| Author | Message | ||
     notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 1967 Registered: 5-2001  |
CNN's Jane Arraf, who was on the scene, called turnout at closer to 30%. The 72% is based on... what? Pure optimistic conjecture? Having said that, however, you have to hand it to the voters -- however many there were -- who risked obvious danger to express their desire to participate in democracy (even if they didn't even know anything about the vast majority of candidates). Their pride in showing their ink-stained fingers to each other and the press was heartwarming and ought to be a lesson to non-voting Iraqis and Americans alike. | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 378 Registered: 9-2004 |
Note, What I was more puzzled about, there are a estimated 240,000 Iraqi's living in the US. Only 26,000 registered to vote in this election.  | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1515 Registered: 1-2003  |
CNN's Jane Arraf, who was on the scene, called turnout at closer to 30%. The 72% is based on... what? Pure optimistic conjecture? And Cnn's reporter had exactly what information to go on? Pure pessimistic conjecture. Personally I'll wait and see when the results are in before spouting off about turnout. Iraqi bloggers are talking about huge lines at polls and parties in the streets by the "blue fingers". "And more good news is that South Mountain Peace Action has collected 1,200 signatures on its petition to our senators and congressmen, calling for an international solution in Iraq, led by the United Nations, to allow a rapid return of US soldiers." How can you call this good news? The present goal of the not so United States of America is to bring peace to Iraq and get out ASAP. Art, The good news is its ONLY 1200 signatures... thats what, .02% of M/SO residents. Only 1200 people in the 2 towns are dumb enough to sign something so inherently stupid- I would have thought the number was higher as I was sure that there were far more idiots in town. I stand corrected. Definetly good news. Bottomline, It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the war on terror to claim that OBL is the main target... Oh and on 9/10/01 OBL was dining with Mullah Omar in Kabul, enjoying status as a head of state from the Taliban... where is he now? Hiding in a cave with a bounty on his head while Afghanistan is becoming a democracy. "Iraqis may have voted yesterday. But they live in occupied territory, and the occupiers have other things on their minds than the basic wishes of the Iraqi people. That's not democracy. That's a recipe for more war." Funny, there have been 2 elections in the Arab world... one in US occupied Iraq, and the other in Israeli occupied "Palestine". That should tell you something. Phenix, I heard on the radio yesterday that one reason that Iraqi absentee voting in the states was low was because many Iraqis actually went back to Iraq to vote. The radio said something like 80,000. I personally find that number hard to believe. I think its more likely that many consider themselver Americans, not Iraqis. But thats nothing but conjecture based on watching my Israeli relatives that are now American Citizens. Luckily the uselessness of the UN is finally being recognized by the free world. How many election workers did they send to Iraq? How many did they sent to Afghanistan? Its time to make Turtle Bay condos. | ||
| Face Citizen Username: Face Post Number: 507 Registered: 5-2001  |
I like the idea of Inida ink being used on the finger of voters to signify that they voted. We could use that technique here in the U.S. It might help prevent the dead from voting. Howere, it won't do anything to prevent those with two residences from casting one ballot in person and another via absentee ballot. Or are those records checked and rechecked and penalties issued? If not, why not? | ||
| Chris Prenovost Citizen Username: Chris_prenovost Post Number: 305 Registered: 7-2003 |
Did someone say that Bush has a plan for Iraq? You mean like the one for justifying the war? That Saddam had WMD's? Or that he was linked to 9-11? Opps, sorry, wrong on that. O.K. then, how about the invasion? When every single planning officer in the pentagon all the way up to Chief of Staff Shinseki said - publicly! that we needed at least 250,000 troops to occupy the country. And we went in with half that number, 'cause draft dodgers Rummy, Bush and Cheney said it was OK. And watched helplessly as the looters destroyed the entire country. Oops, sorry, wrong on that, too! How about the occupation? We KNEW that leaving the Baathists in positions of power was the only way to keep what was left of the country running, because we learned that the hard way in Germany and Japan post WWII. What does presidential medal of freedom winner Bremer do? Why, fire them all, of course. And then be surprised when the lights go out and the water won't run. Opps again! How about disbanding the Iraqi military? Another really bright one. Take a country with 80% unemployment, no power, no water, and no law & order. And release 400,000 men with their guns out into the streets. And be surprised when things get worse? Opps, very sorry, wrong again! Gee, let's have a plan to secure the Iraqi arsenals scattered all over the country to make sure that insurgents cannot get their hands on, say, a few tons of high grade explosives, rocket launchers, or other lethal military ordnance. Or not! Ooops . . .wrong again! So. . . what is the plan? And is it any better than the last ones? We have to do better in that poor country. So far, we have not. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1516 Registered: 1-2003 |
 | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3052 Registered: 8-2003 |
What a glorious event yesterday. There was Sunni turnout, albeit quite low in Sunni dominated areas within "the triangle." Sunnis live throughout the country, and there was a wire story today about a small Sunni town within the triangle that didn't attract much attention from terrorists where turn-out was quite high. Maybe Sunnis didn't vote as much as we'd have liked, but I don't believe it was for lack of want. Allawi already saying Kurds and Shia must continue to reach out to Sunnis today going forward. Tough times ahead, but this is wonderful. Terrorism and the foreign-led insurgency took a big blow yesterday. The Left's pained efforts to pour cold water on this is great to watch as well. | ||
| birdbrain Citizen Username: Birdbrain Post Number: 61 Registered: 2-2003  |
Criticizing incompetence does not equal disloyalty, quite the opposite. My dismay over the last two years has been seeing the pride of America, our best, brightest, and most loyal, being used for one man's revenge fantasy and political gain. I hope these elections _do_ work out, for the Iraqis and for us. But that's what this has come down to 2 years later, a _hope_ that these three major factions will pull together. Did we really go to war on a hope? -David "Not sure what the caption has to do with the picture" Wren-Hardin -Show Them the Door. | ||
| Chris Prenovost Citizen Username: Chris_prenovost Post Number: 306 Registered: 7-2003 |
Thanks, David. . . assuming you meant me. Michael Janay hurt my feelings with that poster. I may be a moron, but I'm no liberal. Any room for old-fashioned Republicans like me who believe in old-fashioned things like, say, balanced budgets, personal freedom, honesty in government, small government, ect. . . ? | ||
| bottomline Citizen Username: Bottomline Post Number: 168 Registered: 8-2003 |
I'm very excited about the prospects for democracy in Iraq. As I said above, we invaded Iraq, we own it, we've got to fix it. What I don't like about this is the bait-and-switch the admininstration pulled on the American people. The premise for the war was urgent danger to our citizens from WMD that might fall into terrorists hands. The justification for a preemptive invasion, under international law, was WMD being hidden from inspectors in violation of U.N mandates. But there weren't any WMD. Even Bush admits it now, but not before he switched the rationale for the war from WMD to the spreading of democracy. My question is: if he had asked American public to support an invasion solely to oust Saddam Hussien, would they have supported it? I really doubt it. We got seriouly misled. Which means the president is seeking democracy in Iraq while flaunting it at home. I'm surprised there isn't more outrage by across the political sprectrum for being led down the garden path by the president. But then I'm just a dumb lib. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 1971 Registered: 5-2001 |
Bob Herbert points out: Half or more of those who went to the polls believed they were voting for a president. They weren't. They were electing a transitional national assembly that will have as its primary task the drafting of a constitution. The Washington Post noted that because of the extreme violence that preceded the election "almost none of the 7,700 candidates for the National Assembly campaigned publicly or even announced their names." Competing for today's Head In The Sand Award is this entry from Strawberry: "Bush has been right about the Iraqi people since day 1." Ahh, yes, I still recall those many bouquets of flowers they threw at our feet, as promised. Although, right behind him, we have Marie's description of the left, the left, as "fearmongering." Yes, folks, it must have been the left that told us that Saddam posed an imminent threat, that there are terrorists behind every door, that we ought to stock up on plastic tarps and duct tape, that raised the terror alert level whenever it was politically convenient, that Iraq was in league with Osama, etc, etc. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4411 Registered: 10-2001  |
"Yes, folks, it must have been the left that told us that Saddam posed an imminent threat." Why as a matter of fact it was the left, Notehead. Boy oh boy you libs make life easy for us real Americans. December 16, 1998 Web posted at: 8:51 p.m. EST (0151 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq. The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world. "Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said. Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said. "Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said. "Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton. Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors. 'Without delay, diplomacy or warning' The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way. "Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said. The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering. Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in. "Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said. "In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained. Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors. Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years. "If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction." Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4412 Registered: 10-2001 |
Well once again Notehead writes an idiotic comment and once again his comment has been proven wrong. And once again he fails to followup as a result.. Hey Notehead, how about showing some guts for once. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 1973 Registered: 5-2001 |
Holy smoking marzipan. Yes. Clinton said that. In 1998. Everybody and their mother knew about Saddam's brutality against the Kurds and the inspections to make sure he had disarmed. But Clinton didn't go to war over it, he didn't work it into every answer to every question posed by a member of the press, he didn't try to frame Saddam as the single greatest threat to humanity. Clinton was not, in short, a fearmonger. That is a right-wing gig. | ||
| Chris Prenovost Citizen Username: Chris_prenovost Post Number: 308 Registered: 7-2003 |
Looks like Clinton knew about as much about WMD's as Bush did. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 1974 Registered: 5-2001 |
Straw, I never fail to follow up on my posts. Your post about Clinton was less than half an hour ago. I can't play in the sandbox all day every day, I'm trying to work, how about you? | ||
| birdbrain Citizen Username: Birdbrain Post Number: 63 Registered: 2-2003 |
1998?!? That's the best you can do Straw?!? When will you republicans get _over_ Bill Clinton and start taking some responsibility! You are in your _2nd_ term now. You can't just toss everything back on Bill, and certainly not going back 7 years. And with this post you're accusing him of fearmongering, yet I'm sure I can find a post by you or someone else claiming that Saddam was still around because Clinton didn't take him seriously enough. And yes, Chris, I was speaking up for you earlier. What happened to the Republican Party of my youth? The one that spoke out against deficits and looked askance on foreign entanglements that put our troops in harm's way for little gain? Now we get a bunch of Red-ink Republicans using my kids' future to run their war games. -David "It's Clinton's fault it's cold today" Wren-Hardin -Show Them the Door | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 3456 Registered: 9-2001 |
"But then I'm just a dumb lib." I don't think libs are dumb, just a little confused. Like you said before, we'll just have to wait it out to see how confused they are... In the meantime, the Bush plan is working! | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 796 Registered: 7-2004 |
Marie: When you say "God bless Iraq" and the "Iraqi people" are you referring to their God or your God? ajc: Using a larger font doesn't make Bush's plan any better. Nice try, though. | ||
| bottomline Citizen Username: Bottomline Post Number: 169 Registered: 8-2003 |
Or the god of the Thomas More Law Center? |
