"the Iraqi election"

Yeah, but the problem as I see it for Bush supporters, ostensibly fans of democracy, is that this -- to get elections there -- is not the reason we were told it was necessary to invade Iraq. I mean, there is a reason Bush et al are loudly celebrating elections in Iraq (with anonymous candidates in some cases, no less) rather than the elimination of WMDs and the attendant threat to the US; there is a certain dishonesty here that must be mentioned. All of which makes me wonder: 1) if these hardcore Bush hangerson have a threshold of governmental incompetence, i.e. one that would cause them to vote out a sitting (Republican) government (since it does not seem that waging war and killing thousands for reasons now convincingly disproven counts for them); and 2) how a democracy can really work well without an electorate willing to enforce accountability in the face of what would seem to be such egregious incompetence.

eh

Keep pounding the canard, it seems to be the only thing left for those so invested in their hatred of GW ...

Kinda reminds me of the "we hate Reagan" crowd that thinks the Cold War ended INSPITE of Reagan rather than anything he did.

Yeah... Saddam and his boyz in the hudna would have opened up elections just as soon as the sanctions were stopped..and Kaddaffi would have just as happily handed or his weapons ...and the Taliban would have apologized for blowing up Budhist statues and immediately allowed girls back in school ... and the news today in Lebanon/Syria .. Yeah sure uh huh GW never had a thing to do with any thing of it...

"the canard"

Which would be exactly...what? The "canard" that the reason the war was pushed was to eliminate the WMDs Iraq supposedly had and was actively developing, which could and would then be provided to terrorists, so posing a threat to the US? All of which has been disproved? You mean that "canard"?

I must say that even though I should be quite used to it by now, the abject intellectual dishonesty of some Bush supporters regarding this plain fact can still be quite shocking.

The rest of your post concerning Reagan etc is irrelevance pure, but I can understand why you would want to change the subject.

Here's a link to the transcript of Colin Powell's appearance before the UN in February, 2003, during the runup to, and just before the beginning of, the Iraq war:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html

He does not utter the word "democracy" a single time.

Here is another link for you:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=canard

Where "canard" is defined:

"An unfounded or false, deliberately misleading story."

What is "unfounded", "false", or "deliberately misleading" about my post?