February 14, 2005
It's a Fun-Fun-Fundamentalist World
Finally! The Iraq election results have been released: With 58% of registered voters participating, Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani’s fundamentalist Islam coalition dominated with 48% of the vote, the Kurds followed with 26%, and Prime Minister Allawi’s secular coalition trailed with less than 14%.
Early projections showed al-Sistani's Islamic revolutionaries with almost 60% of the vote, then the election committee delayed releasing results for a recount(?!) followed closely by Rumsfeld's "surprise" pow-wow with Allawi. The final tally shows the cleric-backed Shiite coalition with only 48%. Make of that whatever you want.
I've seen conservatives on the talk shows gushing with relief because the fundamentalist Shiites don't have a majority, opining that they'll have to create a real multi-party democracy. Dream on. Sistani's Islamists are already attempting to forge a power block with the Kurds. The deal would be along the lines of a Kurdish president and more autonomy for Kurdistan (and probably possession of oil-rich Kirkuk), in exchange for a Prime Minister from the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and a free hand everywhere else.
Several weeks ago, I predicted that Ayad Allawi and the other pro-US expats would retain some of the top spots. He, Ghazi al-Yawer, Adnan Pachachi, and Ahmed Chalabi are all savvy politicians, so I'm sticking by it. But mostly I'm sticking by it because if I'm wrong, it means Iraq has likely become an anti-US Islamic state just like Iran. Allawi is in Kurdistan trying to block the Sistani/Kurd deal, and the US still has some influence there, so it'll be interesting to see what happens.
Many critics of President Bush's Iraq adventure predicted that, without a totalitarian regime in place to keep Islamic revolutionaries in check, many countries in the Middle East would revert to anti-American Islamic states - a sort of Islamist domino theory, if you will. As validation, it's interesting to note that Islamists made huge gains in Saudi Arabia's first free municipal elections in Riyadh.
In his book, "Intelligence Matters", Senator Bob Graham writes about a meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak before Bush's invasion of Iraq. Mubarak told him,
"If you succeed militarily - and you will - and if Iraq were to become a democracy, it would almost surely elect a religious extremist government. You will end up with another ayatollah as the head of the government. And that election could cause a cascading throughout the Middle East. The result of your actions, whatever their intentions, could well be two or three more Irans. Is that what you want?"
And that's what we've probably got, isn't it? Even short of a full majority, by tucking the Kurds snugly away in Kurdistan, al-Sistani becomes spiritual head of an Islamic fundamentalist government in Iraq, and where Middle Eastern countries are opening up to democracy, their very conservative and religious populations are voting for Islamists and bringing Osama bin Laden's fundamentalist Islamic movement into the mainstream.
Posted by American Pundit at February 14, 2005 03:39 AMGood article, AP. Reflects a lot of my thoughts about the religious representation in the population and the low Sunni turnout, not matching the election results. Given the delay and recount, Rumsfeld’s visit, and Allawi calling for Sunni representation regardless of whether or not they voted, it would seem the election results were rigged, forced, fudged, pick your term.
Free elections? Democratic? If the election results are in the way, they will be ignored. Democracy is still a very long way off for Iraq, regardless of the show being put on for media consumption.
Democratic elections require the following which were not evident in Iraq:
An informed voting public (voters did not even know who they were voting for).
Freedom to vote without fear of reprisal (a great host of Iraqis were intimidated)
Confidence in the validity and veracity of the election results (already in question due to the factors you spoke of).
And most important, confidence by the public at large in the fair and honest representation of their interests by those elected. It remains to be seen how much confidence exists in the results by the Iraqi population as a whole, and whether this Constitutional Congress elected to draft a Constitution will in fact draft one that will represent the interests of the vast majority of Iraqis.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 14, 2005 07:20 AMDavid, that’s the problem. The majority of Iraqis are very religious, conservative people. An anti-US fundamentalist theocracy based on Islamic Sharia law absolutely “will represent the interests of the vast majority of Iraqis.”
But it doesn’t serve the interests of the United States, especially not as a consolation prize for getting duped on the non-existant WMD and terrorist ties. And another fundamentalist, oil-rich, Middle Eastern theocracy certainly isn’t worth more than 10,000 US casualties and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.
Had Bush pulled a real, honest to God, pro-US democracy, firmly grounded in transparency and human rights out of his hat, it’d be a different story. But it’s not even close.
…and Allawi calling for Sunni representation…
Sunni who? Good luck to those guys - payback’s a bitch, right? :/
I was an unwilling observer of Faux News last night at the gym. The talking heads were indeed gushing about the possibilities in Iraq, completely oblivious to reality. (As usual). Faux News should be labeled as the “Government Information Network,” since that what they essentially are. As for the consequences of Bush’s murderous little adventure, this comes as no surprise to me after having read Tariq Ali’s “Clash Of Fundamentalism’s” and “Bush In Babylon.” I don’t think anyone, prior to the invasion, had a better grip on the awful possibilities of Bush’s “splenid little war.” I strongly recommend both books. They’re quite the eye opener. Plus, you can get a look at what’s coming. (Hint, it ain’t pretty). At some point, the hypnotic Munchausen syndrome that the Bushies peddle to the faithful will exceed even conservative “interpretations” of reality.
Posted by: Jeff Hatmaker at February 14, 2005 09:35 AMI’m not sure if I understand you correctly, AP, is your point that they don’t deserve democracy, or that their religion precludes them from being free? You know, ‘those arabs would be better off left under a stalinist dictatorship.’
Perhaps the left should reexamine it’s false premises about how religious conservatives are not worthy of democracy and start using this as an opportunity to encourage Iraqis to stick with it. I seem to recall brave leftist ‘human shields’ going to Iraq to protect them from Imperialist bombs, perhaps they will rise up as well to defend democracy? I expect that will remain a rhetoric question.
If democracy delivers a fundamentalist government to the people, it is the people’s choice (as far as elections represent the will of the people). If that fundamentalist government then refuses to hold timely re-elections and instead becomes yet another despotic government torturing the Sunnis this time…that would be depressing.
The situation in Iraq, realistically, may not improve in our lifetimes. For 50 years the Palestinians and Israelis have been warring. There’s no proof that Iraq will be any different. It’s unclear where the fundamentalist Muslim uprisings around the globe will lead to, indeed, I’m not certain what the fundamentalists’ goals are…but if we’re going to work towards anything, it needs to be compromise and peace. If the “terrorists” are truly out to destroy anyone not like themselves, if the situation is truly black and white, the war will never be over.
But if their rage is pitted against material consequences, with religion only as an excuse, then at least there is some hope that they can be assuaged as the world becomes smaller and resources become less hoardable.
Posted by: Thomas R at February 14, 2005 12:19 PMI challenge Eric to show anywhere in this posting where it’s being said that “religious conservatives are not worthy of democracy.”
Despite the Right’s revisionist history, the bulk of the sales pitch on the Iraqi invasion was about WMDs. After that turned out to be a total debacle, the Right has now turned its spin to the Wilsonian “make the middle east safe for Democracy” mantra.
The problem is that the Right is completely dodging the question of the value of an invasion that a) finds no WMDs, and b) results in elections that installs a repressive fundamentalist regime, and c) installs an Islamist regime that is MORE likely to have sympathetic and synergistic links to terrorist networks, specifically Al Qaeda.
Do fundamentalists “deserve” democracy? Sure. Is a fundamentalist, Islamist regime, even duly elected, going to invest and adhere to a democratic model that is in anyway representative or truly “democratic?” Probably not.
To extend the Right’s new-found Wilsonian conversion - the net result of WWI was a democracy in Germany as well. However, what do you do when the democracy votes in Adolph Hitler? How are the intrests of either the American people facilitated when American lives and billions of dollars have been spent to, essentially, create a contiguous fundamentalist Shi’ite state encompassing both Tehran and Bagdhad?
Conservative hyperbole aside, “democracy” was never the issue here. It was and is about control. The least conservatives could do is act with some level of intellectual honesty and stop trying to market their Iraq misadventure as anything other than the power/money/oil grab it really is. Until then, Iraq will continue to be nothing but a sieve for American money and American casualties, and an increasingly more virulent breeding ground for the very Islamist hatred that got over 3,000 Americans killed in 2001.
Posted by: grubbery at February 14, 2005 12:20 PMI don’t think this is cause for worry. First, most Shia are secularists. It is anomalous that they represent a political authority in Iran. Mostly, they leave worldly government alone.
Second, al-Sistani is a moderate as those clerics go, as opposed to al-Sadr and his ilk.
I think we Democrats should breath a sigh of relief. We’ve got people in power there who are most conciliatory and very keen on avoiding further violence and war.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 14, 2005 12:40 PMAP -
Your article shows a lack of respect for the Iraqi people.
The fact that you automatically dismiss the Sistani coalition as fundamentalists shows a basic lack of respect for the Iraqi people. They know these politicians and they chose them to lead their country. Like people everywhere, they chose people who resemble themselves and share most of their views. The Sistani coalition might prove to be a lemon for the world community, but to write them off simply because they share the same religion as Iranians is as disresptful as it is absurd.
As I said, the Sistani coalition remains unproven. But so far, the evidence is strongly in their favor as responsible democrats:
(1) They are a patchwork of different political leaders, which makes them less likely to be able to seize power even if Sistani wanted to. Compromise, you’ll recall, is the essence of democracy.
(2) They have refrained from civil violence. Despite brutal and repeated attacks on Shia mosques and markets by Sunni militants, the Shia have steadfastly stayed the course in one of the most remarkable displays of communal patience in modern Middle Eastern history. They’ve lost more people to the Sunnis than America has, but they’re putting all their eggs in a democratic basket.
(3) Very little revolutionary rhetoric and very few ties with official Iran have surfaced. The last thing Iraqi Shiites want is to be Iran’s lapdog. Their shared beliefs didn’t stop them from slaughtering each other mercilessly in the 1980’s, and we have no reason to believe Iran is projecting power into Iraqi Shiite politics.
Show a little more respect for Iraqi voters and Iraqi leaders. Bashing Bush for invading is one thing (even I do that), but slurring an entire religious community? That’s not just illiberal and politically incorrect, it’s mean.
Posted by: Chops at February 14, 2005 03:14 PMIt’s not the Shias that worry me. They have behaved very well, especially considering the egregious provacations committed by Sunni terrorists. They may be committed to democracy. They may be merely committed to taking power. There is reason for hope, in that al-Sistani and the surviving Shia Ayatollahs are primarily men of religion, not men of politics. But funny things happen to people when they obtain money and power, so everyone will keep our fingers crossed.
It seems like the Shias would do just as AP suggests, and form an alliance with the Kurds; a Shia constitution and dominance over the Sunnis, in exchange for Kurdish autonomy and Kirkuk. That shuts out the secular Shias. Game, set, match.
The problem is with the Sunnis. I didn’t think it would matter how many or how few Sunnis voted, because the end-result is almost pre-ordained. However, the turnout was remarkably low, and whether that was due to lack of security, or lack of belief in the election’s legitimacy, it’s easy to see trouble down the track.
Posted by: phx8 at February 14, 2005 04:50 PMStephen,
I agree with you. I believe this might be the second time it’s happened, but I agree.
You will fully disagree with what I’m about to say to grubbery however.
Grubbery,
If I may, it was democrats who made WMD the SINGLE and ONLY reason to go into Iraq. I think if you question the talking points you received from DNC central command you might recall that the reason the Bush administration wanted to go into Iraq was this ‘neo-con’ strategy of creating democracy in the middleeast by overturning dictatorships. Yes, WMD was made a central reason and selling point to get support for invading but to say that democracy only became a reason after the fact is plain wrong.
It’s understandable that Dems want the issue to be framed as extremely as possible, but in the interests of truth you should reexamine this issue with less partisanship and more clarity.
Posted by: ericsimonson at February 14, 2005 04:59 PMBelow is information from a Brookings Institute report on Iraq that includes polling information.
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf
Jan 1-19 to 1-23 Abu Dhabi/Zogby International
Do you prefer an Islamist Government or a political system where citizens are allowed to practice their own religion?
Practice Own Religion 59%
Islamist Government 34%
September 24 – October 4, 2004: International Republican Institute
Importance of Religion in Politics
Do you believe that religion has a special role in the government today or that religion and the government should respect one another but remain separate?
Respect one another but remains separate 52.3%
Religion has a special role in government 37.9%
Don’t know 8.9%
It appears that we have some here who can’t stand the thought of something positive coming for January’s elections. Lets give the Iraqis a chance to put together a government, before we start the weeping and gnashing of teeth.
don’t think this is cause for worry. First, most Shia are secularists. It is anomalous that they represent a political authority in Iran. Mostly, they leave worldly government alone.
Second, al-Sistani is a moderate as those clerics go, as opposed to al-Sadr and his ilk.
I have to side with Stephen (wow, never thought I would say that) on this. Democracy is in its infancy in Iraq and infants are never easy, but I think the Iraqis recognize the potential they have been handed. They also have the fortune of years of watching the next-door neighbors to help keep them headed in the right direction.
that’s great Eric, but when you have high level administration officials going around saying the reason we can’t afford to wait for more proof is that “we can’t wait for a mushroom cloud” and other similar rhetoric and then later it seems to occur to them that freedom and democracy are going to result as a consequence as well, it’s hard to see the positives considering the high level of risk involved in an invasion.
I would be very happy to be wrong about Iraq—if it somehow manages to make it through the tumultous times it’s going to go through and becomes a model of democracy and freedom in the middle east, then the bush administration deserves every accolade that comes its way. But it seems unlikely that one of our primary purposes in going to war was to spread democracy when our plan for after the war ended was fairly threadbare. Atlantic Monthly reported in a long feature about a year ago that the administration put out some feelers to knowledgeable groups (former iraqis, scholars, etc) about what to do in iraq post-war, and then refused to let them meet with anyone of any significance. If just deposing saddam and getting the wmds wasn’t the primary purpose, why is that where the administration and the military spend all their energy planning?
Posted by: Zoffa at February 14, 2005 05:19 PMInteresting spin, Eric.
It’s understandable that Dems want the issue to be framed as extremely as possible, but in the interests of truth you should reexamine this issue with less partisanship and more clarity.
Yes. Let’s re-examine this issue. I’ll point you to the president’s own words.
Looking at a transcript of the President’s 2003 State of the Union address, where he made the bulk of his pitch to the American people selling the need for invading Iraq, the numbers do not lie, and the math is not as fuzzy as your memory (apparently) recalls.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/
In that address, there are approximately 58 paragraphs where the president is DIRECTLY addressing the threat of Iraq and his intent of using force to mitigate that threat.
58 paragraphs. 1,844 words.
Of those 58 paragraphs exactly ONE paragraph lays out the abuses of Saddam against his people as a justification for invasion.
Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.
1 paragraph. 54 words. Between 2-3% of his ENTIRE “we gotta take out Saddam” speech to America discusses anything but WMDs.
Yet it’s the DEMS who are to blame for this misdirection?
Oh, and by the way. Guess how many times the word “democracy” appears in Bush’s address?
One. (1). Uno. Eins. Ichi. A’deen.
And he’s talking about Iran…
Posted by: Grubbery at February 14, 2005 05:42 PMStephen- dont you see why your reasonable and measured view of what is currently going on in Iraq is so anenthema to the many leftists? They have put in so much emotional and intellectual capital into hating everything Bush has done, that they cannot awknowledge that something he has done has led to a good result. Heck, the election might have gone off well IN SPITE of the many screw ups of this administration, but they cannot get themselves to admit even that. Its kind of sad.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 14, 2005 08:23 PMMisha,
I hope you end up being correct. However, TIME will tell the tale of Iraq. I don’t think a couple of weeks after an election is the time to be screaming “Bush was right” or “the dems were right”. Ten years from now we may know the true answer. We will know if democracy in Iraq has stood the test of time or if they have fallen into despotism or a religious state. Then we will be able to make sound judgements on MR. Bush’s war. He may look the hero, or the goat. Right now he is the hero to the right and a goat to the left.
I do agree with Grubbery about one point…the American people were misled about the reasons for going into Iraq. Sure, the President may have had this seceret democracy agenda (though I doubt it); however, that is not how he sold it to the American people….not at all! If he had another agenda, then he simply lied. If he didn’t he had bad information and didn’t use war as a last result…which it should be!
Has Iraq been worth our blood and money? I don’t know. I don’t think anyone does or will for a long time to come. Whatever the case, we have sunk a lot of $ into the situation. Most conservatives used to be fiscally conservative…that seems to be a thing of the past. Now all we here is how deficits don’t matter. Did you know that about 43% of our privatley held government debt is held by foreign governments or foreign people? That, my friend, will come back to bite and bite hard one day. I hope the cost of this adventure pays off for someone….because our children and grand-children will shoulder the fiscal burden for some time to come.
Posted by: Tom at February 14, 2005 08:56 PMTom, actually agree with you on every single word of your post (including the part about Bush misleading the American people on the purpose of the war). I thought it was a good risk to take, and I think whether it was is still being decided.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 14, 2005 09:18 PMEric-
Part One: A Determination to go to war
Authorization to use force in Iraq was given not under some mandate to bring Democracy, or to bring down Saddam for being evil, but instead to pursue terrorists, especially the al-Qaeda terrorist that brought about the 9/11 attacks AND disarm Saddam in accordance to the UN Security council resolutions. The text I quote here is is from the actual authorization bill:
b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that —(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
He had to give a detailed, thorough report to congress on the subject, proving it was worth going to war.
This is not some cranks piece of legislation, but the bill that a Republican Majority in Congress and an almost evenly split Senate passed. All but six Republicans in the house and one Republican in the Senate signed off on this being the binding legal reason we went to war, and that is a fact you cannot deny.
Of course, through that link you can find the Whereas clauses, which you are undoubtedly going to use to try and prove that the purpose of the authorization was different.
You would then have committed a serious error, for the “Whereas” clauses in any law are considered neither binding nor authoritative- a fact President Bush conveniently ignored when he plagiarized them almost wholesale to put them into the determination required by the above resolution. That’s right, plagiarized.
I can’t find the text anywhere (not for a lack of searching, but in John Dean’s book, the text and the case are made unmistakeably clear: Bush lifted text from the preamble of the Authorization to use force, clipped the “whereas” part of the phrases out, and put them in there as a congressional determination- that is, a report from congress. This despite two facts: The “whereas” clauses carried no such authority, and it was Bush’s intelligence they were asking for.
Part Two: Informed Consent
In the end, apparently, Bush did not have a real case for war, an important issue in a time where there are problems that do deserve our attention. There is no clear moral answers to the plight of the Iraqi people here, but there are some clear moral points to be brought forth here.
Informed consent is such an issue. Americans and their representatives should not be treated like mushrooms, if you know what I mean. Public opinion is not to be arranged simply for the convenience of those wishing to go to war in the government.
The controversy of this war stems from the deceptions and the collosal intelligence failures, not from disagreements with the principle of freeing the Iraqis. Many reports given to the people used sources known to be unreliable or even false, or which proved so later, raising the issue of negligent analysis and gathering. Many reports were edited to remove qualifying language, a step that turned ambivalence on the part of our intelligence community into unified agreement.
In essence, we were told things that were known to be false, or should have been known as such, and we were given the impression of certainty where uncertainty ruled. These deceptions and negligent actions served to assure many in the public that there was good reason to invade. The nature of these revisions could have little other purpose than to bolster the popularity of the war. This constitutes a failure of the Administration’s trust in congress and the American people to make their decisions correctly when properly informed.
If this administration was never clear on what the situation was in Iraq, if the intelligence agencies were reserved and skeptical about Iraqi support for terrorism and possession of WMDS, and if the reporting was questionable, we should have been told from the outset. It is not inherently objectionable that a president should cause fear in the public, but it is profoundly immoral to do so by deception, and that he should lead us to war without the soft landing of the best possible intelligence.
We should not be put in this kind of a position by our president. We should not be made to seem like fools to the rest of the world, just so our president gets the war he wants.
Let me remind you: we have a watchful eagle on the seal of our nation and the White House, not a herd of lemmings charging over a cliff. Do not advocate that we blindly follow our leaders. We deserve better than that, and we deserve better than Bush’s case for war.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 14, 2005 10:30 PMHas Iraq been worth our blood and money? I don’t know.
I do. And speaking as a foreign policy conservative, the invasion isn’t worth the blood or money. It’s done nothing to further US foreign policy goals - in fact, it’s been a setback for our energy security and liberal reformers in the region - and it’s caused a split in our alliance with the ony other truly democratic nations in the world that fully share our values.
And I guarantee that Osama bin Laden is cackling with glee to see US military forces advancing his agenda of toppling repressive secular regimes and standing up Islamic fundamentalist regimes in their place. The al Qaeda Islamists knew exactly what they were doing when they supported President Bush’s reelection. As did the Iranians who also favored Bush.
I don’t think this is cause for worry. First, most Shia are secularists.
Then why did they overwhelmingly vote the religious ticket? :)
You’re mistaken if you think that, Stephen. By definition a Shiite is Muslim. I live among Muslims right now, and I know how much more seriously they take their religion than we Americans do. We have a history of separation of Church and State. For Muslims, that concept doesn’t even exist. Even the moderate Shiites on Sistani’s list only support secular civil law after it’s been reviewed for compliance with Islamic law by a religious council.
Here’s an interesting analysis I just read in the Washington Post, “Iraq Winners Allied With Iran Are the Opposite of U.S. Vision” It’s a much more professional, balanced, and objective version of my article.
I’ll tell you right now what the history books will say: Installing an anti-US fundamentalist regime in Iraq was not worth the hundreds of bllions of taxpayer dollars, nor the more than 10,000 US casualties it incurred. From a conservative foreign policy standpoint, it was a complete disaster.
Ah! I read this in the paper this morning and couldn’t think of the proper search keywords until just now. One of these guys will probably be the Iraqi Prime Minister.
The two most likely candidates, Adil Abdel-Mahdi and Dr. Ibrahim Jaafari, hold high posts in Allawi’s interim government and have worked closely with the United States since the invasion in 2003. But they represent Shiite religious parties with close ties to Iran that call for a greater role for Islam in society. And although their leaders insist they do not want an Iran-style theocracy, they have also called for laws to be subject to religious review by an unspecified authority.Posted by: American Pundit at February 14, 2005 11:25 PM
AP-
The Shiite’s can be politically active, but they won’t necessarily invest religious authority in the government, which is the crucial difference between classic Shia theology and Iranian Shia theology. They are allowing a secular government to be created, not one headed up by the Mullahs.
I know there is less of a notion of separation of Church and State in the Middle East, but that sort of unavoidable at this point in time without the intervention of old fashion Islamic Fascism. Just as we had to struggle out of the religiously based governments of our past, so too must the governments of the Middle East mature past it. But they have to mature at the right pace. Forced modernization has failed in the Middle East- what we need is for them to come into the light of modern times at their own pace, by their own will.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 15, 2005 09:35 AMStephen- dont you see why your reasonable and measured view of what is currently going on in Iraq is so anenthema to the many leftists?
Again with the conservative hyperbole. No one has attacked Stephen’s posts or said much other than they hope he’s correct. Some have expressed fear that his characterization of the internicine relationships are not as rosey has he projects.
Nothing, absolutely NOTHING, here has risen to the level of “anathema” - except for the Right column’s inability to differentiate between disagreements of substance from personal attacks.
Though I suppose any reasonable person listening to 5 minutes of AM radio shouldn’t be surprised by the murky understanding of these disperate notions on the Right.
Posted by: Grubbery at February 15, 2005 10:08 AMI think I see what you mean, Stephen: The Ayatollahs themselves aren’t filling government positions (yet). But the fact is, these guys don’t make a move without their approval, and I don’t see that abruptly changing now.
You’ll see what I’m talking about when they set up their religious police department to enforce Islamic morals.
Yes, I know that it is questionable about the recount. Unfortuately the Iraqis wanted to vote for more of those *&#!ing fundamentalists again, and we want a group that will support the US.
I know that you people will be infuriated ‘bout Bush’s partial birth abortion ban, and his aggresive move againt homosexual marriages. But his morals are right, and his beleifs are too.
He is a Christian, which gives him all the credit in the world. I am a VERY conservative republican, so I support him zelously. I will acknowledge that his economic policies are horrible, but his ethical views couldn’t be better. Of course, the next step is the complete removal of homosexual marriage and the eradication of abortion in the US.
Posted by: Christopher Lynch at February 15, 2005 10:42 AMAthother thing. People like Bush bashing for all his intelligence miskates right? Well, you can’t bash Bush for those mistakes. A president’s decisions are highly affected by good info from his advisors and intelligence angencies. If they provide bad info, than his decisions may be flawed as well.
At least he isn’t a pathetic adulteress lying under oath in court the way playboy Clinton did.
Posted by: Christopher Lynch at February 15, 2005 10:44 AM…we want a group that will support the US.
Of course, but I don’t think that was ever a realistic outcome, though things might have gone a bit better if there had been adequate security after the invasion to facilitate reconstruction, education, and some real politicking.
In any case, what we’ve got now certainly isn’t worth the blood and billions we put into it.
I like how some of the conservatives are putting a silver lining on Iraq. They’re saying that, even if Iraq isn’t the pro-US counterweight to Iran in the region that they’d hoped it would be, at least we can use the new government’s Iranian connections as a diplomatic back-channel. More than 10,000 US casualties and almost $300 billion for a diplomatic back-channel! Yipee…
Let me put it this way - because I really love analogies: Pretend the whole Iraq adventure is a movie. You’re totally into it when “the smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud,” and “you can’t distinguish between Saddam and al-Qaeda,” so we’re going to take out that rogue regime with its dangerous Islamic fundamentalist ties. Cool!
Then you have to go take a wizz, so you leave the room for a minute.
And when you come back, you find out there never was any WMD or terrorist connections, and we put the freakin’ Islamic fundamentalists in charge! Dude! Now you’re frantically stabbing the rewind button to find out how the hell that happened!
Of course, the reviewers totally gave away the ending before you saw the movie, but you didn’t listen. You wanted to be surprised…
Christopher has done us the favor of illustrating perfectly that the notion of the GOP as “the party of personal responsibility” is as big a fallacy as calling the GOP “the party of fiscal restraint.”
Posted by: Grubbery at February 15, 2005 11:51 AMHe is a Christian, which gives him all the credit in the world. I am a VERY conservative republican, so I support him zelously. I will acknowledge that his economic policies are horrible, but his ethical views couldn’t be better. Of course, the next step is the complete removal of homosexual marriage and the eradication of abortion in the US.Christopher—this is what concerns me about the christian right in this country right now. 1) Calling yourself a Christian and acting as a Christian are two very different things. I am glad that he apparently has and continues to study the bible and uses faith as a motivating and guiding force in his (Mr. Bush’s) life but it seems there is this whole part of Christianity that hasn’t applied. It’s called the New Testament. One of Christianity’s most appealing features is its emphasis on tolerance and helping those less fortunate than yourself. Where is that emphasis in this administration or the christian right today? Instead of hearing about taking care of the poor, we are treated to diatribes on how gays are going to hell, abortion doctors should be electrocuted and the like. you can’t unilaterally say that Mr. Bush’s “morals” are right—demonizing an entire group of people that are suffer enough as it is doesn’t seem like a very christian thing to do, nor is it helpful or consistent with christian theology to simply attack the “sinners” in women who have abortions and not consider the underlying problems.
I want my President to be a moral man, no doubt. But I would much rather he be moral in his public life in policy than I am concerned with his personal life.
For my part, I am happy with the partial birth abortion ban and am in favor of parental notification for minors (with the caveat that they should be able to get a licensed social worker to sign off instead as an alternative, in case the parents are abusive, etc).
AP-
I think the extent of the Ayatollah’s involvement will be generalized approval of the constitution. I hardly think the Iraqi people will take religious police being set up.
Stephen,
He had to give a detailed, thorough report to congress on the subject, proving it was worth going to war.
Where in the authorization bill does it say detailed, thorough report? All it says is the the President must give his determination that – further diplomacy or other peaceful means would not protect the US or lead to complete adherence to the UN Sanctions and that we would not stop pursueing terrorists especially Al Qaeda.
The report could have been as simple as below of course rewritten by a lawyer.
“I George Bush as President of the United States through consultation with my advisors, US Allies and review of available relevant intelligence from both US and multiple foreign sources have determined that further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone will not adequately protect US National Security or lead to enforcement of relevant UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
Acting pursuant to the joint resolution of Congress, military actions taken against Iraq will not cause the discontinuation of necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”
The controversy of this war stems from the deceptions and the collosal intelligence failures
You are very close here you just have 3 too many words. Leave out the “deceptions and the”. Those words are what the neo-libs use to cover for the fact that Democrats have cut human intelligence during the Clinton Administration.
http://www.hillnews.com/news/021204/intelligence.aspx
Christopher,
Our founding fathers purposely stated that a man cannot be witheld from the office of president due to his religous (0r lack of religous) beliefs. Why? Why would they do such a foolish thing? Most of them, if not all, were christian. Because they wanted a Secular government. There have been a GREAT number of things done in the past by christians in God’s name that in hindsight were not only atrocious but wrong (burning witches in Salem, the Inquisition, the Catholic/Protestant issues that to this day affect Ireland,on and on and on). There have been some GREAT presidents that have not necessarily lived a “christian” life. There have been some lousy presidents that have lived very “christian” lives. It’s not the federal governments job to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ….it’s the church’s job. God’s kingdom is in heaven, not of this earth. We should govern our nation as the constitution says….and YES, there is a seperation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson said something along these lines (I’m paraphrasing here)…What harm does it do for my neighbor to say there is one God, ten Gods, or no Gods? It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Interpretation…the federal government’s job is to protect us fiscally and from bodily harm.
So, I ask this…what harm is it for a man to marry a man… or a woman a woman? This neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Now personally I don’t believe it’s right for same-sex marriage. However, I don’t have a problem with civil unions. This is just my own opinion. I feel it is a state rights issue, NOT an ammendment the the Constitution of the United States!
Do your job as a Christian and spread the Gospel so that all will share your beliefs. However, if you are wanting the federal government to do your job for you, by passing laws that neither pick your pocket or break your leg…then you are mis-using the federal government AND not following what is called the “great commission” to all christians….”go and spread the good news of the gospel”…it’s our job as christians to change one heart at a time through Christ…NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S NOR THE SUPREME COURT’S!
I am a Christian. God saved me when I was but 13 and I am blessed. I’m a Christian before I am an American. However, our government has been made great by keeping government out of our churches and the churches out of our government.
Hey, a three party government!
Anybody wanna trade?
Posted by: mike at February 15, 2005 09:02 PMI hardly think the Iraqi people will take religious police being set up.
Stephen, the Iraqi people could have voted for the secular party. The secular list was even headed up by the guy who ran the country for almost a year now. But they rejected the secular ticket and overwhelmingly chose to elect the cleric-backed Islamist parties - just as most Muslim experts predicted they would.
And naturally, the new Iraqi government will have a religious police. All Islamist states, from the Taliban, to Saudi Arabia, to Iran, to Malaysia and Indonesia have morality enforcers as an agency of the government. The only question is, how repressive will Iraq’s be.
Some believe a freely elected Islamist government in Iraq is worth the more than 10,000 US lives and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars the Bush administration spent. I don’t think it is.
This is what I’m talking about, Stephen:
One of Sistani’s aides told the AP on Tuesday that he has refused to endorse a single candidate for prime minister, but has let it be known in the past that he would support al-Jaafari.
What do you think would happen if he didn’t? BTW, we talked about the religious police a in the middle column here a while ago.
Looks like the Shiites are going to a secret ballot to decide between al-Jaafari and Chalabi(!),
A close aide to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the spiritual leader of Iraq’s Shiite Muslims, said the alliance’s leaders will visit the grand ayatollah’s office in Najaf to get his blessing for their choice for prime minister. In the event they can’t agree, al-Sistani will make the final decision, said the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity.Posted by: American Pundit at February 17, 2005 01:33 AM
Zoffa, Christopher, and Tom:
We all have our our favorite parts of the Bible, and our own emphases. Yes, the Bible certainly does teach tolerance in the form of warning against judging others, and concern for the poor. No question about it. It also teaches a number of other things less palatable to the modern left.
One of the difficult things about being a Christian evangelical in today’s world is that it is become virtually impossible to vote for Democrats. I hate our deficit and my doubts about the war in Iraq continue to rise, but voting for Democrats will never repeal or moderate abortion, and will only strengthen the forces that fight against the Christian faith.
During the run up to the election, I was asked (many times) why I was voting for Bush and not John Kerry. I had two reasons. First, I like and trust George W. Bush as a person. Second, George Bush has all the right enemies, and John Kerry had all the wrong friends. A huge chunk of the organizations whose viewpoints pour hatred and derision onto Christian evangelicals supported John Kerry and focused the considerable power of thier voices on attacking Bush. The enemy of my enemy is my friend (as a general rule, not an absolute principle, before someone bites my head off).
Quite simply, I feel hated by the left these days. I’m certain they (mistakenly) feel hated by me, too. Homosexuals are no more evil than other people. Yes, I believe their lifestyle is an affront to God, just as the lifestyle of many chief executives of large corporations is an affront to God. Regarding abortion, those who choose to abort their children feel trapped into doing it … I seriously doubt very many of them enjoy the process. They murder their children, but most of them don’t know what they’re doing.
Oh, bother, I suppose all these posts really are just a rabbit trail off of the topic. Sorry. When I read Christopher’s first post, I knew there would be trouble. But one should always stick up for one’s family.
Posted by: Daniel at February 19, 2005 02:21 PM“I wouldn’t answer the marijuana questions,” President Bush said, according to the Times. “You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.”
Waaayy off topic, Daniel. But until the Shiites choose between Chalabi and al-Jaafari there’s nothing else going on - except the intensifying insurgent attacks and the hostage taking. Oh, and the GOP Congressional delegation who are optimistic about Iraq - even though, unlike their last trip, they were unable to leave the Green Zone at all.
I hate our deficit and my doubts about the war in Iraq continue to rise, but voting for Democrats will never repeal or moderate abortion
Priorities… BTW, Democrats, through education, counseling and birth control, are trying to make abortion completely unnecessary. You guys are trying to limit access to birth control among other things, thereby increasing the number of unwanted pregnancies and causing more abortions.
How do you reconcile that?
Daniel,
Abortions steadily decreased during the Clinton years. Abortions have steadily increased during the Bush years.
But back to topic. Anyone notice the voting pattern from the Iraqi election? Shias voted for Shias, Kurds for Kurds, even Christians for Christaians and Assyrians for Assyrians. In other words, each ethnic group voted for its own representatives. The implications are not encouraging.
Creating an Iraqi Army has been a miserable failure to date. The Kurds have their Pershmerga. The Shias have their militias. The Sunnis have their insurgents.
The patterns of the attacks (that are reported) suggest something about where this is going. The Iraqi Sunni insurgents and Baathists seem to concentrate their attacks on US troops and oil pipelines. Their attacks on troops are characterized by IED’s, small arms fire, and RPG’s. This tells us something; they are opposed to occupation. Right now that applies to US troops, but attempts to install Shia/Kurdish troops may well meet the same results.
The Sunni jihadists and the Al-Zarqawi terrorists concentrate their attacks on Iraqi national guardsman, policemen, and Shias. Their attacks are characterized by suicide bombers, car bombs, and beheadings, among other things. This tells us something, too; they are opposed to the Shias taking power.
The key is letting the Sunnis rule the Sunnis. I know it’s too late, but US policy is on the wrong track, I’m convinced. The Iraqi election was a terrible mistake. The Iraqis needed a plebiscite to decide whether to voluntarily belong to the nation of Iraq, or form separate governments for the Kurds.
It will come to this anyway. We’re just wasting time, wasting money, and wasting lives.
Posted by: phx8 at February 20, 2005 01:01 AMphx8, I’m pretty sure you’re right. I think the chance of a representative democracy in Iraq came and went. Why the Bush administration didn’t give the occupation legitimacy by immediately turning Iraq over to a UN mandate and international forces - as they did so successfully in Afghanistan - is a mystery to me.
The US Army propping up a cleric-controlled Iraqi regime with strong religious ties to the Ayatollahs in Iran is not something any American would have signed up for two years ago.
And as an aside, I’m really impressed with Iranian-born Sistani’s political acumen. He immediately recognized that he had Bush over a barrel because the US lacked any kind of legitimacy at all in the operation. Bush didn’t want general direct elections (favoring a series of caucusses that would have prevented single party dominance), but Sistani forced it on him by threatening to withdraw the only legitimacy the occupation ever had - his support.
Sistani knew that direct general elections would put Islamist Shiites in power. Sistani, not Bush or the international community, set the timetable and the conditions of the election. And the Islamist Shiites (just barely) got the result they wanted: Dominance of Iraq. Amazing.
AP,
No question, Sistani (and the Iranians) have played a brilliant political game. It’s been at our expense- literally- but I’m still hopeful an independent southern Iraq could be on modestly friendly terms with the US. Like you, I doubt that particular government will be what Americans envisioned. Unfortunately, as a nation, we’ve been blinded by stars of democracy dancing before our eyes. We see the situation through a narrow set of blinders, and try to make what we see fit into that narrow vision.
Once upon a time, the concept of ‘self-determination’ used to be common. It’s been noticeably absent when it comes to Iraq.
You know, the patience and political acumen of the Shias is all the more remarkable considering the incredible provocations they’ve endured. Their traditional enemy, the Sunnis, have slaughtered Shias in truly heinous attacks. Yet the Shias have refrained from taking their revenge, which ordinarily would be considered a very appropriate response, by their cultural standards or by our own. They’re smart, and incredibly disciplined. The frightening part is that their self-control is being imposed very, very effectively from the top, from Sistani and other clerics.
By waiting, they’ll achieve everything they want, and maybe more.
Posted by: phx8 at February 20, 2005 03:44 PM
