Naysayers tight-lipped since success of Iraq vote

[jmace]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050202-123527-1015r.htm

 

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown, who has consistently opposed Mr. Bush and the war in Iraq, wrote for yesterday's edition that "it's hard to swallow," but "what if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?"

The Chicago columnist wrote that he was struck by "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."

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

[forrest_m]

i don't see the logic in that. just because you make some improvement doesn't mean that you've made a *net* improvement. if you walk into a kitchen store and break an expensive bowl, does it make it all better if you then sweep up half of the broken glass?

 

i think it's WAY too early to tell what the meaning or effect of the election was. as for the lack of liberal reaction, one can hope for the best for the iraqi people while still feeling that the entire invasion was misconceived and, indeed, knowingly put forth under false premises. it would not really be ethical to hope that iraq goes (further) down the toilet just so that bushco end up with egg on their face. that puts many of us who disagree with the administration in the position of hoping that we're wrong while fearing that we are not.

[catbirdseat]

As the mathematician might say, the election was

"necessary, but not sufficient", or as Yogi might say, "It ain't over 'til the Fat Lady sings."

[tivoli_mike]

Bush was right? He found the WMDs? Oh man, I must have missed that.

[Winter]

or as Yogi might say, "It ain't over 'til the Fat Lady sings."

 

Uh yeah ... or it might be "It ain't over till its over."

 

I think trask came up with that fat lady comment when he was going through puberty.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

i don't see the logic in that. just because you make some improvement doesn't mean that you've made a *net* improvement.

 

Unfortunately the converse is not applied: every time you see a negative, doesn't mean the whole thing is a massive clusterfuck. It seems the opposition is fond of magnifying all problems, but conveniently avoids any and all evidence to the countrary.

 

The occupation of Iraq and its concomitant post-war transition to "democracy" is hardly an utter failure; neither is it an "astounding success".

[Jim]

Only cynics would not be impressed with the turnout and general lack of violence on voting day. Everyone wants our guys outta there asap. The big problem is the Sunnis, who did not come out to vote. When Iraqis can feel safe in their neighborhoods, when they have electricity in Baghdad for more than 3 hours a day, and when there is a FUNCTIONING government - then that will be improvement.

 

Never-the-less, the lies and the distortions that the Bushies used are not some how wiped clean because of one vote. I'm less than confident that this will all end anywhere near what had been planned.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Only cynics would not be impressed with the turnout and general lack of violence on voting day. Everyone wants our guys outta there asap. The big problem is the Sunnis, who did not come out to vote.

 

My question right now is how will the Iraqis react to the government that they just elected rather than to the fact that they just got to vote? AFAIK, the results of the election are still not in and will not be for several days more. How will the Iraqis feel when they see the results - the composition of the resulting government. More importantly, how well will this government do at instilling confidence in the common ground and unity of purpose of their government for all Iraqis rather than inflame divisive ethnic and religious infighting.

[Jim]

That is THE question. There has not been success in unity in that region and the western nations drawing lines in the sand to make nations out of a mix of tribal, ethnic, and religious fractions has deep-seated problems. Alas, they will continue to surface.

[tomtom]

Only cynics would not be impressed with the turnout and general lack of violence on voting day.

 

Most of his Democratic critics this week were reduced to offering only grudging praise for the successful Iraqi elections. Yet John Kerry who had predicted nothing but failure in Iraq under Mr. Bush, remained as clinically defeatist as ever. When asked by Tim Russert on Sunday's "Meet the Press" if Iraq was now less of a terrorist threat than two years ago, Mr. Kerry said: "No, it's more. And, in fact, I believe the world is less safe than it was 2½ years ago." Tell that to the men and women who ventured out on the streets of Iraq to cast their vote and proudly showed their ink-stained fingers as badges of courage.

 

Praise for the Iraqi elections was nearly universal around the world, with even France and Germany.

[Ireneo_Funes]

It's probably a little early to be calling it a success. We thought the 1967 elections in South Vietnam were a success too.

 

Don't expect this to be even the beginning of the end of our involvement in this fucked-up region.

[cj001f]

It's probably a little early to be calling it a success. We thought the 1967 elections in South Vietnam were a success too.

As was pointed out on the new hour last night 42 of the 46 countries in Africa have held elections in the past 20 years. An election does not a democracy make. Of course that pinko liberal program dared to have Arab reaction to the election instead of partisan gringo pundits.

[catbirdseat]

In today's news we see that lists dominated by Shiite Cleric influenced parties will likely have a majority (up to 70%) in the National Assembly. The Sunnis are now shut completely out of power and the stage is set for civil war.

[glacier]

It's probably a little early to be calling it a success. We thought the 1967 elections in South Vietnam were a success too.

 

 

>From this week's Harper's Review:

 

>>From September 3, 1967:

>

>U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote

>Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

>

>by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times

>

> WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and

>heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential

>election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

>

> According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million

>registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked

>reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

>

> ....A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in

>President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional

>processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a

>constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which

>President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky

>and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.

>

> The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon

>Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since

>November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a

>military junta.

[minx]

perhaps, a more positive way to look at this from a naysayer point of view would be this: at least something good can come out of this. a silver lining in a dark cloud.

no matter how the adminstration wants to spin it, we went in looking WMD and didn't find them. then it became about freeing the Iraqi people--there's lots of other countries whose people need to be "freed" so why iraq? and of course it was NEVER about oil, money, or power now was it. i remain cynical about the underlying reasons, the true value in our choice to be there but choose to be optimistic that something good will come from this.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

perhaps, a more positive way to look at this from a naysayer point of view would be this: at least something good can come out of this. a silver lining in a dark cloud.

no matter how the adminstration wants to spin it, we went in looking WMD and didn't find them. then it became about freeing the Iraqi people--there's lots of other countries whose people need to be "freed" so why iraq? and of course it was NEVER about oil, money, or power now was it. i remain cynical about the underlying reasons, the true value in our choice to be there but choose to be optimistic that something good will come from this.

 

There is something else. The American people will think twice about supporting another invasion based on the premise of some "imminent threat". People are supporting the efforts in Iraq because it is the right thing to do at this point, but everyone knows that WMD was the reason we went in, even if they will not admit it. People don't like to admit their mistakes or bad judgement. I will - I supported the war based on the evidence of WMDs. There wasn't any. The next time around I will be harder to convince. Of course, if there *is* an imminent threat, that could hurt us (boy cried wolf), but I think it is more likely that exagerrated threats will arise, and we will not buy into them so quickly. I am more of an optimist.

[Thinker]

This Naysayer isn't so tight-lipped....

 

link

 

Robert Fisk: No One Believes the Insurgency Will End

 

my favorite quote from the article:

"You cannot give us 'democracy' just like this," he said. "That is one of your Western, foreign dreams. Before, we had Saddam and he was a cruel man and he treated us cruelly. But what will happen after this election is that you will give us lots of little Saddams."

[KaskadskyjKozak]

my favorite quote from the article:

"You cannot give us 'democracy' just like this," he said. "That is one of your Western, foreign dreams. Before, we had Saddam and he was a cruel man and he treated us cruelly. But what will happen after this election is that you will give us lots of little Saddams."

 

And yet, it has worked before. Japan had no democratic traditions prior to 1945. Did occupation and forced democratization lead to lots of "little Tojos"? Did Japan come to hate the US?

[Dave_Schuldt]

Remember it's only the first step. It still could devolve into full on civil war at the worst or continue as is keeping out troops over there forever. I heard there was an election during the Vietnam war... Didn't do much good...

[minx]

it is only a first step but hopefully it is a first step in a good direction.

[glassgowkiss]

 

The occupation of Iraq and its concomitant post-war transition to "democracy" is hardly an utter failure; neither is it an "astounding success".

it's heading for a civil war Yugoslavia style.