|
|||
|
They Don’t Build Democracies Like They Used ToPosted on Mar 29, 2010
Iraq’s recent election was supposed to remove Nouri al-Maliki from power, but the prime minister, sounding rather like a Bond villain, declared “the game is still very much on.” Now a governmental commission created to keep Baathists out of public life says that on the night before the election it banned six candidates who went on to win. Guess that’s what happens when George W. Bush, that model of a participant in free and fair elections, is your liberator and sponsor. —PZS
Advertisement Previous item: GOP Family Values: RNC Looking Into $2K Erotic Club Tab Next item: National Minuteman Group Disbanding After Its Leader's Angry E-Mail New and Improved CommentsWe are launching a major overhaul of our comments section. In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread. Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts. Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with. Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page. |
By Dave Thomas, April 20, 2010 at 7:13 am Link to this comment
I guess the author is completely unfamiliar with American history and doesn’t understand the angst felt by Jeffersonians who had to wait five months to find out if John Adams would step down in March of 1801. What is really interesting is what Adams did during those five months that completely changed the trajectory of American history.
Go ahead author, educate yourself about the history of democracy. It would be nice to read a more informed post instead of one that is a transparent “blame Bush” rant.
Report thisBy gerard, March 29, 2010 at 2:13 pm Link to this comment
I guess we are supposed to be glad that Iraq now has a democracy and two parties can argue till they are blue in the fact about who won what, meantime refusing to cooperate for the good of the people. Then there’s always the brilliant possibility of collecting money from powerful interests such as religious and corporate/banking interests, get the highest court in the land to decree that these interests can make unlimited contributions to candidates, and let the last man standing (no women allowed) “win” the most votes. Excuse the sarcasm, but how many men, women and childrlen paid with their lives for this?
Report this