Iraq Elections

[Crazy Cooter]

Just around the corner are the Iraqi Elections.  Rather than all the "typical" comments on why we're there, let's keep it on topic.  How do you think the different groups feel about the elections?

My questions:
Why do people that aren't living in Iraq get to vote?
That said, are the "voter turnout" numbers going to reflect how many people voted while living in Detroit compared to those that live in Baghdad?  Or will we just see xx number of votes (and assume they all live there)?

Think of it like this:
If people living outside of America voted in our election, we probably would have had a different outcome.  With entire groups (that actually live there) boycotting the election, is this election even valid?

[RayB]

It's a valid point considering that those outside the country can safely do so, while those IN Iraq will be targets for bombings. Which means the turn out IN Iraq could be way lower than the voting OUTSIDE Iraq!

[iwillfearnoevil]

i don't know why they can vote, but i think they are still iraqis who have fled for their lives but are not us residents? a good question.

there is going to be very low turnout for out-of-iraqi voters due to un bungeling it. they are refusing to open lots of polling places in the us such as san diego where 25,000 - 30,000 iraqis live.

from James Y. Rayis:
Only 280,303 people out of the more than one million estimated to be eligible registered in the 14 countries participating in the out-of-country voting program. In the United States, a mere 25,946 registered, a tenth of what was expected. Here the low turnout is attributable to serious mistakes made by the U.N.-appointed International Organization for Migration's Out-of-Country Voting office (IOM-OCV).

[mr.Curmudgeon]

there is going to be very low turnout for out-of-iraqi voters due to un bungeling it.

The current interim president of Iraq has suggested that there will also be a very low turnout for voters currently IN Iraq.

"Most of the Iraqi People Will Not Participate"

Sadr is shunning the vote, so a large portion of Shia may abstain as well.

The bombing of polling places has already started.

My opinion is that if the U.S. couldn't stabilize Iraq enough to hold a safe and legitimate election process, how can any "elected" official be expected to rule afterward. I imagine most elected officials will be assassinated shortly after anyhow. Democracy cannot be "spread" through imperialistic measures, it must be brought to a willing populace who are fully interested and able to participate without fear of retribution. I see nothing like that in Iraq. I do, however, wish the populace the very best.

[Grasshopper]

What I find slightly disturbing about most of the news coverage of the Iraqi elections is that there never seems to be any mention of what choices the Iraqi people are actually being given. Surely this is the most important issue of all. I've been following the Iraq situation very closely but I don't even know how many different political parties are running yet alone what their policies are.

This bothers me a bit. It's no secret that a lot of Iraqis believe the elections are a sham. I'd like to know whether their scepticism is justified or not, but I'm not being presented with the necessary facts to make an informed judgement.

[patrickl]

I saw Paul Bremer in an interview on dutch TV about the elections and he stated that there were something like 40 parties entering the election. I think the idea is that no one party can get the majority so the government will have to consist of several parties who will need to get along. For obvious reasons the US would not like to see Iraq become a Shia country like Iran.

BTW really sad how this guys' live is ruined. Paul Bremer can probably not live a normal live for at least a decade or so. Amazing that someone can be so dedicated to his job that he will suffer so much for it. I was really impressed by the way he spoke and what he said.

[danny_galaga]

i don't know why they can vote, but i think they are still iraqis who have fled for their  In the United States, a mere 25,946 registered, a tenth of what was expected.

yep. thats the ameerican way  more iraqis are voting in australia than in the US it would seem...

[iwillfearnoevil]

this James S. Robbins article describes some of the candidates and parties running:
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200501280818.asp

to get an idea of the scope:
There is a single nationwide ballot for the 275-seat Iraqi national assembly. Eighty-three party and individual electoral lists with a total of 7,200 candidates are contending for those seats. In addition, there are separate ballots in each of the 18 Iraqi governates to elect 41-member governing councils (51-member in Baghdad), which will function as provincial governments. Over 380 party lists representing 7,850 candidates are seeking these 748 seats. Finally, voters in Kurdish areas will choose from among 499 candidates representing 14 parties for the 111-seat Kurdish National Council.

also they're voting for parties and not individuals and the major parties have resisted publishing their list of individuals for security concerns.

[Crazy Cooter]

That's nuts.  It would take hours to fill that out.  I don't know if I would take the risk.  The people that live there should be the ones making the decision though (IMO).  They are the ones that will live with the consequences.

Wouldn't it have been easier to start with a national level government and then create the local stuff once that had been stabilized?  I think it's safe to say that there is going to be extreme distrust and frustration in this.  I think that Iraq may end up with "too many cooks in the kitchen".

"...the idea is that no one party can get the majority so the government will have to consist of several parties who will need to get along." <-- I hope we're not the role model in this.  We have two parties that can't get along.

[RetroJames]

Certainly alot more choices than the last election...

I am very happy those people have that murderous SOB and his horrific offspring out of the way.  At least they have a chance now.

[iwillfearnoevil]

That's nuts.

[iwillfearnoevil]

Certainly alot more choices than the last election...

I am very happy those people have that murderous SOB and his horrific offspring out of the way.

[Tailgunner]

CNN is currently reporting 70% of Iraqis voted today.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

CNN is currently reporting 70% of Iraqis voted today.

This number is not based on any sort of scientific poll, and I'm ashamed that our media keeps batting it around as if it were fact.

From an Iraqi, watching Iraqi television:
"The journalists asked the excecutive director: how did you know that the percentage of the voters in iraq is 72% like you announced? He answered: "well, the head of every voting center estimated that basing on the length of the line of the voters as he saw it!"

If we're to believe this number is correct, then we'd have to believe that the exit polls here for the last election were correct.

KERRY WON!!!

mrC

[RayB]

Yeah, always be skeptical of the media. Especially when they tend to all get their information from the same sources (Reuters, AP, etc). It's not hard for the government to "seed" whatever news suits them best. (ie: 70% turn out rate). This rate surprised me too.

[iwillfearnoevil]

and then CNN goes on to quote:
"It will take some time for the IECI to issue accurate figures on turnout," the statement said. "What is certainly the case is that turnout has exceeded expectations throughout the country."

no matter the actual percentage the iraqis and everyone except the anti-government terrorists have to say this is an unqualified SUCCESS

[RayB]

... except that the Sunni's, who are concerned over their level of representation in such an elected body, DIDN'T VOTE.

[abrannan]

Think of it like this:
If people living outside of America voted in our election, we probably would have had a different outcome. 

Um, you do know that hundreds of thousands of American citizens who live overseas did vote last November, and legally to boot? 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

no matter the actual percentage the iraqis and everyone except the anti-government terrorists have to say this is an unqualified SUCCESS

jened and other war apologists are already seeming to break their arms patting themselves on the back, while the Iraqis still have a hell of a lot of work to do. I'm happy that enormous amounts of people weren't killed while lining up to participate, but I'll continue to refrain from the patriotic triumphalism and flag-waving until after the country stabilizes.

I find it disturbing that there are allegations from individuals in Iraq that people were being threatened with a suspention of food rationing if they didn't vote. There has been no water in large areas of Baghdad and other outlying areas, and some are complaining of a demonstration of 'collective punishment' as incentive to vote. If these allegations are true...I wouldn't call this a success at all.

One prominent Iraqi blogger writes:
"People in many areas are being told that if they don

[iwillfearnoevil]

those blogs have had several claims disputed both factually and logically so i take what they write with a grain of salt. see the Thursday, January 06, 2005 entry on http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ for example. anyways no need for us to argue, the people have won, and the terrorists have lost!

[fredster]

Cooter, people outside of the US do vote for the President. People with dual citizenship can vote, and they did vote. 

This number is not based on any sort of scientific poll, and I'm ashamed that our media keeps batting it around as if it were fact.

MrC, you amaze me with your Kreskin powers.  I guess you AGAIN have ESP and know that this can't be right.

This is a great day for the world and we should all be so happy for the people of Iraq.  Sure, it's a long and hard road ahead, but every long journey starts with a single step doesn't it?

[ChadTower]

American men and women died so that these elections can happen.  If 100% of Iraqis, both domestic and foreign, did not vote, I consider it at least a partial failure.  AMERICANS DIED so they could have a choice of leaders and if they don't vote those AMERICANS DIED without justification. 

Sigh.  This is all such a f***cking mess.  We went in there to find weapons and didn't find them... now we have to set up a democracy in a region that won't support it for people who don't deserve it.

I just wish the gov't and the media would step up and mention what this is really about... establishing a friendly, secure military foothold in the world's most Anti-US region.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

anyways no need for us to argue, the people have won, and the terrorists have lost!

This is a wait and see situation...the vote, while symbolically a great sign, does not prove anyone has "won" or "lost". Bush has all his minions thinking in such simplistic terms and this is what I find most disturbing about his failure of leadership. He cannot, and will not manage reasonable expectations. His "pie-in-the-sky" rhetoric about "spreading freedom and liberty" comes off as shallow and vague. I for one, tend not to trust people that have already misled me. Call me crazy.

I do not wish to take away the joy felt by the citizenry of Iraq, however, I feel we'd do them a great diservice if we continued the "Rah! Rah!" rhetoric without working to conitnually head off the potential pitfalls they face in the quest toward stability. Your jumping the gun with the "won/lost" B.S. as it has no basis in reality as the situation has yet to be played out.

For example, there's precedent for my pessimism. It's important to keep in mind the below article was written 4 month before the Tet Offensive:


U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote (NYT 9/4/1967)

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote :
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday.  Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.

Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, who was running for president, and Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, the candidate for vice president.

A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam.  The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.

The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta.

Few members of that junta are still around, most having been ousted or exiled in subsequent shifts of power.

Significance Not Diminished

The fact that the backing of the electorate has gone to the generals who have been ruling South Vietnam for the last two years does not, in the Administration's view, diminish the significance of the constitutional step that has been taken.

The hope here is that the new government will be able to maneuver with a confidence and legitimacy long lacking in South Vietnamese politics.  That hope could have been dashed either by a small turnout, indicating widespread scorn or a lack of interest in constitutional development, or by the Vietcong's disruption of the balloting.

American officials had hoped for an 80 per cent turnout.  That was the figure in the election in September for the Constituent Assembly.  Seventy-eight per cent of the registered voters went to the polls in elections for local officials last spring.

Before the results of the presidential election started to come in, the American officials warned that the turnout might be less than 80 per cent because the polling place would be open for two or three hours less than in the election a year ago.  The turnout  of 83 per cent was a welcome surprise.  The turnout in the 1964 United States Presidential election was 62 per cent.

Captured documents and interrogations indicated in the last week a serious concern among Vietcong leaders that a major effort would be required to render the election meaningless.  This effort has not succeeded, judging from the reports from Saigon.

NYT. 9/4/1967: p. 2

[ChadTower]

For example, here's a little history lesson for you.

In return, here's a little advice for you:  we don't need you to teach us things.  That type of condescension is exactly why people around here are having trouble taking your posts seriously, even when they have valid points in them. 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Cooter, people outside of the US do vote for the President. People with dual citizenship can vote, and they did vote. 

This number is not based on any sort of scientific poll, and I'm ashamed that our media keeps batting it around as if it were fact.

MrC, you amaze me with your Kreskin powers.  I guess you AGAIN have ESP and know that this can't be right.

No, it's just that my ESP tells me to wait until numbers are verified before slathering myself in them. It's not like we haven't seen inflated numbers before (ie: TONS of WMD!!! Ahhh, POUNDS of Yellowcake!!!)

This is a great day for the world and we should all be so happy for the people of Iraq.  Sure, it's a long and hard road ahead, but every long journey starts with a single step doesn't it?

Ok, sure...I was excited to see the purple thumbs too. But that doesn't mean I can't start thinking about tomorrow does it?


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

For example, here's a little history lesson for you.

In return, here's a little advice for you:  we don't need you to teach us things.  That type of condescension is exactly why people around here are having trouble taking your posts seriously, even when they have valid points in them. 

I changed it. Let me know what you think of the article...

[ChadTower]

I don't think it applies.  There are some gigantic differences.  We didn't have full military commitment in Vietnam.  We have full control of Iraq, something we didn't have in Saigon (could have but didn't), and as such there isn't going to be any full out reprisals like in Saigon.  Not to say they won't try, but they won't succeed.

Comparing this war to Vietnam, as much as people like Kennedy enjoy doing, simply is not a valid comparison.  It's a scare tactic that they don't even realize is totally lost on anyone under 45 since US schools don't teach a damn thing about Vietnam.

[Dexter]

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/31/1517207

Quote in relation to the from an interview with british MP who has had experience of Iraq first hand....

"They're a farce. They're rigged. An election held under foreign military occupation is always, by definition, utterly flawed. But one which is held in the kind of conditions in which this one is being held is flawed beyond redemption. The facts are that it is simply impossible to hold an election when there is a full-scale war going on between the occupying armies and the resistance forces. The Sunni Muslim population, which if you add the Sunni Kurds and the Sunni Arabs together, is some 40% of the population, are deeply anxious about the way in which the occupying forces are deliberately trying to divide the country along confessional lines. The Sunni Arab population has boycotted the election almost in their entirety. The Iraqis living outside for whom security was not an issue, three quarters of them have voted with their feet and boycotted the election. Less than a quarter of the eligible voters have registered to vote and fewer still have cast their votes. So, this is a festival, a farce that's been held to validate the American-British invasion and occupation of Iraq. But it will not validate it, neither in the eyes of the world opinion, nor, more importantly, in the eyes of those Iraqis who are resisting the foreign occupation and the war will go on, I'm sorry to say."

Give them liberty or give them death. The numerous reports from foreign journalists of people being threatened with starvation if they don't vote, plus the fact that the vast majority of Iraqis want the US out but somehow managed to elect a prime minister who doesn't basically says it all. An election only america could have the arrogance to force on a culture.

As always I ask, who has the real democracy??

[fredster]

"Scottish MP George Galloway has been one of the most vocal critics of the Iraq war. He was expelled from the ruling Labour Party in October 2003 after he was accused of encouraging British troops to disobey what he called "illegal orders".

Wow, now there's an impartial voice in the din. Wow.

Here's a view too -
http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Read it if you dare Dexter.  Apparently you don't like seeing the other side, do you?  What would convince you the Iraq war was necessary and has paid divdends for the future?  Did you work for the UN and the OIL for FOOD program?

I love this quote

The numerous reports from foreign journalists of people being threatened with starvation if they don't vote,

Sure, Al-Jazera.  Lots of impartial journalists there. Ever notice how Al-Jazera was right there with the terrorists to film the explosion of roadside bombs?  Nice Dexter, Nice.  Really great.

http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/001361.html

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Ever notice how Al-Jazera was right there with the terrorists to film the explosion of roadside bombs?

You're parroting Rumsfeld now??

Al-Jazeera mostly plays the tapes given to them. If they have been present at roadside bombings, and or have captured them on film, I'm more apt to believe that is a factor of coincidence given they are the largest voice in Arab media, with one of the most significant coverage footprints in Iraq and these bombings occur somewhere on the order of 60-70 times a DAY. Don't get me wrong, I think Al-Jazeera has been less than helpful when it comes to Bush's agenda in Iraq. However, can you really fault them for showing the aftermath of U.S. bombs, insurgent/suicide bombers, etc?? If this sh!t was happening in your own backyard, wouldn't you want to see it too?

I suspect you are trying to isolate Al-Jazeera and discredit them solely because they report from a perspective that you disagree with. I find that completely ironic given the next quote from you:

Apparently you don't like seeing the other side, do you?

Well, do you?


mrC

[fredster]

Well, do you?

Yes, I see it every day all day. I read the daily kos most every day, and I try to read as much left as I do right.  I just can't see it the way you do.  I see the basic tennants of your side of the arguement.
1) Bush is evil with motives of power and wealth
2) Bush always ment to get at the oil
3) Bush is a fool for going to Iraq. There was no need.
I've been looking for a convincing argument that doens't contain these basic building blocks from the beginging, but all I see is blind hatred of Bush and fear of what must be done.

I'm not parroting Rumsfeld. It's a fact. You don't see OBL making tapes for CNN or FOX.  You don't see terrorists on the BBC beheading people.  But we did see this network with on the scene imbedded reporters with cameras taking pictures of IDE on the roads.  That should tell you something is amiss.

Here's my side, and believe me, up until this election I didn't call myself a republican.  Before I was strickly independent. 

1) Bush is the President of the United States and the leader of the free world.
2) Bush didn't anticipate the threat to the level he should have, and was like the rest of us on 9/10/01, he didn't believe it would happen like it did.
3) Bush reacted like I expect the President of the United States to act after 9/11. He found and attacked the bases of the enemy and demoralized them into submission.  We should all be proud of the way he flew fighters from the US to that hellhole and dropped those bombs on the taliban.
4) When Bush speaks, he does it for a purpose.  He did what he said he was going to do and executed.
5) He had information from all sources all over the globe that Saddam was as major a threat as we all believed.  He had a choice whether to go ahead and risk lives and property on that.  I think he did it because he thought it was the right thing to do at the right time.  Take the threat out.

I firmly believe that if Bush didn't act in March 03 that the left would have said he made the same mistake as his father.  Saddam would be in power and the world would be in danger if not this year, then within 5 years.  That's my opinion, but as ruthless as today's politics are on both sides, it's very concievable.

I think my beliefs are better backed up with facts than the ranting I see by dems.  They believe that Bush was forwarned and this was not necessary.  I say we should have taken him out in GW1 when we had the mo.  If we didn't do it now, we would be doing it in 2010.  Him or his manic sons would pop up again. 

I see the vision Bush has.  It was to carve a line of new pro western governments in the middle east.  The tyranies that are in power are waining, and it's just a matter of time until the kindom of Saud sees the same revolt as the Shaw in the 70's.  Doing what we have done stabalizes the region for a generation.  I believe it was necessary, just, and done at the right time with the right president.

You don't.

Sorry.  I love ya man, but we can't agree on this one.

[Mameotron]

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/31/1517207
I ask, who has the real democracy??

I just saw a nice documentary on Castro and the revolutionaries of the 60's & 70's.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I see the vision Bush has.  It was to carve a line of new pro western governments in the middle east.  The tyranies that are in power are waining, and it's just a matter of time until the kindom of Saud sees the same revolt as the Shaw in the 70's.  Doing what we have done stabalizes the region for a generation.  I believe it was necessary, just, and done at the right time with the right president.

You do realize that the cost of this vision, should it fail, will be a further solidification of Muslim fundamentalism in the region, since we will have be seen to have proven valid, every fear in the arab world.

Iran had a very successful burgeoning revolution on it's hands with the younger generation of students...they have been quiet since we attacked. Why? Because any dissent is now seen as support of American imperialism in the region, rather than grassroots Arab nationalism.

As Bush prattles on about spreading "I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Democracy!!^TM" throughout the region, he continually runs the risk of drowning out the real voices speaking of a style of democracy more suitable to the people living there. If he installs, or is seen to have installed a puppet government...all will be lost in that region for good.

Rather than attack Iraq, I wish he would have spent $300 billion on solving the Israeli-Palestinian issue...and from there, we may have won real, long-term friends in the region.


mrC

[Crazy Cooter]

I agree with CT about the voter turnout.  I'm not comfortable with it.

My $0.02:
I think that this may bring to light something the US should have considered:  You can't give someone freedom.  I'm afraid that we will hang around for a year or so, leave,  and then there will be a civil war.  There is a significant portion of the population that does not agree with what is happening.  This isn't republicans vs democrats where we ---smurfette--- for four years and then throw the dice again.  Obviously our definition of freedom isn't the same.  What do you guys think is going to happen when 60% of the population is going to pass laws governing the remaining 40?  It's not that the people that didn't vote didn't care, it's because they didn't agree with the idea of the vote.  They're not participating because they don't want it.  IMO, after seeing what is happening now, I think the region may become more unstable in the next few years.

As a side note, pay particular attention to how Bush addresses this tomorrow night (you did know the reason behind the date set for the vote right?).  I think it will have an impact on what may happen next.  Will he ignore the protest made by the Sunni's?  Will he gloat on the number of people that voted or take the time to discuss the concerns of those that didn't?  If he ignores the people that already have bad vibes about us being there during the elections, I foresee a lot of trouble.

"I see the vision Bush has.  It was to carve a line of new pro western governments in the middle east"
Fredster, that's exactly where the problem is.  Not everyone is pro-western.  Some people hate us.  Our solution has been forcing our ideas on them.  Forced Democracy has no chance of longevity.  That's where I see a major pitfall.  I don't see the Sunni's standing by while the Kurds and the Shiites start calling the shots.  They will take arms.  It's just a matter of time.  Civil war or continued war?

[fredster]

Cooter, I understand that not everybody is "pro western" that's clear. But who are those people besides these people and China. Why are they so anti western? 

To say that we cannot force democracy on them, do you really think that's a reasonable position? Are you really saying that these people aren't sophisticated or socialized enough to ever form their own democracy or sustain one that is put into place?
I can see that point, we see that in Hahti.

I see your points and I'll raise the speculation.

I think we all agree what the US did in Afgahnistan was justfied and necessary.  I believe that point is pretty well universally accepted by now right?

Now, let's speculate on the future of the Middle east if the US did retreat from the region.  Went home, sent special forces into the foothills of Pakistan and even maybe routed out OBL.

Saddam is in power.  Iran is threatened and seeking to protect itself.  Kawait is bordering the coast, rich and fat with oil profits. Saudi Arabia is in deepening domestic trouble.  Turkey is in a tenuous peace with Saddam, and has a shared hatred of the Kurds.  Pakistan with nukes is staring down India.  Israel is basically alone and fighting for survival with terrorists blowing up citizens every day.  Syria is committed to wiping Israel off the map. Libya is on the edge of the world, seeking out nukes for it's own stake in the region.

All of these states are sitting on most of the oil for the world. The entire world depends on it's livelyhood on the oil that comes from under the sand. Without it, we have no plastic, no fuel, and no commerce. 

Do we all agree this is Feb 03?

Let's say we didn't go in. What would be happening in '05 or '06?
Bush would probably have won by a large margin in the polls because of his win. The left would be howling that he didn't go far enough or that we should do more for afgahistan. Whatever, it would be anti-bush whichever way it went.

Saddam would be building up more influence and credibility in the UN, obviously, because he's buying it all over the western countries. He was paying off terrorists in Palestine, and he may find that he has new allies with the displaced terrorists from the taliban. His rethoric continues to grow.

The UN would be very sympathetic to the people of Iraq now that they have been softened by the Billions of dollars, and Saddam's sanctions are eased even more, possibly dissolved. Old scores have to be settled with the Kingdom of Saud, after all, they helped bury him in his bunkers with GHB in GW1.  His sons would still be running around killing and raping indescriminately.  These are the heir apparent.

Tensions are rising.  Lybia is pursuing the bomb using the still undercover operations.  The US's intell is still flawed and we have no concept of what's going on.

Saddam rises out of the ashes and Iran reacts. Pakistan falls in bed with the powerful.  Bathasts still occupy lebanon and their influence grows. Terrorists turn their attention to Saudi Arabia and war begins within thier borders. Palestinians side with Saddam who funds them against a peace process because they have money and support.  Israel is poised to fall from 360

[jbox]

1) Bush is the President of  the United States and the leader of the free world.

5) He had information from all sources all over the globe that Saddam was as major a threat as we all believed.

Saddam would be in power and the world would be in danger if not this year, then within 5 years.

I think my beliefs are better backed up with facts than the ranting I see by dems.

Doing what we have done stabalizes the region for a generation.  I believe it was necessary, just, and done at the right time with the right president.

But who are those people besides these people and China. Why are they so anti western?

AH HAH! I've just worked it out, fredster is *ACTUALLY* a secret green's operative, charged with the mission of building an SCO out of the republocrats for the next election cycle!

After all, why else claim that total warfare is the *ONLY* alternative to oil dependance?

I think we all agree what the US did in Afgahnistan was justfied and necessary.

Do you mean during the cold war, during the pipe-line negotiations, during the invasion, or letting local warlords take control? I just want to be clear on what "we all agree" on.

[fredster]

After all, why else claim that total warfare is the *ONLY* alternative to oil dependance?

It wasn't total. It was isolated and it was strategic. 
What exactly were the other options?

And to be honest, I kinda like my car, everything made of plastic, heat, and my job.
But maybe that's just me.

[Dexter]

1) Bush is the President of the United States and the leader of the free world.

That ended with bush turning his back on the free world to invade another country for what the free world knew was dubious reasons. Rice and powell stated in 2000 that Saddam was contained and his WMD capacity broken. But why remember the facts when war is so profitable

2) Bush didn't anticipate the threat to the level he should have, and was like the rest of us on 9/10/01, he didn't believe it would happen like it did.

Really? I know of a CIA briefing handed to Bush on 6 august 2001 containing information that OBL was going to attack using hijacked jets. Rice mentions it in her testimony. I also know of a pet goat who might disagree

[fredster]

1-5 your opinion, you are free to express it.  I can't make much sense out of comments like :

But why remember the facts when war is so profitable

That makes absolutely no sense. It's cost us $200 billion +, and 1400 US lives.  I don't know if you are a businessman or not, but I don't see ROI there, either political or monetary.

Al quaida cells are now active in more countries then prior to 9/11.

Really? Where are they Dexter?

(By the way, did he react in that classroom on 9/11 like you expect a president to react? Yeah right)

Maybe if we all filmed each other 24/7 we can find better examples.  I dropped my coffee.  I wonder if Michael Moore wants that clip?
If you watched his speech to congress after that, you might have a different view.  It took about a 1/2 hour, and I think that's the way I want him to act.  I think it will go down in history as one of the best speeches ever delivered by a president. 

Capture Osama? No

Not yet. Not yet. And when he does should we take our ball and go home? 

I know of a CIA briefing handed to Bush on 6 august 2001 containing information that OBL

"containing information on OBL" man, that's definitive. We should have closed down the US until we got to the bottom of that. Man. Wow.

Intelligence was hand-picked to support an invasion whereas ALL intelligence should always be considered to give a more accurate overall picture of whats going on.

  Really? You know that for a fact or is it your opinion? I always like this one, because this intel came from a lot of sources.  How does that explain Britian's involvement? Australia? You do know that there are more people in the CIA and FBI that report to congress right?  You do know they report these things all the time to committees right? Huh.  Guess Bush is more powerful that I thought and in control of a lot more than the US.

didn't happen because al quaida 'hates our freedoms' it was because of US interference in the middle east

Our interference was liberating Kuwait.  Yep, we should have let them go huh?

Forcing people to live under a government they can freely change is a bad thing? It's better to let them go and have a dictator. Ok, I see the logic there. I'm sure they all got together and said, hey, Saddam is the man.  Who needs all this voting and election stuff? This is really much easier.

And please stop calling bushes policies pro-western, he does not represent opinion in Europe.

  And your opinion does?  Your opinion only Dexter. Please stop saying you represent all of Europe.

[ChadTower]

And please stop calling bushes policies pro-western, he does not represent opinion in Europe.

That's one thing, maybe the only thing, Bush has done right.  He got the US back to being the US and not the muscle behind the UN and their corrupt, Eurocentric world.  Europe is having a hell of a time dealing with the fact that we don't give a damn what they think, say, or do any longer and they can't do a thing about it.