********************************************
Posted on 02/01/2005 10:19:03 PM PST by Roberts
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
At least Jimmy is consistent; he's consistently wrong.
The Baathist wing of the Democrat Party has not been exactly silent. That Eason guy from CNN sure made a fool of himself at Davos.
Translation: the results were not goint to favor Jimmy's favorite candidate, so the Carter center would avoid certifying the results.
Jimmy only validates stolen/crooked elections...like the one in Venezuela.
********************************************
***********************************************
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."
******************************************************
The Silence of the Lambaster.
It’s been two days since the Iraqi elections. The blogsphere and the media are still a-buzz with discussion and analysis of this historic event. Most everyone (save the fringeiest of the fringe) seems to see the positive aspect of 8 million people voting in Iraq. Even those who normally oppose this war have been holding their noses and proclaiming at least the possibility of a silver lining to this cloud of war. Well, almost everyone.
In the past week before the election and in the two days following, Moore has posted at least 35 links on his website to negative stories about the election. In the days preceeding the election, all of the stories wronlgy predicted doom and gloom. The post election stories link to comparisons to the voter turnout in the Vietnam election. Not one good word of news from Moore at all, save the latest installment of “Mike’s Letter” which announced his happiness at receiving the People’s Choice Award a while ago. Other than that, not a single word from Moore, not one word. If he stays true to form, I guess we’ll have to wait a week or so for Moore to issue a letter to those Iraqi’s opposed to the election, encouraging them to not slit their wrists, followed by a letter declaring victory because voter turnout was lower this Iraqi election as compared to the last one.
But still,
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.
A while back, Moore declared:
“The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow—and they will win.”
It seems that Moore only admires the Iraqi people when they validate his agenda of hating George Bush. Now that they have embraced this ideal of democracy, he seems to have lost respect for them by failing to acknowledge their achievement. I think he’s taken this whole “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” concept a little over the edge. Given the oppportunity to applaud the Iraqi people for their brave embrace of the concept of self determination, the silence from Moore is deafening. The Iraqi voters, they are the revolution, their numbers grew, and they won. Moore’s contempt for Bush can’t take that away.
Right. He was a barking moonbat before and he's a barking moonbat now.
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.
You mean it turns out the Iraqis didn't like the torture chambers and rape rooms? What's WRONG with those people?
Some people really have nerve. Bush and other coalition countries throw out a brutal dictator in Iraq, liberate millions of people, and fight off insurgents from neighboring countries that are hell bent on stopping elections and freedom. The liberation, the election and freedom not only happen, they are realized on time. And all this is accomplished while contending with protestors and liberal congressman all doing their best to undermine the effort.
And now, in apparent oblivion that the plan has not only worked but worked incredibly well, worked to the very visible satisfaction of overjoyed Iraqis, we all get to listen to demands that Bush demonstrate a workable plan for Iraq from the very people that said it would never work.
Who the heck are the liberals to demand anything of Bush on a plan for Iraq? They were wrong. Bush was correct - indeed visionary. Bush no longer needs to demonstrate he has a plan. He has done that and then some. Before any calls go out from the left for Bush to demonstrate he has a plan, the liberal left needs to demonstrate they are capable of perceiving a very well executed one staring them right in the face.
It isn't what saps like Carter said that matters, it's what the Shia and Kurd electors signify that matters. The Shia would walk headlong into the Persian Gulf and drown themselves if Sistani, an Iranian-born cleric, asked them to do so. Likewise, the Shia voted in their numbers because Sistani urged them to do so. Their turnout has little to do with their yearning for democracy and everything to do with their yearning to do what Allah's representative tells them to do. For now, this means to get all the training and ordnance they can get from the U.S., wax eternal about a secular state, and if their aims come to fruition, ultimately linkup with Iran. This makes Iran the chief benefactor of the turnout. As for the Kurds, if they beat out Allawi, and come in second to the 'Sistani party', the Turks will likely intervene militarily in Northern Iraq, most especially in Kirkuk, later if not sooner.
I believe your concerns are legitimate, however, I also am led to believe that the large presence of women voters on Sunday strengthens the likelihood of a secular Iraq that will be reflected in the new constitution. Also, polling has indicated that a majority of Iraqis prefers a secular government as opposed to one fashioned after Iran.
One thing we might agree on is that the election in and of itself demonstrates that US policy has always been strongly in favor of free elections and whatever takes place afterwards will represent the will of the Iraqi people. "No War For Oil" rings hollow.
Of course Michael Moore had no comment....He was to busy drowning his sorrow in double cheeseburgers....BURP!
I don't think the Turks will try to intervene militarily while the US is in country.....that would start a crisis within NATO itself!
It's not true, but I don't think it behooves us to argue this point.
We went into Iraq in order to eliminate the posibility that terrorists would conjoin with a very dangerous nation-state, which could have made the next attack on our soil much more devastating. Installing democracy was certainly part of the plan, but if you were to list the reasons we are safer today, and we definitely are, you would have to put at the very top of the list the fact that we have demonstrated our willingness to stand and die to protect our interests.
We were attacked on 9-11 because of a profound lack of respect, not an abundance of hatred. Our enemy's assessment of our resolve is what had to change. Just like we shouldn't have allowed our fifth column within to paint our reason as the singular quest for WMD, we should not now allow them to say we had the singular motive of "installing democracy". Our actions had myriad reasons, all of them coming back to the primary one....to show our enemy we will not sit back and allow our citizens to be killed, and secondarily to deal with root causes by eliminating despotism, IMHO.
Opponents of the Iraq war have attempted to disociate the self-defense component from the beginning, if we succumb to arguing that we did this for some altruistic reason, then we aid them in their effort to impugn our actions.
Well Ramsey Clarke was his attorney general while Carter was President......and Ramsey is going to defend Saddam....
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.