About "spreading Democracy like we have in Iraq"

[underpants]

Executive summary
Bush wants Chalabi as his puppet ruler (BTW Chalabi is an Iranian agent but they don't know that at the time)
Sistani says no
Bush says that the US military will appoint local leaders
Sistani says no
Bush says that they will have local caucuses
Sistani says no and organizes a massive march (250K?) the next day demanding "one man one vote"
Bush announces that he has decided to spread democracy with open "one man one vote" elections but not until AFTER the 2004 election here.
Sistani accepts.

Juan Cole:


First they were going to turn Iraq over to Chalabi within six months. Then Bremer was going to be MacArthur in Baghdad for years. Then on November 15, 2003, Bremer announced a plan to have council-based elections in May of 2004. The US and the UK had somehow massaged into being provincial and municipal governing councils, the members of which were pro-American. Bremer was going to restrict the electorate to this small, elite group.

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani immediately gave a fatwa denouncing this plan and demanding free elections mandated by a UN Security Council resolution. Bush was reportedly "extremely offended" at these two demands and opposed Sistani. Bremer got his appointed Interim Governing Council to go along in fighting Sistani. Sistani then brought thousands of protesters into the streets in January of 2004, demanding free elections. Soon thereafter, Bush caved and gave the ayatollah everything he demanded. Except that he was apparently afraid that open, non-manipulated elections in Iraq might become a factor in the US presidential campaign, so he got the elections postponed to January 2005. This enormous delay allowed the country to fall into much worse chaos, and Sistani is still bitter that the Americans didn't hold the elections last May. The US objected that they couldn't use UN food ration cards for registration, as Sistani suggested. But in the end that is exactly what they did.

So if it had been up to Bush, Iraq would have been a soft dictatorship under Chalabi, or would have had stage-managed elections with an electorate consisting of a handful of pro-American notables. It was Sistani and the major Shiite parties that demanded free and open elections and a UNSC resolution. They did their job and got what they wanted. But the Americans have been unable to provide them the requisite security for truly aboveboard democratic elections.

http://www.juancole.com/2005/01/mixed-story-im-just-appalled-by.html

[ray of light]

1. send Bush to Iraq for good!