World Bets Against Iraqi Freedom
Vol: 40 Issue: 29 Saturday, January 29, 2005
It is time for a current-events pop quiz. Please complete the following sentence with the answer that is closest to the truth:
The Iraqi elections will; 1) stop the violence; 2) increase the violence; 3) plunge the entire region into war; 4) introduce a new era of peace and prosperity as democracy and freedom begin to spread like wildfire; or 5) thrust an American style of government on an unwilling population at gunpoint.
If you are an American and a liberal, the answers are 2 and 3. If you are an American and a conservative, the answers are 1 and 4. If you aren’t an American, the answer is hopefully 1 and 4, probably 2 and 3, but number 5 applies in either case.
The “2 and 3” group argues that, unless the voter turnout is 80% or better, the election itself is meaningless, which means number 5 also applies.
Reading the headlines, therefore, one can only conclude that all the headline writers in the known universe are either non-Americans or American liberals.
Reuters (non-American) says in its morning headline, “Iraq Poll Won’t End Violence, Say US, UK Officials”. (2,3,5) CNN International’s headline trumpets, “Bombings Continue on Eve of Election” (non-American and/or self-hating American liberal).
Canada’s Globe and Mail (forget answers 1 through 4, only answer 5 applies) wants its readers to know that it doesn’t matter who wins, since Iraq’s real ruler remains unchanged since Saddam.
According to them, “Fear Reigns Across Iraq On Eve of Election.”
That’s a headline? Fear has reigned Iraq since Saddam came to power in 1979 — but, for many who take this outlook, Iraq was actually better off under Saddam. At least, then, Iraqis knew who to be afraid of.
The Washington Times (American, conservative) bannered its story under the headline; “Iraqi Official Sees Big Turnout” — which, I might add, was the ONLY remotely positive headline I could find in Google’s first two pages headlines on the topic.
One news headline from the Interpress Service chose for its headline, “The Dollar Campaigns for Allawi” above a report detailing the ‘fact’ that Iraq’s elections will be neither free nor fair.
According to this report, Allawi is campaigning by passing out $100 bills to reporters to ensure his favorable treatment in both the Iraqi and global press corps. (He should have saved his money).
The one headline nobody thought to write was, “Iraqis Have First Free Elections Since Tower of Babel” — although, like in Afghanistan, that is the REAL story.
According to the White House, the Iraq strategy is to allow Iraq to elect its own leaders in the hopes that the neighboring citizens of the various Islamic dictatorships that surround it will begin to demand democratic reforms as well.
Not a single headline I could find even hinted at that prospect, despite the fact that history says that is the most likely scenario.
The Bush strategy is already proved by history. Ronald Reagan called for the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, and, before the dust settled, the old Soviet bloc had been replaced by a sea of democracies extending from East Berlin to Ukraine. Old Warsaw Pact members began lining up for membership in either the EU or NATO.
Afghanistan, which had never held a free election in five thousand years of recorded history, held its first free, democratic election, despite the best efforts of al-Qaeda and the Taliban to thwart it, with eight out of ten eligible voters turning out at the polls, despite the threat of terror and efforts at voter intimidation.
(You DO remember that Afghanistan had a successful democratic election last year, don’t you? I think it was on page A-22 of the New York Times)
To be legitimate, claim the enemies of democracy (like the UN, the rest of the Islamic world, and US liberals) voter turnout in Iraq will have to be at least 80% of eligible voters.
By that standard, America hasn’t held a legitimate election in its history. The highest recorded voter turnout since World War II was the 1960 election of John Kennedy, when about 63% of registered voters turned out.
The Electoral College ‘battleground state’ that year was Illinois. John Kennedy received more votes in Chicago’s Cook County than were registered by both parties combined, putting him over the top and sending him to the Oval Office, since Nixon refused to put the nation through the agony of a recount.
(The Congressional Quarterly reviewed the 1960 election and concluded that, factoring in known voter fraud, Richard Nixon actually won the popular vote by 58,181 votes.)
Election 2000 saw another massive turnout, the third largest since Harry Truman was elected in 1948, when roughly 62% turned out at the polls.
With the possible exception of Elections 2000 and 2004, American voters faced no threat of election violence, were free to go vote without fear of retribution, and were confident that the victor was the legitimate choice of the majority.
In some recent elections, (notably 1988 and 1996) voter turnout hovered near 50% — only 48% of eligible voters voted in 1996, for example.
How much courage does it take to go vote when the only obstacle to casting one’s ballot is the wait in line at the polling station?
(Which isn’t really even a fair question, since most American voters have the option of voting by mail and not even having to leave the house).
Recall the allegations of voter ‘intimidation’ in the 2000/2004 elections? According to the losers, they lost because American voters were either too stupid to be able to figure out the punch card machines or they were ‘intimidated’ in countless ways into not casting a ballot at all.
In this election, going to vote is as dangerous to the individual Iraqi as being deployed to Iraq is to the individual US Marine — maybe more so.
US Marines travel in armed groups, are equipped with armored vehicles, body armor, night vision equipment, pilotless camera drones flying overhead, and the best real-time communications between units ever seen in the history of warfare.
Iraq voters will go to the polls unarmed, individually and in small groups, knowing that, on Election Day at least, they are more desirable terrorist targets than a truckload of unarmed American contractors.
American contractors are only in Iraq because they can make five times the money they could make for the same job at home.
American soldiers are in Iraq because they HAVE to be, and, in recent weeks, thousands have refused to go back, despite the tactical advantage afforded them by American military equipment and support.
Despite all that, if Iraqis turn out to vote at the same rate that Americans turn out to cast their ballots in their own national elections, it means that the legitimacy of the election itself is in question.
Think of what it is that is being asked of Iraqis. They are being asked to put their lives on the line, go places where Americans fear to tread, face dangers that Americans can’t even imagine, and, if they fail to attain a higher voter turnout than any US election in living memory, their electoral effort will be viewed as a failure and the elected government ‘illegitimate’.
The opponents of the Bush administration WANT the Iraqi election to fail, just as they hoped the Afghani election would fail.
When the Afghanis were getting ready to vote, the same liberal mainstream press made the same dire predictions of failure, endlessly repeating the obstacles to success, not the least of which was Afghani ‘inexperience with freedom’ and, when the election was a resounding success, immediately turned their attention to more pressing matters, (like predicting a dismal failure in Iraq).
It is a kind of collective global madness. There is no sane person who would credibly argue that Iraq should remain a dictatorship or that it should be ruled by an unaccountable tyrant. But that is what they are rooting for.
The reason is twofold. First, it is backed by the United States. Secondly, it is backed by Israel, the only existing democracy in the Middle East.
That earns it the undying emnity of the United Nations and its constituency of tyrants, dictatorships and liberal socialists.
The global rule of thumb is that anything supported by the United States is probably evil, and anything supported by the Israelis is positively evil and must be opposed at all levels.
The Bible’s outline for the last days is a picture of a world gone completely insane. Under the reign of antichrist, those who rejected the free gift of salvation offered by Jesus Christ will instead choose to worship the most evil dictator the world has ever seen.
They will band together to oppose all that is good, set their sights on the destruction of anything that reminds them of God, and, at the end, even turn their weapons of war against the Creator of the Universe when He shows up in glory at the conclusion of the Tribulation Period and the final battle of the war of Armageddon.
People don’t BECOME insane, they GO insane; it is a process that takes some time. The world is going through that process now.
“And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:28)