Wednesday, November 03, 2004


Iraqi Reflections on US Elections

It seems by now clear that a majority of the American people have voted for Bush and for the Republicans. Although Kerry and the Democrats have not yet conceded defeat, it is evident that the popular vote has gone to Bush. More Americans have voted for him than those that did so in 2000. The Republicans also have increased majorities in both houses, which is also quite indicative of the American public's will.

It looks to me like an endorsement of this administration's policies. Bush in fact has a clearer mandate from the American public than the one he had before.

As an Iraqi, although I have to respect the choice of the American people expressed through a democratic process, I don't have to be happy about it!

To me it means an approval of "pre-emptive wars", of taking the "war to the enemy camp" (which means me, my family and my country), of more chaos in Iraq, of Abu Ghraib, of Halliburton; of the bombings and killings, of incompetence, of continued neo-con influence, of unilateralism, of disregard to world opinion, of trying to dominate the world instead of leading it, of more religious antagonism, of more animosity towards Europe and of the ascendancy of fear over hope.

There is one hope left. It has been said that American presidents keep their eyes on re-election in their first term and on history in their second. Well, I am sure that history will judge President Bush very harshly indeed. To change that judgment, he may need to change his administration's policies rather drastically. Given the past performance, that is not an easy task. To do that he may need to be born again… which is not that impossible. He's done it before!

Looking at it another way, I know that if democracy is implemented in Iraq (something that I am advocating) then I would not like the results… I know that even before any elections take place. The fact that I don't like the results does not contradict the fact that I like the process and would still fight for it.


Hello Abu Khaleel,
The difference between 2000 and 2004 is clear, the War in Iraq/War on Terror. The reason Bush won was effective terror hysteria propaganda, in the hads of immoral people. Bush is looking to history, to undoing US civil rights, putting more religious fanatics in the courts, giving more tax breaks to the super-rich and of course, killing more Muslims in the ME. A man of peace could have helped Iraq right now. I pray to God that his adventures will end with Iraq, but perhaps he will bring death to Iran as well. The world can't look to America for leadership.

I voted for President Bush and I must say I find your words to be encouraging - that you would fight to have a democratic process. Americans and Iraqis have died in the effort to make that process possible for Iraqis. Your willingness to fight for it means they will not have died in vain. The world will be a better place for your efforts.

Tom Bowler

How history will judge George W. Bush depends entirely on what happens in Iraq and the middle east.

If Iraq calms down and becomes a "normal" democratic country with respect for rule of law and human rights, then the world may judge him more favorably. If this democracy spreads to other areas in the middle east resulting in hundreds of years of peace and security and prosperity, then history will judge the invasion of Iraq to have been the best decision in 50 years.

On the other hand, if invading Iraq encourages the psychotic Islamist-Jihadis and other extremist Arab-Muslim fools and the middle east continues to be a screwed up mess, then he will be judged more harshly.

But always remember George W. Bush tried to solve a problem that everyone else left alone.

It has been said that American presidents keep their eyes on re-election in their first term and on history in their second. Well, I am sure that history will judge President Bush very harshly indeed. To change that judgment, he may need to change his administration's policies rather drastically.

Do not give yourself false hope. President Bush does not agree with you about how history will judge his actions and he is not going to change his policies, unless it is to be more extreme.

Afghanistan is a pretty clear vision of what the USA offers Iraq. Allawi/Karzai is going to win an election governed by US-created rules that make it essentially impossible for a candidate to win without US sponsorship.

Egypt and Jordan, of course, represent the medium or long-term future of Iraq.

My question is what do you think of Afghanistan as a model for Iraq?

eu acredito nim Iraque livre e democrático, sem os americanos!

The big problem is: America did what Iraqis should have done before them – dethrone Saddam by themselves. Democracy is not a value to be exported. Democracy is always a conquest of a people. And Iraqis never asked America to intervene. Oil business did…

By the way, I’ve translated a part of your brilliant post into my Portuguese blog. You probably will not understand it, but I leave the link here, just in case. (link) Reflections of an Iraqi.

God bless Iraq.

"The reason Bush won was effective terror hysteria propaganda, in the hads of immoral people."

Wrong. I think you need to look a little more closely at the results.

"Bush is looking to history, to undoing US civil rights,"

And how is that?

"putting more religious fanatics in the courts,"

Wrong again. But lets say you are right just for arguements sake. Why are "Christian fanatics" so evil yet "Islamic fanatics" are just "resistance fighters"?

"giving more tax breaks to the super-rich"

Wrong again. I am not even half way to the $200,000/yr mark of your buddy Kerry and I got a tax cut.

"and of course, killing more Muslims in the ME."

Oh my you are right, we should have left Soddom and his sons around. They would be killing far more Muslims than we could ever hope to. Or your Zarqawi followers. None of them are killing Muslims either???

"A man of peace could have helped Iraq right now."

Probably, but who was that gonna be, Kerry? Hahaha

"but perhaps he will bring death to Iran as well."

If that means the oppressive Mullahs than yeah, I hope so too..

"The world can't look to America for leadership."

Right. Look to France, we are busy at the moment...

From Circular

Well Abu, at least there’s no ambiguity now about where you stand: the liberal voice of America that’s all over the Internet has proven to be ineffectual and irrelevant, and its clear that the ‘truth’ in America is whatever the conservative mind wants it to be - facts have little more than nuisance value.

Are you continuing with your agenda? "How do we get there?" still to go I believe. Whether you are or not, could I enter a plea or request. A while ago I asked "what’s really happening" and you replied " is far worse than you get on the news… far worse."

But the point is that we’re not getting anything on the news, or not that I can find. It’s just bombs here, clashes there, there seems to be no real in depth reporting and analysis on the ground any more - presumably because no Western reporter is safe on the ground any more.

As a clued-up guy who presumably has lots of contacts, are you able from time to time to provide an Iraqi perspective on where things are really at? What are people’s attitudes to the intended elections? Are there different moods or expectations among different sectors of the population? And so on. Perhaps just some illustrative anecdotes would help our understanding.

Cheers anyway

America is busy at the moment and not available to share knowledge and leadership with the rest of the world, because they are losing their time, sharing rotten democracy and bombs.

"...although I have to respect the choice of the American people expressed through a democratic process, I don't have to be happy about it!"

How right you are. 49% of Americans agree with you. Still, the election has made Bush and the Republican Party stronger in Congress as well so you better get your head down. The only thing to stop us from a more violent occupation is Bush and his team suddenly realizing that "morals" and "values" include respect for life, respect for others who are not conservative Christians. We have the ability to put enough troops on the ground to create security and enough money to re-build your country's infrastructure but that will not happen. I remain saddened by the moral failure of 51% my countrymen to support a stance like that. We are in the grip of big business and short term profit and fail to see the longer view -- or the humanitarian one.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Barry wrote: "I don't know about you but I consider someone willing to blow up 34 Iraqi children trying to kill 1 or 2 US soldiers a "bad guy".

It is very nice to find a point of agreement with you, Barry. I wonder, do you consider it equally bad when an American missle kills innocent women and children to take out a couple of terrorists? The current Israeli government does this in Gaza and the West Bank (and uses American missles as well). We, the USA, do this in Iraq. Is it justified because we "try" not to kill innocents? I'm guessing that's the claim the terrorists use.

Abu, why have posts been removed? Could you post a comment with a short explanation or in the future put an explanation in the removed comment like "removed due to personal attack," or "removed due to foul language" or some similarly succinct remark?


Yes I would say it is equally bad. However, I would say that part of it goes to intent. Not that intent justifies it. Look at the two bus explosions recently killing workers going to the Baghdad airport. Or the beheadings of people who have nothing to do with the US and its military. A deliberate attack on innocents. How are we supposed to get at these people when they hide behind innocents and in mosques, schools, hospitals, etc? I know that you could argue for negotiations and such but I feel that we have been appeasing these people for far too long.


I'm sorry but I have given my reasons several posts ago. I will remove comments with foul or abusive language, personal attacks, unrelated propaganda… and comments by known trolls. These generally create distractions or degrade the debate of the very important issues involved.

To me, the comment section is even more important than the post! It is where I (and others) learn what other people think. The post is what I have to say, but in the comment section I find viewpoints from all sorts of people covering a broad prospective from different countries and backgrounds. I will do my best to discourage people from ruining the debates that take place here. I hope that you will understand.

From Circular

Abu, further to my request above, another question: one product of the fundamentalist mind-set, in which rhetoric replaces reality, is always irony.
It is ironic, and sadly amusing, to see the soldiers of the Black Watch handing out leaflets saying to the Iraqis "We are Scottish soldiers, we are here to help you."
It’s like the Jocks are saying "Hoots mon, we’re no’ wi’ yon Yanks, we’re no’ even British the noo!" It seems almost like mutiny, or at least disloyalty, on their part, but evidently the British military authorities have sanctioned this approach.
Which raises the question: do Iraqis see this war as basically an American attack, or as an assault by the West in general? Obviously the Resistance makes no distinction among the coalition allies, but does the Arab man-in-the-street see it this way? To what extent is this seen as the focus of a Muslim/Christian conflict, rather than simply the result of the blunders of an ignorant bully?
(I mean, it looks like Tony Blair could face real rebellion in his Labour Party ranks if the Jocks take more heavy hits. Alliance with Bush on a temporary basis, over what was seen as a necessary war, is one thing; but after the U.S. election, permanent alliance with the loony U.S. fundamentalist right wing is definitely not what Labour is about.)
The Black Watch are due to be amalgamated next year. It will be not ironic but tragic if the greatest of the Highland Regiments ends 250 years of history being massacred because of U.S. incompetence.
Oops. Better go and hide. They’ll be Gordons an’ Argylls an’ Queen’s Own and a’ oot looking for me the noo.

Circular and others,

Somehow I was hoping that I have got over that phase of the blog where I attempted to "define the problem", which was in many aspects an ugly experience (If you don't believe me, just have a look through the comments on the earlier posts). So many people get offended by any attempt to say that something is wrong or that some problem is caused by the US administration (just count the "stop whining" or the "blame, blame" comments!)… not to mention the numerous emails I received to the same effect.

Circular, you do ask some difficult questions, don't you? I would need some news network to oblige; there is so much going on! However, what you ask is important and I will do my best to give a glimpse of the mood of the country from time to time. Apparently you want something more "relevant" and analytical than my "Glimpse of Iraq" blog.

Your last question is however relatively easy. Saying that "we are Scottish soldiers, we are here to help you" in a leaflet will not make one iota of a difference to the recipients. It may be looked at as a simplistic weenie attempt at PR, it may be an expression of nationalistic feelings of the Scottish boys, but even little children in that area know that those soldiers are there to allow the Americans to attack their brethren in Fallujah. It doesn't matter what nationality they are. Whoever thought of that campaign should have considered giving those "natives" a bit more credit than that!!! But to answer your question, yes… most Iraqis see this as an American invasion. All others are there just to assist! Actually Britain is almost invariably seen as a country that will do whatever America will ask…

By the way, I haven't decided on what to do next. I suppose I should continue with my agenda. Defining what one wants and how one hopes to get there is still to my mind as important as ever... though perhaps a bit academic under the circumstances! Nevertheless, I still think the question will come up again sometime in the future.

I would like to know what you and others think.

Imagine that in Mexico there is not enough oil for future needs and that they decide to invade Texas in order to overcome that shortage.
To get a valid reason to invade the US, they tell the rest of the world, including the UN, that America owns mass destruction nuclear weapons (witch is very dangerous to our planet) and they have the death penalty (witch is not acceptable in democratic countries).
Assume this situation, just as a working hypothesis.

Also suppose that Mexico could manage to dominate the US army and to arrest president Bush.
What would the reaction of the American people be, then?
Wouldn’t they kept fighting with all their possible strength to get rid of the invader and, if not possible, to put into practice all possible acts of sabotage to prevent Mexico to take advantage of the oil fields in Texas?

Well, that inconceivable supposition is, in my view, today’s situation in Iraq.

In my previous comment I’ve tried to help Abu “define the problem”, as he says.

For those that are not yet convinced: look at this:
or just clic (here).

From Circular

Well you know my views. Regarding the house burning, the following may be of interest:
A N.Z. reporter was in Iraq a couple of months ago. He did an interesting series of articles (not available on the Internet) including an interview with Allawi, and with a group of insurgents. He must have kept up some contacts, because in today’s paper he has an article which includes information from a "resistance fighter" received by phone (!). Some excerpts:
"He claims that in Fallujah there are 12,000 insurgents ready to do battle with U.S. forces - 10,000 more than in April. He says volunteers are paying to be smuggled into the encircled city ..."
"He adds what is widely suspected: that an attack on Fallujah will result in coordinated uprisings in other cities across Iraq, and that Baghdad in particular will become a second battlefield."
"Some experts see Fallujah as the last chance to contain the insurgency before it spirals out of control. As one American commentator said this week: ‘If we fail in Fallujah, it’s all over for us in Iraq."
I’d be interested in your reaction, but of course I’m not one to ask a lot of questions!

The current situation in Iraq reminds me (very sadly) of the old line: The operation was a success but the patient died.

Did anyone doubt at the beginning of this war that the American military could be stopped? Of course not. We Americans have incredible firepower and the means to deliver it pretty much at will any where in the world. As Bush so infamously announced a very long time ago, "mission accomplished" in Iraq. Our military operation was a complete success, Saddam was out of power. But the patient is dying.

Now in the face of an "insurgency" [sic] all that notorious firepower in the hands of the military is hardly the right treatment to heal the sickness in Iraq. Like another commenter suggested, ideally an Iraqi Gandhi would appear and sow the seeds of non-violence. If the Iraqi resistence turned to non-violence the US would be forced to respond in kind. While I don't pretend for a moment that this is at all likely to happen in the short term, it would be folly not to hope and work for it in the long term.

So, Abu, in terms of following your outline and framing the discussion a bit differently, perhaps we can think about how move from the current violent state-of-affairs to a situation where the there is the posssibility that some brave Iraqis can step forward with commitment and dedication as leaders on the path of non-violence.

Ghandi was a courageous and deeply spiritual man. He never wished his enemies ill, yet never gave in, and his path led to the creation of the largest democracy on the planet with three or four times the population of the USA.

There must be many courageous and deeply spiritual Iraqi men and women who do not believe in violence. They are the ones who will build a new Iraqi nation that can be free, secure, and democratic. What can be done to give these people more of a voice?

What good would it have done to keep Suddam in power?

Abu --

I apologise for the tone of my posts ... it was undoubtably offensive and not in keeping with the idea you have for this blog. I'll try and contain myself next time, and leave the deleting to you, instead of jumping in with both feet.


I am grateful that you understand my motives.


If a "Gandhi-like" figure emerges in Iraq today, he would be killed within a week under the present conditions prevailing in Iraq. Besides, one cannot just wait for the emergence of a savior, not that it will not happen… I simply don't know. What I'm proposing instead is that people are allowed to choose "people they know and trust" locally.

With the US election over, evidently Fallujah seems uppermost in many people's minds. I have just posted something on it.

Bottom line in a few words? Whatever the outcome, more of the same, nothing new!!!

Andy --

Your entries are on the whole lucid and eloquent. This however, I don't agree with:

"If the Iraqi resistence turned to non-violence the US would be forced to respond in kind."

The US is by no means obliged to cease military operations. They already signalled their intentions re. peaceful demonstrations at Fallujah, where last year 17 civilian protesters were killed by Marines.

I don't disagree with you that non - violent opposition would be infinitely more noble than the bloody, dirty struggle that is currently taking place. However, the reality of the situation is that Iraqis are divided and fragmented; even the armed struggle has vociferous arguments about what are legitimate targets or not. Iraq lacks a single, unifying personality like Ghandi who could unite everybody in a campaign of disobedience ... and even if it did, it might still not work. (The ideological cousins of current policy makers like Kissenger have already advocated importing Texans and Oklahomans to run oil fields with out native help.)

Sistani is about the closest to this ideal figure, and he is not necessarily accepted as a universal leader by all Iraqis, nor has he promised civil disobedience if the US does not go.

Imagine the gamble that you are asking the resistance to take. If they suspend the struggle and lose momentum and face, not to mention open the door to prolonged US intelligence operations ... and the US continues to behave in the same militaristic manner it is now doing ... they are finished.

The fact is, the US (debatably) had a "golden hour" where it might have, through great efforts and maneuvers, have won the trust of Iraq. Instead, what struck me was the autocratic manner in which tribal Sheiks were ordered around like servants, and where ordinary Iraqis were treated with extreme cultural disrespect and arrogance.

Your questions on encouraging non-violence are valid.

My personal reply would have been:

Treat Iraqis with cultural sensitivity, respect. Do not engage in "bagging". Make an effort to learn customs, other than in a context of looking for ways to acquire leverage over prisoners. ('The Arab Mind', anyone?) Make an effort to learn the language. Don't try to rewrite the constitution and laws as an ideological model without consulting Iraqis themselves. Stop pointing guns at people in the streets. Hire Iraqis to repair war damage instead of Halliburton. Behave like a guest instead of a master. And so forth.

Perhaps the violence from 'dead enders' would have continued, but there would have been far more copious intelligence flowing about them than the current trickle. And the chances of a geniune settlement would have been much greater. The fact is, the insurgency is a larger national struggle now, and it is perhaps too late for the soft touch, although I hope I am wrong.

You say, and I agree with you, that American solders should “treat Iraqis with cultural sensitivity and respect and make an effort to learn customs.” Abu stresses the same idea in his new post. But, the only way for that to happen would be to send all American solders back home and put them in school to learn a bit more about human rights, Islamic culture and multicultural diversity. And you know, as I do, that’s impossible.
Since the beginning of the war, English solders have always been close to the Iraqis reassuring them and getting their trust. English troops were responsible for keeping control of south Iraq in Basra region and they tried, by all means, to contact the local population helping them to gain their homes, after the hard days of the war, and helping them reorganize the social and local infrastructures.
Quite the contrary, American solders were never able to approach the locals. They were always too fearful of the population to approach them, to talk to them and even less to help them. Instead, they started treating them as if they were all potential terrorists.
Of course, instead of achieving Iraqis trust they only got suspicion and obstruction.

And I can tell you Bruno,
I’m well positioned to talk about respect for multicultural diversity. I’ve always been educated under Christian values. My wife is Muslim and I can tell you how different their values are, compared to ours.
Iraqis need respect. They are human beings, just like we are.
But I also understand that it’s a very difficult matter to understand for the majority a people that invaded North America and put the locals (the Indians) living into reservations, like animals in zoos.

Abu wrote: What I'm proposing instead is that people are allowed to choose "people they know and trust" locally.

Abu, it is hard for me to imagine what life must be like in Iraq right now. I can only be thankful that I live where democracy can be practiced relatively peacefully. Your comment above made me want to point out what may not be apparent from afar about the recent US election. In addition to voting for a president, senators and representatives, I also voted for local school board candidates, a couple of local bond issues to fund schools and parks, the retention of local judges, the governor, state senators and representatives and several state constitutional amendments. On a future election day I will vote for city council candidates, mayor, county commissioners, etc. There are many layers to democracy. America has performed surgery on Iraq with a hammer, and it may look ugly now, but it will heal given time.


JAM to Nick :

I hope you are also intending to practice that kind of surgery in North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Liberia, Ivory Coast, … It makes a lot o work, don’t you think?
I wish you good luck.


Whatever your agenda is, it is destined to be Overcome By Events, as things are moving fast in your country. As soon as folks here agree that the country should take one course, it takes another.

One area that is under-reported and underdiscussed is...what political parties are forming, how are they aligning themselves, how are they attempting to campaign? How are the people taking to the idea of elections?

Navy Guy

Nick to JAM

There are good arguments for and against "surgery with a hammer" as evidenced by many of the blogs from Iraq and the variety of opinions that are expressed; I am no expert on the situation there. I meant it as an observation of what has happened and to offer a little hope--I am an optimist. So much attention is focused on who won the presidential election, when the votes that really affect us on a local level are the votes for local administrators. Unfortunately, people living in most of the countries you mention don't have those choices. Should the US intervene in North Korea or should France intervene in Ivory Coast, or the UN in Sudan? I don't know. But I do know that the freedoms and rights enjoyed by most Americans, Europeans and many others around the world should not be taken for granted.


JAM to Nick,

I agree with you that Iraqis deserve a democracy like ours. I am from a country that was ruled as a dictatorship, thirty years ago, and where now we can elect our president and our government (directly, and not through delegates, that can finally change the sense of your vote, like in the US).
I work in a place where I can elect my own staff representatives.

Iraq and all the countries of the world also deserve the right to choose, like we do.
But unfortunately, that’s not what Bush is bringing to Iraq.
George W. Bush is in Iraq to assure the election of a pro-American president, and a pro-American government. He does not want Iraq to choose what Iraqis want. Bush wants the Iraqis to choose what Americans want.
They need to be sure that they get a real partner over there, not an enemy.
It is unthinkable to let the Iraqis choose a pro-Russian, or a pro-European, or a pro-Chinese, president. I can assure you, they will never allow that to happen.

Look at Afghanistan. Now look at Wikipedia, under Hamid Karzai: “In 2001, following the September 11 terrorist attack, Karzai worked with agents of the United States to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan and muster support for a new government.”
This is what the US are now looking for in Iraq.
There is noting to do with the democracy you have, nor mine...


Nick to JAM

I agree with you that Bush wants a pro-America partner in Iraq and it will be set up that way--it would defy logic to spend untold $$$ and lives on a war and do otherwise. Iraq needs stability; maybe it would be best if the US just packed up and left, but if the US stays and contributes to the rebuilding of the country, the government should be US-friendly. That necessitates a partnership. However, I think that will last only for the (relative) short-term as the country is stabilized and an economy begins to grow. I believe the Iraqis can, if they want it, have whatever kind of government they want and deserve. That may take 10-20 years or longer, but it can happen. Same goes for Afghanistan. Japan and Germany, while US-friendly, are certainly not pawns of the US.

As the saying goes, sometimes it is hard to see the forest through the trees. I don't want to try to defend US actions in Iraq--many mistakes have been made, and there will likely be more actions that make the people in Iraq angry. But Iraqis have a unique opportunity, one that will require patience and long-term vision. Easy for me to say, I'm not under occupation with violence and chaos all around, but I am an optimist.

BTW, I think the electoral college in the US system of election serves a good purpose, and I would not favor eliminating it as some in the US have suggested. I don't like the two-party system. I think we need alternatives to the Republicans and Democrats.

Best, Nick

I want to start by saying that whether or not going into Iraq was the right thing I hope and pray that somehow it works out for the good of the Iraqi people. I do however want to pose a question about something I just do not understand. How can millions of people allow a handful of extremists and terrorist to enslave them. How can they allow them to hide in there cities, homes, and places of worship. How can millions of people allow dictators, terrorist, or even a few hundred thousand foreign troops control their destiny. The U.S. invasion might have been right or it might have been wrong. Only history will tell us that. The important fact is it did provide the Iraqi people the chance to stand up together and demand that Iraq become the land of the hopes, dreams, and prosperity of the Iraqi people. As long as the Iraqi people allow themselves to be ruled they will always be ruled by somebody. When will you stop killing each other and stand up and have a civil debate with a common goal, a strong and free Iraq. We recently had our elections and many people are very happy with the results and many are very unhappy with them. Regardless of which side they are on they are not running around killing each other over it. They know that the choice of the people has a natural balance to it and it is better than the personal views of any individual. I just do not understand. Somebody please help me to see through your eyes so I can make better and more informed decisions when I make my choices in elections every two years. There is nothing more the people of the United States would like more, regardless of their view about going to war, than to see the Iraqi people stand up and take control of their country and allow our troops to come home having made a good outcome to a debatable situation. We are there honestly trying to protect the Iraqi people so they can make a choice for themselves about their own future. But the impression I get is the Iraqi people are waiting for us to transform their country for them. We can't do that. Only they can, and they can if they want to bad enough.

I just want to say my heart, hopes and wishes are with the Iraqi people. I hope somehow good outcome comes from this situation.

Thank you Abu for providing a place that Iraqies can speak out and make a difference. Your voice makes a difference even here in the United States. You might not have changed the outcome of an election but there are people from the United States here on this blog listening to you and hoping to find a way to make a difference. Free speach truely makes a difference. Please incourage others from Iraq to speak up. We can not learn and come to a good outcome without this type of dialog. Your voice has the affect of 100 car bombs. Violence will never change my position on anything although a voice in the crowd very well could.

Thank you Nick for defending the electoral college. It is unfortunate that most American are ignorant of why it is important. Each state has the right to distribute its share of the the vote how it see fit. If you do not like how your state does it then go out and change it. One state can vote 100% for a certain candidate but it still only gets its share of the national voice based on the ratio of its population to the whole. The fact is it is the United "States" not the United "Individual People". States choose the President not the people. However the people tell their state what to choose.


Just wanted to note that, although everybody seems to forget it here in the States as well as in the rest of the world, Bush won with what is really, statistically, a razor-thin margin in the popular vote. (Just because Bush says he has a mandate doesn't mean he really does- though, as we all know, he is sure to act on his delusional interpretation of information.) It just might be helpful or (relatively) encouraging to remember that 49 percent of Americans did not vote for him and definitely do not support his policies-- myself included. Small consolation for all of us, considering the very real world consequences of Bush remaining in office, but still...

'Abu Khaleel'.

You are certainly not an Iraqi. Your english and diction are unlike any other Iraqi blogger I have seen. In addition, you use terms like 'neo-con' in such a way that makes it clear that you are simply an American liberal masquerading as an Iraqi.


I don't know whether you meant your comment as an insult or as a compliment... but I assure you that I am an Iraqi living in Baghdad.

If you take the time to have a look at my other blogs (two of which are written in Arabic - see side bar on the left) you might be convinced.

If any American knew so much details about Iraq (eg as in "A Glimpse of Iraq") we all wouldn't have been in the present mess ;)
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Listed on Blogwise