unelected mullahs

Condoleeza Rice's smug remark about "unelected mullahs" surely has a good audience here in America: even critics of Bush's invasion have recently shut up as he and his gang have trumpeted the Iraqi elections as their own victory.

What on earth do people think, that this election was actually part of anyone's plan a year and a half ago? Is everyone really just rolling over and saying, "Wow! A free election in Iraq! Bush was right after all! Hooray for Bush!"? Where's that famous Liberal Media?

Of course, this election was far from Bush's (or Cheney's, or Rumsfeld's) mind until well after the mushroom-cloud sunglasses came off. We originally planned, you do remember (don't you?), to install our own man, admittedly not a mullah but certainly unelected, as Iraq's leader. That was Ahmed Chalabi. No election in sight, free or otherwise — just stick him in an office and call him the head honcho, and off we go.

Well, you recall what happened when the Chalabi plan didn't quite work out, right? Yep: Paul Bremer. Ah, the white man's burden! Old Kipling is probably the only quotable *not* blushing in his grave. Of course, that idea wasn't incredibly popular, there or here.

That's when one of those unelected mullahs Condi Rice so despises — actually a Grand Ayatollah — incited his followers to riot, demanding none other than a free election. The Bush team at first stonewalled, then reluctantly agreed, with the following stipulation: that the election be put off till after November 2nd.

So here it is February and, once again, Bush's summary is "Mission Accomplished."

Comments

Popular Posts