Deadlock Breeds Despair in Iraq

While commentators around the world weigh in with varying opinions on Iraq's continuing political impasse, one common reaction from Iraqis is angry despair.

The prospect of progress was scuttled once again today when Iraq's top legislator postponed a parliamentary session meant to break the deadlock.

"Our government is fast asleep, snoring over pillows filled with ostrich feathers and if it wakes up - and that is a big if - it immerses itself in soft and luxurious armchairs," writes Jamal Mudhafar in today's edition of Azzaman, a Baghdad daily.

"It is simply oblivious to the suffering of the Iraqi people gripped by one deadly crisis after another," he says. "The nation is reeling from pain and the government looks on as a bystander. It has fortified itself within the Green Zone (U.S. military and civil headquarters in Iraq), distancing itself from the tragedies, calamities and disasters afflicting the Iraqi people."

The country is falling "into the abyss," writes another Azzaman columnist, Jassem Murad. "There is nothing in store for Iraqis but more bloodshed as this horrific scenario unfolds."

"Speeding up the political process." (Sabah/Baghdad)

Ayub Nuri, a Kurdish journalist who recently returned to Baghdad for the first time in two years, writes on Iraq for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting. "The shocking reality is that people vanish into their homes in the early afternoon," writes Nuri. "Many do not have drinking water or electricity. Women give birth at home because of the curfew. Dozens of bodies are found everyday. Garbage piles up everywhere, and buildings are in the same shape as they were the day after the war."

Once hopeful that Iraq could be free and democratic, Nuri now says, "I now just want one thing: for Iraqi leaders to end the political rivalries that have made them forget the Iraqi people who voted for them. I want them to end their hypocrisy -- kissing one another on TV while unleashing their militias to kill each other on the streets."

Meanwhile, the deadlock goes on.

By Jefferson Morley |  April 17, 2006; 1:38 PM ET  | Category:  Mideast
Previous: Why the Iraqi Impasse Continues | Next: Down Under, Oil for Food Scandal Spins the Other Way


Please email us to report offensive comments.

If Iraq is to have a chance a government has to be put in place most groups can live with. The US can't put too much pressure on the groups without making it look like it's trying to chose who will be Prime Minister (though it'd clearly like to have a veto at least). Maybe some agreement will be cobbled together, but it looks like it'll be a very weak government unable to deliver the leadership needed for Iraq.

Something needs to be done very soon or the whole democratic process will disintergrate. What use are elections if the Parliament never meets?

Posted by: David Patrick, UK | April 17, 2006 05:10 PM

Why would anyone think that Iraq will be setteled and the politicians will come to some kind of agreement? The people to blame are the administration in Washington, they sold everyone a bill of goods on why they wanted to invade IRAQ, and I for one am so angry at the loss of lives on both sides, the maimed soilders and civilians and the totally insane amount of money it has cost the American people. Which has been pillaged by unscrupulous corporations and politicians, it boggles the mind. Saddam may have been a dictator, but the administration in the U.S.A. is a dictator of another sort. They foolishly embarked on an invasion with no plan for what was going to take place afterwards. That's what happens when a bunch of texans get together and plan a little WAR! Their attempts at putting in "their guy" didn't work out, so the people of Iraq took it upon themselves to vote, of course the three factions are going to vote for their piece of the pie, unfortuately, just like Vietnam and it's idiots that attempted to push their wants and views on another country this is turning out much the same. A great tragedy and no body will be held responsible. The people of Iraq have been told their rebuilding is coming, just like the American public has been told on many occassions, the Iraq War would be a slam dunk, and that were nearing the end of the mission or as Bush likes to swagger "Mission accomplished". This country is already in a civil war and only the politicians in America and Iraq are wearing blinders. The people of Iraq, I am afraid are in for a long civil war, and the people of America are going to pay for it not only with dollars but with lives. I think every American politician that voted for this WAR not only owes the American public and especially the families of the military an apology, they also owe the people of Iraq an apology, good luck getting one! There all busy planning the next war! Thanks

Posted by: Sue F | April 17, 2006 05:14 PM

To the anti-war crowd:
Can you all please stop your childish temper tantrums? The righteousness of your cause doesn't increase with the level of your shrill. Will someone please tell me, in calm, forward-looking and rational manner, why the brave Iraqi people will be better off with the US removing its military immediately? My observation over the last year or so is that the anti-war crowd doesn't have a morally acceptable or intellectually honest answer and will continue to rely upon their old and tired argument of: "we were lied to at the beginning, so we should leave now," which disregards any thought of the Iraqi people or American strategic interests in the middle east.

Posted by: adam | April 17, 2006 05:53 PM

adam, im not a pacifist but i do think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

As to your question... The US should withdrawal immediately because its presence does not stablize Iraq nor save lives. Iraq will never get better until it gets alot worse (full-scale civil war). When the Shia backlash comes we don't want our troops there.

I have a question for you... If you really want to 'win' the war, and you think the presence of US troops has a stablizing effect, why not have a draft and have 500,000 troops there and really rebuild the place?

If you beleive we have enough troops there and are doing a good job on rebuilding then you are the one who is being
intellectually dishonest.

Posted by: kingish | April 17, 2006 06:04 PM


For the record, my opinion as to what we should do has not been made public on this website, so i think it is a little presumptious of you to argue that i believe we have enough troops there. I am very interested into learning what the "pull the troops out now" crowd actually thinks and i thank you for your 1st paragraph in your post.

In response to your question to me, i am inclined to believe we may well need more troops now, however, i'm not a military expert and are unsure as to what type of forces are needed and how they should be depolyed. Just having more people doesn't necessarily means it will be better. (any geniune military experts out there with some interesting insights please respond)

However, I believe that if we do leave, that the insurgents and foreign jihadist will not magically laydown their weapons, but will continue their campaign for power. And i do believe that a full scale civil war can be avioded but will require the US and other nations to support the more modern / moderate forces in that country.

Also for the record, I think we are doing a bad job in rebuilding, but we need to learn how to do it well, cause the problem of failed states is not going away and will be more of a problem in an increasingly globalized world.

Posted by: adam | April 17, 2006 06:31 PM

You can not get orange juice by squeezing lemons, can you ?? To date: $320 billion spent with more to be spend in the next 2 years, by the time we get out, the tab will be around $450 billion .
To date: 2,377 killed, and 8,058 badly wounded, their lives will never be the same and you have not seen their health care bill yet. In the next 2 years I expect another 1,000 killed and another 2,500 badly wounded.
And for what ??? So Iraq can have a "democratic" government ?? What have the people of Iraq done for the U.S. that we owe them so much in blood and treasure ??
Never have so few caused so much damage to so many to get so little in return.

Posted by: jaime | April 17, 2006 06:58 PM

We went into Iraq, for one reason among many (or at least one reason among many, with hindsight) to give them a democracy. We gave them a democracy, we secured the country to the extent possible and the borders to the extent possible and they held a series of elections. We gave them their democracy.

What they're doing with THEIR democracy, whether we like it or not, is to filibuster and bicker deciding THEIR way to form THEIR parliamentary system. And, whether we like it or not, it's THEIR decision to filibuster and bicker. After all, isn't that the reason we went into Iraq and removed a dictator, so that the formerly oppressed people can determine their own way government and way of life? They've made their decision; their decision is to filibuster and bicker.

That's the decision THEY've made with the THEIR freedom. Not much else WE can do.

Posted by: J | April 17, 2006 07:11 PM

how is a poor business man, average student, and recovered drunk, qualified to force changes on anyone, backed by a lame duck congress, whose big concern is tax cuts for the wealthy, financed by debt ??

Posted by: erniel | April 17, 2006 07:19 PM

Four Basic Questions for Adam:

1) How many more tens of thousands of people need to be maimed and murdered for the sake on a burgeoning extremist Islamic republic with long standing ties to Iran by way of the Al Dawa party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq?

2) How many more hundreds of billions of dollars need to be spent for the sake on a burgeoning extremist Islamic republic with long standing ties to Iran by way of the Al Dawa party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq?

3) Is the father of extremist Islamic republic with long standing ties to Iran an appropriate response to the horrific attacks of 9/11, the most horrific and expense attacks to have ever occured on US soil?

4) Did you know Al Dawa on Dec. 12, 1983 bombed the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait?

Posted by: Harry | April 17, 2006 09:03 PM

jaime: Never have so few caused so much damage to so many to get so little in return.

Please, you have forgotten to factor in the dead and the billions of dollars in damage that were incurred on 9/11.

You have overlooked the important fact that Bush and his supporters have *inadvertently* fathered a burgeoning extremist Islamic republic with long standing ties to Iran in *direct* response to 9/11.

In short:

9/11 + Iraq = Bush's extremist Islamic republic

Posted by: | April 17, 2006 09:10 PM

J: That's the decision THEY've made with the THEIR freedom. Not much else WE can

BUSH has EMPOWERED the extremist Shi'a Muslims.

THEY, the extremist Shi'a Muslims, have VOTED.

THEY want and ISLAMIC republic.


Iraq: Bush's Islamic Republic
By Peter W. Galbraith


SCIRI and Dawa want Iraq to be an Islamic state. They propose to make Islam the principal source of law, which most immediately would affect the status of women. For Muslim women, religious law—rather than Iraq's relatively progressive civil code—would govern personal status, including matters relating to marriage, divorce, property, and child custody. A Dawa draft for the Iraqi constitution would limit religious freedom for non-Muslims, and apparently deny such freedom altogether to peoples not "of the book," such as the Yezidis (a significant minority in Kurdistan), Zoroastrians, and Bahais.

This program is not just theoretical. Since Saddam's fall, Shiite religious parties have had de facto control over Iraq's southern cities. There Iranian-style religious police enforce a conservative Islamic code, including dress codes and bans on alcohol and other non-Islamic behavior. In most cases, the religious authorities govern—and legislate—without authority from Baghdad, and certainly without any reference to the freedoms incorporated in Iraq's American-written interim constitution—the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL).

Dawa and SCIRI are not just promoting an Iranian-style political system —they are also directly promoting Iran- ian interests. Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, the SCIRI leader, has advocated paying Iran billions in reparations for damage done in the Iran–Iraq war, even as the Bush administration has been working to win forgiveness for Iraq's Saddam-era debt. Iraq's Shiite oil minister is promoting construction of an export pipeline for petroleum from Basra to the Iranian port city of Abadan, creating an economic and strategic link between the two historic adversaries that would have been unthinkable until now. Iraq's Shiite government has acknowledged Iraq's responsibility for starting the Iran–Iraq war, and apologized. It is an acknowledgment probably justified by the historical record, but one that has infuriated Iraq's Sunni Arabs.


It may be the ultimate irony that the United States, which, among other reasons, invaded Iraq to help bring liberal democracy to the Middle East, will play a decisive role in establishing its second Shiite Islamic state.

Posted by: Harry | April 17, 2006 09:16 PM

Analysis: Who are the players in Iraq?

The Shias

The SCIS report explains that Shia politics is dominated by three parties who joined the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) in the December 15, 2005 elections. Its leader, Abdel Aziz Al Hakim, also controls the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq or SCIRI. The three parties are SCIRI, Risaliyoun (the party of Moqtada Al Sadr), and the Dawa party.


The SCIRI is the largest, best organized, and wealthiest, with a militia of about 25,000 and an estimated support base of some 2.5 million to 3 million.

Moqtada Al Sadr's party, according to intelligence estimates, has the support of 1 million to 1.5 million. His Mehdi Army fought Coalition forces and the Iraqi Interim government in the early days of the occupation. While sketchy, intelligence sources estimates the Mehdi Army at just under 10,000 men.

The Islamic Dawa, led by Prime Minister Ibrahim Al Jaafari, came in second on the Alliance's list after the SCIRI.

All three groups endorse the UIA platform that calls for the enforcement of the Iraqi constitution and for national unity. Each of these groups, says Obaid, "is beholden in some way to Iran and has ties to its intelligence and security services".

The SCIRI was founded in 1982 after the original Islamic Dawa Party was obliterated following an unsuccessful attempt on the life of Saddam Hussein. "It was the principal opposition group of the Baathist regime," says Obaid. The SCIRI won popularity among the Shias through its social services.

The Dawa Party, established in 1958, was "originally created to counter secularism, communism and the Baathist ideology of Arab socialism". Obaid states that "although founded by Shias, the group has worked closely with the Sunnis". Prime Minister Ibrahim Al Jaafari is the current leader of the Dawa party.


Iranian Interference in Iraq

According to intelligence assessments, Obaid says, "there are strong indications that Iran continues to be deeply involved in shaping the future direction of Iraq". However, "there is little appetite for an Iranian style Islamic government among the Iraqi population", according to Obaid. But he warns: "The mullahs and their proxies have the power to disrupt the political process, create chaos, and threaten the emerging Iraqi state."

Finally, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has been able to place key operatives in strategic positions in the new Iraqi administration.

The Death Squads are organized under a separate directorate headed by a general who coordinates with an Iranian colonel from the Al Quds Forces. They are believed to be responsible for the assassinations of important Sunni tribal leaders, prominent academics and former military officers.

The Sunni Muslims who have long dominated the country make up 12 to 15 percent of the population. Sunni Islam remained the official state religion despite enforced secularism of the Baath Party. Sunnis can be found among Iraq's ethnic Arabs, as well as among Turcomen, Kurds and other minorities.

Posted by: God of Gods | April 17, 2006 10:50 PM

Sue F,

You got that right my friend.

The US government led by the Bush administration is responsible for the death of at least 100,000 people (civilians alone) in Iraq in the last 3 years. Saddam is accused of being responsible for the death of 300,000 people during all of his rule.

They tell us that there was no other way and that it turned into a mess because of the makeup of Iraq.

What a lie.

Now they blame the Iraqis themselves, not the invasion that left many people dead, wounded, traumatized and terrorized.

They quickly forget how the invasion amplified tensions between Iraqis and turned them against each other. So many people are killed simply because they are seen as traitors who help the foreign occupation.

The other day, the military channel TV showed a documentary about a brigade that settled in one Saddam's son palaces. They showed how the soldiers were jumping in one of its pools, and having parties.

What a shame, what a shame.

No foreign nation should assist the Bush administration in Iraq. None.

The Bush administration must be forced to withdraw from Iraq, and to admit that it was a MISTAKE, A BLUNDER.

It is because of US troops that radicals, nationalists, etc are fighting, not the other way around (where were these groups before the invasion?). Since when Arabs loved American troops, let alone foreign troops? since WHEN?

Bush is abusing the Army, ruining its image in the world, and ruining the US image in the world too.

Iraq might not recover anytime soon because so much damage was done but the best chance they got is when US troops left the country.

As long as US troops are present, attacks will continue. Those people regard it as a struggle against foreign occupation no matter what the US says.

Posted by: Karim | April 17, 2006 11:17 PM

God of Gods:

"The Sunni Muslims who have long dominated the country make up 12 to 15 percent of the population."

That would be the Sunni ARABs, not ALL sunni.

Shia Arabs make up about 60%, the rest is pretty much Sunni, which includes Arabs and kurds.

Posted by: Karim | April 17, 2006 11:28 PM

I fully agree with those who have argued here that no country should assist the U.S. in its illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and I'm especially proud that my country, Canada, despite the enormous influence Washington tries to have on us, elected not to join the U.S. on this mad and doomed adventure.

It's interesting to watch as country after country abandons the U.S., realizing that we and the majority of humanity were right about this. in Iraq. With Prodi elected now, Italy will be the next to turn its back on America in Iraq. Spain has already done it. And so have many others in Latin Ameria. Good for them! The "coalition of the willing" was never a true coalition, but a sham involving a loose alliance of weak countries that were bribed or coerced into participating or led by pathetic syccophants. Now that "coalition," bogus to begin with, has all but vanished.

The world was right to oppose this madness, and Iraqis have paid far too high a price already. It's time America was made to bear the full burden of its hubris. The few countries still with America in this tragic orgy of murder and destabilization should continue to desert America.

The U.N. opposed this invasion. The vast majority of humanity opposed it. The vast majority of America's key longstanding allies opposed it. The weapons inspectors opposed it. America's president was the only real driving force behind this war. George W. Bush and his circle ignored all the experts' advice and decided they knew best.

Let's make George W. Bush, and the country that elected him, pay in full for the crime.

Posted by: Samuel | April 18, 2006 12:08 AM

I was in the navy during Vietnam..and this has the capacity to be an even worse move than that....I supported and still support Afghanistan. But this premeditated, idiotic fiasco of the Bush Neocons in Iraq is going to bring America down. Bush might as well be a traitor, as he couldn't do much more to isolate and bankrupt us, and waste our military...Tax cuts for the rich during wartime....Sacrifice! yeah sure..

Posted by: Ben Kidd | April 18, 2006 01:08 AM

Samuel: Let's make George W. Bush, and the country that elected him, pay in full for the crime.

Country that elected him?

You clearly surpass the ignorance of those in the Bible Belt of the USA who actually voted for GWB.

Are you not aware of the dark dark clouds hanging over the legitimacy of his so-called elections?

Are you not aware of the US Supreme Court's involvement in the `electing' of GWB in 2000?

Are you not aware of Diebold's involvement in the `electing' of GWB in 2004?

The `country that elected him' has been screwed and now its being screwed by you.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls....

So you no longer have to grope in the dark about voter fraud in the USA see

Posted by: Jahbala | April 18, 2006 09:37 AM

I'm curious, Karim. say the US and UK withdrew from Iraq tomorrow. what do you think would happen?

I guarantee you if most Americans thought the result of a withdrawal would be less violence, US troops would be gone. Give us some reason to believe that would be the result, please.

also, your civilian casualty figures are absurd. You're adding deaths from insurgent car bombs and other murderous acts to pump up the numbers. that's shameful. you also purposefully conflate Saddam's intentional murders with accidental deaths resulting from coalition actions. again, shameful.

Posted by: ce | April 18, 2006 11:46 AM

ce: also, your civilian casualty figures are absurd

Where are your figures?

With Bush as POTUS, there is NO doubt at all tens of thousands of people have been senselessly murdered, tortured, maimed, raped, malnutrioned, etc.

On 9/11, it was his "most solemn duty" to protect the USA from attack. (I know this due to the fact he says it all the time without ever having realized that he absolutely failed to do that.)

But, Bush failed to do this most solemn duty in 2000 and 2001.

The result:

Nearly 3000 people were murdered and billions of dollars in damage were incurred on 9/11 and after.

Then, in direct response to these historically horrific attacks, Bush and his supporters like you invaded/occupied Iraq at the cost of tens of thousands of lives and a few hundred billions of dollars.

Also, in direct response to these historically horrific attacks, Bush and you as his supportive mistress *inadvertently* fathered a burgeoning extremist Islamic republic with extremely close and long standing ties to Iran.

9/11 + Iraq = Bush's burgeoning extremist Islamic republic?

Where is your outrage?

Posted by: Joe | April 18, 2006 01:11 PM

"Let's make George W. Bush, and the country that elected him, pay in full for the crime."

And exactly what army is going to do that?


Posted by: Dom | April 18, 2006 01:27 PM

I was always against the war as I thought it pointless and a dangerous distraction from the War on Terror. But, we CANNOT withdraw now. Iraq is very far from being a stable country and if we withdraw and allow it to disintergrate then we'll have another Taliban-era Afghanistan. Another state sponsoring terrorism against the UK and US. That's why a stable Iraq is essential to OUR security.

Will withdrawing magically grant that stability? Unlikely. Can we force the country to become stable? No. Can we buy that stability? Even the West isn't that rich.

This is the mire we're stuck in.

Posted by: David Patrick, UK | April 19, 2006 04:09 AM

David Patrick: Iraq is very far from being a stable country and if we withdraw and allow it to disintergrate then we'll have another Taliban-era Afghanistan.


Such ignorance in re to the nature of the political parties holding the reins of power in Iraq is appalling.

If the US withdraws Iraq will INTEGRATE and the the Middle East will have a second extremist Shia republic due to Bush's invading of Iraq in direct response to the horrific attacks of 9/11.

9/11 + Iraq = Bush's extremist Shia republic?

Posted by: 9/11 + Iraq = Bush's extremist Shia republic | April 19, 2006 09:44 AM

Rubbish. The three main groups are directly clashing with each other through the like of ethnic cleansing of Shi'ite Death Squads.

If the violence was directed at the occupying forces the rational of pulling our troops out early would make sense. But there is no evidence that the mere presence of British and American troops is making Shias kill Sunnis and vice versa.

Perhaps the best result possible now is for the country to completely shatter into three, (relatively) stable countries. Yes the Shi'ites would support and aid Iran, but it would be better than the country just falling apart. The Sunnis will never work with Iran and Kurdistan almost totally exists already.

Posted by: David Patrick, UK | April 19, 2006 10:21 AM

David Patrick: falling apart (snip) Yes the Shi'ites would support and aid Iran, but it would be better than the country just falling apart.

The moment the Shia militias become untethered thru US withdrawal they can liquidate the small factions of Sunnis one by one.

That ethnic cleansing would lead to the firm establishing of an integrated Iraqi republic that is ruled by the majority of Shia Muslims.

This is just a matter of time.

The integrating of Iraq as a burgeoning extremist Islamic republic is an absolute failure.

What Bush and his supporters have done in Iraq is a disaster.

9/11 + Iraq = Bush's extremist Shia republic?

Where's the outrage?

Posted by: Mustafa | April 19, 2006 12:05 PM

Dom asks "what army" is going to make George W. Bush, and the country that elected him, "pay in full for the crime" of invading Iraq in violation of international law.

ANSWER: Your army. As all other nations in the world turn their backs on the U.S. (as Spain, Italy and so many others have already done), you Americans will be left alone to clean up the mess you created. Your domestic and international situation will only worsen, as your economic, military and diplomatic isolation increases. Slowly, Americans will awaken to the fact that they have a war criminal in the Oval Office.

You elected this idiot. He thumbed his nose at international law and at global public opinion. Now he, and you, will pay the price, in blood and treasure.

We can only hope that one day, Bush himself will find himself indicted for these crimes.

Posted by: Samuel | April 20, 2006 11:00 AM

Samuel: Slowly, Americans will awaken to the fact that they have a war criminal in the Oval Office.
You elected this idiot.

Again, sloppy sloppy thinking at its finest.

Many Americans have awakened and have been awakened to the fact that they have a war criminal in the Oval Office.

We did not ELECT this idiot.

Look at the vast voter fraud elections in 2000 and 2004, esp in Ohio and Florida.

In the first, the SCOTUS stopped the vote. Gore recd more votes than any other candidate in a US election.

In the second, Dielbold delivered and made good on its promise to get Bush in again.

Are you even aware of what has been going on here in terms of voter fraud?

HINT: Some unprecedented weird stuff has been going on with the rise of the Born Again Christian Reich: e.g. Bush in 2000 and 2004; Schwarzenegger ousting Davis in Calif; Delay redrawing the congressional maps.

You have no idea you clueless anti-American!

Pathetic retard!

Posted by: | April 20, 2006 04:57 PM

Mr. Anonymous, it may well be that Diebold stole the last election and the Supreme Court the one before that, but enough Americans did willingly cast ballots for the deluded war criminal now sitting in the Oval Office that you have an awful lot to answer for as a society, and as a nation.

Even if Diebold helped Bush over the top in Ohio, he still got a majority of the popular vote last time around. So yes, I'm afraid Americans have to wear this.

You Americans voted for this criminal and his evil policies. Now you must be made to pay a very high price for inflicting this man on the world.

Posted by: Samuel | April 21, 2006 12:27 AM

Samuel: did willingly cast ballots

62,040,610 vs 59,028,439

What a landside!!

Nobody even knows how many of those 62,040,610 are VALID.

Question: Why do you characterize Bush as a criminal from one side of your mouth BUT then at the same time from the other happily express legitimacy toward the results of an election won by a CRIMINAL?

You are an anti-American plain and simple.

You fit right in with the fundies that did actually vote for Bush

Posted by: | April 21, 2006 07:51 PM

Samuel: You Americans voted for this criminal and his evil policies. Now you must be made to pay a very high price for inflicting this man on the world.

Q: If you know he's a criminal why are his elections free from the criminality?

You are an Anti-American, a racist!

Pay a high price?

You are NUTS!!

Exacting `revenge' like some mono-browed retard with a club in is hand 200o years ago!

The USA needs help.


Ask not for whom the bell tolls....

Posted by: | April 21, 2006 09:44 PM

To Sammy:

Since USA is most powerful, he's your President too : )

If Past Is Prologue, George Bush Is Becoming An Increasingly Dangerous President
Friday, Apr. 21, 2006
President George W. Bush's presidency is a disaster - one that's still unfolding. In a mid-2004 column, I argued that, at that point, Bush had already demonstrated that he possessed the least attractive and most troubling traits among those that political scientist James Dave Barber has cataloged in his study of Presidents' personality types.

Posted by: Frank | April 22, 2006 09:44 AM

To Uptight Sammy:

Howard Dean on Diebold: "These machines are a problem"
by David Grossman


We concluded that are easily hackable and cannot be verified and that they are not reliable. And we concluded the best machine you can use is an opti-scan machine because at least it has paper ballots and you still get the rapidity of the counting. There are Democratic officials who still use these because they get huge amounts of money from the federal government to buy these kinds of machines, well, not just ... the other machines, the Sequoias and Diebolds and such. I'm not an expert on these machines, although someone did actually teach me how to hack one on live TV once, which was kind of fun. It's pretty shocking -- I know so little about the intricacies of all this stuff so ... I wouldn't pretend I ... I did change the vote totals on the machines, but I don't know if it was really -- could have been a program that was elaborately programmed to fool me into thinking I was doing something I really wasn't doing.

But yes, our conclusion is that these machines are not reliable and they undermine confidence in democracy.

Posted by: Frank | April 22, 2006 10:09 AM

I love islam till my last breath,

Ilove, Innocent Iraqis who have been killing by bloody americans and israelies.

I love iraq, afghanistan, palestine,

we will take a revenge,

1 Muslim = 100 Americans + 100 israeli

Posted by: mohammed | May 22, 2006 12:56 PM

bush is the big bastard,

killing innocent muslims all over the world

I respect islam its a true religion.

my parents are Christians but i have converted to islam. brothers do not worry about the bush i will kill him in suicide bomb attack. i an american its very easy for me.

Posted by: john---al-saad | May 22, 2006 01:08 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2006 The Washington Post Company