It wasn't going to happen. Bush was never going to hand over governing power. It would never happen. It was inconceivable: We weren't in this with good intentions, so no such thing could happen.

But it did.

Then Bush said there'd be an election in January. Why then? Because he wanted to be sure it would happen even if he lost the election. He wanted to make sure the Iraqi people got that -- even if the likes of John Kerry and Ted Kennedy were now in power.

It wasn't going to happen. It was inconceivable. The security situation made it impossible. Bush wasn't really interested in allowing elections -- this was about ooooil. There would be no turnout -- it was going to be pathetic. And we'd never allow an open ballot with many candidates. At the last minute, Teddy practically had a nervous breakdown, pleading for us to immediately leave the Iraq people defenseless against the nascent totalitarian threat in their midst.

But, once again, it all came down just as Bush stated.

Gosh, they must hate that guy. How mind-bendingly awful: To call a guy stupid, relentlessly, to position yourself as more moral, and then to see him both right and helping people!

Overheard someone saying that Chris Matthews -- even-tempered moderate that he is -- was saying we had 'compelled' those Iraqi people to vote.

How would this work, exactly? I mean, we have 150,000 troops over there. Assuming, for simplicity, only 2/3rds of them were trained in vote-compelling (I wouldn't think jet pilots, mechanics, cooks, etc. would be sufficiently well-armed) that would mean... with, what, 8,000,000 votes? -- that each individual soldier would somehow have needed to round up 80 separate Iraqs and force them to vote.

So a group of 10 soldiers would have forced, at gunpoint, 800 people to vote.

1. If so, we have amazing soldiers! What is this military technology we have which allows 1 soldier to control 80 separate voters?

2. Wouldn't we have gotten, uh, some kind of report this going on? I mean, if 8 million people were forced to vote against their will surely you would think there should be some evidence of that.

(Or are we saying the news media is covering it up -- the same news media which feature Chris Matthews saying it's happened? Yes, that's very consistent.)

3. How does one convince one's self to believe such a stupendously absurd proposition???

I hope it's a false report (about Matthews). Sadly, I can't bring myself to be sure of that.

I'll be honest: I'm elated at the idea that so many people got to vote for the first time. Especially considering everything they've been through, both Saddam and the War.

You've got to think that there are moderate people in Egypt, in Syria, in Iran, in even Palestine who are looking on with envy and going -- Hey, why can't we do that? As the guys at Iraq the Model (talk about a prescient name -- of course, that was Bush's point, too) point out:

Has he forgotten that the opinion of the majority was respected in the early days of Islam? Has he forgotten that the prophet himself used to ask the citizens of the "Madina" for their opinion (and folow it) in more than one ocassion when a critical decision-making was needed?

Update: Ah, the rumor is that if people didn't vote, they would lose their ration cards. I see. So one rumor is all it takes to prove 8,000,000 votes illegitimate? Yes, Virginia, some people are that desparate.

Imagine if the same standard were applied here: "I heard that in California, people were told that unless they voted for a Kerry, Bush would institute the draft. That makes the California vote for Kerry illegitimate." Suddenly, one rumor would not be sufficient to discredit the vote.