Sunday, April 10, 2005

Iraq Protest and Powerline

I was somewhat impressed by the anti-Saddam, anti-occupation, and pro-Islamic protest in Baghdad for the second anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. According to Riverbend there were protest all over Iraq including Mosul and the south with Sunnis but mostly Shia Sadr supporters.
But others were less impressed that Iraqis are somewhat tired of being liberated to death. Ever vigilant Powerline is on the ball with its analysis. They seem to rely on an Iraqi who resides in California. Alright might not be the best reporting but not a huge point if it’s just viewing available photos. They make the most the fact that these people don’t like Saddam and terrorism. No shit, not many people love Saddam or terrorism but also not many people love American troops occupying Iraq. Here I love this photo from the rally:

Bush and Saddam

Wow equating Bush with Saddam no wonder the right wingers weren't too pleased by this expression of people power. Then HindRocket informs us that Sadr didn't win a single seat in the Iraqi parliament. Well maybe that is because Sadr did not run and rejected the election. Even after leaving out that cruical point HindRocket is still wrong as he left out that- Cadres and the Chosen- a party allied with Sadr did win three seats. And the UIA which won 51% of the seats had 20 Sadrists on its list but I don’t know how many of them got in. Also he declined to mention the results of provincial elections which left Sadrists in control of a least seven provinces. My favorite part was HindRocket’s closing statement:

Yet, it seems, their ability to turn out a few tattered demonstrators is enough to garner headlines throughout the U.S. Why?
Hmmmmm Okay I'll take your word for it Time's Blog of the Year
Baghdad 2nd Year Protest
A Few Tattered Demonstrators by John Hinderaker

Whoops last time I checked 300,000 was more then a few. When you frequent the right wing blogoshpere echo chamber you become surprised that Iraqis do not appreciate American occupation forces looting their country.
Compare the above picture with this 'climactic moment' Hindrocket was telling us about just over two years ago.


Firdos Square April 9th 2003 Climactic Moment By John Hinderaker

Good thing CNN and their Mainstream buddies did a closeup. And a good thing too we have watchful bloggers like Powerline to keep them under tabs.

UPDATE: I was wrong, Sadr does have more then 3 supporters in the Iraqi Parliament. According to Juan Cole he has around 20 supporters which is impressive if you consider that the Sunnis only have 17 seats. Scroll down to bottom of his post to see for yourself.

3 Comments:

Anonymous TS said...

I don't know why, but right now I feel like fire bombing Walmart...

11/4/05 21:59  
Anonymous Canadian Politics said...

I'm not sure whether it was wise to invade Iraq in the first place, yet I am glad that Saddam is gone and that democracy appears/seems to be taking hold there. I wish that back in the Gulf War in the time of Bush senior -- this is when Saddam should have been removed. Well, can't change the past but we just need to make sure our foreign policy is sound for the future.

11/4/05 22:27  
Blogger weech said...

Bush Sr had his reasons for not wanting to occupy Iraq and he wasn't surrounded by neocon advisors.

In their cowritten 1998 book, "A World Transformed" George H.W. Bush and his National Security Advisor, Brent Scowcroft, discussed regime change in Iraq:

Trying to eliminate Saddam [in 1991], extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guidelines about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep', and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs... Would have have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles... Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome.". (quoted in “Losing America,” pg 154)

12/4/05 11:47  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home