Matthew Yglesias: Iraqi Elections III

« Travel Day | Main | The Second Election »

Iraqi Elections III

A conversation with my dad reminds me that I've been taking the wrong line on these elections. Try this instead:

The vote was a stunning success. The war's critics have been completely discredited. Democracy is here! The war is won! George W. Bush is a genius! Time to bring the victorious troops home for a ticker tape parade. Democracy has happened, we were wrong, Bush was right, the war is won, and now it should be done with.

January 30, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1749136

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Iraqi Elections III:

» Blogospheric Round-Up: Elections in Iraq from PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science
A trip around the Blogosphere (and yes, with a heavy dose of my blogroll, although not exclusively): From on the ground, Omar at IRAQ THE MODEL has post called "The People have won." The money quote:I walked forward to my station, cast my vote an... [Read More]

Tracked on Jan 30, 2005 12:51:00 PM

» More Election Thoughts from Centerfield
72%. The terrorists have failed. Freedom has prevailed. Regardless of TalkLeft's whining that there's too much security, the fact that Matt Yglesias seems to be grudgingly and sarcastically conceding rather than celebrating freedom, and Daily Kos seems... [Read More]

Tracked on Jan 30, 2005 1:31:05 PM

» The Shifting Goalposts from Balloon Juice
First, they said the elections couldn't/wouldn't happen. Then, they said they would happen, but they would be wracked with violence... [Read More]

Tracked on Jan 30, 2005 3:05:35 PM

Comments

"Bush was right, the war is won, and now it should be done with."

Damn straight. Hand the keys over to Sistani, and get the hell out.

Too bad we need the bases for the next war...

Posted by: Petey | Jan 30, 2005 11:15:22 AM

No, that doesn't work either. Kind of humorous watching you struggling for the appropriate response, tho.

Posted by: Al | Jan 30, 2005 11:15:29 AM

ALTHOUGH - I will say, if you think we should just leave Iraq by driving our tanks due east, that would be fine.

Posted by: Al | Jan 30, 2005 11:16:32 AM

You know, there is a middle ground between complete cynicism and unrestrained ebullience. Also, I don't know why you need to include a sarcastic cut of our troops in your ticker-tape parade comment.

Posted by: Fish | Jan 30, 2005 11:20:56 AM

You take the lead tank - we'll catch up shortly

Posted by: Trust Me | Jan 30, 2005 11:21:29 AM

I agree. The silver lining in Bush's re-election is that it's politically easier for Bush to declare victory and go home than it would have been for Kerry.

Of course, it's people like Al who plan foreign policy for this administration, so don't get your hopes up.

Posted by: zwichenzug | Jan 30, 2005 11:21:39 AM

"The silver lining in Bush's re-election is that it's politically easier for Bush to declare victory and go home than it would have been for Kerry."

It would be easier ... if he wanted to ... which he doesn't...

Too bad we need the bases for the next war.

Posted by: Petey | Jan 30, 2005 11:24:43 AM

"ALTHOUGH - I will say, if you think we should just leave Iraq by driving our tanks due east, that would be fine."

Only if Al is in the lead tank.

Posted by: SavageView | Jan 30, 2005 11:33:59 AM

Al:

Do you mean drive the tanks east, through Iran and Afghanistan into Pakistan where the dictator Musharraf is hosting bin Laden, mass murderer, and AQ Khan, who did more to spread nukes than any other man?

No, Kool-Aid kid, spreading nukes to terrorists and slaughtering Americans aren't important to you, you have been given other marching orders:

The US is at war with Iran.
The US has always been at war with Iran.

Posted by: epistemology | Jan 30, 2005 11:42:29 AM

So the standard now is that, whatever we advocate our government do, we must personally do?

I see. So you all - who presumably advocate more healthcare for the uninsured, right? - are donating all of your money to the uninsured, no? If not, then don't ever advocate we do anything for the uninsured, OK?

Posted by: Al | Jan 30, 2005 11:43:42 AM

Epistemology: Well, let's get to Iran first. THEN we can decide where to go next.

Posted by: Al | Jan 30, 2005 11:44:57 AM

I think we ought to invade you, Al.

Posted by: Petey | Jan 30, 2005 11:48:01 AM

Yes the meme is:

Bush's nation-building is a wonderful thing.
But let's not turn Iraq into a welfare queen.
Iraqis must stand on their own two feet.
They can't expect our government to do everything for them.

Let's privatize Iraq.
Don't make social security in Iraq depend on the US government.
We want an ownership society for Iraq.
Let Iraqis make their security their own.

Posted by: epistemology | Jan 30, 2005 11:48:03 AM

*So the standard now is that, whatever we advocate our government do, we must personally do?*

Well, you did call them "our" tanks. They're not my tanks. I drive a Honda.

Posted by: alex | Jan 30, 2005 11:52:00 AM

"Well, you did call them "our" tanks. They're not my tanks. I drive a Honda."

Like it or not, ownership of those tanks is in your name and mine.

Posted by: Petey | Jan 30, 2005 11:54:10 AM

Al:

You mean, the US is sort of like a boxer coming out of the retirement of being run by the wimpy Democrats, and we need to warm up for the big fight in Pakistan with a few minor bouts with Iraq and Iran?

Then after Pakistan, on to China! They raise the yuan vs. the dollar or we pound them back into the stone age. What's the point of a dominant army if you don't use it to help our businesses?

Posted by: epistemology | Jan 30, 2005 11:55:27 AM

Oh Fatherland, Fatherland,
Show us the sign
Your children have waited to see.
The morning will come
When the world is mine.
Tomorrow belongs to me!

Posted by: Petey | Jan 30, 2005 12:01:34 PM

Wolfowitz Uber Alles!

Posted by: Petey | Jan 30, 2005 12:04:30 PM

Listening to Fox and CNN this morning you would think that something amazing has happened. Just because there wasn't mass death today--just a normal number of suicide bombings and attacks--it was successful? The country has been locked down for three days. The borders have been closed, even internally, no private cars on the road.

I do not for a minute believe that there was anywhere near 72% voter turnout (whatever that means) in Iraq. There were no independent poll watchers in the country. The potentional for fraud is incalculable.

Posted by: Freder Frederson | Jan 30, 2005 12:17:27 PM

Am I the only one who refuses on principle to be "inspired" by choreographed events?

Posted by: Paul Callahan | Jan 30, 2005 12:25:58 PM

Well, let's get to Iran first. THEN we can decide where to go next.

That royal 'we' again, Al?

You're headed for active duty as a tank commander, Al? Or you're still a chickenhawk, Al?

Go enlist, you cowardly fuck.

And I agree that Al would make great tank asphalt.

Posted by: ahem | Jan 30, 2005 12:30:50 PM

What the hell does that last sentence even mean? "The potentional for fraud is incalculable" could apply to any election on earth. Voter turnout means percentage of eligible voters voting. UN observers are monitoring results : http://iafrica.com/news/worldnews/409087.htm. The reality based community hard at work I see.

Posted by: Calamity Jean | Jan 30, 2005 12:32:34 PM

Freder,

Evidently the so-called Independent (sic) Election Commission revised the number downward to 60%, which MAY be somewhat accurate, though anything that comes from the so-called "Iraqi" so-called "government" is suspect. The "Iraqi government", including the Election Commission is a branch of the Bush administration after all.

What will be interesting now is to see how the occupying power - i.e. the Bush administration - will secure its control over the assembly. I believe they started this process weeks if not months ago by putting pressure on the so-called "Sistani list" over the withdrawal issue.

Posted by: Shirin | Jan 30, 2005 12:36:55 PM

The debate should never have been about the benefit of elections, or freedom and liberty, nor should it have been about predicting what the outcome of this war would be. The debate should always have been about the traitorous and criminal act of falsifying intelligence data, hoodwinking the American people into a war. Kerry said it was arrogant. That doesn't go far enough. Boxer said they were lies. That doesn't go far enough. They were crimes against America. The administration used falsified evidence to overstate its case in order to bring Iraq into competition with the general interest of America. In our democracy, that's a crime, no matter what the outcome of the Iraq war.

Posted by: poputonian | Jan 30, 2005 12:37:13 PM

My heartfelt condolances to you lefties. This has to be a dark day for you.

But, keep hope alive: The Iraqies still need to compromise on a constitution and hold two more elections before the permanent government is in place...plenty of time for insurrgents to undermine the process.

Posted by: Robert Brown | Jan 30, 2005 12:38:23 PM

Heartfelt condolences, my ass. Screw the Left. Democracy advances today in the Middle East. Let the Lefties cough up bile and piss vinegar.

Posted by: Mr Damage | Jan 30, 2005 12:43:29 PM

No, actually it is a wonderful day for us lefties, just as watching Baghdad fall was, and even watching Saddam get captured was. It's your typical righty bullshit though, the left hates the US and Freedom.

Many of us just realize that the war has made the US more dangerous and less free. Bin Laden is still loose. Terrorism is higher than ever. We've destroyed the treasury and the Army. We've institutionalized torture. And the threats from dirty bombs or AQ Khan's bomb network is bigger than it was before.

There is no one here that wished for massive problems in today's elections. It sounds as though it may have been freer than our Diebold ones.

Posted by: jerry | Jan 30, 2005 12:45:39 PM

Maybe "we" could put Chalabi into one of those east-bound tanks. I hear he knows some folks accross the border.

Posted by: Michael C | Jan 30, 2005 12:48:04 PM

Jean,

One of the great flaws in this election is that there is no independent oversight, which is considered mandatory for the legitimacy of any democratization process, or any election held under conditions of conflict. The lack of independent oversight in this election is a serious flaw. The fact that the only oversight is by the occupying power and its appointed representatives (aka the "Iraqi Government") is tantamount to having the Council of Foxes guarding the hen house, and then adjudicating the raid that took place under their watch.

There certainly can be corruption in terms of the number of votes cast and has been in many elections, including in the U.S. Most recently in Afghanistan dead people voted, and it was so easy to get voter cards that one American journalist was handed several when he asked if he could get one. We know for a fact that vote selling in Iraq began as soon as registration did.

Posted by: Shirin | Jan 30, 2005 12:56:38 PM

With all the gloating here, I'm starting to think I missed some important announcement in which the insurgency promised to respect the election results.

Posted by: Paul Callahan | Jan 30, 2005 12:59:26 PM

Jerry

I think many, if not most, lefties hate Bush so much that they would prefer to see Iraq disintegrate into chaos so they could say "I told you so" rather than have to admit that his plan to bring freedom to the middle east is working.

I hope I am wrong, but as I surf the leftist blogs, I don't find much to change my mind.

Posted by: Robert Brown | Jan 30, 2005 1:01:55 PM

Heartfelt condolences, my ass. Screw the Left. Democracy advances today in the Middle East. Let the Lefties cough up bile and piss vinegar.

I remain skeptical about the 72% turnout, but let's just imagine for a moment that it's true -- or even higher if you want.

Would this "success" mean that it was worth the $300 billion price tag, 1400+ dead troops, tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, a ruined reputation abroad, and a lack of strategic mobility to interdict anywhere else in the world? Suck on that, Mr Damage, and that goes for the rest of you neocon death cult fascists.

Posted by: ScrewyRabbit | Jan 30, 2005 1:07:19 PM

"I think many, if not most, lefties hate Bush so much that they would prefer to see Iraq disintegrate..."

Well...

Ain't that what you get when you wage a relentlessly partisan war that you've tried to use as a wedge issue in both '02 and '04?

Posted by: Petey | Jan 30, 2005 1:09:48 PM

Dozens dead again today. Major players not participating, other candidates in hiding. N. Korea and Iran getting more Bombs.

Yeah, this was worth 1,400 U.S. lives, tens of thousands of Iraqis, many times more maimed, hundreds of billions of dollars, and the US's reputation and fiscal solvency.

Oh, to live in America, where there are no costs, only benefits!

USA! USA!

Posted by: AlGore | Jan 30, 2005 1:11:48 PM

The people who are so upset about the "nothing has changed" comment should look at the article it links to - the point is not "it's just as bad as Saddam," the point is that the same people are likely to be in charge of Iraq after the elections as before.

What I don't understand is that, in the runup to the war, many of the war's supporters were damning the critics by saying that if we *really* were concerned about Iraqis, we would keep expressing our concerns about Iraqi life after the war. Now that war opponents are expressing concern (making sure Iraqis don't get tortured/killed unnecessarily, making sure Iraqi democracy is real and strong), they seem to just be complaining that we just hate America all over again. Since when are torture and weak democracies an American value? How can one express concern for creating a strong small-l liberal democratic society in Iraq and not be accused of being anti-USA?

Posted by: Adam M | Jan 30, 2005 1:12:05 PM

Robert Brown:

Iraq is in chaos. If the town you lived in were running like Iraq, you would demand we invade some country somewhere.

And as for success in Iraq: the process IS the problem. When we are at war with Islamic fundamentalists, to turn Iraq over to the Iranian born Ayatollah Sistani from its previous secular leadership would seem to be the wrong move at the wrong time.

But it's done, now let's get the hell out, or do you want to make Iraq into a welfare queen dependent on US taxpayers?

Posted by: epistemology | Jan 30, 2005 1:13:26 PM

As I posted before, the success of the election will probably strengthen the insurgency (Sunnis). They are now the underrepresented minority. They are downtrodden and filled with hate for the occupiers that gave the new gov't "legitimacy". The fact that there were elections in Iraq is a great thing. The problem is that the country is still not a free place. The US had a constitution, bill of rights, and checks and balances. Until all of these things are in place I fear that the resulting rule will be unfair. Further, the US was created to protect freedoms. Unfortunately, based on previous gov'ts in the middle east, I do not see the coming theocracy being the most ammenable to other forms of Islam or factions.

Posted by: Craig Press | Jan 30, 2005 1:16:59 PM

To be honest Robert Brown, I really don't see that at the lefty sites. To be honest Robert, I believe you have a biased and corrupted set of blinders on.

Posted by: jerry | Jan 30, 2005 1:17:02 PM

Oh wait, I can do that one, too:

I think many, if not most, RIGHTIES LOVE Bush so much that would prefer to NOT QUESTION ANYTHING COMING OUT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OR THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA so they could say "I told you so" rather than have to admit that his plan to bring freedom to the middle east is SOILING OUR REPUTATION, DRAINING OUR TREASURY, AND KILLING OUR KIDS.

Posted by: ScrewyRabbit | Jan 30, 2005 1:17:40 PM

"I think many, if not most, lefties hate Bush so much that they would prefer to see Iraq disintegrate..."

I'll slightly expand...

Bush wanted a partisan war. For domestic political reasons, they wanted the Democrats opposed. Bush asked for an open-ended war resolution, despite misgivings, the Democrats overwhelmingly gave him what he wanted, and two months later, they still used the war to run against the Democrats.

Now Bush has the divisions he wanted, and the lack of bipartisan support for this mess is the result of deliberate political decisions made by Rove's team.

Fighting a partisan war was good for the Republicans in the short term, and it's bad for the USA in the long term.

Posted by: Petey | Jan 30, 2005 1:20:05 PM

I was going to stay out of the election discussion - it's hard enough to know what happens in american elections a couple hours after the polls close, much less iraqi - but then choice morons like Robert Brown had to enter the scene.

For the record, Robert, Iraq has already disintegrated into chaos, we've already had many chance to say i told you so, we've already been proven right in our critique of the bush race to war and lack of a postwar plan. we don't need further chaos in iraq to know that bush doesn't know anything about leading a country.

but none of that is directed against the iraqi people. i hope that the election is a turning point for them, but i sincerely doubt it.

And even the best case - a non-theocratic shiite government invites in enough kurds and sunnis to have a plausible national unity administration that writes a constitution that is the envy of oppressed peoples everywhere and that the sunnis don't veto - is worth nowhere close to the costs both real (blood and treasure) and opportunity.

But the Robert Browns of the world don't care, because they'd rather spit at lefties then look at reality.

Posted by: howard | Jan 30, 2005 1:20:40 PM

I hope I am wrong, but as I surf the leftist blogs, I don't find much to change my mind.

Citations? Links? Or are you just surfing the strawman blogs confined to your nasty little brain?

Posted by: ahem | Jan 30, 2005 1:26:06 PM

Yes, indeed. I am in favor of national health insurance, which would require more money for the federal government, and I would like the government to raise my taxes (and yours)in order to achieve this result. Of course, I would prefer to see the raise offset by slashing military budgets. But one thing at a time.

Similarly, I think people who are in favor of an expanded, activist role for the US military, which will require more soldiers, should be willing to offer themselves or their children to achieve that result.

Posted by: Dan Kervick | Jan 30, 2005 1:28:17 PM

"the success of the election will probably strengthen the insurgency (Sunnis). They are now the underrepresented minority."

The Kurds are Sunni. The insurgency is an underrepresented minority? Yes I should think they are.

Posted by: Argyll | Jan 30, 2005 1:34:47 PM

"Similarly, I think people who are in favor of an expanded, activist role for the US military, which will require more soldiers..."

But if we're willing to do the same half-assed job in Iran and Syria that we did in Iraq, we won't need any more soldiers.

We only need troops for nation building, which this administration doesn't believe in. With our cool technology, we can create havoc with few boots on the ground.

Posted by: Petey | Jan 30, 2005 1:35:10 PM

I agree with fish, way up there towards the beginning. As a process, election day in Iraq went much better than I had feared it might, with much higher turnout and much less violence. Maybe that's a harbinger of better days ahead, maybe it isn't. That depends on the outcome of the election, on the intent (and skill) of the politicians elected. And of course on us. It's naive to look for a "turning point," but if this gives hope to the Iraqis for a better future, that might be empowering. Time will tell if this election was a success. But it could have been a failure today, and it wasn't. That's good no matter what you believe about the war or the administration.

Posted by: larry birnbaum | Jan 30, 2005 1:46:30 PM

Let's see if I can stay in the middle of the road on this one...

There have many mistakes and there have been many success’ so let's all put aside out partisanship and just hope this is a turn in the right direction for the Iraqi people. After all, this is about them and their future.

Posted by: Benjamin | Jan 30, 2005 2:08:58 PM

"Let's all put aside out partisanship and just hope this is a turn in the right direction for the Iraqi people. After all, this is about them and their future."

While we all wish the Iraqi people well, unfortunately this is not all about them and their future.

We're not on a humanitarian mission in Iraq. This is also about an attempt to assert US hegemony in the middle east, and using our military to carefully stage manage elections is a weapon in our arsenal.

And since there are very valid questions about the overall direction and goals of our future policy, it's impossible to separate out a single event like the elections and feel purely warm and fuzzy about them.

Posted by: Petey | Jan 30, 2005 2:25:13 PM

I see nothing in what happened today that demonstrates that Bush's "plan to bring freedom to the middle east" is working. I don't even think it is a plan. It is like the Underpants gnomes' understanding of capitalism in that episode of Southpark and goes something like this:

1) Invade Iraq.
2) ??????????
3) Freedom in the Middle East!

Posted by: Freder Frederson | Jan 30, 2005 2:29:22 PM

"It is like the Underpants gnomes' understanding of capitalism in that episode of Southpark..."

Best. Explanation. Ever.

Posted by: Petey | Jan 30, 2005 2:33:51 PM

Hey, I said this about the election in the previous thread!

Posted by: John Isbell | Jan 30, 2005 2:39:09 PM

While I'm trying to optimistic about outcome of the elections, it's the Robert Brown's of the world that make it harder: The fact that the _only_ thing the right-wing of the country cares about is point-scoring against the left is the main reason we're losing the war in Iraq.

Posted by: Walt Pohl | Jan 30, 2005 2:40:59 PM

And Wolfowitz actually looks like an underpants gnome...

Posted by: Petey | Jan 30, 2005 2:43:38 PM

Benjamin:

You are clearly a bipartisan troll:
"Iraq is all good, and that's what is important to Americans."

Can liberals and conservatives come together in decrying Benjamin's stand.

Liberals: Does Benjamin have blinders on: electing, in essence, a constitutional convention in Iraq without the participation of one of the 3 biggest constituencies. Yeah, that can't fail.

Conservatives: American blood and money should be spent, not on security, peace, oil, or any advantage to the US or the world, just what makes Iraqis feel good. Why would we want to do that, after all, they were behind the 9/11 attacks, right?

Posted by: epistemology | Jan 30, 2005 2:43:40 PM

NEOCON DEATH CULT FASCISTS UNITE!

Posted by: Mr Damage | Jan 30, 2005 2:53:54 PM

one of the 3 biggest constituencies.

= sunnis er but not kurdish sunnis. How big IS the non-kurdish Sunni "constituency" please? With source if possible.

Posted by: Calamity Jean | Jan 30, 2005 2:54:05 PM

NEOCON DEATH CULT FASCISTS UNITE!

Onward to Iran, and then Mars.

Posted by: ScrewyRabbit | Jan 30, 2005 3:06:45 PM

Thanks Fish!

It had been awhile since I heard someone claim that mocking Bush = mocking the troops, but you came along and saved the day!

Posted by: Poopy Pants | Jan 30, 2005 3:07:20 PM

Jean,

According to the CIA it appears that 15% of the population is Kurdish while about 35% is Sunni, thus leaving about 20% or so that is non-Kurdish Sunni. That is about as good as I can find. The numbers are slightly different depending on the gov't source. But I would say they are in the 15-30% range.

Posted by: Craig Press | Jan 30, 2005 3:10:25 PM

"Onward to Iran, and then Mars."

I've heard through the grapevine that there is reasonably solid evidence that Mars has WMD's. Satellite photos apparently show missile launchers floating on barges in the canals.

Posted by: Petey | Jan 30, 2005 3:17:22 PM

OK, so they had an election, great. And now, Mr. Negroponte, appoint the government, please. Make sure Mr. Allawi is the PM, the rest is not important - throw in some women, monorities and other rubbish.

Posted by: Dick Cheney | Jan 30, 2005 3:19:59 PM

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/religion.htm

this place among others puts sunni arabs at 12-15% (including turkomen).

http://www.nationbynation.com/Iraq/Population.html
this has it as 13%.

Posted by: Calamity Jean | Jan 30, 2005 3:24:07 PM

daily star: Despite a likely Sunni boycott, Iraq's divisions are overstated.

Posted by: Calamity Jean | Jan 30, 2005 3:28:17 PM

WOW! What a viscious blog.

PETEY - My point was SIMPLY this - EVERYONE has made mistakes, let's put our politics aside for just a minute, and wish the people of Iraq the best.

EPISTEMOLOGY - What makes you an expert on my politcal stance or point of view? Can a conservative have liberal points of views? Can a liberal have conservative points of views? I guess that would make me "bipartisan troll" as you call me??? Since I lean toward liberalism on some issues and conservatism on others, maybe I'm having a political identity crisis that you can help me with.

Posted by: Benjamin | Jan 30, 2005 3:31:18 PM

"WOW! What a viscious blog."

Not vicious, just to the point. Don't be so thin-skinned.

"PETEY - My point was SIMPLY this - EVERYONE has made mistakes, let's put our politics aside for just a minute, and wish the people of Iraq the best."

Sure. I do wish them the best. Just pointing out that there are more agendas going on today than just what's best for the Iraqi people, and I don't like some of those agendas.

Posted by: Petey | Jan 30, 2005 3:37:17 PM

Benjamin:

It was a JOKE. Sorry, I should have made a smiley face.

Posted by: epistemology | Jan 30, 2005 3:41:23 PM

Calamity Jean:

Your point is what? Non-Kurdish Sunnis are the second largest constituency after the Shiites. To have substantial minorities not represented in the drawing of a constitution seems a bad idea.

And forming an autonomous Kurdish state on the underbelly of Turkey, powered by Kirkuk's oil money sounds like a worse idea.

Not to worry, no matter what kind of sectarian civil war the area descends into, you can put on a happy face and insist that freedom is on the march, and insist that all the bad news is just due to the media filter.

Posted by: epistemology | Jan 30, 2005 3:42:27 PM

"It was a JOKE"

You are clearly a joking troll.

Posted by: Petey | Jan 30, 2005 3:46:54 PM

Yeah, the turnout was not 100%, Michael Moore's "minutemen" keep murdering the voters

But hey, they are the Democratic Party's allies, so be proud of your men; they are stopping freedom as you so desperately want

Posted by: GWC | Jan 30, 2005 3:51:28 PM

I don't want Bush to look vindicated. But that doesn't trump my willingness to celebrate a relatively peaceful election. US-backed government guys with megaphones begging Sunnis to vote. Compared with, say, some Latin American dictatorship where CIA-backed paramilitaries in pickups are ready to murder anyone who votes. And the left is trying to spin this as a bad thing. The reasoning (if there are election problems, shows we're in the wrong, but if there are no problems, still shows the same thing) sounds like what the right has been doing: simply ignoring any evidence that doesn't support their position. If this is your stab at the Enlightenment, you can have it. A pox on both your houses.

Posted by: q | Jan 30, 2005 3:53:13 PM

"WOW! What a viscious blog."

All leftist blogs are vicious.

Now, why is that?

Posted by: am | Jan 30, 2005 3:56:51 PM

"Yeah, the turnout was not 100%, Michael Moore's "minutemen" keep murdering the voters."

Did LGF or freerepublic link here today? I've never seen so many mouth-breathers on this site.

Posted by: Petey | Jan 30, 2005 4:00:49 PM

All leftist blogs are vicious

trolls is stupid

Posted by: cleek | Jan 30, 2005 4:03:21 PM

Just track US opinion polls after the elections. That's all. I have my theory about them, a few days old since I first bothered thinking about it. How vicious is that! Clearly I have engaged in the massively vicious process of using my frontal lobes.

Posted by: John Isbell | Jan 30, 2005 4:04:06 PM

All leftist blogs are vicious.

Now, why is that?

Because the leftists are rabid ass-fucking baby-murdering islamofascist America and freedom haters who don't deserve to live. Like if you didn't know.

And now go back to enjoying gentle dicussions with your fellow freepers.

Posted by: abb1 | Jan 30, 2005 4:06:54 PM

not(Iraq disintegrating) != Bush's plan working

Iraq's had elections before, you know. I'm glad the voting has worked out okay, and realize its symbolic power, but let's not pretend this makes our little Middle Eastern military fantasy a success.

I remember student council elections in elementary school. Despite very high levels of participation, it turned out that what little power the winners wielded was solely at the pleasure of a universally reviled paternal presence. When I got to middle school, Lord of the Flies still seemed perfectly plausible.

My point is not to belittle democracy or the citizens of Iraq. But elections don't always have much to do with the actual future of a country.

Posted by: tom | Jan 30, 2005 4:20:33 PM

The sad thing is that it's unclear if Matt is being facetious or sincere in the "repost."

But enogh. It appears more than a fair share of trolls are on the loose today in all party of the Heaven and Earth.

PAX americanus.

Posted by: SteveoBrien | Jan 30, 2005 4:23:47 PM

"WOW! What a viscious blog."

Viscious? Mmmmm, I always like my blogs with plenty of viscious butter and maple syrup on top. In fact, Matt's blog ranks near the top in its viscosity (visciosity?) quotient.

Posted by: Wes Ulm | Jan 30, 2005 4:31:18 PM

In addition to maple syrup, I like a big ole' glob of hot cum dripping off my chin. Yum Yum

Posted by: Was Ulm | Jan 30, 2005 4:38:50 PM

Yes, there will still be plenty of problems in Iraq. No, we haven't solved many of them by having an election.

But why is it that whenever something good happens certain blogs and blog threads begin to sound like the Christmas Scrooge?

Posted by: Jonathan Dworkin | Jan 30, 2005 4:43:49 PM

Reposted from DailyKos:

"In the feverish minds of the war apologists, it doesn't matter that no WMDs were found, that torture chambers are still open for business, that this war is now rivaling Saddam's brutality for sheer number of Iraqis killed, that the Army, Marines, and National Guard are all having trouble recruiting, that our equipment is degrading to the point where we're creating a hollow military, that the war is costing us $200 billion and counting, that Israel is not safer as a result of this war, that nearly 1,600 allied troops and counting have died on this fool's errand, that the US's original choice to lead Iraq -- Chalabi -- was an Iranian spy who told our enemies that we had cracked their communications code, that most of Iraq is not under government control, that terrorists are now using the lawlessness in Iraq to recruit and train a whole new generation of terrorists, that our "Coalition of the Willing" is now a mere shell of its former self, that the world hates the United States, that the Euro is suddenly the hot currency, that Europe and Asia are both creating security organizations excluding the US, and that tens of thousands of our soldiers are coming home physically and mentally maimed."

I know this is only a partial list of negative consequences from this war, and doesn't include things like: pillaging of Iraq's state-run utilities for western profit at the expense of Iraqis, a country literally in ruins, and not least importantly the public embrace of the use of rhetoric and dissembling over truth and analysis because of the terrible example of George Bush and his cabinet.

But it's a start.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

"Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and is a grave threat to the security of the United States."

Which is a worse lie, I wonder?

Which makes me realize that it's generally true that Republicans don't raise taxes; they just waste orders of magnitude of more money on unnecessary wars and political witch hunts. Give me taxes any day.

Posted by: glitter | Jan 30, 2005 4:55:22 PM

It's weird. At first I didn't understand all the wingnut visitors here today, and then finally it hit me:

This, by design of Karl Rove, has been since the beginning a war of the GOP, not a war of our nation.

And it's been a war with lots and lots of bad days, and very few good days. This is one of the good days, and the wingnuts want a chance to gloat about their war on a lefty site.

Fine. For the sake of our nation and the world, I hope they get to gloat many more days about Iraq.

It's just funny that they see it as a partisan war just the same way that we do. Rove's polarization strategy at work, folks.

Posted by: Petey | Jan 30, 2005 5:17:45 PM

Man, I've got it and it's so f***ing obvious. The wingnuts are terrified of us pulling out of an independent Iraq. They lie awake at night picturing the US opinion polls. Hence the noise.

Posted by: John Isbell | Jan 30, 2005 6:07:50 PM

"The wingnuts are terrified of us pulling out of an independent Iraq."

I'm not sure you're right. I think the wingnuts are far more your basic rabid GOP partisans than they are neocons.

If Bush tomorrow explained that "freedom is on the march", and that entailed us immediately withdrawing from Iraq, the wingnuts would pivot on a dime and accept it.

Of course, the Bush administration has an agenda that doesn't permit withdrawing, so we'll never get a chance to put that idea to a test, but I'm not sure the wingnuts consciously share that agenda.

Posted by: Petey | Jan 30, 2005 6:15:04 PM

And it's been a war with lots and lots of bad days, and very few good days. This is one of the good days, and the wingnuts want a chance to gloat about their war on a lefty site.

this is the first of their post-hoc justifications to bear any fruit. they're excited to finally be able to say "we're not wrong today!"

Posted by: cleek | Jan 30, 2005 6:25:51 PM

I wonder how many of the visiting trolls would have favored an election in spring 2004 or even earlier, before the security situation had disintegrated. How many would have preferred an election in which people voted for local representatives instead of a largely anonymous list?

The Iraqis wanted to have an election in the worst way, and that's what they got.

Posted by: bad Jim | Jan 30, 2005 6:58:32 PM

Kerry and his supporters lose their second election in three months. I had fun blogging about this on my site.

He's already been on TV with what amounts to his second concession speech: "Don't overhype this, it's not over yet." Sounds similar to the speech in November, except this time he didn't end with stories about how he accepted money from little first-grade girls for his campaign. (Think he's going to give it back?).

Posted by: Dru Stevenson | Jan 30, 2005 6:59:36 PM

George W. Bush is a genius!
LOL!
I haven't laughed like that in a while.

Craig
www.idisagreewiththegop.com

Posted by: Craig | Jan 30, 2005 7:00:41 PM

"Kerry and his supporters lose their second election in three months."

Kerry has supporters? I'll give you ten bucks for every one you can find outside of Boston.

That was the wonderful thing about this past election. We put up a guy lacking a pulse, and we still almost beat you. We came close to making it four in a row with a cadaver.

What do you think is going to happen next time when we put up a real candidate, and there are still US troops dying in Iraq?

Posted by: Petey | Jan 30, 2005 7:09:52 PM

this is the first of their post-hoc justifications to bear any fruit. they're excited to finally be able to say "we're not wrong today!"

And you're afraid to grant them even that!!!! psshhh

Posted by: oh please | Jan 30, 2005 7:37:26 PM

well, petey, i was a kerry supporter, and not because i live in boston but because he was actually qualified to be president, a kind of forgotten concept during the bush ii years.

but dru is still spouting piffle: no one should get too hyped about the election, and nothing is close to over yet.

The people who should be getting hyped are the Iranians, whose strategic victory (at zero cost to themselves) is looking more and more likely.

Posted by: howard | Jan 30, 2005 7:41:10 PM

CJ,

Your source is wrong.

1) Sunni Arabs are around 20% of the population.

2) Your source can't even get the basic fact correct that Turkmens are overwhelmingly Shi`i, not Sunni.

Posted by: Shirin | Jan 30, 2005 7:43:17 PM

"well, petey, i was a kerry supporter"

We all were Kerry supporters.

Dru seems to think he still leads the left.

Posted by: Petey | Jan 30, 2005 7:47:17 PM

"The Iraqis wanted to have an election in the worst way, and that's what they got."

Nicely put.

Posted by: Shirin | Jan 30, 2005 7:54:42 PM

Howard makes an important and eloquent point:

The people who should be getting hyped are the Iranians, whose strategic victory (at zero cost to themselves) is looking more and more likely.

By the by, Swopa has an important post up that I'm surprised isn't getting much more attention.

The Elections Bush Didn't Want

Posted by: JadeGold | Jan 30, 2005 7:58:05 PM

Jonathan,

"But why is it that whenever something good happens certain blogs and blog threads begin to sound like the Christmas Scrooge?"

Because you believe in Santa.

C'mon, you walked into it.

Posted by: WeSaferThemHealthier | Jan 30, 2005 8:26:36 PM

From Fareed Zakaria, former hawk and true believer who can actually separate what's really happening from the hype:

"The United States has essentially stopped trying to build a democratic order in Iraq and is simply trying to fight the insurgency and gain some stability and legitimacy. In doing so, if that exacerbates group tensions, corruption, cronyism, and creates an overly centralized regime, so be it. Lawrence Kaplan, a neoconservative writer passionately in favor of the war, who coauthored "The War Over Iraq: Saddam's Tyranny and America's Mission" with William Kristol, has just returned from Iraq and written a deeply gloomy essay in the current The New Republic. His conclusion: "The war for a liberal Iraq is destroying the dream of a liberal Iraq."

Read the entire article here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6885455/site/newsweek/

Posted by: glitter | Jan 30, 2005 8:40:19 PM

It's not a damn football game, where victory is immediately apparent!

It will take time to know if this vote is sustained, and if it helps the Iraqi people to be self-sufficient and truly self-governing.

Posted by: Deborah White | Jan 30, 2005 8:51:20 PM

And you're afraid to grant them even that!!

i don't know where you got that idea (actually i do, and you'd better be careful handling that much straw - it can be flammable).

but frankly, it's nice that their rosy predictions, for once, have become reality.

Posted by: cleek | Jan 30, 2005 9:01:43 PM

Maybe this election is good news for Bush. But I think the majority of the evidence clearly points to the opposite. WHich in itself is food for thought: good news in Iraq is bad news for Bush. It's that simple. If I'm right, the polls will show it: US, not Iraqi.

Posted by: John Isbell | Jan 30, 2005 9:26:34 PM

"At least" 55% turnout, according to the NYT. Of course, they have elections in subsaharan Africa, too. In my country we remember very well our first election. It started a cycle of unending civil war for the next 50 years, but eventually we got the hang of democracy.

Posted by: Carlos | Jan 30, 2005 9:44:12 PM

Deborah, self-suffuciency has never been a problem for Iraqis. They have always had the resources, human and otherwise, to take care of themselves very, very well. Iraq has always(except during the sanctions) had plenty of food, and good social services, including an excellent education program and very good medical systems. In the '70's and '80's Iraq was classified as an emerging first world country based on all the social and economic indicators. True, Saddam managed to take Iraq very far downhill over a twenty five year period, but he had plenty of help in that from the U.S. and other outside powers.

The Bush administration never intended for this election to result in self determination or even true self government for the Iraqis, and they do not now. They began their campaign weeks ago to establish control over the assembly that results from this election. They have already made it very clear that any prime minister selected by the assembly will have to meet with their approval.

Behind the scenes the Bush administration put pressure on Sistani's list, demanding that they agree to three conditions: 1) No Iranian influence on the "government", 2) no request for the withdrawal of American troops, 3) no Islamic state. They complied with all three. They have made public statements in the last weeks that there would be no Iranian influence over the new "government", a week or two ago they made public statements that they would not seek to form an Islamic state, and two days ago they announced that they were reversing their stand on troop withdrawal and would no longer demand that. That last was a 180 degree reversal of the position they had held from the beginning, and a direct contradiction of the popular will of the Iraqi people. As for the Islamic state issue, they were certainly not unanimous about that, but it certainly WAS the goal of the most powerful members of that list.

If the Americans were able to exert this kind of influence on those people even before the election, what will they be able to do once the assembly is in place and operating, particularly since, even if the votes are counted fairly, the second most powerful group will be Allawi and his people, who are already in the Bush administrations' pocket?

Posted by: Shirin | Jan 30, 2005 9:51:47 PM

SHIRIN -

If you don't like what is going on, why didn't you go vote? We all know that you cried when Sadam was captured and if the real truth is known, you're most likely of the so-called "Iraqi Freedom Fighters" who keep blowing up innocent civilians.

I'll be you give Zaqari a blow job every night. SHOVE IT UP YOR ASS YOU COCK SUCKER

Posted by: GO VOTE | Jan 30, 2005 11:50:30 PM

"I'll be you give Zaqari a blow job every night."

No, you won't be Shirin. Who I think is in Egypt. His/her sexual habits I don't know but you are certainly a moron. Good luck with that.

Posted by: John Isbell | Jan 30, 2005 11:57:34 PM

And since Shirin doesn't suck cock, I will do it for him!

Posted by: John Isbell | Jan 31, 2005 12:10:22 AM

Hey, look, I posted 3 times in a row! But I still don't know Shirin's sexual habits, or those of any poster here. Reality 101.

Posted by: John Isbell | Jan 31, 2005 12:14:51 AM

Ah, freeper standards of discourse. It's lovely when you folks drop by.

Posted by: tom | Jan 31, 2005 12:15:55 AM

I think that "go vote" has captured the true wingnut spirit.

Posted by: Michael C | Jan 31, 2005 12:19:27 AM

Not only do I not know anyone's sexual habits, I don't care. I only know that I like to suck cock!!

Posted by: John Isbell | Jan 31, 2005 12:24:07 AM

John - I like to suck cock also, why don't we hook up?

Posted by: Tom | Jan 31, 2005 12:25:12 AM

I have to say, my last exchange cracked me up. Thank you, freepers.

Posted by: John Isbell | Jan 31, 2005 7:21:04 AM

Shirin, good luck finding politicians in any country who are completely free of foreign influence. I'm sure the ones you do find will hardly be paragons of virtue. The Bush government is no nastier than the governments of Syria or Iran.

In the '70's and '80's Iraq was classified as an emerging first world country based on all the social and economic indicators.

I'll assume you are not nostalgic for the days of Saddam Hussein. I'll assume like the rest of the world you are happy that he no longer rules Iraq. In what form would you prefer that this event had occurred? Why do you imagine the actual event took a different form? What proposals have you to ensure a viable democracy emerges in Iraq?

btw I am interested in the Syria/Lebanon analogy. Syria was invited into Lebanon over 30 years ago (as was the US!!) They remain there in defiance of international law and several treaties. Their government exerts at least as much influence over lebanese internal affairs as the US gov. does in Iraq.

Posted by: Argyll | Jan 31, 2005 7:27:18 AM

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Iraq/Iraqi-minister-predicts-troop-withdrawal-next-year/2005/01/31/1107020289258.html?oneclick=true

"Iraq's Interior Minister told British television today he expected foreign forces to leave the country within 18 months."

My earlier Syria stat is incorrect. Syria was invited into Lebanon in 1976, and so they have only been occupying that country for only 28 years.

Posted by: Argyll | Jan 31, 2005 7:36:45 AM

make a deal between the groups, getting all to buy into the new order. "The one precondition for democracy to work is a consensus among major ethnic, regional, or religious groups"

Of course! A concensus among factions! We'll get right on that Mr. Zakaria!

Second, create a non-oil-based economy and government.

Of course! A non-oil based economy...right away Mr. Zakaria!

Are these policy prescriptions? Get people to work together? Change the Iraqi economy? They are descriptions of what a stable mideast democracy might look like, to be sure. But his prescriptions are all bland truisms, each of them trivially accurate and hopelessly counterfactual.

Posted by: Argyll | Jan 31, 2005 8:08:31 AM

"Non-Kurdish Sunnis are the second largest constituency after the Shiites. To have substantial minorities not represented in the drawing of a constitution seems a bad idea."

But what was striking was how many people seemed puzzled, and at least mildly irritated, by being asked their ethnic and religious identities, and how, too, they gently rebuked reporters for making an issue of it.

NYT 1-30-05

Posted by: Calamity Jean | Jan 31, 2005 9:51:34 AM

"good luck finding politicians in any country who are completely free of foreign influence."

Are you equating "foreign influence" with occupation by a foreign power that invaded, overthrew the government and took political, economic and social control?

Posted by: Shirin | Jan 31, 2005 11:50:55 AM

Object observers will agree that surprisingly large numbers of courageous Iraqi voters made it to the polls in spite of credible death threats from the "insurgent-terrorists."

I'm a liberal-leftist and I find liberals who deny the courage of the average Iraqi just to spite Bush and right-wingers a bit churlish and self-centered. Despite all of the problems, the election was a step in the right direction. Thankfully, not all liberals are behaving like babies:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/index-old.php

"As so often is the case out of Iraq, some the best reporting on the Iraqi elections comes from Anthony Shadid in The Washington Post. Good news has been hard to come by in Iraq for some time. So this unexpectedly high turn-out, relatively low level of violence, and what seems to have been a swelling tide of enthusiasm over the course of the day, is something more than very welcome news. It may also provide some indication or clue to explaining those polls which show, on the one hand, deep-seated Iraqi disenchantment with the US occupation, outrage over the persistent violence that afflicts the country, and yet also an underlying optimism about the future.

Disasters aren't turned around in a day; but this was a good day. Nobody should be surprised that people show up in large numbers in a country where elections have never or only seldom happened; that happens all the time. But I'm not sure I can think of a similar instance when voting has occurred amidst such immediate and credible threats of violence.

The issue now is providing basic security throughout the country and building democratic institutions that will last -- the latter depending on the former.
-- Josh Marshal"

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/31/opinion/31herbert.html

Acts of Bravery
By BOB HERBERT
Published: January 31, 2005

You'd have to be pretty hardhearted not to be moved by the courage of the millions of Iraqis who insisted on turning out to vote yesterday despite the very real threat that they would be walking into mayhem and violent death at the polls.

At polling stations across the country there were women in veils holding the hands of children, and men on crutches, and people who had been maimed during the terrible years of Saddam, and old people. Among those lined up to vote in Baghdad was Samir Hassan, a 32-year-old man who lost a leg in the blast of a car bomb last year. He told a reporter, "I would have crawled here if I had to."

Posted by: Peter K. | Jan 31, 2005 11:55:51 AM

Object observers will agree that surprisingly large numbers of courageous Iraqi voters made it to the polls in spite of credible death threats from the "insurgent-terrorists."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/index-old.php

The issue now is providing basic security throughout the country and building democratic institutions that will last -- the latter depending on the former.
-- Josh Marshal"

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/31/opinion/31herbert.html

Acts of Bravery
By BOB HERBERT
Published: January 31, 2005

Posted by: Peter K. | Jan 31, 2005 11:55:52 AM

Are you equating "foreign influence" with occupation by a foreign power that invaded, overthrew the government and took political, economic and social control?

No, I am equating "foreign influence" with influence that is foreign. Syrian influence over Lebanese affairs is foreign influence. It has carried on for 28 years without objection from many quarters in the West or from among the Arab governments. I presume you find that 28-year, unwelcome, illegal foreign occupation unobjectionable. My question if you do is: why?

My other question to you was whether you were nostalgic for Saddam Hussein's leadership, since you saw fit to cite Iraq's status in the 70's and 80's as "an emerging first world country based on all the social and economic indicators." I'm curious to know if you would prefer, ceteris paribus, seeing Hussein's junta (uninfluenced as it was by foreign governments lol) in power today versus your assortment of US-influenced puppets.

Posted by: Argyll | Jan 31, 2005 12:23:03 PM

Argyll, could you enlighten me on the horrors of Syrain occupation of Lebanon, please. Post some links. Describe the Syrians facilitating a massacre in a couple of refugee camps there, their shelling of a UN compound, etc.

Thanks.

Posted by: abb1 | Jan 31, 2005 1:00:35 PM

abb1, I thought we were talking illegal occupation here. Israel cleared out of Lebanon long ago, what's Syria doing there now?

Posted by: Argyll | Jan 31, 2005 1:11:40 PM

DEMOCRACY ON THE MARCH IN FREE, UNOCCUPIED LEBANON!

Here we see one of Lebanon's indigenous political parties at a rally. Looks oddly familiar!

Posted by: Argyll | Jan 31, 2005 1:16:00 PM

abb1, perhaps you are another deluded maniac nostalgic for Ba'athist rule, uncorrupted by Soviet arms deals and oil- concessions to various and sundry other foreign powers. Is that the kind of home grown Arab leadership you pine for? In the '70's and '80's Iraq was classified as an emerging first world country based on all the social and economic indicators, doncha know. You know, he wasn't a very nice guy but Saddam Hussein sure did make the trains run on time.

Posted by: Argyll | Jan 31, 2005 1:24:56 PM

what's Syria doing there now?

I have no idea, nor do I care much. Protecting them from Israel? Training their security forces? I am sure the Syrians will stay there as long as necessary and not a day longer, though.

So, could you list the horrors, please. Assassination? Firing rockets into city blocks? Building 30-foot walls across the country? Wrapping villages in barbed wire? Shelling schools, using Lebanese children for shooting practice? How many for-Syrians-only towns and roads have been built in Lebanon so far?

Thanks.

Posted by: abb1 | Jan 31, 2005 1:27:22 PM

Is that the kind of home grown Arab leadership you pine for?

You must be confusing me with someone who gives a fuck about Arab leadership. Whatever Arab leadership suits the Arabs is fine with me. I have enough problems with American leadership.

Posted by: abb1 | Jan 31, 2005 1:32:34 PM

abb1, how many examples from your litany of barbarisms could be applied to the current US occupation of Iraq, for which purposes the analogy was drawn? Syria shelled Christian Beirut, did they not? I imagine you wrote several sternly worded letters to the Syrian consulate at the time, but why the lack of interest 22 years later?

Posted by: Argyll | Jan 31, 2005 1:34:07 PM

You must be confusing me with someone who gives a fuck about Arab leadership.

Interesting. This is a thread about Iraqi elections. The US election threads I think have all expired.

Posted by: Argyll | Jan 31, 2005 1:36:17 PM

You must be confusing me with someone who gives a fuck about Arab leadership.

Abb1 obviously could give a fuck about Arab leadership, but I'm sure he has loads to say about Israeli leadership!

I am sure the Syrians will stay there as long as necessary and not a day longer, though.

Your faith is touching.

Posted by: Argyll | Jan 31, 2005 1:39:17 PM

And for the Syrian occupation of Lebanon threads you should go back to LGF, fella. Where I hope you won't forget to discuss all other very similar occupations in the world: US occupation of Germany, Italy, Korea, Japan, Kuwait, Egypt, Cuba, etc, etc, etc.

Posted by: abb1 | Jan 31, 2005 1:42:51 PM

Your faith is touching.

Lol. Thanks for the laugh.

Posted by: abb1 | Jan 31, 2005 1:45:20 PM

"you should go back to LGF, fella."

LOL - no thanks. Those guys are plum fucking crazy. You should feel right at home there, howling away about Israel.

Posted by: Argyll | Jan 31, 2005 1:49:26 PM

I am sure the Syrians will stay there as long as necessary and not a day longer, though.

LOL thanks for the laugh. This one had me in stitches. 10,000 days and counting! You are a natural comedian.

Posted by: Argyll | Jan 31, 2005 1:52:44 PM

abb1, before suddenly losing interest in Arab governments, you asked me to "list the horrors" Syria accomplished in Lebanon. This gentleman has done so. Enjoy over lunch, with my compliments.

Posted by: Argyll | Jan 31, 2005 2:11:40 PM

I am in favor of national health insurance, which would require more money for the federal government, and I would like the government to raise my taxes (and yours)in order to achieve this result.

Indications from countries that actually have nationalized healthcare is that less, not more, public funds than are currently expended on healthcare would be required.

Posted by: cmdicely | Jan 31, 2005 2:23:55 PM

Argyll, the "not a day longer" line is used by troops in any country, such as Germany or South Korea. 60 years and counting, that put a quiet smile on my face at the folly of fools who miss a reference. Much calmer than stitches.
England will stay in Scotland "not a day longer" than necessary. An Argyll should appreciate that.

Posted by: John Isbell | Jan 31, 2005 2:28:48 PM

Well, Argyll, maybe I misunderstood you; you seem to be really concerned about this Syria/Lebanon thing.

What can I say: I hope Syria gets out of Lebanon real soon. But I don't really feel this is the most pressing issue of our times. Sorry.

Cheers.

Posted by: abb1 | Jan 31, 2005 3:03:41 PM

JI, abb's examples reinforce my intended point, which was that legitimate elections can occur under occupation, illegal or otherwise. That goes for South Korean, German, Palestinian and yes, Lebanese elections. Pardon my not getting the reference but my purpose in introducing the topic of occupation was hardly to defend it. That should have been obvious from my choice of example.

Posted by: Argyll | Jan 31, 2005 3:08:37 PM

handjobs bambi @ smuthosts angela @ wank galleries @ footsex amateur girl @ footlover french lesbians @ footfuck new vids @ lluvias doradas jovensitas @ insesto com @ piernas tacones tabledance @ 20 cum carga galeria @ 21 cum carga galeria @ muchacha cum carga galeria @ dildo ostne niunie seks @ dojrzale ostne niunie seks @ doktor ostne niunie seks @ aliciamachado sexy @ sxo mpeg @ fetiche gay fotos @ seks napalone shoty @ porno napalone shoty @ erotyka napalone shoty @