<b>Originally posted by B-Bob giddyup, there may be no other way to say this: your post makes no sense at all. It simply defies logic.</b> I'm not sure exactly to what you are referring but I'll take my best stab at it: Bush is criticized for not building an adequate coallition yet the principle countries who stood in his way (France, German, Russia) had their greedy hands in Saddam's deep pockets. In essence, Bush is criticized for their duplicity. Is that erroneous? Is that hard to criticize? <b>As for "quasi" elections, some areas were not allowed to vote or had impaired polling options, due to insurgency worries. But whatever, it's a start!</b> Yeah, I'd say a rousing start. When "successful" US elections pivot on high democratic turnout, are those "quasi" elections as well?
"Any time ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police." -- Natan Sharansky
huh? I have crticized other nations that were opportunistic (and speak French) through this whole mess. ... er...what's the question?
BTW, I'm listening to Iraqis calling into the BBC, and they're ecstatic. The last one mentioned how there were entire families, on up to 80 years old, hanging around polling sites even after voting. One reporter mentioned how one 80-year old was voting because saddam killed her 6 sons and this was a way to get back at him.
Not that he needs to do anything to be more reprehensible, but it is beyond belief that a Jordanian ... Zarqawi ... sought to 'make fun of' Iraqis seeking deomcracy by blowing them up while they tried to vote.
Sorry, I guess I'm not thinking clearly. I'm into my 54th straight hour of back spasms and full-time care of a 3 and a 5 YO... 1. You criticize nations who did not do their part to help Iraq from the tyranny, first, of Saddam and, second, of the insurgents. 2. You criticize Bush for not building a better coalition. Correct anything I've asserted there and credited to you that is wrong. Here's my confusion: weren't the nations with whom you were expecting Bush to build a coalition the very nations that were refusing to lend their support because they had their hands in the backpockets of Saddam? At least the other "leading" nations of the world: France, Germany, and Russia did not step up and other nations had the only excuse they needed to follow that lead while the US made the tough decision and made the major sacrifice. Why does Bush deserve criticism for not "persuading" those other nations for not doing the right thing on their own initiative? I think today's election proves that Iraqis do indeed crave democratic freedoms. They turned out to vote in "record" numbers in spite of death threats proving irrefutably that the yearn to be free is indeed instilled in the hearts of men and women and not just a piece of propoganda from a Republican administration. We also saw that with Afghanistan.
I find it very hard not to call ignorant posters like this names. Nobody on the left wanted people to die so they could criticize the administration. What is embarrassing is your gross ignorance of the media's motives. Stop with the insulting rhetoric. As far as bashing the administration, there is so much to bash them on, no more ammunition is needed.
Actually there are a few on the left who did want people to die, namely American troops in order to further their own cause. Perhaps you never heard this rhetoric but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. I know that these were a huge minority but for you to say NOBODY on the left wanted this is looking the opposite way (something you say is wrong when Bush supporters do it).
Good for the people of Iraq...this give major hope for that country. Now they need to get a decent security force, and we need to bring our troops home. DD
The point is I can't name names because these are the fringe "professional protester types". I never claimed that this was a tenent of the Democratic platform just some wackos on the outside. I was simply trying to say that there were some people who were hoping that their viewpoints would be validated by the deaths of some Americans. That being said, I'm going to search to see if I can find an article that states this happening at a protest or a blog with this viewpoint because I know otherwise it'll seem like I'm making this up.
I'm very happy to see the Iraqis voting for their future - a great day or Iraq but to all you people who are claiming this day means the liberals are wrong and Bush is right, remember this election only came about because the Iraqis ( Grand Ayatollah Sistani) demanded it. The orginal Bush plan called for a hand-picked committee to draft their constitution, but the Iraqis would have none of it (Bush then pushed for caucuses but that too was rejected) and demanded to elect those who will write their constitution.
Here are just a couple, you can email me if you want me to find more. http://www.gateway2china.com/community/_messages/14592.shtml http://simonandthelefties.blogharbor.com/
Sorry about your back, been there. Inversion bench helped mine A LOT. As for the kids, mine are 1 and 3, so it'll be a while before I must handle a 3 and 5. I really don't feel inclined to go into a rehash of all of arguments for and against the war and how Bush mishandled almost the entire rest of the world (and why we now see polls showing the magnitude of his errs). My general take on Bush's diplomatic errs: the Administration didn't care a d*mn about what the rest of the world thought. In fact, if it wasn't for that fact that some Americans care about what the rest of the world believe, they would have done even less foreign diplomacy (if Powell had more...er..any leverage in that Admin instead of Cheney/Rumsfeld, I feel this would have been very different). As for the rest of the world, they preceived this attitude quite clearly. And they will be quite sensitive to what the militarily unstoppable uber-power does, so their reaction could was predictable. I retain hope that this administration will develop a respect for the rest of the world's desires and perform appropriately.
Sounds like Bush responded not as an all-controlling occupier, but someone trying to make the democracy work. And IIRC, Bush wasn't the only one in support of caucuses ... which were believed best to help assure that all minorities would be well represented during the drafting of the Constitution, eh? As it is, and as expected, Sunnis will be under-represented and Sistani's people over-represented during the drafting process.
Hey Franchiseblade, take walk down to Union Square in NYC sometime and listen to the rhetoric sometimes. I live there. There are people who want this election to go wrong, and they deserve jeers, insults, maybe a slap in the face. What is embarrassing isn't my "gross ignorance of the media's motives"....it's your ignorance of the fact that there are idiots on both sides. Save your insulting rhetoric comments for the people on here who spew party line crap all day long. Diarrhea like that belongs in Cagey Veteran's Ass Problem thread.
Here's my point: isn't the overwhelming "success" of this election a vindication? Once (and still) you are so cocerned that Bush not give a darn about what the world thought, why isn't the world responsible for giving a darn about what the Bush administration thought. Taking leadership is not always the fastest route to popularity. 1. There are many critics who said 6 months ago that this election would never occur or that if it did it would be a bloodbath. That was wrong. 2. How many times did I read (not from you specifically Cohen) that Iraqis don't even want freedom? Well, it appears that they did and now they embrace it and suddenly... the press discovers it?!?
