I need a cigarette.

I wonder if he has even ever read a single book on Iraq, much less written one.

Oh! Snap, even.

I wonder if he has basked in the forbidden love of Shiite brown sugar.

Arrgh! My post above should read, "...so you're wrong and I'm right."

Preview is my friend... preview is my friend...

This is not a case of one person being right because he has information or insight that the other person does not.

Cole and Goldberg both agree on the basic facts surrounding the Iraq elections. Cole chooses to view the elections with pessimism, while Goldberg is an optimist.

Cole's vast knowledge of "how things have always been done" in the Middle East, or Goldberg's comparative lack thereof, is not all that relevant. If we were having a contest to write the best book on the history of the Middle East, I would pick Cole over Goldberg any day. But we're looking at the future, and the rules of the game are changing.

In such situations, it's often the people with the most knowledge of the "old ways" that get left behind. For example, who was better equipped to understand and exploit the Internet revolution: "experienced" businessmen, or young techno-geeks?

Cole is looking at Iraq through a prism of his past experience and his anti-Bush views. No matter how smart or well-informed he may be, I think he is congenitally incapable of accepting the possibility that Bush's actions in Iraq might end up yielding a positive result.

Also, I gave Goldberg too little credit above -- he does try to make people laugh, but he is not a pure jokemeister like Stewart.

No, the issue at hand is whether Iraq's elections were more or less democratic than Iran's, which is the specific point that Goldberg was disputing. One country was under a total security lockdown by a foreign military, during a protracted violent insurgency, running slates of candidates who were often anonymous, and some who angrily demanded to be removed when they discovered their names on the lists. The very locations of the polling places were secret in many areas until the day before the elections. Large minorities boycotted the vote, ballot shortages were reported in multiple locations, and dozens of people were killed. Some areas have reported being told their food rations were dependent on voting. Moreover, this wasn't even electing a government, just an interim assembly to draft a constitution, so we have yet to see whether these elections have meant anything at all in terms of actual self-governance.

By any criteria you use, Iran's elections were more democratic, quite completely and utterly apart from your, my, Cole's, or Goldberg's opinion of George W. Bush. And THAT is why Cole finally just threw up his hands and said, "You clearly have no idea what you are talking about."

Taking for granted that Cole is right on the details of Iran's elections, I still see the dispute as coming down to a question of optimism vs. pessimism.

To wit, which is more impressive:

(1) Holding free elections in a country that is still under attack by vicious "insurgents" looking to kill anyone who would dare show up at the polls, or

(2) Having a closely-regulated election with only those candidates pre-approved by oppressive religious leaders, despite the fact that your country is at peace?

In context, Iraq's election strikes me as the more impressive accomplishment.

By harping on the fact that Iraq's election fell short of the Iranian standard, Cole fails to see the forest for the trees: Of course the Iraq election was far, far from ideal, but the impressive thing is that elections were held there at all.

Just to avoid confusion, I'd like to point out that the GaijinBiker above is not me, the descriptivist grammar pedant, although I am also a Gaijin Biker.
...and I know even less about Iraq than Doughy Pantload does.

Hey Big Ben, I was wondering what happened to you!

Gaijin,

the impressive thing is that elections were held there at all.

You seem like a reasonable guy, so I'm gonna give this a shot.

I am very dissapointed in the way the "goal posts" have been moved. As you show, it has now gotten to the point where we are told that it is impressive that elections were held in Iraq at all.

No, I am not impressed. Give me, what, 200 Billion dollars, 300 Billion dollars, and the armed forces of the most powerful nation on earth and I think even I could have managed to have the kind of election that took place.

Think of what else could have been done with that money. How many kids put through college? How much fixing of our infrastructure? Hell, how many more tax cuts for millionaires?

Sorry, I'm not impressed so far, and the story is far from over.

Well, I can agree with Tripp that the story is far from over.

Dunlop's piece, on the other hand, is mostly overheated rhetoric. Example:

"For such people, the invasion in Iraq has never been about Iraq. It has been part of campaign to shore up support at home, a way of presenting "their guy" as tough and decisive and to paint their opponents as traitors."

Uh... no. I actually want to see the Iraqi people free and in control of their own country. Honest.

The left is setting itself up as another GOP -- the Grand Order of Pessimism:

We caught Saddam!
Yeah, but we could have sent some more kids to college instead. And have you taken a look at our infrastructure lately? I tells ya!

The Iraqis had their first free elections in decades, despite ongoing terror attacks!
Yeah, but they should have been better-run. And you're "moving the goalposts".

I'm excited for the Iraqis, and I'm dying my finger purple in solidarity with their sacrifice and struggle.
Ahhh, you're all a bunch of chicken hawks.

People who are self-confident and who hold hope for the future are quickly worn down and turned off by the left's relentless drumbeat of naysaying, carping, second-guessing, and wet-blanketing. America will work this whole thing out in the end, and it won't be thanks to the people who told us every step of the way, as far back as Afghanistan, that we didn't know what we were getting into, couldn't do what we were doing, and shouldn't have done it after we did.

My hunch is that Dubya is popular, and was re-elected, despite his obvious flaws in the public speaking department, in large part because he simply has an optimistic view of America's ability to create positive change in the world.

Uh... no. I actually want to see the Iraqi people free and in control of their own country. Honest.

Really? Even if with our interference the majority Shi'a actively choose to return to strict Islamic government, the pre-Umayyad caliphate?

I think optimism is easily replaced by naivete these days.

Gaijin,

I calls 'em the way I sees 'em.

Bush's budget proposal wants to cut education, agriculture subsidies, and food stamps. He refuses to put the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan on the budget. He wants to lower SS benefits and borrow what, three trillion dollars?

Economically, this country is sliding into a hole.

I have no doubt that many people are satisfied with "happy talk." Are you one of them? Are you unaware of what is happening here?

OK, well, I'll leave it at that. Good debate by all.

This may be the first Iraq War thread in the history of the Internet with essentially no name-calling by either side -- cheers!

Cheers, you dick. ;)