Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24302

...of shut the fuck up, you whining fucking maggots.

quote:

---

Naysayers tight-lipped since success of Iraq vote


By James G. Lakely
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Skeptics of President Bush's attempt to bring democracy to Iraq have been largely silent since Iraqis enthusiastically turned out for Sunday's elections.
Billionaire Bush-basher George Soros and left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore were among critics of the administration's Iraq policy who had no comment after millions of Iraqis went to the polls in their nation's first free elections in decades.
The Carter Center determined that the security situation in Iraq was going to be too dangerous to send election monitors, so the Atlanta-based human rights organization founded by former President Jimmy Carter posted its personnel in neighboring Jordan.
Despite widespread predictions of spectacular terrorist attacks on election day in Iraq, fewer than 50 were killed, and the 60 percent turnout for the elections was much higher than many predicted.
Asked whether the Carter Center had a comment on the election, spokeswoman Kay Torrance said: "We wouldn't have any 'yea' or 'nay' statement on Iraq."
Mr. Carter told NBC's "Today" show in September that he was confident the elections would not take place. "I personally do not believe they're going to be ready for the election in January ... because there's no security there," he said.
Mr. Soros, the Open Society Institute founder who contributed millions of dollars to groups seeking to prevent Mr. Bush's re-election, had denounced as a "sham" the administration's plans for a democratic Iraq.
"To claim that we are invading Iraq for the sake of establishing democracy is a sham, and the rest of the world sees it as such," Mr. Soros said in a Washington speech in March 2003, adding that "the trouble goes much deeper."
"It is not merely that the Bush administration's policies may be wrong, it is that they are wrong," Mr. Soros said in the speech. "Because we are unquestionably the most powerful, [the Bush administration claims] we have earned the right to impose our will on the rest of the world."
Mr. Soros' Web site (www.georgesoros.com) has no reference to the Iraqi elections. Its latest comments are in a Jan. 26 op-ed article on what Mr. Soros calls Mr. Bush's "ambitious" second inaugural address.
"Mr. Soros has not released any statements about the elections in Iraq," said Soros spokesman Michael Vachon. "He has been traveling since Sunday on various foundation projects and hasn't had occasion to comment."
Mr. Vachon said Mr. Soros' "position regarding the Bush administration's policies in Iraq and his criticism thereof have been consistent."
In his Jan. 26 article, published in more than 20 newspapers, including the Toronto Globe and Mail, Mr. Soros said he agrees with Mr. Bush's goal to spread democracy around the world, "and [I] have devoted the past 15 years and several billion dollars of my fortune to attaining it," but accused the president of "Orwellian doublespeak."
"Mr. Bush is right to assert that repressive regimes can no longer hide behind a cloak of sovereignty," wrote Mr. Soros, 74, who made his fortune as an international currency trader. "But intervention in other states' internal affairs must be legitimate."
There has been no comment since the Iraq elections from Mr. Moore, the Academy Award-winning filmmaker who characterized the Iraqi insurgents as "Minutemen," and predicted "they will win."
The last posting from Mr. Moore on his Web site (www.michaelmoore.com) is dated Jan. 10 and concerns "Fahrenheit 9/11" being named best dramatic movie in the People's Choice Awards. An e-mail to Mr. Moore requesting comment was not returned.
On the day before the elections, Mr. Moore featured a link to a column in the New York Times with the headline, "A Sinking Sensation of Parallels between Iraq and Vietnam." On the day after the elections, Mr. Moore linked to a story in the left-wing Nation magazine titled "Occupation Thwarts Democracy."
Moorewatch.com, a site dedicated to countering the filmmaker's political statements, knocked Mr. Moore for "failing to acknowledge [the Iraqi people's] achievement."
"I find it telling that the man who has lamented such great concern for the kite-flying, tea-sipping Iraqi people featured in 'Fahrenheit 9/11' can't be bothered to string together a few words of admiration for those same people who braved the threat of death to cast their votes this past weekend," the anti-Moore Web site said. "It seems Moore only admires the Iraqi people when they validate his agenda of hating George Bush."
Some administration critics, however, saw the Iraqi elections as reason to revise their opinion of Mr. Bush.
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.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: is futile
Posts: 4983

I think it is because a lot of them jumped on the bandwagon that "degree of election process success = degree of validation of administration policy on Iraq"

dumbfuckery indeed.
I am thrilled that the first step went as well as it did. But we need to look a decade or more into the future before we are able to discern how democracy fares in Iraq.

None of which has a bearing on my perception of the legitemacy of said Iraq policy.

Cheers
-m

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 17889

people will ignore this and point to the numerous bases we're building and our largest embassy in the world being built there as well. I'm glad they voted, and I do think it is at least a partial vindication of the administration's stated objectives in the Middle East. That will be even more troubling to some.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 3063

eh. the administration is doing a fucking wonderful job of changing the issue to democracy in iraq. there's more to it than whether it works or not. how we get there is an issue all to itself. TT's plan for peace in the middle-east will work too, but it's not a good way to get there.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26383

There are zealots on both sides, of course. There are naturally just as many people who refuse to admit that anything can go right in Iraq as the people who refuse to admit that anything can go wrong. It strikes me that some, Washington Times, Sean Hannity, seem much more interested in the left than the people of Iraq even on a good day, and using free elections in Iraq as a political football to get sanctimonious doesn't speak well of their intentions, to me. When your first thought regarding the Iraqi elections were "HA! American LIBERALS!", kindly shut the fuck up you whiny maggots. I understand the compulsion, as there haven't been many opportunities in the last few years for the neocons to crow about the positive direction of Iraq (not that that's stopped them), but give it a rest.

I could of course plaster this thread with all the positive things that the left are saying about the elections in Iraq, but why bother. If you want to hunt down the people that have nothing good to say about it you'll surely find them. It's hard to get worked up about the people saying "See? They're not publically admitting that elections are good!" from the very people that refuse to publically admit, say, that torture is bad. "They can't even see when things go well!" says the people who have never given one iota of creedence to the thought that maybe the Iraqi war wasn't well planned or well executed. Grain of salt, and all that.

I tend to side more in mudded's camp, myself, but it's impossible to not recognize that the elections were a positive step. Although, let's keep it in perspective.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2003
Location: mediocre apartment
Posts: 2614

Am I the only one that thinks a successful election by itself isn't enough reason to go around sucking each other's dicks? What if the elected official ends up inciting more war, or we decide we don't like whatever constitution they draft or maybe insurgents decided not to attack polling places because they figure if someone wins, becomes the leader, and they kill that guy it would be 100 time more effective than blowing up some votors? Folks, this is just another step down a long ass road. I'm not saying that I am disappointed but I am saying that while this was apparently a success, let's focus on the next hurdle.

And I still don't think it's right that we force democracy on anyone. That's a little ethnocentric in my opinion.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26383

Shut up, maggot. Freedom won.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24302

Personally, I would be quite interested in seeing just one of these positive comments from the left (sans caveats), Paint. So far, the Brown piece is the closest thing that I have found so far.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Den
Posts: 10982

Sans caveats? Pour qui?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26383

Hillary Clinton:

quote:

---

"No matter what you think about the Iraq war, there is one thing we can all agree on for the next days - we have to salute the courage and bravery of those who are risking their lives to vote and those brave Iraqi and American soldiers fighting to protect their right to vote. They are facing terrorists who have declared war on democracy itself and made voting a life and death process. We hope this vote succeeds and pray for a safe election day."

---

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Still Orygun
Posts: 10243

When I lived in DC, the Washington Times was generally considered to be a right-wing joke. I wonder if it still is?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26383

Yes.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35561

The initial supposition, by opponents and supporters of the president, was that turnout would be high amongst Shia and Kurds, and terrible amongst the Sunni. So, everyone was right. Bush is calling the election a success, and he is probably jumping the gun again since the election is only the initial part of a much harder problem (not dissimilar to invading and then administering Iraq, and his reaction then), but even his opponents can hardly claim that it is a failure (modulo the expected low turnout from Sunnis and the boycott by Sunni parties).

Most of the war's opponents are saying little of substance on the election itself, because no one knows how it will turn out yet. The Bushies are proclaiming success. Who are most likely to be whores and idiots?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24302

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paint CHiPs
Who else do you want?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24302

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
Who are most likely to be whores and idiots?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35561

What Kerry said is the real concern (also amongst the current Iraqi government, and the administration). Politically, I think that Kerry is trying to point out something that might turn out to be a future problem, whilst not calling it a disaster (because there is no point in saying that, the next election is a long way away). Bush is proclaiming success because he isn't running again, so he doesn't have much to lose; if it turns out to be less than he hopes for or needs, that is going to be a bigger problem for him than his proclamation of success, given that he wants to do something in the next two years domestically, or at least not have his presidency dominated by bad news from Iraq. Neither Bush nor Kerry stand to lose much by saying this stuff, even though both of them are obviously politically motivated in what they are saying.

Clearly, the election itself isn't the key, but if the 'Iraqification' process shows early rewards (compared to the failure of the attempts to get the Vietnamese to take on more, in the Vietnam war), say, over the next 6 months, it will at least take some heat off Bush and allow some debate on his domestic policy, regardless of how Iraq actually turns out in the end.

Of course, then Bush has to go to war with his own party on immigration and social security privatisation.

As an aside, a serious attempt at social security privatisation will help Kerry, if he is thinking of running again. He'll need things to be tricky in Iraq not to be crucified with his ominous draft comments from the last election, though; at least some more 'back door draft' and maybe the need for more troops in Iraq than can easily be spared. Of course, if Iraq is still a Bad News shithole then, the public may be more forgiving anyhow.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26383

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trenchant_Troll
That's fine, thanks Paint. Hillary was gracious, Ted Kennedy is a fat drunken, woman-drowning, piece of shit with eyes who had to be stammering when he said that; and Kerry?

---

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24302

Everyone says there are more challenges ahead, Paint. The big difference is that the same old voices keep saying the next hurdle is going to trip us. When we clear that, it will be the next. That is the "maggotry" of it all; not being able to take a breath and consider that, despite the mucky work, it is possible to have a positive outlook (unless it threatens ones lust for power).

WWII was filled with cluster fucks, but in the end it all turned out for the best. I guess I just don't expect life to be as neatly packaged as some of you do. It is the outcome that matters and that is, and always has been, at least a quarter century away.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35561

Anyone who claims that the election was a significant victory is desperate for something to call a victory, I think. It is, hopefully, a stage upon which to play out a big victory.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: zanzibar
Posts: 10413

quote:

---

Originally posted by ignatz mouse
When I lived in DC, the Washington Times was generally considered to be a right-wing joke. I wonder if it still is?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: zanzibar
Posts: 10413

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
Anyone who claims that the election was a significant victory is desperate for something to call a victory, I think. It is, hopefully, a stage upon which to play out a big victory.

---

<