Dems to U.S. Troops: It's not too late to lose! But time's running out
by JohnHuang2
Reuters reports that "President George W. Bush faces a critical test this week with Iraqi elections that mark a defining moment in his campaign to convince Americans to support his Iraq war strategy."
Iraqi elections. Bush faces "critical test." When I read this, I thought to myself that although no one can ever know for sure what voters will do, I have no doubt Bush will be re-elected. Oops! Correction: Bush is not on the ballot. But he may as well be, the way this week's elections are being depicted. Same ol', 'Bush's finished . . . he's following in daddy's footsteps . . . watch him get flung out on his ears!' crap the MSM kept feeding us before Bush gave horseface a good horsewhipping on Election Day.
The critical problem Bush's media enemies face this week in Iraq is the same problem they faced throughout last year's presidential campaign: They don't have a candidate. The idea they're going to win this war in Iraq against Bush is just plain wrong. Not with Zarqawi as the "face" of the "opposition". Now, had the liberal media chosen someone else to champion, someone a tad less inclined to blow up weddings for kicks, who knows.
Oh, sure, Zarqawi could win in a walk in Hollywood, but in Iraq, not a snowball's chance (though I think a final Zogby poll has Zarqawi getting 311 electoral votes). Which is why you won't see any Iraqi politician happy to be seen with Zarqawi. Gets snubbed even by Sunni politicians. No heavy campaign schedule for Zarqawi, who, like Cindy Sheehan, calls the elections a Bush-neocon-Zionist plot.
But it's more than just about personalities and candidates. It's about the power of an idea. The idea of liberty. Freedom. Democracy. Self-government.
Bush faced a "critical test" last January with Iraqi elections to pick a provisional, interim government. "Analysts" dismissed as fantasy the possibility that Iraqis would turn out to vote in large numbers for Bush's Neocon Junta. The polling places will be deserted. Too much violence. Iraqis won't dare cross Zarqawi. Those who dare vote will be blown to bits. Then there will be a civil war!
Didn't turn out that way. Iraqis went to the polls in mammoth numbers to vote for Bush's "crusader conspiracy." Violence was minimal. The widely reported civil war failed to materialize. The January 30 elections were dubbed the Purple Finger Revolution. It was the power of ideas at work. As Bush says, the desire for liberty and human freedom is universal. Millions of Iraqi voters had proven him right that day.
"Analysts" then said: Ah, the vote was the easy part! Now comes the "real challenge."
Bush faced a "critical test" after the provisional government was elected. The job of the provisional government was to write a governing constitution, and have it ready for a nationwide referendum by October 15. "Analysts" dismissed as neocon fantasy the possibility Iraqis would reach a consensus on a new document. Iraqis are too divided. Kurds will never agree with Sunnis, Sunnis will never agree with Shi'ites on language. Then there will be a civil war!
Well, again, didn't turn out that way. Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunnis set aside their differences long enough to reach a consensus on language.
"Analysts" then said: Ah, writing the constitution -- easy part! Now comes the "real challenge."
Bush faced a "critical test" in the October 15 referendum. "Analysts" dismissed as fantasy the possibility Iraqi voters would endorse the new constitution. Sunnis will vote it down by large enough margins and in enough provinces to defeat it. Then there will be a civil war!
Needless to say, didn't turn out that way. The constitution got a sizable vote of confidence from Iraqi voters. Turnout was higher than expected. The widely reported bloodbath failed to materialize.
"Analysts" had a ready explanation: Ah, the referendum -- easy part! Now comes the "real challenge."
So now we come to this week's landmark election. Iraqis will be choosing the first freely-elected four-year government in their nation's history. Campaign posters everywhere. Roughly 500 parties and alliances. About 7,700 candidates, each vying for a seat in parliament. Sunnis boycotted the January elections. They won't be boycotting this one. Turnout could be as high as 70%.
So far this year, in two successful national elections, Iraqis have proven Bush right, Democrats wrong. Democracy in the Middle East. No wonder Democrats can't stop shrieking about "prisoner abuse" -- how U.S. troops are "mistreating" their guys.
The MSM effort to buck up the terrorists and give them the hope that by bravely blowing up weddings and schools they would drive out the U.S. has failed. And backfired. It's increasingly clear Zarqawi lacks a coherent plan for success!
Here at home, Democrats are more split on Iraq than ever. Split down the middle. Half of the party wants quick surrender, the other half says wait another 6 months, then surrender. (Dems to U.S. troops: It's not too late to lose -- but time is running out!)
And Bush is on a roll. He's back on offense, delivering a series of speeches as only a visionary can deliver. Bush is a bold, hard-charging leader who challenges the status quo and who never backpedals. Even in the darkest hours, Bush never backpedaled. This President doesn't know the meaning of the word. There's no question who commands the stage, who's setting the agenda. Shrewd, quick witted, resourceful and clever, Bush keeps beating the Democrats at their game.
On Thursday, we'll be witnessing another giant step towards freedom in the Middle East, and another major blow to freedom's enemies. God bless our President, God bless our troops, and God bless the United States of America!
Anyway, that's...
My two cents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
