![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Being sick gave me the opportunity, or forced me depending on your perspective, to listen to several speeches and interviews this week.
I got to hear a piece on NPR quoting various US and Interim-Iraqi government officials on how elections in Iraq could still be held in January. I didn't find any of these surprising (or believable), but they didn't really rouse me from my fevered pseudo sleep. Then the head of the UN election team in Iraq came on. This gentleman had experience with elections in many places.
His assessment was that it will be very difficult, but free and fair elections are still achievable at this point. I was surprised and actually sat up. After a bit the interviewer brought it back around and said more or less, "what have you seen in different parts of the country that indicate to you the people will be able to vote?" The UN official stumbled at this point and said, "well, I haven't seen much of the country because my movements are restricted because of security." The interviewer pressed, "You mean you can't leave the international zone." After a very, very pregnant pause the official said, "yes."
The UN election team is confined to a walled portion of Baghdad. There are "no go" zones where US troops can go but can't hold. Iraqi's who are brave or foolish enough to sign up for government or police service are being picked off on a regular basis. Is there any way you could even register voters under those conditions?
Senator Byrd spoke in July in Cambridge. I caught it on NPR's afternoon programming. Byrd's speaking style is classic old fashion rabble rousing politician. He doesn't speak in the modern politician style of half sentence sound bytes. He speaks to audiences not TV cameras. It was actually fun to listen to.
He was talking about the need to reclaim the right of law, the constitution, the three branches of our government. He assumed his audience was intelligent. He even referred to historic figures.
As I was listening to this speech I thought, I haven't heard a politician speak like that since the senate's debate on "authorization of force" in Iraq. Then I realized that was Byrd too speaking of another Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
Almost every politician you hear these days is speaking to his career, to his sound bytes, to the tune of his handlers. Maybe Byrd's beyond all that. He's been a senator for 50+ years. This is the last job he'll have. He's not hoping to be president or for that matter anything. Even if you don't agree with him, it's nice to hear someone who's speaking their beliefs, their passion, not what the public will like best this week.
I got to hear a piece on NPR quoting various US and Interim-Iraqi government officials on how elections in Iraq could still be held in January. I didn't find any of these surprising (or believable), but they didn't really rouse me from my fevered pseudo sleep. Then the head of the UN election team in Iraq came on. This gentleman had experience with elections in many places.
His assessment was that it will be very difficult, but free and fair elections are still achievable at this point. I was surprised and actually sat up. After a bit the interviewer brought it back around and said more or less, "what have you seen in different parts of the country that indicate to you the people will be able to vote?" The UN official stumbled at this point and said, "well, I haven't seen much of the country because my movements are restricted because of security." The interviewer pressed, "You mean you can't leave the international zone." After a very, very pregnant pause the official said, "yes."
The UN election team is confined to a walled portion of Baghdad. There are "no go" zones where US troops can go but can't hold. Iraqi's who are brave or foolish enough to sign up for government or police service are being picked off on a regular basis. Is there any way you could even register voters under those conditions?
Senator Byrd spoke in July in Cambridge. I caught it on NPR's afternoon programming. Byrd's speaking style is classic old fashion rabble rousing politician. He doesn't speak in the modern politician style of half sentence sound bytes. He speaks to audiences not TV cameras. It was actually fun to listen to.
He was talking about the need to reclaim the right of law, the constitution, the three branches of our government. He assumed his audience was intelligent. He even referred to historic figures.
As I was listening to this speech I thought, I haven't heard a politician speak like that since the senate's debate on "authorization of force" in Iraq. Then I realized that was Byrd too speaking of another Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
Almost every politician you hear these days is speaking to his career, to his sound bytes, to the tune of his handlers. Maybe Byrd's beyond all that. He's been a senator for 50+ years. This is the last job he'll have. He's not hoping to be president or for that matter anything. Even if you don't agree with him, it's nice to hear someone who's speaking their beliefs, their passion, not what the public will like best this week.