Posted on 01/31/2005 9:28:59 AM PST by Lando Lincoln
Making a Dent in Liberal Disinformation: The Iraq election
The actual numbers and results will not be known for a week or more. All indicators are that Iraqi citizens exercised their voting franchise in free elections for the first time in 50 years in numbers that rival the latest U.S. presidential vote. Voters went to the polls in spite of threats and real violence, branding themselves with blue ink (to prevent re-votes) which the terrorists had said would mark them for death. They stood in long lines, vulnerable to snipers, suicide bombers, mortars and rockets.
At a brief address Sunday, President Bush said "Today, the people of Iraq have spoken to the world, and the world is hearing the voice of freedom from the center of the Middle East Across Iraq today, men and women have taken rightful control of their country's destiny, and they have chosen a future of freedom and peace. Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice said What we are seeing here is the emergence of an Iraqi voice of freedom."
Quick to voice their support of this dramatic, heroic and historic birth of democracy in the Middle East were the two Senators from Massachusetts.
Senator John Kerry, whom some may remember from the 2004 presidential elections, said No one in the United States should try to over-hype this election. This election is a sort of demarcation point, and what really counts now is the effort to have a legitimate political reconciliation, and it's going to take a massive diplomatic effort and a much more significant outreach to the international community than this administration has been willing to engage in. When asked by Tim Russert of Meet the Press whether the world community would see the election as legitimate, Senator Kerry responded, A kind of legitimacy--I mean, it's hard to say that something is legitimate when a whole portion of the country can't vote and doesn't vote.
Senator Ted Kennedy, in his usual show of non-partisan support, said "The best way to demonstrate to the Iraqi people that we have no long-term designs on their country is for the administration to withdraw some troops now and to begin to negotiate a phase-down of our long-term military presence."
Both Senators, alas, betray both an ignorance of history and their complete disregard for the Iraqi people. Re-read Senator Kerrys remarks above. Where do the Iraqi people come in? He speaks of the U.S. and the international community, using the election in Iraq not as an expression of the will of the people but as an element of U.S. international relations. I would submit to the Senator that what matters here is not how we are getting along with the French, or whether our popularity rises in Spain. Similarly, he presumes that the Iraqis cannot work out their own differences without the interference of some paternal international intervention (presumably by the historically tolerant states of France and Germany, and those traditional bastions of democracy, Russia and China). Im sure the Iraqis can learn great things from Spain regarding their successful reconciliation with the Basques, and China can help out with what they know from reconciling with the Tibetans. Russia, of course, brings to the table their fabled history of reconciliation with the Chechnyans.
Lost in his grand diplomatic posturing is the single most important fact of the Iraqis holding elections. They successfully pulled it off in spite of all odds. They proved they care passionately about their future, to the point of risking their very lives. They matter, Mr. Kerry. This is not a strategy to redeem ourselves in the court of world opinion, but the birthing of a living, breathing democracy in a region historically steeped in despotism and theocracy. If we truly respect their sovereignty we will give them the tools and the protection to chart their own destiny.
Given the deep divides within the U.S., perhaps Senator Kerry would appreciate foreign governments coming into the Senate to teach Congress how to achieve a legitimate political reconciliation. Just a thought.
Senator Kennedy similarly overlooks the Iraqi people and the significance of what they did. Let me try to make this simple, sir. The best way to demonstrate to the Iraqi people that we have no long-term designs on their country is to assist them, with our blood and treasure, to elect their own government and develop their own constitution. We have done this, and must remain as long as that elected government requests to protect this fragile bloom until it can survive on its own. Do the Iraqis wish there were not Coalition soldiers on their streets? Yes. Has any party participating in the political process there indicated a desire for the Coalition to immediately withdraw? No. Parents, watching their sickly baby through hospital glass wish the baby could be in their arms and not an incubator, but they would rather the child survive. Given the very real threats of assassination, the newly elected government would view any move by the Coalition to immediately withdraw any troops as abandonment of them when they need help the most. There is a survivalist school of thought that advocates a parent throwing their child in the pool to force them to swim, but no sane parent then turns and walks away.
Senator Kerrys (and others') question about whether the election will be viewed as legitimate when a whole portion of the country can't vote and doesn't vote is simple ignorance. By this definition, all elections in the U.S. were not legitimate until 1971. Black males were not eligible to vote until 1870 (XV Amendment). All women were not able to vote until 1920 (XIX Amendment). American Indians were not nationally given the vote until 1924 (Indian Citizenship Act). All restrictions designed to limit voting of blacks were finally lifted in 1965 (Voting Rights Act). The vote was given to 18-year-olds in 1971 (XXVI Amendment). These all represented significant portions of the country who could not vote prior to these dates.
In 1789, George Washington was elected by only 10 states New York chose no electors, and North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet ratified the Constitution. In 1864, in the midst of the civil war, 11 states did not vote in the presidential election was Abraham Lincolns presidency not legitimate? As late as 1870, three unreconstructed (had not re-written state constitutions and ratified the XIV Amendment) states (Texas, Mississippi and Virginia) were not allowed to participate in the presidential election was Ulysses S. Grants election illegitimate?
It is perhaps no wonder that Senators Kerry and Kennedy have no sense of the historic nature of the Iraqi elections. They have no sense of the history of the nation they ostensibly serve. Their dismissal of the importance of Iraqi voters for some parochial vision of what is important to themselves goes hand-in-hand with their willful blindness to the plight of the Iraqis under Saddam Hussein.
To paraphrase Charles Schultzs Linus, I love humanity, its just the Iraqi people I cant stand. Or possibly, Democracy is overrated Im not President.
Lando
It's as simple as this: Kennedy and Kerry are both whining maggots who believe they know better than the rest of us.
We pay too much attention to these two has-beens.
If the voters in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had any guts, they'd jettison both of these turkeys as soon as possible.
But that's asking a lot of voters in Massachusetts...to say hothing of the turkeys!
That is right where you have to KICK a liberal for the shock therapy on their brains to take effect. Good job in the educational aspect of Training Libturds 101!
The Kennedy's "boycott" ANYONE who runs against Chappaquiddick Teddy. All of a sudden, deliveries to your business stop (Teamsters), people call in sick via their Local, etc, etc. Then, for economic reasons, the opponent "drops" out and Chappaquiddick Teddy slimes his way in.
Kerry and Kennedy: the spirit of Sore-Loserman lives on!
These guys were elected by women.
I'm embarrassed for the people of Massachusetts.
Never could figure how the people of Mass.can remain so blind.
John who?
I live in MA and the people here, liberal or otherwise, are generally some of the most provincial, self-absorbed assholes I've ever met. They elect people like Kennedy and Kerry because they are good for MA, and in particular, good for Boston and the surrounding areas. Nobody here gives a shit about how they are for the country or even the rest of MA.
Democracy is only 'overrated' in the eyes of those who see themselves as the ones being fit to serve as dictator.
And as a woman (but at least, thank God, not one living in Mass), I am so embarrassed that my fellow females could be so gullible.
I agree with your points. However, the overriding problem is the ineptitude of the Republican party in MA. Both of these twits have been elected with little or no opposition. Bill Weld, a RINO who has since gone of the deep end, gave Kerry a good run for his money in the last elecetion. Mitt Romney gave fat Teddy a scare, but that's been the extent of the opposition. Until the Republicans can field someone better than Jack E. Robinson (yikes), we are cursed with these two buffoons.
IRAQI LIBERATION PING
Republicans in MA just need to be able to have hope that the tyranny of the left can be overcome, then they will nominate a winner.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.