I don't know why it is difficult for everyone, at least in this country, to proclaim yesterday's election as a defeat for Islamists, anti-Democratic forces, and terrorists because that is what it clearly was. Yes, I understand that this was a first step and there are many important steps yet to be taken before Iraq is truly a functioning Democracy. But it must also be recognized that the threats the terrorists made to intimidate voters failed to materialize. They promised rivers of blood. Didn't happen. They promised 400 suicide bombers. Didn't happen. They declared unilaterally that voters would be infidels. Most importantly, no one could know beforehand that these were empty threats and despite the danger, voters came anyway. Even in Sunni areas, where voter turnout was lower than other areas, people voted. What's more, the terrorists showed they did not have the organizational ability to pull off a "Tet". They could do nothing to stop millions of Iraqis from voting even though they tried.
So why is it so hard to make them suffer a PR defeat as well? Why is it so important to some to give them hope that maybe they still have a chance? Why was it so important for Sen Kerry, for instance, to say, when asked if the election made Iraq less of a terrorist threat: "No, it's more. And, in fact, I believe the world is less safe today than it was two and a half years ago." The Europeans, whom Kerry adores, were more generous. Jaques Chirac proclaimed the election a "great success for the international community"; the same international community Sen Kerry claimed he was in tune with. Hell, even al Jezeera thought the election was more significant than some elected leaders in our own country. The New York Times and Reuters were able to acknowledge the victory while many on the Conservative Left remain deaf to it. (UPDATE: NYT reports take a downward spin here and here). And most importantly, the rest of the Arab world paid close attention and are discussing the implications. So why is it so hard for the allegedly freedom-loving opponents of the President to unite with him on this issue and make it their issue too? As one reasonable member of the Democratic Underground said (sometime after I blogged about it here) "This short-sighted "the enemy of my political oponent is my friend" obsession is not only going to alienate voters, it's going to destroy an otherwise great opportunity to spread democracy around the world." The fact is, I remain unconvinced that those on the Conservative Left want to spread Democracy. And that's the bottom line.
In contrast, Friends of Democracy reports from the streets of Iraq: "Elections are a turn towards civilization"; “The elections are the battle for freedom against despotism and independence against occupation”; "For the first time, we have an opportunity to give our opinion in all justice and equality and without pressures". And Arthur Chrenkoff offers up that latest edition of Good News from Iraq.
In North Korea, more signs indicate that the Stalinist regime is crumbling from within.
Kuwaiti forces take the initiative against terrorists.
In an ominous turn of events, Abbas tells a London Arab daily that next week's meeting is not a renewal of negotiations between the PA and Israel, as "circumstances have not yet ripened for peace talks" and additionally seeks closer ties with Moscow. The latter wouldn't be as concerning had Syria not done the same thing recently.
More bombs explode in Spain.
Qatar considers selling al Jazeera.
Terrorist suspect Abu Rideh is freed on bail in Britain.
CNN requests seance to get Rodney Dangerfield's opinion on the passing of Johnny Carson.
A woman in Germany faces being severed from her unemployment benefits for refusing to take a job as a prostitute.
A man outfits his mother-in-law's wheelchair with a jet engine. Lookit granny go....
Bush lied; People...um... Voted!
