Enough of what I think about the Iraqi elections. What does newly inaugurated second-termer GW think about the Iraqi elections:
"We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."
If true, this does not bode well for the survival of liberty in the U.S. Of course, the fact that we even have a second Bush inaugural is not the best news on that front either.
Meanwhile, back at Iraq, the insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi today issued his own, maybe not coincidentally timed message:
"The fruits of jihad come after much patience and a lengthy stay in the battlefield ... which could last months and years. In the fight against the arrogant American tyrant who carries the flag of the cross, we find that despite its military might, it is being crushed emotionally and morally. Our battle with the enemy is a battle of streets and towns and has many tactical, defensive and offensive methods. Fierce wars are not decided in days or week."
Which sadly speaks to my point in the last posting: the elections are a mere blip in this apocalyptic view of history.
Apocalyptic or not, there is more truth in Zarqawi's rants at "the arrogant American tyrant who carries the flag of the cross" than in the dishonest, pseudo-ecumenical homilies that closed Bush's inaugural address: "Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of our character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran."
Is it just me, or does this last half sentence sound mainly like the start of a good joke: "Ariel Sharon, George Bush, and Osama Bin Laden walked into a bar in the West Bank..."