Now let's take a look at Iraq. In Iraq we have been FORCED, by the cleric Sistani and the Sunni insurgents, to ALLOW a vote that will likely empower the very people we have previously labeled as dangerous and radical
Don't tell me, let me guess... you got that from Juan Cole, didn't you? 60% of Iraqis just braved death threats to vote for the first time in their lives, dancing at the poll sites, immensely proud of themselves, and Prof. Cole & the rest of the left have got to find a way to rain on the parade. So now he claims it doesn't count because Bush was FORCED into it.
Nonsense. The CPA, and then afterwards Negroponte & Allawi, have been hammering out a series of compromises, trying to rebuild politics in a place that had known only terror for 35 years. Of course there were arguments about this and that. But nobody FORCED Bush to hold elections, as if it had been Bush's original intention to install a proconsul and never hold elections! It was a question of how and when and which way to start, and of course the Americans listened to Sistani and the Hawza, they are some of the most influential people in Iraq. Nor were Sistani & et al. EVER "labeled as dangerous and radical". Far from it! Sistani is not al Sadr, in fact Sistani brought al Sadr to heel; Sadr City and Najaf are perfectly quiet now. For al Sadr to be coopted into the political process, but with only 3 seats, is a good outcome.
This new meme that the Democrats are pushing, that the elections were a failure because the Shiites are really theocrats, is a lot of hooey that nobody who knows Iraq will sign onto.
Doesn't mean things will go swimmingly. But this bugbear won't materialize. Just wait and see, and keep track of who made which predictions, and who has the better track record. |
