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.
posted by Tim @ 12:37 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
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/
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.
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?
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
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.
Nice site!
[url=http://tugqypka.com/jpvf/iqvz.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://thedvexa.com/fsgk/rook.html]Cool site[/url]
Thank you!
http://tugqypka.com/jpvf/iqvz.html | http://ccjbjzui.com/llsw/jzfu.html
Post a Comment
<< Home