The day Iraqis voted on their first Constitution, James Lileks
saw some war protestors near the mall in his hometown. His reaction:
On one level, you can't be in favor of the Iraqi vote and opposed to the war. On another level, you can, but it's a happy chocolate land where the fountains spout fudge and the bunnies are edible and Saddam relinquishes power, ashamed, because Kofi Annan drafted a stern letter promising Serious Consequences, and some Iraqi Gandhi not only showed he was morally superior to the Tikriti gang, but had a titanium-hulled body that made him impervious to torture shredders. And then the Baathists devolved and the Rotarians took over.
Perhaps in 15 years Iraq would be free under that scenario; who cares? I don't live there. Of course, perhaps in 15 years it will be Rabid Foamy Mullah Central. We’ll see. I just like the idea of actual voting for actual constitutions in the Land of the Strong Man, and seeing all the fictions of the post WW2 Arab landscape upended and dynamited. But that's me. What struck me was that these people standing by the shopping mall were protesting the means by which the right to vote had been secured. It seems like protesting Meals-on-Wheels because the truck broke the speed limit and had expired tags.
Then again, the Meals-on-Wheels truck didn't kill anyone en route, right? One of the signs, of course, said "Who Would Jesus Bomb." Never heard that before. Hmm. Well. I think the proper question is "On Whom Would Jesus Levy Porous Sanctions Undermined by Corrupt International Officials Who turned Oil-For-Food Into a Massive Payola Operation for the International Nomenklatura," but that wouldn’t fit on a sign.