Naysayers tight-lipped since success of Iraq vote...

[Bodacious]

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

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. What does that say about the terrorist threat, insurgency, what have you?
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 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.

 

[CptStern]

fluff propaganda piece ...it's only been 2 days

This statement shows the writers true alliances:

"Billionaire Bush-basher George Soros and left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore were "

why the titles?

from now on I want you all to refer to me as "Left-wing-bush-bashing-madeline-albright-quoting-Cpt.Stern"

 

[Tr0n]

fluff propaganda piece ...it's only been 2 days

This statement shows the writers true alliances:

"Billionaire Bush-basher George Soros and left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore were "

why the titles?

from now on I want you all to refer to me as "Left-wing-bush-bashing-madeline-albright-quoting-Cpt.Stern"

Sounds like fun to me Left-wing-bush-bashing-madeline-albright-quoting-Cpt.Stern.

Oh and don't forget to add "pinko commie" also.

 

[burner69]

I think the right just don't get WHY we're against bush.

1. Lying about WMDs to get us into war.
2. Breaching basic human rights
3. Rallying the masses to believe Saddam is a threat to the US
4. Linking Saddam with 9/11
5. Attacking Iraq at a very unstable time, making it a nice place for terrorists to hang out
6. Increasing hatred towards the west because of it
7. Complaining about WMDs, when they're busy selling them to other unstable, highly militarised, human rights breaching countries.
8. Entering a war on one pretence, and coming out on another.
etc etc


It's really great that Iraq are having elections, but don't you think it's VERY rushed indeed? I mean, they had to close off Iraq pretty much, put soliders everywhere, and even then almost 50 people were killed. What happens now? The terrorists are still there, attacking the US and Iraqi forces - why? Because they're AGAINST the western ideals that come hand in hand with this democracy. It's a long way to go - and if we really wanted to spread democracy around, I'm sure we could have sorted out OBL and Afghanistan first.
Bush seems like a child, picking up one toy, playing with it for a while, then discarding it and moving on to another venture.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Exactly. Finding 50 bucks in a pile of crap doesn't improve the smell.

People aren't criticising this because, shock of shocks, it's pretty much the only good thing that has happened in Iraq in the last two years.

 

[Absinthe]

IMO, these elections do not ratify the previous years of BS.

 

[CptStern]

1 election does not make a democracy

 

[KoreBolteR]

its the effort of the iraqis that emphasizes thier hope for a free and democratic country, and they cannot do that while the terrorists are there. atm democracy is far away.

 

[satch919]

Granted that this is one the best things to happen since the invasion. However, this still doesn't erase the fact that Bush and his Administration lied. It doesn't change the fact that they touted that WMDs were inside Iraq. It doesn't change the fact that Bush had a mission accomplished celebration shortly after the invasion. And lastly, it doesn't change the fact that him and his buddies are profiting from this war. The list goes on. This is a stupid war that we're fighting. Total unnecessary loss of life.

So, am I going to be tight-lipped on this subject? F*** no! Everyone is kissing Bush's ass right now. Once reality sets in though, i think you'll see that excitement fade yet again.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

1 election does not make a democracy

No, Left-wing-bush-bashing-madeline-albright-quoting-Cpt.Stern it does not. But it does take one to get there.

 

[CptStern]

No, Left-wing-bush-bashing-madeline-albright-quoting-Cpt.Stern it does not. But it does take one to get there.

we'll have to wait and see wont we? mr-I-like-to-insult-people-online-Sgt-Shellback :E

 

[bliink]

Enough with the name calling Stern, Shellback.

 

[CptStern]

no name calling just following the spirit of the article :E

 

[bliink]

well.. no "following the spirit of the article" then

 

[CptStern]

rats ... :E

 

[willyd]

I dont understand i mean, wasnt Iraq a democracy before. I mean Saddam won 100% of the vote. Okay yeah i know you may say he was the only one on the ballot and if you voted against him you would get your hand chopped off. But, I mean elections = democracy, right?

/sarcasm

 

[mortiz]

The Iraqi's were just given the illusion of choice as all the candidates will be the same, whoever gets the Iraqi presidency will just be a U.S. puppet regardless of who it is meaning they'll have no real power. Basically the Iraqi’s are under another form of control, just a less obvious one this time around.

In my opinion the elections are a bit of a moral facade instead of anything meaningful, but at least the Iraqi's were happy.

 

[seinfeldrules]

1 election does not make a democracy

But it is the beginning of democracy. Your argument is a weak one if this is your reasoning.

 

[CptStern]

actually, my argument is very strong ...all you'd have to do is compare it to past political meddlings to see my outcome is the more likely scenario ..call it pessimism, call it foresight, whatever

 

[Javert]

Ok, so the Democrats are supporting the elections and are cautiously applauding the results rather than condeming them.

What's the problem? Can't we actually approve of something good every now and then, or will conservatives continue to shamefully spin every one of our responses.

If I haven't already said so, I'm glad for these elections. But this is merely a beginning, not an end.