This is going to be a short post because I just want to say a quick thing about the Iraqi elections and all the recent repercussions. Now the funny thing is that when the elections were about to go down, everyone in the press and on the left was saying, "Postpone the elections, it will not be safe enough," while the administration for the most part stayed quiet. They stayed quiet because they agreed, originally they had intended on waiting years for a complicated caucus system (one Iowa wouldn't even understand) to appoint people to have some semblance of power. In fact the man in control of the Iraqi elections, the reason they occurred so quickly, and were not postponed is of course Ayatollah Sistani, who I am a big fan of. Bush, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Condi, and without a doubt Bremer were secretly agreeing with the Democrats before the elections occured, but that didn't stop them from taking it to the political bank (not that Democrats would not do the same, because they would).

But now so much is changing in the middle east, Palestine had kind of free elections (the most popular candidate pulled out of the running to allow for Abbas to win, the most popular candidate was in jail in Israel for terrorism), Mubarak announced he will placate the US, Lebanon is having limited demonstrations (even though the demonstrators claim to be more inspired by Ukraine’s revolution then anything in Iraq, furthermore Lebanon was a very successful democracy before its civil war), and Iraq seems to be slightly better then a couple of months ago. But regardless of the caveats to all of these stories, the media is giving Bush and his administration all the credit for the successful Iraqi elections and its subsequent domino effect. But shouldn't an Iraqi Ayatollah, whose one paragraph fatwa debilitated the US atrocious excuse for an occupation, until the US accepted elections, get some credit. Certainly he is not looking for cover stories like the Bush administration is (just as Clinton would in the same position), but still.

So although it seems the Bush Domino theory seems to be working, and no one can say that is a bad thing, let’s not limit the credit to just Bush and his boys. Oh and lets not forget about Tony Blair, who risked far more then Bush did to go to war in Iraq. But with that said, despite all the horrible blunders, if things continue as they are, Bush may go down as successful Woodrow Wilson. But there is still plenty of time for scandals (I can't wait for the Karl Rove gay sex scandal).

-Mr. Alec