Tuesday, January 25, 2005

The questions

The questions are:
Would the Bush/Cheney administration allow someone of these views to run in the election?
If elected, would the United States allow them to take office?
How interested is the Bush/Cheney administration in the spread of democracy, really?
How interested are you?

Comments are highly encouraged, under the following guidelines:
Pointless cheerleading (i.e. "great post! great question!") and pointless complaints (i.e. "what, are you some kind of pinko liberal? Support our troops!) will be deleted with similar alacrity.
Thoughtful responses will be thoughtfully treated, not used as agreement/disagreement fodder. Again, cheerleading and complaints will be deleted.

13 Comments:

At 4:38 PM, Blogger Melissa said...

Would the Bush/Cheney administration allow someone of these views to run in the election?Extremely doubtful. Unless they had bought this politician and had him completely on their side as a puppet-- no.

If elected, would the United States allow them to take office?Also doubtful, though substancially more likely than the first question.

How interested is the Bush/Cheney administration in the spread of democracy, really?Hahahaha! They're not. They trample on the rights of womens' choice, the right to privacy and of civil liberties, and the rights of homosexuals to marry who they please. Not to mention the trampling of rights of those oppressed minorities (and the majority!) who are hurt by the policies of this administration.

How interested are you?
Very. And I think you should contribute to our 'zine. Check us out.
http://speakupspeakout.blogspot.com/

 
At 8:00 PM, Blogger Kevin said...

Would the Bush/Cheney administration allow someone of these views to run in the election?I think this first question is too simplistic. Which is to say that the better question would be whether Allawi would allow it. I'm not convinced that Bush has complete control over the situation. I don't doubt that Allawi, like Chalabi before him, is anxious to please his American benefactors. But, like Chalabi before him, I think Allawi has his own agenda and that it probably coincides with Bush's agenda to roughly the same degree that Chalabi's did.

Finding a way to disallow or otherwise try to prevent this hypothetical Iraqi from running for elective office would seem be in the interests of both Bush and of Allawi.

If elected, would the United States allow them to take office?That would depend on whether the numbers were fudged before anyone found out about it. If it were public knowledge that your candidate X had actually won, then I think the political fallout would be significantly worse for Bush Inc. to disallow them from taking office than to try to put the best face on it and accept it.

How interested is the Bush/Cheney administration in the spread of democracy, really?IMHO, not at all. It's self-serving demagoguery for both of them. Although, I do think Bush and Cheney want different things out of it. Cheney is the idealogue. I think that's his primary motivation - to transform the world into his fantasy world. Whereas I think Bush's motivations have more to do with finally emerging out of the shadow of his father and being perceived as his own man than anything else.

How interested are you?In what? In the whole Iraq situation? In East/West relations between the Muslim world and America? In transforming Iraq into a democracy? In seeing such a candidate succeed in Iraq?

Interested, interested, skeptical it'll ever happen unless or until it is the Iraqi's idea to do it, and doubt such a candidate exists, respectively.

 
At 6:40 AM, Blogger Shaun said...

I don't think the Bush administration would care that someone with those views might run (in fact, I imagine that somewhere among the mass of anonymous candidates, more than a few hold those views) or take office, because I just don't think the views of any, even a majority of, the elected officials in Iraq will have any tangible effect on Bush policy vis a vis the military occupation. Certainly, no Iraqi government will have the resources to turn out the US military unless the US determines to withdraw.

I think the Administration is concerned with the appearance of "democracy," although not the outcome, but only as an instrument of internal US public relations.

I'm quite interested in the Iraq situation, but almost completely disinterested in the process or outcome of these elections.

 
At 8:16 AM, Blogger Tim said...

Thanks to all who have commented so far, and to those who have provided links.

To clarify, the fourth question was meant as 'how interested are you in spreading democracy, particularly to Iraq?

 
At 1:19 PM, Blogger thatcoloredfella said...

Would the Bush/Cheney administration allow someone of these views to run in the election? Agreeing with the previous comments as to the sincerity of the administration's 'interest in the spread of democracy', the exception being an Al Queda linked theocracy, they will accept anyone that will help perpetuate the illusion that it can, will or has been established.

Remember, the leading Shiite Party expected to win the lion share of seats in the new government, are being funded by the very Iranian Mullahs who might see their nuclear facilities obliterated, come summer.

If elected, would the United States allow them to take office? Yes. The neo-Conservatives believe an attack on Iran's nuclear program is just the impetus to trigger a revolt by pro-Western Iranian youth, who will then overthrow the Mullahs. At the same time, we are to believe Iran's funding of Cleric Al Sistani's leading Party will come with no strings attached.

How interested? Very. I want the Wolfowitz Doctrine to fail. Only arrogance and ignorance can fuel belief that we can remake the Arab world in our image.

Tell me if this scenario sounds familiar? A Colonial power sets out to impose it's societal order and governance, yet failing to take into account the centuries of religious, culture and sectarian factors, eventually (and tragically) find themselves rebuffed.

 
At 4:23 AM, Blogger Rooftop MediaWorks said...

There is an odd questioning among liberal ideologues of President Bush’s sincerity when he fanned freedom’s ferment in his second inaugural. It is odd because, whether or not you agree with the Administration’s foreign or domestic policies, four years have certainly taught that George W. Bush is sincere and resolute. Many doubters have rued the day of their unbelief.

I heard this tone of skepticism in these questions concerning the Iraqi election this weekend: Would the Bush/Cheney administration allow someone who would demand the immediate withdrawl of American troops to run in the election? If elected, would the United States allow them to take office?

While it is healthy to consider scenarios, these are less that that; they are hypothetical questions that brush close to the realm of reality only in the coffee shops of blue America, not the bazaars of Basra.

They make the wrongheaded assumption that the President or anyone in his Administration wants a single American soldier walking the streets of Baghdad, exposed like bobbing ducks in a carnival shooting range. Republicans and Democrats alike desire the withdrawal of American troops.

But withdrawal at what price?

There are no candidates in the Iraq election calling for the immediate withdrawal of American troops because they are interested in long-term freedom more than the short-term satisfaction of ousting foreign forces.

The only potential candidates who would see the timetable as more important than stability don’t have widespread support throughout the country. They’ve been too busy cutting the heads off relief workers to campaign beyond the Sunni triangle.

The hypothetical questions, then, are without basis, but in the world created by them, the U.S. would neither interfere with the candidacies of those who sought immediate withdrawal, nor with the seating of such a winner. To do so would unnecessarily undermine the process. But troops would not be withdrawn until it is prudent and until the new democracy could stand against terror. To do otherwise would be a mockery to the sacrifice paid by hundreds of Americans to free Iraq from tyranny and reduce its threat to the world.

--James Jewell

 
At 1:34 PM, Blogger Tim said...

Yes, there is a note of sarcasm in the questions. That note of sarcasm comes from the time I started asking these questions, which is about the time the administration started sounding the 'we want to spread democracy' line among their justifications of the invasion. They did not invade Iraq to install a democracy. The majority in Iraq, like in most countries around the world, would like to see Imperial America disarmed, or at very least removed from involvement in their governing. To claim interest in installing majority rule given that majority is ingenuous at best, outright lying more likely.

Weapons of mass destruction...nope.
Offending the international community...nope.
Spread democracy...nope.
Sheltering Al-Quida...nope.

Why did we go there?

Don't get me wrong, I have great love and respect for the American fighting man...I was one. I also don't think we can 'just withdraw' having wrecked havoc. My intention is to really raise the question...so next time there is a more concerted effort at asking our leaders for the true reasons when they want to commit a war in our name.

 
At 2:47 PM, Blogger thatcoloredfella said...

There are no candidates in the Iraq election calling for the immediate withdrawal of American troops because they are interested in long-term freedom more than the short-term satisfaction of ousting foreign forces. First of all, the majority of Iraqis will not know who exactly are these candidates, until they show up to the polls tomorrow. Second, PM Allawi is not assured to be re-elected to his post, because he is seen as being to close to the American occupiers. In fact, not expressing opposition to the occupation is considered a political death kneel.

I'd be willing to bet my first Social Security check, that your statement will soon be proven wrong. The supposed desire for the U.S. to stay to insure short or long term stability is a fallacy - because they've already had two years to accomplish that already.

Neither have they delivered on restoring basic services, rebuilding after the invasion's devastation or built an economic model in which to generate jobs for the nation's majority unemployed.

But finally, by asking the occupiers to leave, it will settle the Iraqi's other main concern - an end to the violence.

 
At 7:51 AM, Blogger Cindi said...

I think this is shameful of Americans to continue putting down the President and his administration, because they are sore losers.
How long did it take America to win it's complete freedom. The Pilgrims arrived in America in 1620 we didn't win our freedom from England it was 1783
that's when the
Revolutionary War ended.
That meant 163 years before we were absolutely our own country.
Why is it we can't give the Iraqi's the same opportunity? Why can't we afford them the same chance we had. We may not have made it ourselves and you could be livng a life like they have all these years.
I can not agree with the idea that Bush doesn't really believe in freedom and it'a all an act.
Would the United States allow someone with these views, you ask, into office? No that's why we are a Democracy and why we are the superior power in the world. We have the history and the brains to think things through and realize the end fate before we make mistakes. It's called forward thinking. We can and do make these types of decisions everyday, each and everyone of us. We decide how we want to live. Give Iraq the same chance, they have not had that in what 80 yrs or something!
It must be a good working solution, we have done it here and we have done it many other places, it worked.

 
At 8:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice site!
[url=http://tugqypka.com/jpvf/iqvz.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://thedvexa.com/fsgk/rook.html]Cool site[/url]

 
At 8:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well done!
My homepage | Please visit

 
At 8:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you!
http://tugqypka.com/jpvf/iqvz.html | http://ccjbjzui.com/llsw/jzfu.html

 
At 4:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Inquire shut up to Our Inept Prices at www.Pharmashack.com, The Peculiar [b][url=http://www.pharmashack.com]Online Dispensary [/url][/b] To [url=http://www.pharmashack.com]Buy Viagra[/url] Online ! You Can also Distinguish Ticklish Deals When You [url=http://www.pharmashack.com/en/item/cialis.html]Buy Cialis[/url] and When You You [url=http://www.pharmashack.com/en/item/levitra.html]Buy Levitra[/url] Online. We Also Be subjected to a Abundant Generic [url=http://www.pharmashack.com/en/item/phentermine.html]Phentermine[/url] As a armed forces to Your Nutriment ! We Snake relax up Marque insinuate [url=http://www.pharmashack.com/en/item/viagra.html]Viagra[/url] and Also [url=http://www.pharmashack.com/en/item/generic_viagra.html]Generic Viagra[/url] !

 

Post a Comment

<< Home