The Urban Grind

Also posted at Ace of Spades HQ

On the one hand, you have joyous Iraqi's risking their lives to be able to vote:

Samir Hassan, 32, who lost his leg in a car bomb blast in October, was determined to vote. "I would have crawled here if I had to. I don't want terrorists to kill other Iraqis like they tried to kill me. Today I am voting for peace," he said.

"This is a wedding for all Iraqis. I congratulate all Iraqis on their newfound freedom and democracy," said Jaida Hamza, dressed in a black Islamic veil that also hid her face.

As do I, along with my fellow guest-bloggers and most Americans.

Baghdad's mayor was overcome with emotion by the turnout of voters at City Hall, where he said thousands were celebrating.
"I cannot describe what I am seeing. It is incredible. This is a vote for the future, for the children, for the rule of law, for humanity, for love," Alaa al-Tamimi told Reuters.

All of this despite the repeated attacks by terrorists.

Salama al-Khafaji, a 46-year-old Shiite dentist, has survived three assassination attempts, including one last year in which insurgents killed her 20-year-old son and a bodyguard.

"We have principles, we believe in democracy and human rights," she said. "If I die, it is better to have died for something than to have died for nothing." As she spoke, she struggled into a bulletproof vest and a traditional black cloak to return to Baghdad's streets for a last round of campaigning.

Yet despite printing this brave woman's comments, The New York Times then proceeds to belittle the entire Iraqi elections on the grounds that they are held under the dominion of the U.S. (How eeevil!!!)

Many Iraqis, interviews in recent months have shown, do not accept that fundamental choices about the shape of their future political system should be made by a foreign power, particularly one they regard as a harbinger of secular, materialistic values far removed from the Muslim world's.

Hmmm...I remember seeing Fox News's Alan Colmes of "Hannity & Colmes" go on about how we shouldn't go to war with Iraq, since it's a secular country with no ties to Al Qaeda, and that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden hate each other, etc.

And now, for the purpose of bashing the elections, the Times blathers on about how we can't force a Jeffersonian democracy on a religious country:

But questions over the election go far beyond the American stewardship, to issues that touch on whether it was ever wise or realistic to think that Jeffersonian-style democracy, with its elaborate checks on power and guarantees for minority rights, could be implanted, at least so rapidly, in a country and a region that has little experience with anything but winner-take-all politics.

Granted, it won't be a Jeffersonian style democracy right away. But so what? America's Founding Fathers owned slaves. And women, at first, did not have the right to vote. Does that mean we should disregard everthing else they stood for? Does that make our republic style of government any less valid? Should we throw out the baby with the bath water?

With regards to Iraq, The New York Times seems to think so:

Compounding those objections, the elections are being held in the grip of a paralyzing fear that many Iraqis see as inconsistent with a free vote. A savage insurgency, and the harsh measures America's 150,000 troops have taken in response, have angered and terrified Iraqis, who now face election conditions that have made an obstacle course of the process, at every stage.

Apparently, The New York Times would rather the Iraqi's cower in fear, rather than getting out and voting.

To read the rest of this article, click here.