Bush was right... Article
12-18-2005, 05:36 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: "It will take time to restore chaos." GWB
Posts: 3,461
Car Info: 72 Vespa with curb feelers
Bush was right... Article
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10284169/#051216a
What if the Middle East changed forever and no one noticed? It may have already happened. Early indications from Thursday's parliamentary elections in Iraq suggest that huge numbers of Iraqi citizens went to the polls, possibly as many as 11 million. If these numbers are accurate, turnout levels in Iraq reached more than 70 percent, at least ten percent higher than American voting levels in the 2004 presidential election. In other words, the overwhelming majority of Iraqi citizens came out to vote despite the threat of getting killed while doing so.
All of which raises an interesting question: What if George W. Bush's rhetoric about democracy -- about how all people, innately, yearn for freedom and representative government -- turns out to be true? What if Bush is right about Iraq?
It's a possibility few in the press have even considered. There's a consensus among the media that the war was a mistake from the beginning and that Bush's handling of it has been inept. I share that view. As a result -- and also because Iraq stories get terrible ratings - Thursday's elections were all but ignored in cable news and under-covered in print. It will take months to know if this was a good editorial decision. If the elections turn out to represent a peaceful lull between outbreaks of violence and chaos, the scant coverage will be justified. But if this turns out to be the point at which Iraq begins to get its act together, we'll have underplayed a huge story.
Which is true? I'm not sure, though I had a long e-mail exchange about it today with a reporter friend of mine. He's a conservative who, partly based on what he saw first-hand in Iraq, has become violently disenchanted with the Bush administration's handling of the war. Here's how he concluded his last e-mail: "If Bush ends up being right about Iraq, it will be through luck and accident and God's grace, not through any skillful calculation of his own. Success there will make him a great president the way Powerball makes crackheads rich: they have the money to show for it, but they're not fooling anyone."
I tend to think my friend is right. But it almost doesn't matter. A disaster in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States. Pray for success, no matter who's responsible for it.
What if the Middle East changed forever and no one noticed? It may have already happened. Early indications from Thursday's parliamentary elections in Iraq suggest that huge numbers of Iraqi citizens went to the polls, possibly as many as 11 million. If these numbers are accurate, turnout levels in Iraq reached more than 70 percent, at least ten percent higher than American voting levels in the 2004 presidential election. In other words, the overwhelming majority of Iraqi citizens came out to vote despite the threat of getting killed while doing so.
All of which raises an interesting question: What if George W. Bush's rhetoric about democracy -- about how all people, innately, yearn for freedom and representative government -- turns out to be true? What if Bush is right about Iraq?
It's a possibility few in the press have even considered. There's a consensus among the media that the war was a mistake from the beginning and that Bush's handling of it has been inept. I share that view. As a result -- and also because Iraq stories get terrible ratings - Thursday's elections were all but ignored in cable news and under-covered in print. It will take months to know if this was a good editorial decision. If the elections turn out to represent a peaceful lull between outbreaks of violence and chaos, the scant coverage will be justified. But if this turns out to be the point at which Iraq begins to get its act together, we'll have underplayed a huge story.
Which is true? I'm not sure, though I had a long e-mail exchange about it today with a reporter friend of mine. He's a conservative who, partly based on what he saw first-hand in Iraq, has become violently disenchanted with the Bush administration's handling of the war. Here's how he concluded his last e-mail: "If Bush ends up being right about Iraq, it will be through luck and accident and God's grace, not through any skillful calculation of his own. Success there will make him a great president the way Powerball makes crackheads rich: they have the money to show for it, but they're not fooling anyone."
I tend to think my friend is right. But it almost doesn't matter. A disaster in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States. Pray for success, no matter who's responsible for it.
12-18-2005, 06:21 PM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Being stalked by Salty
Posts: 691
Car Info: Looking for a Liberty CRD
Originally Posted by HellaDumb
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10284169/#051216a
What if the Middle East changed forever and no one noticed? It may have already happened. Early indications from Thursday's parliamentary elections in Iraq suggest that huge numbers of Iraqi citizens went to the polls, possibly as many as 11 million. If these numbers are accurate, turnout levels in Iraq reached more than 70 percent, at least ten percent higher than American voting levels in the 2004 presidential election. In other words, the overwhelming majority of Iraqi citizens came out to vote despite the threat of getting killed while doing so.
All of which raises an interesting question: What if George W. Bush's rhetoric about democracy -- about how all people, innately, yearn for freedom and representative government -- turns out to be true? What if Bush is right about Iraq?
It's a possibility few in the press have even considered. There's a consensus among the media that the war was a mistake from the beginning and that Bush's handling of it has been inept. I share that view. As a result -- and also because Iraq stories get terrible ratings - Thursday's elections were all but ignored in cable news and under-covered in print. It will take months to know if this was a good editorial decision. If the elections turn out to represent a peaceful lull between outbreaks of violence and chaos, the scant coverage will be justified. But if this turns out to be the point at which Iraq begins to get its act together, we'll have underplayed a huge story.
Which is true? I'm not sure, though I had a long e-mail exchange about it today with a reporter friend of mine. He's a conservative who, partly based on what he saw first-hand in Iraq, has become violently disenchanted with the Bush administration's handling of the war. Here's how he concluded his last e-mail: "If Bush ends up being right about Iraq, it will be through luck and accident and God's grace, not through any skillful calculation of his own. Success there will make him a great president the way Powerball makes crackheads rich: they have the money to show for it, but they're not fooling anyone."
I tend to think my friend is right. But it almost doesn't matter. A disaster in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States. Pray for success, no matter who's responsible for it.
What if the Middle East changed forever and no one noticed? It may have already happened. Early indications from Thursday's parliamentary elections in Iraq suggest that huge numbers of Iraqi citizens went to the polls, possibly as many as 11 million. If these numbers are accurate, turnout levels in Iraq reached more than 70 percent, at least ten percent higher than American voting levels in the 2004 presidential election. In other words, the overwhelming majority of Iraqi citizens came out to vote despite the threat of getting killed while doing so.
All of which raises an interesting question: What if George W. Bush's rhetoric about democracy -- about how all people, innately, yearn for freedom and representative government -- turns out to be true? What if Bush is right about Iraq?
It's a possibility few in the press have even considered. There's a consensus among the media that the war was a mistake from the beginning and that Bush's handling of it has been inept. I share that view. As a result -- and also because Iraq stories get terrible ratings - Thursday's elections were all but ignored in cable news and under-covered in print. It will take months to know if this was a good editorial decision. If the elections turn out to represent a peaceful lull between outbreaks of violence and chaos, the scant coverage will be justified. But if this turns out to be the point at which Iraq begins to get its act together, we'll have underplayed a huge story.
Which is true? I'm not sure, though I had a long e-mail exchange about it today with a reporter friend of mine. He's a conservative who, partly based on what he saw first-hand in Iraq, has become violently disenchanted with the Bush administration's handling of the war. Here's how he concluded his last e-mail: "If Bush ends up being right about Iraq, it will be through luck and accident and God's grace, not through any skillful calculation of his own. Success there will make him a great president the way Powerball makes crackheads rich: they have the money to show for it, but they're not fooling anyone."
I tend to think my friend is right. But it almost doesn't matter. A disaster in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States. Pray for success, no matter who's responsible for it.
Bush was wrong. It was never about "spreading democracy" until all his other excuses were proven false.
Democracy was the last gasp of a drowning administration.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
dsweet86
Wanted
1
05-13-2005 12:03 PM
dub2w
Teh Politics Forum
5
08-25-2004 01:04 PM
soundwave
Bay Area
11
04-27-2004 11:12 PM