1/22/2005
 
As Bush Is Inaugurated, The Nation Collapses
Misleading Headline? Absolutely NOT; however, it is "fake but accurate" (sorry, couldn't resist) the nation I'm talking about is not the USA but "The Nation." The lefty magazine. Now, I read The Nation Online from time to time, just to figure out what the left is saying, but this piece here has me absolutely flummoxed.

Opening Sentence:
"In the run-up to the January 30 election in Iraq, the prospects for a fair and credible outcome have steadily diminished."

Says who, the NYTimes whom they quote? The Nation? The majority of Iraqi bloggers don't think so. Tough, yes, for sure! Dangerous, you bet! Fair, why not? Everyone who gets registered gets to vote, no one is being "excluded" from voting,unless they choose not to vote. How specifically is it UNFAIR? Credible? You mean Credible like Castro's elections? Like Saddam's 99.99 percent of the vote? Credible like our own elections where almost half of the electorate is too lazy to show up to vote, let alone figure out what the issues are. Where Democrats and Republicans would rather carp at each other, call each other really vile names but NOT debate real issues with real plans and real believablity? That kind of credible?

They go on:

"The locations for the 5,776 polling places have not been announced, lest they become targets for attacks."


Seems like a good idea to me, publicize at the last minute, make sure everyone has an opportunity but cut down (not eliminate) the risk of allowing terrorists to plant bombs.

More:

"As conditions deteriorated, it became harder for the Bush Administration to spin the upcoming poll to choose an Iraq National Assembly as a major step toward restoring security. Gen. George Casey, commander of coalition forces in Iraq, predicted more violence on election day and "for some time" thereafter, while a new US intelligence estimate foresees the elections being followed by more violence and possible civil war."

Let me understand this. If the Iraqis elect a National Assembly that won't be a major step towards security because there might be civil war? MIGHT BE. Look at what the Islamo-Fascists are doing; they are attacking their own army, their own police forces, assasinating their own leaders, killing their fellow citizens in an attempt to overthrow the current Government. It IS a civil war. The dispossessed Sunni's want their power back and they are trying to disrupt the elections because they know damn well that if all Iraq votes in a solid government, the Sunni power bloc is out on their keister. The ONLY thing that is going to increase security in Iraq is a STRONG, ABLE, SOLID Central Government that has the concerns of all it's citizens (and yes, that means the Sunni's) besides that, the majority of Sunni's that oppose the election were Baathists but the majority of Sunni's are not Baathists and want a free and stable Iraq. There are a number of Sunni Moslems that do, namely Omar and Mohammad of Iraq The Model, their brother Ali of Free Iraqi. Other Iraqi blogs as noted on my blogroll also support the elections by a solid majority.

More:

"Iraq's largest mainstream Sunni Muslim party has already pulled out of the elections, saying that the violence plaguing areas north and west of Baghdad makes a free and fair vote impossible. The Kurds and the Shiites will make up the majority of voters, skewing the results and leaving the Sunni Arabs underrepresented in the new National Assembly, which will choose a temporary government and draft a constitution."

A mainstream party pulls out. Is that the same as all of the Sunni's pulling out? Don't the Sunni's have the opportunity to vote just like everyone else? They "say" they are pulling out because of the possibility of violence.. hmmm, is it the Kurds or the Shiia causing the violence? Nope, mostly the Sunni's. So, why doesn't the "largest mainstream Sunni Muslim party" tell the damn terroristic Islamo-Fascists to KNOCK IT OFF? "Leaves the Sunni's underrepresented in the new National Assembly" Gosh! Did the Sunni MINORITY give a tinker's damn when they held power and lorded it over the MAJORITY Shiia? Heck, did they even have a National Assembly?

Wait, there's more:

"An increasing number of Americans recognize the worsening situation. In a recent Gallup poll, nearly half of those responding called for either US troop reductions or complete withdrawal."

Would those possibly be the same "nearly half" of the country that voted for Mr. Kerry? Nah, The Nation wouldn't try to pull that one over on us! Would they?

One last quote from The Nation:

"The growing number of Americans who see an Administration blindly leading the nation toward more death and destruction should tell their representatives, "No more money for war!" That would be the best example of democracy we could offer the Iraqi people."

This is the absolutely end all to the whole piece. Cut off the money. Does The Nation think it will cost LESS if the Islamo-Fascists gain the ascendancy in Iraq, from which they can and will threaten the rest of the Persian Gulf area? Are they that naive or that stupid? Or, if we do pull that stunt, will the results be the same as we saw in Viet Nam when congress voted to cut off the money. Regardless of how you felt about that war, the cutting off of funds for the South Vietnamese was part and parcel of the killing that ensued afterwards. I would remind The Nation, and anyone else that needs reminding of the following:

"The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men."
Lyndon B.Johnson
I'll keep reading The Nation. My friend Marc Cooper is a contributing editor there and they often have something to add to the public discourse. But not this time. Not this time.




Powered by Blogger