Pray for A Successful Vote In Iraq

[Nbadan]

January 28, 2005
BY ANDREW GREELEY

Those of us who bitterly oppose the war in Iraq must hope and pray that the Iraq election is a success and that a strong and credible government will emerge from it. Even if we believe that the president's goal of establishing democracy in Iraq is madcap fantasy, we must still hope and pray that it can be done. Only if there is a semblance of an effective government will American troops begin to withdraw. The president must be able to spin the illusion of victory before he can announce the end of American occupation, perhaps at the request of a Shiite dominated government. If the election is a failure, the killing will continue indefinitely.


A democratic Iraq is the last remaining justification for war, now that the administration has been deprived of weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi complicity in the World Trade Center attack. Democracy in Iraq would not justify the war but it would at least mean that all the deaths were not completely in vain. The administration could claim that a victory in its campaign to bring "freedom" to every corner of the globe -- even to places like Belarus and Myanmar.

I have no doubt that she believed what she said, just as the president believes that he can dismiss the weapons fiasco by blaming the intelligence services of the world. Neither is deliberately lying. Both are firmly convinced that their own spin is the truth. The CIA, Americans must understand, failed to provide adequate intelligence and thus the president was not to blame for the error. The president, you see, does not make mistakes. Democracy in Iraq alone justifies the war. It is unthinkable that the CIA told the president what he wanted to hear.

The war will still be unjust, sinful, criminal. The people who re-elected President Bush will still have the blood of thousands of Iraqi on their hands. Spin cannot change those realities. Nevertheless, if spin can create clothes for the naked emperor so he looks victorious, Americans will no longer die in Iraq.

Sun Times

[whottt]

Why do libs keep acting like the CIA, Bush and America were the only ones that were saying Saddam was a serious threat with WMD?

They are either..stupid, or deliberately scapegoating the President for political gain..during a time when the country should be united.

The simple fact is that everyone was saying the same thing about Saddam...including Kofi Anan, Jaques Chirac, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, the British Intelligence, the Italian intelligence...everyone was saying the same thing, until we went into Iraq...

And since then Bush has been portrayed to be the second coming of Hitler...his only crime is acting when others preferred rhetoric. Iraq, the mideast, America, and the entire world will be better off for the changes taking place in Iraq.

Bush didn't lie or decieve any more than Bill Clinton or Kofi Anan when they said the same thing...he just had more balls.


So will you guys please stop acting like Bush was the only one saying this about Saddam and Iraq...the American people aren't stupid, they watched the News prior to the Iraq war, they remember Clinton saying the same things...

It's really damaging the Democratic Party, and the liberal cause, and making it look like the left prefers to politicize the deaths of US soldiers and Iraqis for it's own political gain. Either that, or they are just plain ignorant of recent history.

This type of attack on Bush makes the left look stupid or sick, take your pick. But it's time to stop doing it.

[NeoConIV]

If the elections are moderately successful, and they should be, it's a big victory for American resolve. The Saudi's can no longer believe Americans don't mean what they say in terms of foreign policy. The days of cutting and running are over. This will give us fantasic leverage against the the neighboring countries that are a little too cozy with Islamo fascism. Success in Iraq will make things managable in terms of terrorism, getting the nuke situation more secure, close off 'charity' funding etc. Not having a presence in Iraq lets the Islamo fascism fester, while still having to figure out the real threat to America in China.

GO IRAQ!!

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I don't think success in Iraq will quell terrorism.

The only thing bullies understand is getting bullied back. We still have a long way to go to be anywhere near openimg up a Reconquistaesque can of whoop ass on the spread of militant Islam.

[NameDropper]

From what I've seen only Bush took us to war. Why can't Bush lovers see that?
Ignorance is no excuse.

[whottt]

The Saudi's can no longer believe Americans don't mean what they say in terms of foreign policy.

And the Iranians, Syrians, Jordanians and Lebaneese as well.

Saudi is a little bit different...Inspite of Saudi being the most Islamic country in the Mid-East, they are also the country that has been the least hostile to their neighbors and even Israel.

The Saudi Royal family is more unpopular with terrorists than America is...the Islamic monster they created to combat Israel and claim divine right to permanent rule is more of a threat to them than it is to anyone. For that reason I think Saudis are quietly supportive of our goal. Actually, I think the leaders of Egypt and Jordan are as well...the Jordanian's got sick of the PLO decades ago.

But anyway...no doubt the King of Syria has taken note that when we get attacked by terrorists we tend to topple weak governments...I think he got that message. Mubarek would probably like to see Islamofascism calm down...he's probably tired of having 40 different factions determined to assasinate him.

The only true pain the in ass over there is Iran but they are more isolated than people realize...the Saudis, Syrians and Egyptians have no desire to see Shia Iran become the most powerful country in that region(and they weren't crazy about a Shia nation coming to power in Iraq either).

As Rumsfield said at the beginning...this war on terror is going to be very fluid with many changing alliances...

The days of cutting and running are over. This will give us fantasic leverage against the the neighboring countries that are a little too cozy with Islamo fascism. Success in Iraq will make things managable in terms of terrorism, getting the nuke situation more secure, close off 'charity' funding etc. Not having a presence in Iraq lets the Islamo fascism fester, while still having to figure out the real threat to America in China.

GO IRAQ!!

I've never bought into the fact that China is a serious threat to our way of life...their threat is economic more than anything else...the only military hostility I see on their part is towards Taiwan...and again, that's because it is an economic asset that they have a semi legitimate claim upon.

China will never be a military threat on a global scale, they still lack the financial and natural resources to ever match the USA's military might, on top of that any expansive tendencies on their part would unite the Worlds leading military powers against them...

[whottt]

From what I've seen only Bush took us to war. Why can't Bush lovers see that?
Ignorance is no excuse.

Only Bush took us to war...but saying he and the CIA told lies to justify taking us to war is a badlfaced lie,...he didn't. He didn't say anything that every major world leader hadn't said recently at some point.


So stop insulting my intelligence with ing lies.

You want to say it was a mistake, in your opinion, to go into Iraq, then by all means do so...but just stop acting like Bush was telling lies to justify the war...Disagree with the act...but stop trying to character assasinate.

If you are truly right you don't need to make up and lie. The only reason you guy think Bush needed to do that..is because your selves are guilty of it. You fool no one but the stupid with the Bush lied rhetoric.

Accusing Bush of lying...it's what you'd do...The only lies I see are coming from the left. Gee, I wonder why you guys are losing power in this country.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

You can question whether it should have been Iraq first, or Syria, but for me a lot of Bush haters don't seem to be able to see the fact that radical Islam is the the most imminent threat in the world today and for the foreseeable future, and is the biggest threat to the future of the modern globalized world, and must be dealt with.

Some of you guys it sounds like (especially idiots like Dan) won't accept Islam as a threat until they blow up a couple of nukes on our soil, and then it'll be too late. You'll have millions of dead Americans, uninhabitable (for several hundred if not thousand years) lands, kiss the world economy goodbye, and you could probably kiss our Cons ution and some of our freedoms goodbye (in particular mosques, and all Arabs would be rounded up and deported).

To me a lot of liberals seem incapable of seeing the big picture, or the dangers of waiting until AQ brings the fight to us to act.

And spare me any "What about NK, China?" . China is starting to get a whiff of the globalized economy, and it's like crack to them - they can't get enough. They won't do anything to screw it up, and a lot of the rhetoric is just political sabre rattling.

Same for North Korea. Kim Jong Il would never do anything to jeopardize his legacy. The moment he screws up WRT us or South Korea, his country, his people, and his legacy ceast to exist.

I think a lot of the problem over what Bush is doing comes from the fact a lot of people here in America don't really get what we're up against here with radical Islam. They need to look back to the Moors and Spain back in the day to see what's on the horizon for the modernized Western world.

If we don't deal with it now the problem of radical Islam will continue to spread, particularly in the EU, and it will cost millions of lives in a modern Reconquista to reverse the situation (if we don't start acting to prevent it now).

I've very rarely met a liberal who recognizes the problem, or is capable of seeing enough of the big picture, with an eye on the past, to realize the problem for what it is.

[whottt]

And spare me any "What about NK, China?" . China is starting to get a whiff of the globalized economy, and it's like crack to them - they can't get enough. They won't do anything to screw it up, and a lot of the rhetoric is just political sabre rattling.

This is my take on China also...Economic Prosperity is going to be Communist China's downfall...that, and as they put on a pretend face to show what a humanitarian and cultural power they are....they will damage their own communist ideals in the process. China will either become a good communist country, or they will have Democratic reform...In some ways I actually think China would be more of a threat to America's economic power if they were Democratic, so I don't think we need to be in too much of a hurry to with China.

[NeoConIV]

As regards to China, I need overwhelming proof before I concede they are altruistic and harmless, or even trending to a more democratic government. Human rights remain abyssmal with no signs of improvement. Think tanks have often forcasted that the threat 20 years from now will no longer be Islamo Fascism, but simply China. Economically and militarily. Sure, it would be fantastic to see the Chinese government make deep reforms. But at the pace they are going, their massive military strength after another 15-20 years of accelerated economic growth is what they are going to be whiffing, and that intoxicates the schizo paranoid Chinese heads of government.

One thing I certainly don't see is China invading the US outright. This will not happen for reasons already outlined, the world won't tolerate it. But we have to keep in mind that in the Chinese government, WE are their enemy #1. Period. It's terribly naive to think that the emerging free market system is giving heads of Chinese government warm fuzzies, giving them pacifist urges, and put into motion the absolution of that silly communist style of government that keeps them in power.
It's crucial to understand that we are considered the enemy, and that China, is very willing, just like Al Qaeda to bide their time. They are absolutely on a timeline. And they are patient. They are waiting for a moment of opportunity. Again this is years down the road. If the US is rendered vulnerable under whatever cir stance, I have no doubt China will try and seize the opportunity.

Lots of variables, I understand. May never happen. Let's just say I'm very pessimistic about it all. Call me paranoid, that's fine, but I see no signs of change in China.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Think tanks have often forcasted that the threat 20 years from now will no longer be Islamo Fascism, but simply China.

Funny, most of the good guys I know that do this sort of thing (Stratfor, for example), think Islamo-Fascism is the biggest threat to the future of the globalized world.

And also note the economic progress that China is making. I'd venture that the think tanks you're reading are stuck in the Cold War rut (probably some ex-military types thinking "red" countries are still our most imminent threat).

Lost in all the Iraq/tsunami crap the last couple of weeks has been quiet talk (seeings it's positive, it doesn't get reported) that Taiwan and China are talking about settling their differences.

Sorry, China may be communist, but it's realized it's future is not talking brinkmanship with the US of A, but joining in the world economy. You need to find a new think tank to follow.

[exstatic]

I don't think success in Iraq will quell terrorism.

Agreed.

You can question whether it should have been Iraq first, or Syria, but for me a lot of Bush haters don't seem to be able to see the fact that radical Islam is the the most imminent threat in the world today and for the foreseeable future, and is the biggest threat to the future of the modern globalized world, and must be dealt with.

Iraq under Saddam and Syria have little to do with any terrorism support outside of Israel and the Palestinian areas. In fact, both regimes have brutally suppressed Islamic fundamentalists over the course of the last decade or so. You might want to check out the link below, AHF, and find out a few things about Syria. Assad is an asshole and a dictator, but you know what? Ten percent of Syria's population is Christian, and free to practice their religion. There is NO established state religion.
Syria article

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Syria is an Islamic fundamentalist regime in that they don't believe Israel has the right to exist. So was Saddam (the Ba'athists killed or tortured anyone who wasn't down with Shi'ia teachings).

As for either one of them and terrorism, the minute they got a nuke to hold over the region, you would have seen terrorism on a whole different level.

, Saddam made no bones about the fact that once he got nukes he wasn't going to take over the whole Middle East at nuclear gunpoint. Dude fashioned himself as some kind of modern Babylonian prince.

I could care less about Syria's state religion. They'd love nothing further than to wipe Israel off the face of the planet, and the moment they had the military might to do so they'd be doing the same thing Saddam did back in '91 (land grab).

[exstatic]

Syria is an Islamic fundamentalist regime in that they don't believe Israel has the right to exist.

Not the same thing at all. Did you even read the article? The Ba'athist party line has been Pan Arab, secularism. They hate Israel only slightly more than they hate the Sunni majority in Syria, who by the way, would persecute and drive out the 1.4 million Christians in about 5 minutes if elections were ever held there. Christianity is practiced nowhere more freely in the Middle East than in Syria.

[Leo_ARG]

Oh are they voting in Iraq?
Hope they choose the right one.
(sarcasm)

[NeoConIV]

Aggie, just got through reading George Friedman's, America's secret war. It was an amazingly refreshing and stark look at the war on terror. He provided insight on the middle eastern landscape that you won't find in MSM or 'mainstream' conservative channels. I was blown away. But since I don't have a subscription to Stratfor to hear his prognostications, I don't know what Friedman expects of China in the next 20 years. I'm not saying Chinese aggression against the US is an absolute, but I can't just write off China because they're dabbling with free market economy...especially when we are entering an age of anonymous asymmetric warfare. I think Chinese military leaders are absolutely smitten with Americans thinking the Chinese are 'smelling the coffee'.

Until China loses it's deathgrip on it's citizens, until China relaxes with Taiwan, I cannot be optimistic. What can I say. Militant athieistic communism. Me? Worry?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I guess the bottom line is, if the ever hits the fan with China, they know that thirty minutes later their entire country is glowing in the dark.

[whottt]

Oh are they voting in Iraq?
Hope they choose the right one.
(sarcasm)

^^^^^This is what the left has come to be symbolic of to me, and why I am slowly and inexorably disassociating myself from it...

Just plain ole cynicism. Nothing more...that's essentially all the left is now..or at least that's what is most visible about their stance.

[Yonivore]

Oh are they voting in Iraq?
Hope they choose the right one.
(sarcasm)

Well, at least there's more than one name on the ballot for the first time in 30 years.

[Yonivore]

Osama bin Laden and Zarqawi both know that free-election democracy is the death knell of terrorism. They also know that the potential impact of free Iraqi elections on the rest of the region -- including Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia -- is incalculable. The Iraqi elections will reverberate throughout the entire Muslim world, including Indonesia, Malaysia, and the whole South Asian tsunami zone.

Sophisticated policy observers know full well that rather than plotting a worldwide military invasion, Bush is constructing a statement of principles; that he is setting new standards and diplomatic benchmarks that will govern our foreign policy for decades to come.

Polling and reports on the ground in Iraq indicate there will be a blowout turnout for Sunday’s election. The Iraqi election results for a new government and cons ution-writing parliament will produce a pluralistic coalition that will end fears of a mullah-based theocracy or any return of Saddamite Baathism.

Bush’s inaugural vision will be proven right. His speech will be vindicated, and along with it will come a foreign-policy triumph of moral idealism, human rights, and freedom over the cynical “realist” view that after all we have seen in the past 25 years we can still do business with dictators and despots in the name of stability.

I know there are those of you in this country who have either lost faith in our own electoral process, have taken it for granted, or have successfully corrupted it and can't see the magnitude of what's taking place in Iraq today.

That's fine, keep whining from the sidelines as America, once again, leads the way to a more peaceful world. President Bush is not content to be the best President since Reagan; he wants to be the greatest President since Lincoln. I still think he has a shot. The next few months will tell a great deal.

[Duff McCartney]

You'll have millions of dead Americans, uninhabitable (for several hundred if not thousand years) lands, kiss the world economy goodbye, and you could probably kiss our Cons ution and some of our freedoms goodbye (in particular mosques, and all Arabs would be rounded up and deported).

Amazing..kill a few Americans and Radical Islam wins....the end of the US and the end of the cons ution. For someone who is so pro-US as you are, you seem to think that dead Americans will mean the end of it all. Too many people already died to keep the Cons ution going. A few more won't all of a sudden stop it.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Yoni,

You are way overestimating the Muslim people. 1400 years of fighting isn't going to stop just because we got them to vote.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Duff,

kill a few Americans and Radical Islam wins....the end of the US and the end of the cons ution. For someone who is so pro-US as you are, you seem to think that dead Americans will mean the end of it all.

Did you read anything I wrote, or have been? The next attack on US soil will be multiple nukes.

Be a little creative in your thinking Osama sure is. Put bombs in DC (600K) , Ft. Meade, NYC (8 million), LA (4 million), Valdez (AK), Seattle (1 mil), and Houston (2 million).

A decent yield nuke (like a suitcase bomb) and you just killed 20 million people, between the blast and the fallout. You've also just wiped out the seat of government (and probably a good chunk of its leadership), the US intelligence seat (FBI, NSA, DIA, CIA), the heart of the US economy (Wall Street), the major conduits for US oil supply (Valdez and Houston), and four of the five largest ports in the country, and rendered those lands/ports useless for the next couple hundred years.

The stock market, both ours and the world's, would crash. I'm not talking a thousand point loss, I'm talking to zero. And you can bet your ass the Cons ution would be shredded.

You'd have hate crimes against every Arab or Arab looking person, mosques would be burned to the ground. Martial law would be declared throughout the entire country, and if you thought the FBI was overboard now on their stateside law enforcement/search and seizures, just wait.

On top of it all, you'd have the fallout from the radioactivity killing millions more all across the country, depending on which way the wind was blowing.

And it will probably all be topped off with Osama coming out and saying that he's got nukes planted in x number of other US cities, and unless we surrender to him, he'll start blowing them.

Whether or not he's bull ting the resulting panic of people trying to leave would kill thousands more.

So it's a little bit more than a "few dead Americans", and it's not just about the number of dead, it's about the strategic bombing of certain key military, governmental, and economic locations in conjunction with the double digit percentage loss of our population that'd screw us.

The ty thing is idiots like you and Dan won't get it until we've got multiple mushroom clouds rising over American cities, and then it will be too late.

Yeah, it's not a pretty picture, but you've gotta face the reality of what Osama has planned for us. He won't stop until the West collapses and one world, one nation, one religion, is covering this planet. He's already gotten religious permission to use WMD on us, and you can bet your ass he won't stop until he succeeds or dies trying.

I for one am glad that Bush and Co. realize that the stakes aren't just about democracy or voting, it's about the future of the free world.

Go read some of Osama's writings, and maybe your stupid liberal ass would realize he's playing for keeps and he's not going to play nice.

[Duff McCartney]

I think you give somebody who dwells in caves a little too much credit as to his ability to carry out an attack that large.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Well that's what got us into trouble 9/11.

Look, AQ has ties to the Russian mafia. Russia has nukes they don't know where they are. AQ has ties to Pakistan's nuclear program. I'm sure if they asked nicely NK would also be happy to volunteer some.

It's not an attack that large, he's only got to track down 7 (in my scenario) nukes, and he's got all the time in the world to pull it off. Look at 9/11. That was 8 years after the first WTC bombing.

His network will take its time until it's all set up.

And I just threw out my worst case scenario. Even 1-2 nukes (DC and NYC are at the top of the list) would send us in a downward spiral.

And at any rate, any nuclear event on US soil would result in a little more than " a few dead Americans."