Iraqi elections

Nick · Post by **Nick** » January 29, 2005, 4:40 pm

So the Iraqi's go to the polls tomorrow (some have already gone!) to make their first preliminary vote for government in most of their lifetimes.

Which is a good thing. In theory.

I hope not too many people die tomorrow, by the hands of religious lunatics more interested in killing their own people than a peaceful existance.

However, with the Baath party and a collection of other anti-american groups running amok we will no doubt see some level of death, as I say hopefully not too much.

But how can anyone of us say with any certainty that this will be a relevant election? When you consider maybe only 1/10 may even vote the usual argument "well if they don't vote fuck them they lost their chance' will not stand for this election for several reasons:

1. Fear of being blown up will keep reasonable otherwise interested voters away.
2. Many people still want no part in an American controlled election (the current Iraqi governing council is a US placeholder btw) and therefore will be exercising their democratic right to say 'fuck you' to the people who have invaded their country and killed their family.
3. Conspiracy theory maybe, but there will be no real way of telling if the election results are even true, given the US zeal in stealing/altering/fixing elections in both their own country and abroad (if you don't believe me look at the history of US interventions and coups).

I have to wonder why this is even happening in the current situation, it makes no sense other than to try and mislead pro war people into thinking they are actually achieving anything of substance.

Believe me, I would like it as much as anyone if it was a successful election and it paved the way for dramatic breakthroughs for the country, I suppose we will see in the near future.

I am just essentially looking to see others opinions on it, for the sake of craic.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 29, 2005, 4:47 pm

I'm kind of concerned as well.

First off is the issue of vastly disparate voting rates across geographic and ethnic lines. We can be relatively certain that turnout in some cities will be almost nil, due to prevailing social conditions, and that turnout among some ethnic groups will be almost nil for the same reason.

The second problem lies in the structure of the election itself. I don't know an awful lot about the positions that are up for election or the candidates running for them. I assume that the portion of the Iraqi population that generally supports the United States has nominated candidates and will participate heavily, and that the portion that opposes the United States and supports the insurgency will take the opposite position. This means that the faction that is supported by, and supportive of the United States will almost certainly win a relatively uncontested victory. This, to me, seems to be a hollow election and a hollow victory, and will certainly be viewed that way by those who choose to oppose the 'elected' government.

It will still probably be helpful if the elected government ascends to power, does their job, and descends from power as called for by the democratic process that is in place over there, because at least it will begin to establish a system of power transition. Beyond that, I doubt the election will do a lot of good.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » January 29, 2005, 4:59 pm

10 percent turnout? I'm willing to bet that it's going to be a lot higher than that- Kurds alone make up 20 percent of the population and they're basically entirely Pro-American and looking to vote. Shiites make up another 60 percent, and they're atleast giving the election a chance- they know it's their first opportunity in a long time to actually have power. I really doubt many Sunnis are going to vote, but for one they're only 20 percent of the population, and secondly it's their own fault they're not voting. I'm not trying to say it doesn't matter if they do or not, but I don't buy into the view that if the Sunnis don't vote, the entire thing is illegitimate,

I've seen so many different accounts that I'm not going to try to put forward a prediction because I know it'll probably be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if 50 percent or more voted.

As to why put it off- what exactly would putting it off for say, another 6 months accomplish? Do you think security would be better or worse in 6 months? Do you think the general atmosphere for elections would be better or worse in 6 months?

This is a chance to really improve the situation in my opinion- if enough people get out and vote, this could give more legitimacy to the government and hopefully make the Shiites and others a little more willing to fight for themselves, their leaders, and their future than they have been.

Anyways, I guess tomorrow we'll see how it turns out.

Edit: Here's a compilation of get out the vote ads, pretty cool.

http://switch5.castup.net/frames/200410 ... 95&ak=null

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » January 30, 2005, 3:46 am

Wow...what a moving picture.

In the photo below, seventy-year-old exile Mehsin Imgoter weeps after casting his vote at a polling place in Southgate, Michigan. Imgoter explained to a reporter that he was crying because his son, who was killed during the 1990-91 Shiite uprising, was not able to vote with him.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » January 30, 2005, 4:05 am

Pictures like that one make it hard to remain distant and philosophical.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » January 30, 2005, 4:37 am

What are you worried about? The Iraqis who aren't too afraid to leave their homes will vote for anonymous candidates from parties they know nothing about.

Hell, throw in some malfunctioning equiptment and they've practically surpassed America in the democracy department. I'd say it's a proud day.

Seriously. It is. Will it make any difference? Probably not. But it's still a milestone.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » January 30, 2005, 4:46 am

Niffoni wrote:What are you worried about? The Iraqis who aren't too afraid to leave their homes will vote for anonymous candidates from parties they know nothing about.

Hell, throw in some malfunctioning equiptment and they've practically surpassed America in the democracy department. I'd say it's a proud day.

Seriously. It is. Will it make any difference? Probably not. But it's still a milestone.

what do you have to back up that the iraqis know nothing about their canidates? other than a liberal, america is teh devil, here's to hoping iraq fails so we can jack off to saying 'i told you so', agenda/attitude?

i didn't think you were on the dark side or are you misrepresenting yourself in your last post?

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » January 30, 2005, 5:06 am

It was my understanding that many of the candidates were protecting their lives by remaining anonymous, and have therefore had little if any contact with the actual voters.

Don't mistake realism for mockery. Saying "Okay, they've had two years away from despot rule, and had perfectly legitimate election, we're all done here! You're welcome!" is downright dangerous, if not cruel to the Iraqi people. Real democracy is a long way off in that country, if its possible at all. North America is a go-go-go world where things happen at a rapid pace, and people see "the long term" as the next fiscal quarter. Iraq has been around in one form or another for a very long time, and this is just a blip in their history.

I said it's a milestone and I meant that. But blind optimism about the immediate results is at least as counterproductive as cynical nay-saying. This is a situation that needs to be watched closely for a long time to come.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » January 30, 2005, 11:21 am

heh 72% turnout they are saying on the news channels.Way higher that what was thought.....Bush down played expectations again. When will ya nay sayers understand and stop lining yourselfs up being wrong again and again.. Death toll Very low about 8-13 attacks with 23 dead.

To me this verifys my belief that most men on earth want freedom including the Arab world which if Im not mistaken just held its first democratic vote in history. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction and starts a slow but hopefully coming spread of democracy in the region. I do not see democratic nations going to war with each other all the time.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » January 30, 2005, 12:21 pm

Sirton wrote:heh 72% turnout they are saying on the news channels.Way higher that what was thought.....Bush down played expectations again. When will ya nay sayers understand and stop lining yourselfs up being wrong again and again.. Death toll Very low about 8-13 attacks with 23 dead.

To me this verifys my belief that most men on earth want freedom including the Arab world which if Im not mistaken just held its first democratic vote in history. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction and starts a slow but hopefully coming spread of democracy in the region. I do not see democratic nations going to war with each other all the time.

This is a good thing...yet in the election i have not heard any information on who the canidates are, how close the race is presumed to be, and what they stand for, do the iraqis really have enough information on the canidates to make an informed decision....and how did these canidates come about? (who promoted them)

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » January 30, 2005, 1:28 pm

I'd be surprised if the Shiites didn't win. Well, actually, I take that back. Not so surprised since it wouldn't be within American interests.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » January 30, 2005, 1:49 pm

American people wernt the only ones who didnt know who was running.The only thing I knew of was that 30% of the ballets were women.

But as seeing how the ballets wernt known to the public till the day of the elections, I dont see how this can even be good. Not to mention 130 people on the ballet. Sure 70% turn out to vote for 130 diffrent people. Lets have someone run the country who has a 5% vote.

Its sad when the people who were running were only allowed to voice their views on things in Iraq, the day of the election. I think this could have been handled 100% better than a rag tag of a election. Jesus The Crips and Bloods have better elections than a Country overseen by Bush.

Dont get me wrong. Id love for a fair vote and correct and bloodless Iraq. But how everything has been handled, its crazy to think these people are the ones who run this country.

Not to mention, what happens when someone does win with only a 3-5% over the next person and has less than oh say 30% of the votes. You know the Iraqi people will go crazy over their guy not winning. So then do we have a run off? What if a guy has enough votes to win, but is ANTI USA and is in a close election? Do we automaticaly say oh now its down to the top 5 people with votes. Then they will see it as the USA tring to influance the vote for a pro USA. Dare we say, what if that guy who is FULLY elected to win, tells the US to leave? Everything pick up and dont let the door slam you on the ass?And gives a very short deadline. If we don't then it will be show we are invaders, not other.Then we are now invaders of a fully and rightfully elected country. That will be a sticky mess heh.

I dont like this I hope it comes out good.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » January 30, 2005, 2:23 pm

Good turn-out, that beats many American elections doesn't it? Now that makes you think a little..

That said, it is way too early to tell whether this election was too soon or if it will have any impact at all. Personally, I consider it a joke to hold an election in the current situation. The country is in chaos, having a fairly "secret" election like this can make it worse for sure. Civil war is the last thing you want right now, and it could get really ugly.

To me, the current situation was caused by not having enough manpower on the ground. Poor planning, Rummy. Nothing new there though.

miir · Post by **miir** » January 30, 2005, 3:23 pm

Not to mention, what happens when someone does win with only a 3-5% over the next person and has less than oh say 30% of the votes. You know the Iraqi people will go crazy over their guy not winning.

A good chance this election will be the precursor to a 'civil war' in Iraq.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » January 30, 2005, 3:38 pm

I think the most turnout for a US election was 63% in 1960, and then the last election I think was 62%?

We wont know any final results from the Iraqi election till 7-10 days from now.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » January 30, 2005, 4:47 pm

They'll post the official count for number of voters just after they post how many civilians have died so far ><

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 30, 2005, 4:54 pm

Looking better than expected so far. Definitely a good sign.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » January 30, 2005, 6:11 pm

I'm sure Iraqis appreciate their opportunity at an act of freedom moreso than we ever will.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » January 30, 2005, 6:22 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:I'd be surprised if the Shiites didn't win. Well, actually, I take that back. Not so surprised since it wouldn't be within American interests.

Is there some kind of joke in this that I'm not getting? The Shiites are 60 percent of the population, I'd be surprised if they didn't win too.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » January 30, 2005, 11:55 pm

Ive read a little about the "frontrunners" in the election...and 4 out of 5 of them seem to be religious extremist, ex leaders of religious factions with various ties to fanatical groups...one of the guys hussein al-sastani or something like that seemed decent, religious moderate who was imprisoned by saddams regeme, but the rest of them are strict religious authoritarians

either way its great to see such a high turnout...the best thing that could possibly happen to iraq atm is to have a high voter turnout with a farily clear winner...assuming the clear winner isnt "Rasheed the ex warlord"

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » January 31, 2005, 5:52 am

Sirton wrote:I think the most turnout for a US election was 63% in 1960, and then the last election I think was 62%?

We wont know any final results from the Iraqi election till 7-10 days from now.

I think we had a 75%ish voter turnout sometime during the industrial revolution, im not sure, cant find the info in my text book.

However voting in itself in that time wasnt exactly "ideal"

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » January 31, 2005, 8:46 am

Sionistic wrote:
Sirton wrote:I think the most turnout for a US election was 63% in 1960, and then the last election I think was 62%?

We wont know any final results from the Iraqi election till 7-10 days from now.
I think we had a 75%ish voter turnout sometime during the industrial revolution, im not sure, cant find the info in my text book.

However voting in itself in that time wasnt exactly "ideal"

nor is it now, see how far you get being a liberal in Idaho or a conservative in Vermont

Deward · Post by **Deward** » January 31, 2005, 11:55 am

This election is just for the those people who will draft the constitution. The next election is planned for December of this year. They had to keep people anonymous in order to protect them.

The Shiities and Kurds should have a pretty good turnout. The Kurds because they have never had this opportunity before and the Shiities are being told to do so by their Ayatollah (Al-Sistani?).

Either way, I think this is a good thing no matter how flawed it may be. We Americans can't say shit about corrupt elections when our country hasn't had one in who knows how long. Sure things could have been better but they always can be.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 31, 2005, 12:52 pm

The election perhaps showed the insurgency is not as powerful as many feared.

Arab news agencies chose not to emphasize violence in their election day coverage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/31/inter ... oref=login

Arab Media Focus on Voting, Not Violence
By HASSAN M. FATTAH

Published: January 31, 2005

MMAN, Jordan, Jan. 30 - Sometime after the first insurgent attack in Iraq on Sunday morning, news directors at Arab satellite channels and newspaper editors found themselves facing an altogether new decision. Should they report on the violence, or continue to cover the elections themselves?

After nearly two years of providing up-to-the-minute images of explosions and mayhem, and despite months of predictions of a blood bath on election day, some news directors said they found the decision surprisingly easy to make. The violence simply was not the story on Sunday morning; the voting was.

Overwhelmingly, Arab channels and newspapers greeted the elections as a critical event with major implications for the region, and many put significant resources into reporting on the voting, providing blanket coverage throughout the country that started about a week ago. Newspapers kept wide swaths of their pages open, and the satellite channels dedicated most of the day to coverage of the polls.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » January 31, 2005, 5:17 pm

That clip alone makes my day voro.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 1, 2005, 9:18 pm

Voronwë wrote:
Arab news agencies chose not to emphasize violence in their election day coverage.

About fucking time.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 2, 2005, 12:14 pm

Liberal Columnist Mark Brown (Sun-Times) asks, "What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?"

http://www.suntimes.com/output/brown/cs ... own01.html

Mark Brown wrote:Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood.

You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead.

Despite your misgivings, you didn't demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.

By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval.

But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?

It's hard to swallow, isn't it?

Americans cross own barrier

If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling.

For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.

I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces.

Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice (setting aside the argument that they only did so under orders from their religious leaders).

I think it's possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well.

Deciding democracy's worth

On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing:

Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something.

Would it be worth all the money we've spent? Certainly.

Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That's the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well.

I don't want to get carried away in the moment.

Going to war still sent so many terrible messages to the world.

Most of the obstacles to success in Iraq are all still there, the ones that have always led me to believe that we would eventually be forced to leave the country with our tail tucked between our legs. (I've maintained from the start that if you were impressed by the demonstrations in the streets of Baghdad when we arrived, wait until you see how they celebrate our departure, no matter the circumstances.)

In and of itself, the voting did nothing to end the violence. The forces trying to regain the power they have lost -- and the outside elements supporting them -- will be no less determined to disrupt our efforts and to drive us out.

Somebody still has to find a way to bring the Sunnis into the political process before the next round of elections at year's end. The Iraqi government still must develop the capacity to protect its people.

And there seems every possibility that this could yet end in civil war the day we leave or with Iraq becoming an Islamic state every bit as hostile to our national interests as was Saddam.

Penance could be required

But on Sunday, we caught a glimpse of the flip side. We could finally see signs that a majority of the Iraqi people perceive something to be gained from this brave new world we are forcing on them.

Instead of making the elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven't died in vain.

Obviously, I'm still curious to see if Bush is willing to allow the Iraqis to install a government that is free to kick us out or to oppose our other foreign policy efforts in the region.

So is the rest of the world.

For now, though, I think we have to cut the president some slack about a timetable for his exit strategy.

If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.

Maybe I'd have to vote Republican in 2008.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » February 2, 2005, 8:07 pm

Bush was right? In what? WMDs? Terrorists? So far none of it has been correct. It is not your job to go into any and all countries and change the way they run things just because you disagree with it. Hell how would you like it if France walked into the US and decided to overthrow the government here?

Not to mention that it is decades too early to know if we will have a lasting democracy in Iraq.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » February 2, 2005, 9:21 pm

Kelshara wrote:Not to mention that it is decades too early to know if we will have a lasting democracy in Iraq.

Thats the problem with retards liek Midnyte spewing the "big picture" BS line. Their is absolutely no way to tell if democracy is going to last in Iraq. With all the flack Canada is taking by not joining USA's holy war, I couldn't care less how much resources Americans are waisting over there.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 3, 2005, 12:29 am

Lynks wrote:
Kelshara wrote:Not to mention that it is decades too early to know if we will have a lasting democracy in Iraq.
Thats the problem with retards liek Midnyte spewing the "big picture" BS line. Their is absolutely no way to tell if democracy is going to last in Iraq. With all the flack Canada is taking by not joining USA's holy war, I couldn't care less how much resources Americans are waisting over there.

/snicker

Their is absolutely no way to tell if democracy is going to last in Iraq.

Thank you so much. In time you help make me look so good every single time.

Let's change one word here and prove my point about you negative people, shall we? Okay, lets do it....

Their is absolutely no way to tell if democracy isn't going to last in Iraq.

Game. Set. Match.

Thanks for playing.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » February 3, 2005, 12:36 am

What the hell are you talking about you fucking douche. You changed 1 word and you think you're king shit? Im not negative, I'm being realistic, try it some time.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » February 3, 2005, 12:40 am

I guess I could crack a jr. high school text book and logically invalidate Mid's entire post, but in this case, I move that we let it stand on the record as a victory for him, just because i'm amused by the mental image of him jumping around the room, pumping his fists and screaming "YES! YES! TAKE THAT BE-YOTCH!! HAHAHAHAHA!"

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » February 3, 2005, 1:04 am

Lynks wrote:What the hell are you talking about you fucking douche. You changed 1 word and you think you're king shit? Im not negative, I'm being realistic, try it some time.

Yes. In fact Midnyte there is little evidence that a democracy will work or is even wanted (but the 8 million people that showed up is a good sign). I've never heard of an uprising to establish democracy in the region. If people aren't willing to stand up and fight for themselves, it doesn't bode well for true democracy. See Uzbekistan.

I think the more important issue though is WHEN ARE WE LEAVING???

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » February 3, 2005, 2:14 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Game. Set. Match.

I'm reminded of a high school friend of mine's younger brother who was mildly retarded. He was stubborn in the fact that he refused to "lose" any argument, but blissfully stupid in the fact that he could "win" any argument in his own mind by making the most bullshit statements.

He'd end it with "Game. Set. Match."

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 3, 2005, 2:17 am

Dregor Thule wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Game. Set. Match.
I'm reminded of a high school friend of mine's younger brother who was mildly retarded. He was stubborn in the fact that he refused to "lose" any argument, but blissfully stupid in the fact that he could "win" any argument in his own mind by making the most bullshit statements.

He'd end it with "Game. Set. Match."

and so did you!

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » February 3, 2005, 8:44 am

Their is absolutely no way to tell if democracy isn't going to last in Iraq.

your right.

but i dont think 1500 dead american soldiers are worth that chance, nor the thousands of dead iraqi civillians, nor its direct negative impact on our economy,(compare the dollar to the euro, you could pretty much wipe your ass with the american dollar now, soon canadian money will have more worth then the dollar...opec is even talking about changing the oil standard from dollars to euros) nor its hinderism on "the war on terror" being that more terrorist have been created due to iraq

but if you think a shitty economy, more terrorist on earth, 1500 dead american soldiers, and a more hostile world view towards america is worth a 40% chance towards a "democracy" almost half the people dont want in iraq, then il say you have some fucked up priorities

Burke · Post by **Burke** » February 3, 2005, 11:03 am

He is 'thinking postivie'. a.k.a., wearing bigass blinders.

This thread has become a

Gay. Sex. Match.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » February 3, 2005, 11:09 am

Reminds me of the Family Guy episode where that girl says to Stewie, "You are the Weakest Link"

Stewie wrote:Ha ha ha! Oh gosh that's funny! That's really funny! Do you write your own material? Do you? Because that is so fresh. You are the weakest link goodbye. You know, I've, I've never heard anyone make that joke before. Hmm. You're the first. I've never heard anyone reference, reference that outside the program before. Because that's what she says on the show right? Isn't it? You are the weakest link goodbye. And, and yet you've taken that and used it out of context to insult me in this everyday situation. God what a clever, smart girl you must be, to come up with a joke like that all by yourself. That's so fresh too. Any, any Titanic jokes you want to throw at me too as long as we're hitting these phenomena at the height of their popularity. God you're so funny!

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 3, 2005, 2:47 pm

Cut my milk!

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » February 3, 2005, 5:50 pm

Do you lefties just have too much pride at stake to be happy for the Iraqis or what? I mean you make it sound like you WANT democracy to fail just so you can be "right."

miir · Post by **miir** » February 3, 2005, 6:33 pm

Rekaar. wrote:Do you lefties just have too much pride at stake to be happy for the Iraqis or what? I mean you make it sound like you WANT democracy to fail just so you can be "right."

Just like you righties spin the reasons for invading and occupying Iraq. I mean you make it sound like you WANTED Iraq to use WMDs so that you could be 'right'.

When western style democracy fails in Iraq and the country descends into civil war, what will be your next excuse for invading?

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 3, 2005, 6:36 pm

miir wrote:When western style democracy fails in Iraq and the country descends into civil war, what will be your next excuse for invading?

When?.. sound a little sure of yourself... fuckin loser..

miir · Post by **miir** » February 3, 2005, 6:48 pm

Fash wrote:When?.. sound a little sure of yourself... fuckin loser..

It was a rhetorical statement... sheesh.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » February 4, 2005, 4:55 am

Sounds like my remarks are dead on where miir is concerned.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 4, 2005, 12:39 pm

An OpEd from the Wall Street Journal,

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial ... =110006243

The 'Exit Strategy' Democrats

Every so often, an American politician takes an unpopular stand for the sake of what's right: Think of Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon. Frequently, he takes an unprincipled stand for the sake of what's popular: Take Richard Nixon's price controls. Sometimes, even, he does what's right, which also happens to be popular: Ronald Reagan's bombing of Libya.

Only in the rarest of instances, however, do politicians take positions that are both unpopular and unprincipled. That is where the Democratic Party leadership finds itself today on Iraq.

On Sunday, some eight million Iraqi citizens risked their lives to participate in parliamentary elections--as vivid and moving a demonstration of democratic ideals in action as we've seen in our lifetimes. Whereupon Senate Democrats Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry took to the airwaves to explain that it was no big deal and that it was time to start casting about for an "exit strategy."

...

So what is the Democratic Party's message on this inspiring exercise in Iraqi self-determination? First, that the election's legitimacy is questionable. Second, that its effects will be minor. Third, that America's presence in Iraq is doing more harm than good by generating terrorism and anti-Americanism where none previously existed. Fourth, that the U.S. has better things to do. Fifth, that American sacrifices in Iraq are best redeemed not by victory, but by the earliest feasible departure.

As a matter of policy, this is a manifesto for irresponsibility. Just as the postponement of elections would have been a gift to the insurgents, a timetable for withdrawal now would amount to a concession of defeat. The Iraqis certainly know this, with interim President (and Sunni Arab) Sheik Ghazi al-Yawar saying Tuesday that it is "complete nonsense to ask the troops to leave in this chaos and this vacuum of power." The claim that the U.S. has become a force for occupation only validates the Al-Jazeera hypothesis that the terrorists are engaging in a legitimate exercise in "resistance."

What is more astonishing, however, is the Democrats' political tone-deafness. In their indictment of Administration policy, the Senators always take care to add a few words of tribute to the American soldier. But what's the point of praising his courage when only a fool would want to be the last man to die for a mistake?

Today, the Democratic Party has put itself in the awkward position of hoping to gain political advantage in the 2006 elections as a result of American wartime reverses, just as some House Republicans did during the war in Kosovo (they were saved by their Senate betters). This is not a place any political party should wish to be.

We understand that it is in the nature of the party of opposition to oppose. But there's no law in politics that says opposition has to be blind.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 4, 2005, 1:02 pm

Democrats are in a world of hurt. Their incompetence actually has me worried as the Republicans, with a solid plan whether you like it or not, will only gain more and more seats as the democrats flounder around in disarray.

I see that John Kerry has gone nuts introducing legislation after doing almost nothing for the bulk of his career in that area. Would some insider liberal type please tell me that Kerry isn't planning on running again in 2008?

Get your shit together liberals.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 4, 2005, 1:07 pm

yeah the Democratic party is imploding before our eyes.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » February 4, 2005, 1:14 pm

Winnow wrote: I see that John Kerry has gone nuts introducing legislation after doing almost nothing for the bulk of his career in that area.

It's called whitewashing Winnow.

I didn't like some things I saw from the Republican party over the last 4-5 years, but what I am seeing from the Democrats sincerely disgusts me.

It seems they don't care about anything except their agenda to make President Bush look bad, the hell with the citizens.

Example: I think Social Security needs to be reformed and think President Bush honestly wants to get a sound plan implemented. I don't think his ideas are all that bad to be honest. Especially when the plan he outlined would be voluntary.

For the first time ever, there was actually booing at the President during a State of the Union address? Talk about a bunch of children.

One of my favorite sayings: If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

President Bush invited the Democrats to be part of the solution... take a guess which part of the above saying applies.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 4, 2005, 1:27 pm

First time ever booing?

First time ever since the last Democrat President maybe.

maybe the first time ever that Sean Hannity told you it was the first time ever.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 4, 2005, 1:31 pm

Hey, at least the US doesn't have the reputation for being the biggest aggressor on the planet, nor the worst human rights violator, nor the single most retarded nation, nor among the most religiously fuelled backward societies, nor the most hypocritical nation......

Oh no!!! That could never be!

Thankfully you seem to assume your foreign policy is dictated by god, that at least didn't make you the laughing stock that you are.

Sort those things out and then you can fucking talk about being part of the solution, what a fucking joke.