Zeyad on the Iraqi elections

Zeyad at Healing Iraq has an interesting post on the elections. I’m not sure how right he is in his assessment, but then it’s probably impossible for anyone to gather much information with the chaotic conditions prevalent right now in Iraq. Some interesting points:

  • Sheikh Naji Al-Abbudi, a spokesman for Sistani, affirmed the claims that the Grand Ayatollah is backing the United Iraqi Coalition list. Indeed, Sistani’s agents all over the country have been quite active in educating Iraqi Shia on the merits of elections, which has led to the assassination of at least two of them. Al-Abbudi stated that “His Emminence” decided to openly support the list because “others” (obviously a reference to Allawi) have been abusing official state positions and media outlets in their campaigning. Again there is no official written statement from Sistani’s office confirming this allegation, which I think is intentional.
  • The main Kurdish coalition list (PUK and KDP) is barely mentioned outside the Kurdish region. Even there, many Kurds look and act as if they are going to grab the chance to vote them out of power. I doubt that will be the outcome though.
  • Many Iraqis, including conservative and religious Iraqis, are surprisingly rooting for the Iraqi Communist party, probably in an attempt to counter the influence of Islamists in the forthcoming National Assembly. The Communist party has the largest number of registered party members in the country and can be considered as the oldest popular political party in Iraq. Its support base is much larger than what it seems
  • .

The whole thing is interesting. Zeyad’s Saturday post indicates that he’s headed for Jordan until “this mess is over.”

The usual suspects

Okay, so no one liked the Bush inaugural speech, with prominent conservatives like Peggy Noonan and Bill Buckley making plain their dismay at its militant wackiness. And no wonder, just look at the wackos who had a hand in it, according to the Los Angeles Times:

“As they drafted the speech this month, White House political aide Karl Rove and chief speechwriter Michael Gerson held a two-hour seminar with a panel of foreign policy scholars, including several leading neocons — newspaper columnist Charles Krauthammer, Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins University and Victor Davis Hanson of Stanford’s Hoover Institution — according to a person who was present. “

Dimitri Simes: “An Extremist in the White House”

Dimitri Simes, president of the Nixon Center, a conservative think tank, on Bush’s inaugural speech:

“If Bush means it literally, then it means we have an extremist in the White House. I hope and pray that he didn’t mean it … [and] that it was merely an inspirational speech, not practical guidance for the conduct of foreign policy.”

An inspiration to warmongers and funeral home operators — with the rest of us just hoping and praying it isn’t true. Has it really come to this?

War Party deserting under fire

William F. Buckley, Jr. didn’t like the inaugural address either. “Confusing,” and apparently “an improvisation,” it was also ungrammatical:

“Mr. Bush said that ‘whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny.’ You can simmer in resentment, but not in tyranny.

Bad grammar and bad policy:

“What about China? Is it U.S. policy to importune Chinese dissidents ‘to start on this journey of progress and justice’? How will we manifest our readiness to ‘walk at [their] side?'”

Invade?

China is “too massive a challenge to our liberationist policy,” Buckley notes., and Africa “too exiguous.” Okay, then:

“What about Saudi Arabia? Here is a country embedded in oppression. Does President Bush really intend to make a point of this? … Will we refuse to buy Saudi oil?”

Yeah. That’s it: wind-powered cars. The wave of the future.

Noonan, Robinson, and now Buckley are stampeding for the exits. And they didn’t even stay for the end of the second act.