Arthur Chrenkoff has taken task with the media, BBC and ABC (Australia) in particular, regarding their perspectives on Rumsfeld’s comments about Iraqi elections.
I’ll leave it to you to read Arthur’s post. I want to add my own thoughts about Rummy’s words.
If there were to be an area where the extremists focused during the election period, and an election was not possible in that area at that time, so be it. You have the rest of the election and you go on. Life’s not perfect.
Some, including Kerry, are appalled. I think it comes from a lack of imagination. Rumsfeld is on to something.
The primary reason for the continuation of violence in Iraq is the fear many Iraqis have. It isn’t imaginary. They have lived in fear all their lives. In the past, they had no reason to take responsibility for bad things happening right next door. Involvement meant scrutiny by Saddam’s people. Scrutiny was bad. That is a tough mentality to break.
But it is precisely why it is so difficult to find the people responsible for the violence. The average Iraqi isn’t sure who to trust. A great concern is our own election. If Kerry is elected, do they really know what to expect from the US?
An incentive to push forward change in Iraq that will help to eliminate the terrorists, keeping those areas where terrorists thrive out of the election may force locals to begin turning in the miscreants. Their option is to be disenfranchised in the first real elections of their lives. And if these mostly-Sunni areas are concerned about losing a voice in future parliamentary endeavers and being overshadowed by Shia, perhaps they will come to their senses.
“The average Iraqi isn’t sure who to trust. A great concern is our own election. If Kerry is elected, do they really know what to expect from the US?”
This is a good argument, it says to me that we should definately ELECT Kerry so we can demonstrate that even when an incumbent party tries to scare a country into re-electing someone, there CAN be an orderly transition of power from one group to another.
If we re-elect someone who has failed as a President by many standards (fight against terrorism, economy, incompetence in areas of defense department and intelligence departments, vice-president who is joined at hip to defense contractor, etc.) and we say the reason we are re-electing him is because the country is threatened, we are telling Iraq that democracy is only for times of security.
If we vote from either fear of terrorists OR from hatred of terrorists, we are surrendering our democracy to those same terrorists. Voting FOR Bush in this election will tell Iraq that we in America can’t really have the BEST leadership because we are AFRAID TO CHANGE our leadership while under threat.
But we CAN change leadership and the country will be just fine. The President represents the PEOPLE of America, we don’t need a second rate President to show the strength of democracy. Be strong, be brave, America can do better than Bush.
Comment by Big Time Patriot — September 26, 2004 @ 1:21 pm
Interesting that you feel Dubya has “failed as President” yet offer only generalisms. As far as “best leadership” is concerned, Kerry has absolutely nothing to offer in that arena.
Comment by Bunker — September 26, 2004 @ 1:49 pm