In the beginning, Iraqi's voted to become an autonomous Democracy, and darkness was on the face of the Democrats.
Yesterday, Iraq held democratic elections to select their own parliament. For the first time in decades. Perhaps for the first time period. I confess I don't know all their history.
A guest host on the Glenn Beck program, whose name I didn't catch, made a great observation: How wonderful it must have felt for the 80 year old man to express his honest opinion openly for the first time in his life without fear of being hauled off and cut into little pieces!
It is estimated that as much as 80% of Iraq's eligible voters braved threats of death to stand in long lines for hours just for the privilege of voting for the candidate of his or her choice. Think of the sheer joy they must have felt to be able to at last have a say in the workings of their government. Some of the people brought their entire family with them even though the children were not old enough to vote. They wanted their kids to relish this moment for the rest of their life. Remember, with terrorists attacks so common, it is very dangerous to bring your children with you. One Iraqi citizen held up a purple stained finger and said, "Every purple finger is a bullet in the chest of terrorism."
How many of our country's citizens would face death just for the privilege of voting?They put us Americans to shame for our apathy in the election of our leaders. I wonder why we are so apathetic.
No I don't.
We are so used to having the freedom to come and go at will, to voice our approval or opposition to the prevailing government, to vote in free elections, that we no longer treasure the freedoms we enjoy. How sad. We can learn something from the Iraqi's.
Something valuable.
In every part of Iraq, people stood in lines that stretched down the block and around the corner to vote. Democrat politicians had little to say about this historic event. Democrat Senator Joseph Biden, who was visiting Iraq during the election, was unusually positive, saying, "The question is whether we trade dictatorship for chaos."
Chuckie Shumer ignored the election entirely, opting instead to return to the attacks against Karl Rove.
Unbelievable.
Leave it to the Democrats to throw a wet blanket over this momentous occasion.
The truth is, we are winning this war against terrorism and the Democrats can't stand it. It proves Bush is right and they are wrong. They know that if we win the war, they will not win the next election. Their whole agenda is to defeat the Republicans in the next 2 elections, and they were counting on failure in Iraq to accomplish that goal. Other than that, they have no plan.
It's as simple as that.
31 comments:
I find this particularly offensive. What's unbelievable is how low you've sunk since I started reading you. To say that anyone in my party, or anywhere else, WANTS failure in Iraq is outrageous.
Karl Rove will go down, if he hasn't already. Karen Hughes is back in the saddle in the WH, which may be why Bush has started to resemble a human being the past couple of days.
"Democrats lose another election"! Clever, but sickening.
Anybody who doesn't appreciate the honest role of the Democratic Party in trying to work through this quagmire that George W. Bush started on a damn whim, let them go to hell.
Now, the rest of y'all go ahead and pat Mark on the head and tell him what a good boy he is. I'm going to go puke.
GREAT post Mark! I found your site through Gayle (which it seems is where I find most of the great blogs out there!)
Anyway, does erudite redneck know that he just proved your point? LOL!! Instead of talking about how awesome it is that Iraqis where finally able to freely vote w/out fear for their own democratic government, he did exactly what you said Democrates are doing! Bashing Karl Rove and Bush!
Oh well....the truth hurts sometimes!
Name me one Democrat who said he wanted this to fail.
er,
If you think the Democratic Party hasn't done everything it could to undermine the credibility of President Bush, to sour public support for this war is not an attempt to lose this war in Washington DC, you are in denial! The Zel Miller Democrats are few. Dem leadership voted for this war out of domestic political considerations, then when the war, they didn't really support, didn't go as well as hoped, they began a systematic effort to re-write history. Our troops deserve better and Democrats can not be trusted in times of war.
"Anybody who doesn't appreciate the honest role of the Democratic Party in trying to work through this quagmire"
Just go over to any Leftist blog like Daily Kos. Are they celebrating optimism? Another positive step in the right direction? No...all they can do is be negative pessimists and chew on sour grapes. They can't get beyond their resentment of George W. Bush to see that there are real positive changes happening that, in the long run, can make the world a far better place than it was before.
Your most outspoken Democratic leaders, for much of this Administration's tenure, have done nothing but act as obstructionists and quagmirists and alarmists during wartime; they have behaved as the pro-defeat party when they could easily be critical AND helpful to this Administration for the sake of the country. Instead, they've chosen to learn all the wrong lessons from Vietnam, and apply them to today's war.
It amazes me what we've accomplished in the span of 2 years!!! And yet, all the Democrats, as a political Party, can do is whine about not enough troops...too many troops...not enough Iraqi battalions are battle-ready...faster, faster, we want things done faster.....we were misled....President Bush lied....Abu Ghraib....Guantanamo...the Patriot Act infringes upon my civil liberties...blah, blah, blah. And it just goes on and on.
Unbelievable!
This is the best example of moonbat denial:
sunnis went to vote because they were being told by their religous leaders, over a megaphone to go vote and make sure they get their share of the leadership.. has nothing to do with wanting to end violence or wanting democracy.
Now participation in democracy is not democracy. ROFL
Fitz:
Oh so because the Republicans didn't say they were going to war to help all the oil companies in Bush and Delays home state that really means that it was the reason for going to war.
Ok I see how it works, I think I am getting it.
I guess that last post was actually for whit
i appreciate the comments today. Truth is, I was very tired from making a 200+ mile round trip through freezing rain and working extra hours all week, and I really didn't do a very good job on this post. I kind of started out in one direction and ended going in the other.
I apologise.
I get cranky when I get tired. What I meant to say, is much of the Democrat LEADERSHIP is counting on failure, not all Democrats.
And counting on it is slightly different from wanting it. Let me illustrate:
If I bet money on my favorite team, the Kansas City Chiefs to lose a football game, since they are my favorite team, I don't WANT them to lose, but I am COUNTING on them to lose, so I will gain a benefit.
The Democrat leadership may not want us to lose, but they certainly would reap the benefits from doing so, by winning back the House and Senate.
No, Mark, They want us to lose.
Anything to regain power.
ER, if you don't understand that fact, you haven't been paying attention.
Sorry, but that's the facts.
And Merry christmas, Bruiser!!
Jesus died for you!!
Don't apologize for this post, Mark. It was GREAT!
I got compared to you on another blog recently.
I took it as a great compliment!
I saw that, Tug. It certainly wasn't meant as a compliment.
I suppose I do owe ER and Bruiser and Toad a debt of gratitude. When I started blogging, I was an independent, but thanks to their hatred of anything Republican and Christian, I have decided to re-register as a Republican.
By the way, here are the top ten examples of how badly Democrats WANT to win the war in Iraq:
Number Ten.
…[I]t’s precisely what BushCo is trying to do. Distract us from the violence and the
deaths, of both U.S. and coalition forces and the Iraqi people, by staging
these elections and giving us these photo ops.
Number Nine:
I won’t believe the numbers anyway. After the last election took 3 weeks
to finalise the votes, I didn’t trust those results either.
Earlier this week, on Air America, I heard about a truck of ballots being intercepted on
it’s [sic] way from Iran. With Iran & the U.S. both wanting a desired
outcome, I don’t think it matters what the Iraqis want. Either Iran or the U.S. is going to win this election, votes be damned.
Number Eight:
I want to know if Diebold had machines set up to count the votes.
Number Seven:
The paradigm I operate under is that the forces Bush has
marshaled to allow him to use my money to terrorize a foreign population and
get American soldiers killed and maimed are the exact same ones which are
staging the election and will oversee not only the results but the actions of
the elected.
Number Six:
If the Iraqis are successful in their democratic endeavor,
perhaps they could send consultants to Ohio and Florida.
Number
Five:
more iraqis are voting than americans voted in the last pres
election
stupid f***ing
americans
good for the
iraqis
maybe america needs a good and bloody civil war to remember what democracy is about
Number
Four:
I don’t believe a f***ing word of what the New York Times
tells me about election day in Iraq.
Remember
last time? The anecdotes of people walking miles to get to the polls? Reports
of unexpectedly high Sunni turnout? The dawn of democracy?
Remember the
Repugs pointing to those reports and waving purple fingers at us?
Lies and
propaganda, in the mold of Judith Miller.
Number Three:
This is just theater. All completely meaningless, and woe
to the suckers who buy into this BS.
These elections are nothing more than a prop for the bush thugs. No election
that was initiated, designed, engineered, and carried out by a foreign
occupation power has any legitimacy, here or elsewhere. None. Period.
If Uzbekistan invaded the US, toppled the government, installed its hand-picked puppets, then ran through the motions of several rounds of voting, would the regime that resulted have any legitimacy whatsoever? Of course not. It would be laughed at.
This so-called election is utter bullsh**, nothing more than photo ops and PR props.
Number Two:
Has any reporter asked anyone in the administration [sic] why the f*** Iraq has had even 1 election if the country can’t even employ 60% of the people?! If 50 people are dying a day. Can’t [sic] one a**hole just ask the f***ing question?!?
Number One:
I had a realization today while driving to work listening to all the talking heads blather on about Iraqis voting.
I. DON’T.
GIVE. A. SH**. ABOUT. THIS.
Was it worth half a trillion of our (children’s) wealth and 2140 of our young people? 30,000 to 100,000 civilian "collateral damage"?
F NO.
You also owe an apology to ER for saying he "hates anything Christian." He's just as Christian as you are, and you know it.....You may not like it. :-)
He attacks James Dobson and other Christian organizations every chance he gets. Do I?
He says America wasn't founded as a Christian nation. Do I?
He sings the praises of anti-Christian organizations such as the ACLU and Americans United For Separation of Church and State. Do I?
He selects what parts of the Bible that he agrees with and ignores the rest of it. Do I?
But I agree. My statement was a little strong. He is as Christian as he says he is, according to his understanding of the Gospel. And I am not nearly as Christian as I should be. So I apologise.
Anon, I too believe that ER is a Christian.
However, he does tend to champion the Removal of all things Christian from the public sphere, and to advocate Seperation of Church and State, except when it comes to matter of Voting to authorize the Government to confiscate the fruits of your and my hard labor for the benifit of the less fortunate (?), so I don't think Mark really does owe him any apology whatsoever.
Besides that, go to ER's blog, and observe the abuse that Mark suffers over there, for the crime of sticking to his convictions...
Watch MY blog over the next couple of days for what Jesus REALLY said and did about "The Poor".
It ain't exactly what ER believes it is...
Oh, and for the record, if I had my 'druthers, I'd rather put up with the comment moderation than the drunk test...
You mean like when He said, "The poor we will have with us always"?
Tug, I have been working real long hours lately and haven't been able to monitor the comments as I want to keep a thread going, and that's why I changed it back.
I don't like either moderation or the drunk test but it separates the wheat from the chaff
I'm tellin' you, Man...
Haloscan is the way to go...
No Spam, no drunk test, you can see everybody's IP address, and if you want, you can mess with people in a SERIOUS way...
Not that I have ever changed anyone's comments, other than to correct spelling mistakes, thereby making my commentors look smarter, whether they agree with me or not.
But turning Bruiser into a Republican is always an option...
yeah, I thought I could do that with comment moderation but I couldn't ...Darn it. I had some good ideas of what to make him say too.
Sometimes the temptation is hard to resist, I must admit...
And for the record, an "Independant" is a formal Liberal, future Conservative, in the process of Waking up, and Growing up.
When you attain the ability and the love of real, logical thought, you become a Conservative, even if it does happen in stages...
When you follow Ideas all the way to their logical end result, Liberalism falls by the wayside...
I used to be young and inexperienced too...
"He selects what parts of the Bible that he agrees with and ignores the rest of it. Do I?"
---
Watch MY blog over the next couple of days for what Jesus REALLY said and did about "The Poor".
---
"Jesus answered, If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'" Matthew 19:21
---
"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in." Matthew 25:35
---
"They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely." Mark 12:40
---
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed." Luke 4:18
----
"So he replied to the messengers, Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.'" Luke 7:22
---
"Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys." Luke 12:33
---
"But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind." Luke 14:13
"When Jesus heard this, he said to him, You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'" Luke 18:22
I meant to say "Former" Liberal, not "Formal"...
My bad...
Anon, have you sold everything you have and given the proceeds to the Poor?
Where in those quotes does it say to authorize Government of any kind and in any way to look after the Poor?
Doesn't it say to witness to them in the process of providing to them about the message of Jesus?
Doesn't it say to "Release the oppressed"? Could this be interpreted as an arguement FOR the War in Iraq?
Thanks for helping me prove my points...
I will probably use some of these quotes in my upcoming post...
Thanks!!
Jesus was Apolitical. He gave no thought to politics, but rather was focused on the spiritual salvation of mankind.
To claim that Jesus was Liberal or Conservative, Communist, Capitalist, Socialist, or to assert that Jesus subscribed to ANY specific political or economic system is at best distasteful and offensive, and at worst Blasphemous.
Jesus was concerned with the Kingdom of Heaven, not the plight of "the Poor" or the objectives of one specific political party.
Truthfully, I don't know if I would sell my possessions and give the proceeds to the poor or not. I've never had enough possessions to do that. No one would buy the few possessions I have. They aren't worth anything. I like to think I'd be altruistic, though, given the opportunity.
As it is, I do give to the poor and oppressed through my taxes. Unfortunately, I have no say in how that money is spent, and all too often it is spent to fund government programs that I disagree with vehemently.
On another note: I do declare, I get more responses to my badly written posts like this one than to the ones I think are good.
Again, Mark, stop apologizing for this post.
This was a good one.
Post a Comment