonder why we all think you are such a pathetic clown.

Why do you hate the Constitution, rdw, hate it so much that you portray it as a document that protects, aids, and abets terrorists?

Why do you accuse our Founding Fathers Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton of being terrorist lovers?

Is it because you are a closet fascist that hates democracy almost as much as you hate liberals, African-Americans, Arabs, Muslims, and Jews?

It it because you love yourself so much that anything that stands in the way of serving your own partisan interests must be destroyed, no matter how noble and good, even the Constitution of the United States?

I think the answer to those last two questions is an unequivocal "yes".

Hey, Wootless,

Hasn't Rove clued you on the difference between the Homeland Security Act, which was originally a Lieberman suggestion not Twiggies, and the Patriot Act?

Acting Senator? The only Senator who was also acting was Fred Thompson from Tennessee.

To you Keystoners, I'm sure that the South just sort of runs together, but get your states correct and your bills in order.

Does clarity ring a bell, Clarabell? Bell and telephone companies seem to go together.

PttO,

Thank you for destroying rdw today.

rdw: You are the intellectual and cultural elite. Everyone of you is wiser and morally superior to everyone of us.

You are looking in the mirror again.

It is conservatives who claim to be morally superior to everybody else in the world, so morally superior that they should be allowed to cross the line between good and evil because they "will stop before they commit as much evil as Saddam Hussein" which is good enough.

In the conservative mind, it is okay to do evil in the name of conservatism because conservatism is righteousness embodied and any evil they do will never be as bad as the evil of other evil-doers.

And no one has been more intellectually snobbish, more abundant in their criticism of opponents' ability to think or draw conclusions than American conservatives.

No one.

Not even the French.

And, btw, the French were right about Iraq and Bush was wrong.

It must really suck to realize that the "feckless" French were far superior in evaluating the Saddam threat than Bush was and made the right call while Bush lied, committed war crimes, violated US law, incompetently flailed around with the war effort, and then had to cover up for his lies and incompetence with more lies, more defamations, more criminality.

Pretty soon, Bush's polling numbers will be below the French.

Whooo hoooo!

Yet another loss for Bush and the GOP terrorists, rdw:

Patriot Act renewal supporters failed to get 60 votes to end debate today in the Senate.

Constitution 1

Anti-Constitutionalist Conservatives 0

American Citizens 1

Conservative Lovers of Terrorism, Torture & Genocide 0

3rd,

Thanks for that update. I should have done my homework before posting but the essential facts are correct. Change SC to Georgia and patriot act to homeland security and Max was a full termer (I though he finished the term of an republican senator who died in office) but we keep the fact Max was kicked out in a brilliant GOP campaign managed by GWB and Rove directly countered by Clinton and mcauliffe (both directly involved)

Max is STILL peeved:

From a Vets for peace website:

In his new job, Max Cleland is supposed to get young people all fired up with idealistic zeal for politics, but that won't be easy. These days, Cleland, a Georgia Democrat defeated in his bid for reelection to the Senate last fall, is angry, bitter and disgusted with politics.

"The state of American politics is sickening," he says.

Cleland, 60, is still livid over a now-infamous TV commercial that Republican challenger Saxby Chambliss ran against him. It opened with pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, then attacked Cleland for voting against President Bush's Homeland Security bill. It didn't mention that Cleland supported a Democratic bill that wasn't radically different.

"That was the biggest lie in America -- to put me up there with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and say I voted against homeland security!" he says, his voice rising in anger.

"I volunteered 35 years ago to go to Vietnam and the guy I was running against got out of going to Vietnam with a trick knee! I was an author of the homeland security bill, for goodness' sake! But I wasn't a rubber stamp for the White House. That right there is the epitome of what's wrong with American politics today!"

He's mad about the campaign but he's even madder about the war in Iraq.

Last fall, Cleland voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to attack Iraq, but now he feels he was bamboozled.

Poor Max. As Bob Dole once said, politics ain't beanbag. Normally I'd feel bad for a proud Vet in such a sorry state but he's such a political hack. Democrats just can't lose with any class.

3rdPaul, Pale rider, check this out

The Democrats Punt

Nancy Pelosi says that the Democrats will have an "issue agenda" for next year's Congressional elections, but it will not include a position on Iraq:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.

Pelosi said Democrats will produce an issue agenda for the 2006 elections but it will not include a position on Iraq. There is consensus within the party that President Bush has mismanaged the war and that a new course is needed, but House Democrats should be free to take individual positions, she sad.

Hey, that's the bold and courageous leadership we've come to expect from the Democrats. The reality is that the split among Democrats on Iraq goes beyond different views of policy and tactics. Some Democrats, to their credit, want the U.S. to win the war and want democracy in Iraq to succeed. Others do not. That's a pretty tough gap to bridge.

Dems are in disarray. Some of the adults see 'retreat and defeat' killing them in 2006. They are right. Dumping the Patriot Act won't help either.

advocate,

The French were not right. The French were on the payroll.

Get a clue. Conservatives are not just at war with American liberls but all liberals. The French, the UN and the EU (old europe really) are just low hanging fruit. The fact they are obnoxious has-beens or never-weres makes them a delicious target. It's shooting apples in a barrel so not really fair sport but it is effective.

If you look at the polling data for the UN and France in the USA you will find it's at all time low levels. You will also find the polls for congress are also extremely low and its worse for the dmeocrats in cogress than the republicans.

This is just an effective political strategy. Kofi Annon likes to preen as if he can really do anything. Chirac might be even worse. This is a gift from God and it would be a sin not to sue it. 50 years from now liberals (probably will have ditched the name by then) will still be trashed as being French.

Let's see, rdw:

(1) Conservatives caught paying "journalists" to write OpEds promoted as independent opinions;

(2) Conservatives caught making up false stories out of whole cloth and pushing them around the internet through e-mails and blog postings;

(3) Conservatives caught interfering with American democracy by various means, including election fraud, deliberately misinforming Democrat-leaning voters regarding polling times, and voter intimidation;

(4) Conservatives caught paying foreign media to plant stories with favorable commentary on the Iraqi war intended to influence American voters by portraying the comments as independently made;

(5) Conservatives caught using taxpayer dollars to promote partisan views of particular legislation, such as the drug prescription bill;

(6) Conservatives caught lying to Congress and the American people about the costs of the drug prescription bill;

(7) Conservatives caught using bribery and extortion on the floor of the House;

(8) Conservatvies caught leaking the name of an American intelligence asset for payback against her husband for telling the truth;

(9) Conservatives caught lying about Congress seeing the same intelligence as the White House;

(10) Conservatives caught lying about why sufficient vehicle armor wasn't available to our troops;

(11) Conservatives caught embellishing the story of Pvt. Jessica Lynch;

(12) Conservatives caught lying about WMDs in Iraq;

(13) Conservatives caught lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam;

(14) Conservatives caught lying about Al Queda and Iraqi connections;

(15) Conservatives caught lying about 9/11 and Iraqi connections;

(16) Conservatives caught for illegally jamming Democratic election-night phone lines;

(17) Conservatives caught for illegal influence peddling;

(18) Conservatives caught keeping congressional votes open long, long past the deadline for voting (while they bribed and extorted members);

(19) Conservatives caught hiding intelligence data from Congress;

(20) Conservatives caught violating (Miers) the principle of an up-or-down vote for judicial nominees that they insist they believe in;

(21) Conservatives caught manipulating an alleged blind trust that wasn't so blind;

(22) Conservatives caught using homeland security funds for non-homeland-security purposes;

(23) Conservatives caught funding Saddam after he gassed the Kurds;

(24) Conservatives caught negotiating with terrorists while lying to the public that they never negotiate with terrorists;

(25) Conservatives caught financing and politically supporting a drug-dealing dictator (Noriega) . . .

And this isn't even an exhaustive list by far!

Yep.

You be the political philosophy of values, morals, integrity, and competence!

Not.

rdw: . . . kicked out in a brilliant GOP campaign managed by GWB and Rove.

We now know that a campaign distinguished by lies and defamations is one that rdw considers "brilliant".

He must be using the special conservative dictionary again . . .

rdw: Others do not.

Another lie, but what comes out of your keyboard almost always is.

rdw: The French were not right. The French were on the payroll.

Need we say it?

Another lie.

Even had they been on the payroll, they weren't, they were still right and Bush was still wrong.

By your standards, Bush was on Saddam's payroll too, but we know you tend to rampant hypocrisy.

rdw: If you look at the polling data for the UN and France in the USA you will find it's at all time low levels.

So is Bush.

Still 7 points or more lower than Clinton's second-term lowest.

Hardee har har!

You need a clue, a vowel, several consonants, a more than a few more brain cells!

Advocate for God
rdw: They are a very proud people.

So proud they never lifted a finger against Saddam and never lifted a finger against the Baathists until after the US captured Saddam.

Hey MORON, browse this for a list of revolts against Saddam.

http://www.historyguy.com/wars_of_iraq.html
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm
http://www.gendercide.org/case_anfal.html

rdw, you should stop feeding the monkeys.

Here's an election to celebrate! I'm sure a radicalized Iraq will be nothing like this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians

Collect and save.

advocate,

13) John Kerry is the one who lied about John Kerry's service.

The Xmas in Cambodia story was an obvious fraud. The simple bastard said he was sitting in Cambodia in 1968 on Xmas Eve when President Nixon announced we were not in Cambodia. That's when he had his ephinany don't you know.

Nice story. Too bad Nixon wasn't President in 1968.

Charges of election fraud reverbrate quite loudly here in the state of Washington, where we have seated a governor, Ms Gregoire, whom I believe achieved office because Democrats have created an extremely "loose" mechanism of registering voters and an even fuzzier process to count ballots. What we have learned is:

1) Voters in our state are basically on the honor system. There is no practical way whatsoever to enforce laws on the books requiring that only U.S. citizens without conditions outstanding of felony conviction may vote. It can't be done.

2) In some counties thousands of paper ballots with indistinct or confusing marks in the governor's race were "enhanced" by election workers the way the workers guessed the voter intended to vote, and then the originals were immediately destroyed. Ostensibly there will be one designated representative of each party present to observe, but some representatives were ordered to back away because they were making the workers feel intimidated.

3) In some counties computers existed which could print out countless unnumbered ballots, which explains why in the pro-Gregoire precincts there were many hundreds of more ballots returned than there were registered voters.

4) In Washington state there really is no reconciliation of voter lists to insure that mobile voters aren't voting in multiple states, counties, cities and precincts, sometimes absentee, sometimes by just walking in and demanding a provisional ballot.

5) In Washington all it takes is a utility bill with what you say is your name on it to vote. In many precincts they are not going to ask you to show any I.D. whatsoever, but if they did, all you would have to show is a utility bill or the envelope it came in.

6) Suppose a lady named Jones voted absentee as a college student, asking the ballot be sent to her mother's address. Fifteen years later, the ballot is still coming to that address. Miss Jones no longer lives there, but she has started receiving other absentee ballots as Mrs. Smith in another city. She no longer lives there either, but the ballots are still being forwarded to her, despite a state law not to forward such ballots. She now calls herself Jones-Smith, which is how she voted at a poll near where she currently lives. The state of California thinks she voted there as Smith-Jones but they don't really care because they don't reconcile their voter rolls with anyone else either.

7) They say that in Mexico you have to present a valid picture I.D. to register, then show it again to vote and your picture may be taken at the polling place and also a copy made of the I.D. you showed. In some countries a fingerprint will also be taken at this step.

8) In Seattle, when a party is losing the party precinct workers spring into action. There used to be laws requiring that to register to vote you must list a valid residence address. Really the only reason for this requirement is so that anyone challenging an election result can come around and see if you really exist and are not dead, or haven't been doing like Smith-Jones and have been voting here, there and everywhere. When precinct workers spring into action, remarkable things happen. Do you know that virtually every street alcoholic voted in the 2004 election? Their valid residence addresses were homeless shelters or abandoned buildings. Also virtually everyone in nursing homes, elder care facilies, and assisted living facilities. Even those at deaths door. Even all of those who no longer live there and left no forwarding address.

8) Washington is a blue state and the Democrats say they are a majority. They say that Republicans who snoop around actually watching what goes on in blue precincts are "initimidating voters." Well, the problem is that the Republicans more strongly than ever feel that the Democrats really do not have those intimidating voter populations that they claim. For years the Dems have wanted fuzzy census counting for exactly the same reason--in numbers there is power, whether or not they are real numbers.

9) Republicans have two ways to counter what they feel in Washington state is a completely, totally dishonest system put in place to insure that they never can win. One, they can try to change existing electoral laws to tighten them up to where the laws would be enforceable, but WHOOPS the R's can't do that because they are out of power. The D's make all the rules. The R's can make a court fight out of everything, but this costs millions of dollars and takes so long it never overturns a particular election, no matter how dirty it was.

10) The only real recourse the R's have is to do all the things we know the D's are doing, only do it better. Only when they think that vote fraud is hurting them will the D's agree to tighten up the rules.