The results are yet to be posted but the event itself cannot be described
as anything but an historic success. The path from here to a functioning
democracy is still anything but assured but certainly the willingness of
ordinary Iraqis to brave the threats of all out attacks to cast their
ballots could be a harbinger of an even more positive future.
Collectively as a nation we should take a deep sigh of relief. This is not
the end of violence or of other problems that may beset this transition
but clearly it does present the possibility of a light at the end of the
tunnel. We are closer to having our troops come home now than we were on
Saturday.
There is joy in Baghdad and relief in Washington yet there seems to be
disappointment here in Massachusetts. Senator Kennedy's incomprehensible
outburst last week followed by Senator Kerry's appearance on Meet the
Press yesterday seemed to exhibit a sorrow of sorts that we didn't have an
enormous failure. How else can you describe this quote from the Senator:
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe this election will be seen by the world
community as legitimate?
SEN. KERRY: "A kind of legitimacy--I mean, it's hard to say that
something is legitimate when a whole portion of the country can't vote and
doesn't vote." Or how about this beauty "This may be the president's
last chance to get it right."
This is an outright prevarication. By all accounts very few areas not
whole portions of the country did not participate. In an average
presidential election in the United States about 55% of the voters turn
out. In this nationwide election held under the threat of murder and
mayhem in which 36 people died as well as nine bombers, somewhere near 70%
have voted and Kerry can't bring himself to admit that the Iraqis have
overwhelmingly endorsed the concept?
The disappointment was certainly in evidence at the Boston Globe as well.
Turn to the editorial page and the op ed page and the Globe cannot find
one inch of space to devote to this historic event. They do however have
space enough to speculate on whether or not President Lincoln was gay.
The coverage of the event seems to be fairly even handed with the
obligatory reference to the violence but how do they account for the space
given to Jacques Chirac here?
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/01/31/chirac_say
s_is_satisfied_with_iraq_voting. What the hell do we care what Chirac has
to say about this event?
It is time for the campaign to be over and time to unite behind the goal
of a free and stable Iraq. We have as a nation an enormous stake in a
successful outcome in Iraq. We cannot afford to have partisan bickering
and posturing for an election which is way out in the future. There are
more than enough issues which don't involve our national prestige in
which differences between potential candidates and parties can be staked
out.
Wishing for a defeat in this endeavor is not the place to make political
hay. It is not in the country's best interest and quite frankly any
candidate who takes this position is betting against the overwhelming
allure of democracy. I would guess that is not a winning hand.
