Daily Kos

Bush was right

by Zackpunk

Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 04:22:49 PM PDT

No, he wasn't right to invade Iraq, there's no doubt about that. The death toll rivals the tsunami disaster, and is only poised to climb ever higher. The war has only inspired terrorism, and weakened our ability to defend ourselves, while siphoning financial resources that could have served to strengthen America.

But Bush was right when he said that this election was a success for Iraq, and a good day for democracy. There's no denying it -- the majority of the Iraqi people are filled with a new sense of hope and joy, and this election was a crucial first step in getting our troops out of there.

Bush was also right when he said that the coming weeks and months will be very difficult, and that this transition could be long and painful. And he was wrong not to mention those who boycotted the election, and the thirty-five people who died in violence.

But like it or not, this is the situation we have, and our best hope is for a stable and democratic Iraq. Today was an enormous sign of hope for that goal. Turnout in the election was high, and the mood was very enthusiastic.

This is also good news for the Democrats, as the Iraq fiasco has been a disastrous distraction from the issues where we win: The environment, human rights, accountability, the economy, and education.

The Republicans are very good at convincing the people they are the only ones who can fight wars (regardless of the fact that history clearly indicates the contrary), and the last thing we need is for this war to be continuing in 2008.

We need this situation to resolve as quickly as possible, not only for the lives of Iraqis and US soldiers, but so we can refocus on the important issues that have been severely neglected because of this reckless military action. Today was a very good step in that direction.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 61 comments

  •  Well your a fair bit more optimistic than I am (none / 0)

    But more power to you.

    Out of the night that covers me, Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul.

    by Descrates on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 04:26:29 PM PDT

    •  RECOMMENDING (none / 0)

      Just because this is worth discussing on dKos. Nobody here was hoping Iraqis would not vote (at least not the rational thinkers), and we are happy to see them exercise some power.

      But remember -- we were also happy to see them tear down Saddam's statue.

      That turned out to be a farce, a false moment of hope. I hope this election, beyond being a good day for Iraqis, leads to a strong Iraqi-controlled government, unity amongst all Iraqis, and the quick withdrawal of US soldiers.

      But will that rosy scenario occur? It didn't the last five times it was supposed to. Maybe this will be different. We'll see.

      Old Man McCain.com - the best McCain attack blog on the web!

      by existenz on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:15:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and the definition of insanity is ... (none / 0)

        repeating the same action over and over, expecting a different result each time

        George Bush didn't even try to convince anybody that the violence will subside

        Anybody remember when the violenmce sunsided in Beruit ???

        by knowthings on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 06:53:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Agreed (none / 0)

    It's a neighborly day in this beautywood. Relentless!

    by ablington on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 04:29:11 PM PDT

  •  Dead Wrong (4.00 / 5)

      I predicted today would be the bloodiest day on record, and a complete farce.  While the election was not perfect, seeing the joy of Iraqis as they expressed their freedom was truly amazing.  Never have I been so happy to be so wrong. Today was successful, the people's faces don't lie.  
      This election doesn't vilify Bush, nor does it excuse this terrible war, but it demonstrates the resolve of a proud people.  We on the left hold precious the ideals of freedom and equality, within that sentiment I have no problem seeing the positive in todays events.  The adminstration will warp and propagandize these events to justify their failed policies, but that is irrelevant.  All that matters is that today we saw a glimmer of hope for Iraq.  Freedom and democracy are compassionate ideals, anytime someone is able to feel empowerment I feel good, political persuasion aside.  The election provides an air of hope to an otherwise bleak landscape.  A good day, finally and despite our misguided intentions.
     

    Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you. Jean-Paul Sartre

    by Stevo on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 04:29:40 PM PDT

  •  You sound like (none / 1)

    you've been watching the tv all day.

    Better perspective will be gained in the coming months, and will be written by smart people like Krugman, Hersch, etc.  And regardless, we control Allawi, so there's that to consider.

    by HariSeldon on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 04:32:18 PM PDT

  •  Good day (4.00 / 7)

    Today in Iraq thirty-five Iraqis, at least one marine and between ten and fifteen British troops were killed.  We consider this a good day?  Bush and his crew have done a great job manipulating how we see the world.  Could have been worse, so it's a good day.

    by pacifica on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 04:35:59 PM PDT

  •  You've taken in by the mighty Wurlitzer (4.00 / 5)

    After all the lies you believe what you see on television?  The reporters can't move around, no one knows for sure how many people voted -- the first reports indicated voting in excess of registration (normalizing on polling stations that are likely to have had anyone.

    Is it a sign of hope?  We all live in hope, so any sign can be a good one.  Recall all that we thought about Kerry's victory prior to November 2. It is hard to see what it means on the ground.

    What it means to the Bush administration is the possibility of an administraiton that will 'invite' the United States to stay.  That is the purpose of the election.  They couldn't put it off any longer because Sistani wouldn't allow it.  To make the best of a bad deal they are rigging the vote to ensure Allawi remains in charge, which means Negroponte behind the scene.  Nothing in this election suggests a reduction in the strength of the Iraqi resistance.  It doesn't supply a tax base to support the government. The main effect is on U.S. public opinion, which will be encouraged to let another couple of thousand of our soldiers die in a lost cause.

    At some point the U.S. will have to deal with them as political actors.  There is no way they will allow an elected Iraqi government to do so.

    Knut

    by Knut Wicksell on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 04:47:03 PM PDT

    •  See above (none / 1)

      I haven't been watching TV, I've been listening to the BBC, and I don't see any evidence suggesting their reports are inaccurate.

      I know a lot of us want to strongly emphasize the bad in order to damage Bush as much as possible, which is a worthy goal, to which I am deeply sympathetic. But I call it like I see it, and there was a lot of good that happened today.


      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." - Salvor Hardin

      by Zackpunk on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 04:53:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Killing 100,000 Iraqis (none / 1)

        so that a few could dance and smile seems rather lopsided.  We should now all forget about all those dead people.

        And allawi is in charge.  That would be like me being happy Bush is in charge because I suddenly believe he means me well.  Uh huh.  After killing many of my neighbors.  But I am not dead so I rejoice at Bush sparing me.

        by GrandmaJ on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:05:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hmmm (none / 0)

        I haven't been watching the BBC but I have been looking at their web site.

        This does not reflect the confident optimism and dancing in the streets joy of which you speak.

        2005, 02:01 GMT  

          Iraq election declared 'success'

        Iraq's first open election in decades is hailed by Iraqi officials and other leaders, despite a spate of attacks.

        The quotation marks around the word "success" are theirs.

        Of course, there are those groups like the Kurds and the Shias who are delighted that the vote took place - and they openly showed it. Equally, there are others like the Sunnis who fear a future of being a minority under a regime sustained by military and police power.

        We will celebrate if this election is seen to be a real step towaards stable government and peace in that land.

        It is wildly optimistic to believe that we will get real evidence of this for a year or two - maybe even more. It is no more than a repeat of the failed steps we British took there in 1932.

        Meanwhile, both right as well as left-wing commentators are gloomy about the immediate future.

        Contribute your ideas to ePLURIBUS MEDIA

        by Welshman on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 06:57:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I wish you'd stop introducing reality (none / 1)

      All right. We've met. Reality and liberals, we've been dating for some time. Quit introducing us, it's depressing.

      by NeoconSemanticist on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 04:53:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  No, I don't agree (4.00 / 3)

    What's really horrible is how this election made a farce about what freedom and democracy are about. What happened is that the Iraqis showed how hungry they are for self-rule, but do you really think they're going to get it? The Bush administration will try to use the fact of elections to try to gloss over the lack of real independence in Iraq.
    Another sick consequence could be that the US will bag on humanitarian obligations now that the Iraqis are "free"---they STILL don't have power and water in much of the country.

    Bush is a sick, sick, slick slick, man.

    by BoringDem on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 04:50:59 PM PDT

    •  Time will tell (none / 0)

      We have to look forwards. The situation in Iraq could certainly collapse even further still. But today was a good first step.


      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." - Salvor Hardin

      by Zackpunk on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 04:54:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes (none / 0)

      [quote]What happened is that the Iraqis showed how hungry they are for self-rule, but do you really think they're going to get it?[/quote]

      Just so. Hey, I was glad to vote in the last two US Presidential elections and each time felt a sense of pride and happiness as I left the polls. It doesn't mean jack about the quality of our government since 2001, or even that the election processes were necessarily "democratic."

      I'm glad if the Iraqi people did indeed come out to vote and feel good about it. It doesn't change the fact that they had a choice between a slate led by a US puppet or a series of secret candidates, or the probability that the process was crooked, or the al-FUBAR reality in Iraq  that doesn't appear to be ending anytime soon.

      by frightwig on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:55:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I want to be optimistic, but... (none / 1)

    seeing how BushCo has bee steadily destroying our democracy here, it's difficult if not impossible for me to trust that they are actually advancing democracy in Iraq.

    Also, I think it's too soon and the "news" has been too controlled for us to really know what happened yesterday and how Iraqis really feel. That said though I really think that the thought of democracy really does empower people and perhaps people in Iraq will be inspired.

    However, I also remember how inspired many of us were this election cycle, how much hope we had on 11/2--only to realize that our democracy has been so degraded and abused by criminal BushCo that at this point it may only be a grand idea/fantasy to which we cling.

    So, I want to be optimistic, but....

    Seul l'incrédule a droit au miracle. - Elias Canetti Road2DC

    by srkp23 on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 04:53:31 PM PDT

  •  a thought experiment (4.00 / 3)

    imagine that a month before election day, the military, aided by right-wing militias, had destroyed most of boston, new york, detroit, cleveland, philadelphia, LA, SF, portland, seattle and DC outside of the capital mall "green zone," and that most of the great lakes, west coast and eastern seaboard were either under martial law or regularly bombarded by the air force.

    would you view the subsequent election as a triumph for democracy, just because those people in utah and alabama and texas had the chance to vote? do you think that the people who bombed you would really let go of power if the democrats somehow got enough people to the polls despite the bombings and checkpoints?

    a real election and a real democracy would be a great thing for the iraqi people, and we should have tried to get one going back in 2003, when sistani asked for them, before things got as bad as they have. this is better than a poke in the eye, but that's about it.

    democracy cannot be built under the watchful eye of a hostile military occupation. we have to leave before anything truly democratic can emerge. see also: algeria, vietnam, chechnya, gaza, aceh, kashmir.

    surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

    by wu ming on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 04:55:28 PM PDT

    •  not a very apt analogy (none / 1)

      The important factor in this election is the extreme hopefulness and joy shared by the Iraqi people. This is important.

      I'm not saying that this election vindicates Bush -- not for one second. But looking forwards, today was a good first step.


      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." - Salvor Hardin

      by Zackpunk on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 04:58:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Reality? (none / 0)

        >
        The important factor in this election is the extreme hopefulness and joy shared by the Iraqi people.<

        Are you kidding?  Have you ever read the opinions of ordinary Iraqis?  Photo ops don't express reality, especially in Iraq.  

        Of course there were people at the polls, was this ever in doubt (their religious leaders actually said that they had to and many took it as their duty).  Just over 60% of registered voters is not bad at all--even if there were ways of washing the ink off and selling the voter cards to other people (as has been suggested).  However, this was not a democratic election by any stretch of the imagination.  

        They chose from slates of candidates offered by 1. a murder (see the New Yorker's recent article on Allawi), 2. people wanting a theocracy, 3. Kurdish separatists, or 4 those wanting to establish a constitutional monarchy (which was a platform).  They didn't know who 90+% of the candidates were (they will likely never know).  They voted only in specific urban areas, under the watch of an occupying army.  The candidates they vote in would be held accountable because no one will ever know who they voted for.  The election was probably not fair because external election supervisors were excluded and votes were sold to people out of the country.  With occupation there is no way of proving that the heteronomy does not still function at the top.

        I'm really sorry to dampen your spirits.  I hope democracy does come to Iraq, but let's be realistic here.  Nothing has really changed.  Some of those Iraqi's who you see celebrating also celebrated at Saddam's mock election last year;  this year someone else is passing out the candy at the polls.  Do they hope?  Well yes, anything looks promising to people without basic utilities (water, electricity).  Will anything change while we remain there?  Will anything change prior to real free elections and representation?

        by Nihilvor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:22:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  A true victory for freedom (3.50 / 4)

    thank God that Iraqis will always be able to vote in a police-state atmosphere where thousands of U.S. troops guard polling places with their lives.

    Only Democrats need to "pay for" any of their proposals; it's just understood that Republicans are "fiscal conservatives." - Atrios

    by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:02:00 PM PDT

  •  I'm very happy for the Iraqis but (none / 0)

    also, remember why we went in there too; WMD. As Jay Rockefeller said in July, if this had been labeled a humanitarian mission, then he doubts Bush would have gotten as many votes as he did. While Im happy we are doing good there(and we certainly are), I cant help but remember why we went in there.

    by jj32 on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:10:29 PM PDT

  •  Killing people..... (none / 0)

    to bring them "democracy" seems pervertedly insane to me. Ask any mother who lost their child in Iraq if watching someone get all excited over voting was worth the death of their son or daughter. At least 44 Iraqis have died today, a British plane was shot down and an American soldier was killed. Overall, I'd say it was a pretty tragic day. The people who voted did so under sectarian and ethnic lines with the belief that it will result in the military to leave. I argue that Iraq will become even more unstable over the next few weeks when the voters realize that they have just put their lives at risk for a PR stunt. This "election" just drives a bigger wedge between the Sunnis, Shia and the Kurds.

    by John Masotti on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:13:55 PM PDT

    •  Heteronomy is not democracy (none / 1)

      Agreed.  To buy into this election it takes some twisted enlightenment thinking along the lines of a grand messianic evolutionary march of humanity (all one has to do is put on these magic slippers and drop a name in the box for some people you've never heard of and you are empowered).  Tomorrow will come and people will still be living in their bombed-out homes.  It takes some thick blinders to believe that society naturally improves because of some semblance of democracy.  To buy into Bush's rhetoric is, I'm afraid, a great faith-based experiment, but that is something that he's good at.

      by Nihilvor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:36:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Right on some, wrong on some (none / 0)

    The election is a great step forward for legitimizing the Iraqi government by giving the people some sense of having a stake in the future of their country, which they did not have before. Unfortunately, the refuseniks have bowed out of their stake and are still going to see the government as the Enemy. They need to be persuaded.

    So Bush is partially right, but he is still wrong about many things. Bush is wrong when he has suggested that the elections were going to end the insurgency. Bush was wrong to have cancelled the electons that Iraq held on its own in summer '03. Bush is wrong when he insinuates that some, by which you know he means us, don't want to see elections held or have a free Iraq. Bush has been wrong every time between the invasion and these elections when he said he had already brought liberty, democracy, and freedom to Iraq. And he has plenty of opportunities to screw something up between now and withdrawal.

    by Cecrops Tangaroa on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:18:53 PM PDT

  •  Good Post (4.00 / 3)

    You encapsulate much of my feelings as well. I loathe George W. Bush with every bit of my political body. I think the war was wrong, poorly planned and has made the world less safe. But for today we saw something we rarely see (and I didn't watch TV): courage. I thought the purple ink would be an invitation to catastrophe. Instead it has become a badge of strength.  Whatever happens from here, whether it's democracy or a terrible civil war - both of which are very possible - today was a glorious day for the people of Iraq and for the human spirit.

    As always, the best analysis of the election on the ground comes from Anthony Shadid, the best journalist of our era. WaPo Article

    by Elrod on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:20:55 PM PDT

  •  Recommended (none / 1)

    To be honest I think Armando and Kos are off-base. Likewise with Jerome at myDD, who insinuates that Ayatollah Sistani is the equivalent of Khomenei.

    Today is a truly great day for Iraq - and yes, for George Bush, who deserves credit for sticking to his guns on principle and keeping these elections on schedule. There's a LONG road ahead. It ain't gonna be a cake walk just because there were elections. But these elections are definitely a first step in the direction of peace.

    Zack, kudos to you also for posting this diary. I am recommending it and I hope others see fit to do so, to avoid the perception that the dKos community speaks with one voice on the matter. The Frontpage has been dominated by one view and your diary needs to be heard to provide a counterweight.

    I also would like to ask any like-minded blogger to post to this diary their own entries in supoprt of Iraq today. I'll star things rolling but i hope (and am sure) that I am not alone here.

    http://cityofbrass.blogspot.com/2005/01/party-atmosphere-in-baghdad.html

    http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2005/01/purple-nation.html

    http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2005/01/iraqi-elections_30.html

    http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2005/01/may-classical-liberalism-triumph-in.html

    O8 - I want my country back!

    by azizhp on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:22:29 PM PDT

    •  I have to disagree (none / 0)

      " keeping these elections on schedule"

      Was the worst thing they could do;  it is what will be pointed to if civil war breaks out.  They didn't even make a real attempt at bringing Sadr and the Sunnis on board.

      by Nihilvor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:26:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  never happen (none / 0)

        believe me, and I am a Shi'a muslim BTW, Sadr was never going to be "on board".

        Letting the insurgents dictate the election schedule is self-defeating. Iraq needs to move forward. The iraqis themselves think so.

        O8 - I want my country back!

        by azizhp on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:35:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Iraqis (none / 0)

          >Letting the insurgents dictate the election schedule is self-defeating. Iraq needs to move forward. The iraqis themselves think so.<

          You can't just make a claim like that....  Well, I guess you can.  However, many Iraqi scholars (of different ethnicities) and politicians disagree with your assessment.

          I also disagree with your assessment of Sadr, since he has actually negotiated his position.

          by Nihilvor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:40:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The stated main claim... (none / 0)

          ..that unites the insurgents is that there should be a timetable for the withdrawal of the US. Even many of the moderates sought extra time to allow for negotiations that could lead to a more sustainable election result.

          I see no evidence of a serious attempt to reach any form of settlement in this regard.

          The main contribution of the US to the peace process in Northern Ireland was encouragemnet for a negotiated timetable of step-by-step de-militarisation by all sides, combined with the growth in self governance of the province under a constitution that gave power sharing among competing parties. It helped de-escalate 400 hundred years of hatred and 40 years of bloody violence.

          Strange, isn't it, that the same was not felt appropriate in the circumstances prevailing in Iraq?

          Contribute your ideas to ePLURIBUS MEDIA

          by Welshman on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 07:37:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  delaying could have also (none / 0)

        helped foment civil war.any more bad days of a similar nature as to what we have chronically experienced with Iraq, plus the piss-poor infrastructure problems in the country could have created a situation that would lead to civil war.

        and I say that fully aware we are not in the clearing yet. but one seemingly better day is something, and this one didn't primarily involve a phony ass handing over of sovereignity, with the "Iraq is sovereign/Let freedom reign" self-serving love notes being passed.

        Rome wasn't burnt in a day.

        by Miss Devore on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 06:12:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  And don't forget (none / 0)

      Sticking to this election schedule was not just supported by the Bush administration. It was also supported by Howard Dean.


      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." - Salvor Hardin

      by Zackpunk on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:31:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't know what kos thinks (none / 0)

      but I'm not one to equate anyone to Khomeini. But the issue is what happens in Iraq - who provides security? Right now the U.S. is protecting the Shia, IMO.

      Everybody dies alone.

      by Armando on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:49:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Gosh Armando (none / 0)

        Are you going all mellow? That mis-characterisation of your and Kos's position deserved something stronger!

        Contribute your ideas to ePLURIBUS MEDIA

        by Welshman on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 07:44:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I know (none / 0)

        Armando, I specifically entioned that it was Jerome at myDD who equated Sistani to Khommenei. Thats not an unsubstantiated fear, but I have been following Sistani at Shi'a Pundit and UNMEDIA for about two years and that's just not the reading I can see supported by facts. Your post and Kos were more about whether these elections were a good thing (TM) or not, and I think its reasonable to assume we disagree on that (though I disagree with Kos mroe stringly than I did with your post). I apologize if I was not clear in my post.

        O8 - I want my country back!

        by azizhp on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 05:47:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Who knew (none / 0)

    The interest in the elections only emphasizes all the sneaky, dishonest manuevering that the Bush administration went through in order to justify the war. Seing Iraqis vote was the only way to make the fake war semi-acceptable - who knew this would be the result of the war on terror?

    www.terriblefriends.com

    by terriblefriend on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:31:38 PM PDT

  •  Don't confuse... (4.00 / 3)

    ....Elections with Democracy.

    .................................................................. Can we finally say: Bush Out .

    by Kenyan on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:38:31 PM PDT

  •  I agree...and disagree...and agree! (none / 0)

    I definitely think this was better than I expected (now, think about that statement for a bit, and it may be construed as "damning through faint praise"), and the lack of violence on the scale of what Iraq has been going through is heartening.  Yes, a great number of people did not vote, and the Sunni disenfranchisement is going to haunt us (they've thrown their lot with the insurgents, not us).  But, while I mourn the loss of the Iraqis who died, I rejoice at the fact that far less died than could have.

    Does this mean democracy?  No.  And I still won't call this a success until after the votes are counted (and we know who won).  But I must express my admiration for the people who, in spite of the danger, went and dabbed their finger in that ink and pulled the lever.

    (By the way, I wish people would stop labelling Sistani a theocrat.  His coalition includes parties from all over the Shi'ite Arab political spectrum, secular and religious, and his main interest is unity and averting violence.  And his message for years has been against rule by the cleric.  Allawi, on the other hand, is a flat-out murderer.)

    by teenagedallasdeaniac on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:39:55 PM PDT

  •  Excellent diary... (3.00 / 3)

    I was thinking about writing something along these lines but now I don't have to - thanks! :)  Seriously, though, what I was going to ask was the following:  if it turns out in the end that democracy takes hold in Iraq, that the Iraqi people gain their freedom after 25 years of Saddam Hussein's torture chambers, and that the country holds together in a federation of free peoples, will the war have been worth it?  

    Personally, I have mixed feelings about the whole Iraq undertaking, because while I definitely think that a successful democracy in the heart of the Arab world could be a great thing, and while I also think that Saddam Hussein was a homicidal maniac, I am horrified at the loss of life (American AND Iraqi) and treasure that this war has cost.  

    So here's another thought experiment:  what if the Iraq war had been planned and executed competently from the git go, with adequate international support (i.e., it passed Kerry's "global test").  What if there had been an exit strategy, and the democratic experiment had been largely successful?  THEN would it have been worth it?  Or would you STILL be against it?  If so, would you EVER be for US intervention to get rid of a heinous regime or for other humanitarian purposes (i.e., Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan)?

    On second thought, maybe I will turn this into a diary at some point...

    Thank you for visiting Raising Kaine, the voice of Progressive Virginia.

    by lowkell on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:47:54 PM PDT

  •  For what its worth (4.00 / 2)

    Finally got a chat line connection with Iraqi friend today and she said "F the elections, does the world think that these elections are some magic potion,"
    She is sick and tired of  having little power and water and being stuck in her home this last week, and all the day to day terrors of her life.
    She finally asked me not to talk about the election at all.
    I said were there explosions near you today, and she said "there are always explosions, life is just like that.  We worry about the water, lately just a trickle for days, when it comes at all."
    A hot shower is just a dream and dirty dishes a way of life.
      Electricity is 4 hours a day, and then it is broken up.
    She is educated and employed but yet she has little faith in things ever improving there.
    I am just throwing this in here cause everyone always asks what do the iraqi's think, so this is what one Iraqi thinks.

    http://peopleforchange.blogspot.com/

    by diane101 on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:53:16 PM PDT

  •  This isn't the first "democracy" in Iraq (none / 0)

    I'm not sure if they ever had a real open democracy (anyone know?) but they had a Republic before and it was overthrown by Saddam.  So, really, is this some great new day for Iraq?

    It remains to be seen.  

    Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

    by Asak on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 07:08:18 PM PDT

  •  There is something very wrong with this diary (none / 0)

    Throughout many of the comments there appears to be a premise that, if you do not celebrate today in terms described by the White House, you are unwilling to accept any steps towards democracy as it will justify their policies.

    Well, we were forewarned that this weekend would see the elections being the subject of major spin. So it is proving.

    I want to see a real step towards self-governance for the Iraqis that involves a sustainable democracy that does not require military and policy enforcement. It is far too early for any serious commentator to yet pronounce on this, as both right and left wing writers agree.

    I have difficulty with a diary that requires me to abandon common sense and to disregard reality simply to avoid being accused by fellow liberals of wanting to demonstrate the failure of the policies of this administration. This is intellectually dishonest. Sorry, folks.

    Contribute your ideas to ePLURIBUS MEDIA

    by Welshman on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 07:17:56 PM PDT

  •  Sorry my fair Sheep (none / 0)

    But Bush is never right.

    Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

    by hypnyx on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 07:22:28 PM PDT

Permalink | 61 comments