Look, we all know that the original plan was to set up a constitution first that would protect the rights of all the Iraqis in future government. A lot of things happened after that, including the Sadr uprising, and you can make a very good case that setting up elections for the constitution was a major factor in appeasing Sistani, and getting his aid in squelching the uprising.
To try and translate that into "Bush didn't want elections" is infantile, and while maybe that's not exactly what you're saying, your link pretty much demonstrates my point.
Oddly, NONE of this crap came up before the surprisingly successful elections, and you can bet your ass that if the elections had turned out to be a complete failure, the voting process would have been Bush's baby from day one.
If nothing else, trying to split Bush off from the election process shows how well the elections went. This "historical rewrite" was as predictable as sunrise, and if Iraq continues to move forward, it's going to be intensified.
And of course, the hard and inescapable fact that articles like this are trying to evade is that if it wasn't for Bush and his administration, there would not have been any elections at all. Earlier, or later.
Under a President Gore, Saddam would still rule in Iraq, and Sistani would still be holed up in Najaf, waiting for the knock at the door. And everyone knows it.
No doubt eventually they will award Sistani his Nobel Prize for liberating Iraq, while pretending Bush never existed. But they will know it, too.
Flame » in reply to History Lesson for Tom and Ed
re: History Lesson
The whole thread (45 posts)
- Mental disconnect
- re: Mental disconnect
- History Lesson for Tom and Ed
- As opposed to the ROW who wanted to postpone them indefinately.
- re: History Lesson
- IAs we see here, many who suffer from BDS can't think straight. (n/t)
- Is it possible that you don't realize that Garafalo...
- Memory disconnect