The truth about life in Iraq

Pages

This is an article written by Amir Taheri, a journalist of Iranian descent. I think it is important that people not lose sight of the fact that what the US/UK did was a good thing, justified by both Saddam's past actions as well as his potential threat in the future. So, forgive me, but here is the entire article:

"The Iraqi Intifada!" This is the cover story offered by Al- Watan Al-Arabi, a pro- Saddam Hussein weekly published in Paris. It finds an echo in the latest issue of America's Time magazine, which paints a bleak prospect for the newly liberated country. The daily Al Quds, another pro-Saddam paper, quotes from The Washington Post in support of its claim that "a popular war of resistance" is growing in Iraq. Some newspapers in the United States, Britain and "old Europe" go further by claiming that Iraq has become a "quagmire" or "another Vietnam." The Parisian daily Le Monde prefers the term "engrenage," which is both more chic and French.

This chorus wants us to believe that most Iraqis regret the ancien regime, and are ready to kill and die to expel their liberators.

Sorry, guys, this is not the case.

Neither the wishful thinking of part of the Arab media, long in the pay of Saddam, nor the visceral dislike of part of the Western media for George W. Bush and Tony Blair changes the facts on the ground in Iraq.

ONE fact is that a visitor to Iraq these days never finds anyone who wants Saddam back.

There are many complaints, mostly in Baghdad, about lack of security and power cuts. There is anxiety about the future at a time that middle-class unemployment is estimated at 40 percent. Iraqis also wonder why it is that the coalition does not communicate with them more effectively. That does not mean that there is popular support for violent action against the coalition.

Another fact is that the violence we have witnessed, especially against American troops, in the past six weeks is limited to less than 1 percent of the Iraqi territory, in the so-called "Sunni Triangle," which includes parts of Baghdad.

Elsewhere, the coalition presence is either accepted as a fact of life or welcomed. On the 4th of July some shops and private homes in various parts of Iraq, including the Kurdish areas and cities in the Shiite heartland, put up the star-spangled flag as a show of gratitude to the United States.

"We see our liberation as the start of a friendship with the U.S. and the U.K. that should last a thousand years," says Khalid Kishtaini, one of Iraq's leading novelists. "The U.S. and the U.K. showed that a friend in need is a friend indeed. Nothing can change that."

In the early days of the liberation, some mosque preachers tested the waters by speaking against "occupation." They soon realized that their congregations had a different idea. Today, the main theme in sermons at the mosques is about a partnership between the Iraqi people and the coalition to rebuild the war-shattered country and put it on the path of democracy.

Even the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr now says that "some good" could come out of the coalition's presence in Iraq. "The coalition must help us stabilize the situation," he says. "The healing period that we need would not be possible if we are suddenly left alone."

Yet another fact is that all 67 of Iraq's cities and 85 percent of the smaller towns now have fully functioning municipalities. Several ministries, including that of health and education, have also managed to get parts of their operations going again. The petroleum industry, too, is being revived with plans to produce up to 2.8 million barrels of crude oil a day before the year is out.

To be sure, life in Iraq today is no bed of roses. But don't forget that this is an immediate post-war situation. There is no famine - in fact, the bazaars are more replenished with food than ever since the late 1970s - while food prices, having jumped in the first weeks after liberation, are now lower than they were in the last years of Saddam's rule.

MOST hospitals are functioning again with essential medical supplies trickling in for the first time since 1999. Also, some 85 percent of primary and secondary schools and all but two of the nation's universities have reopened with a full turnout of pupils and teachers.

The difference is that there no longer are any mukahebrat (secret police) agents roaming the campuses and sitting at the back of classrooms to make sure lecturers and students do not discuss forbidden topics. Nor are the students required to start every day with a solemn oath of allegiance to the dictator.

There has been no mass exodus anywhere in Iraq. On the contrary, many Iraqis, driven out of their homes by Saddam, are returning to their towns and villages.

Their return has given the building industry, moribund in the last years of Saddam, a boost. Iraqi exiles and refugees abroad are also coming home, many from Iran and Turkey. Last month alone the Iranian Red Crescent recorded the repatriation of more than 10,000 Iraqis, mostly Kurds and Shiites.

In Iraq today there are no "displaced persons," no uprooted communities and no long lines of war victims in search of a safe haven.

FOR the first time in almost 50 years there are also no political prisoners, no executions, no torture and no limit on freedom of expression. Iraq today is the only Muslim country where all shades of opinion - from the extremist Islamists of the Hezbollah to Stalinists, and passing by liberals, socialists, Arab nationalists and moderate Islamists - have full freedom to compete in an open market of ideas. Better still, all are now represented in the newly created Governing Assembly (Majlis al-Hukum). Iraq is also the only Muslim country where more than 100 newspapers and weeklies, representing all shades of opinion, appear without a police permit and are subjected to no censorship.

Much is made of power cuts, especially in Baghdad. But this is partly due to a 30 percent seasonal increase in demand because of air-conditioning use in temperatures that reach 115 degrees. In other cities - for example, Basra - the country's second-most populous urban center, more electricity is used than at any time under Saddam Hussein.

A stroll in the open-air book markets of the Rashid Street reveals that thousands of books, blacklisted and banned under Saddam Hussein, are now available for sale. Among the banned authors were almost all of Iraq's best writers and poets, whom many young Iraqis discover for the first time. Stalls, offering video and audiotapes for sale, are appearing in Baghdad and other major cities, again giving Iraqis access to a forbidden cultural universe.

The flower stalls along the Tigris are also making a comeback.

"Business is good," says Hashem Yassin, one florist. "In the past, we sold a lot of flowers for funerals and placement on tombs. Now we sell for weddings, birthday parties and gifts of friendship."

The free-market economy is making its first inroads into Iraq's socialistic system in a number of small ways. Hundreds of hawkers are offering a variety of imported goods and making brisk business by selling soft drinks, often bottled in Iran, and biscuits and chewing gums from Turkey.

Some teahouses, in competition to attract clients, offer satellite television as an additional attraction. Every evening people pack the teahouses to watch, and zap and discuss, what they have seen in an atmosphere of freedom unknown under Saddam. It may be hard for Westerners to understand the Iraqis' exhilaration at being able to watch television of their choice.

But this is a country where, under Saddam, people could be condemned as spies and hanged for owning a satellite dish.

Another symbol of newly won freedom is the multiplication of cellular and satellite phones. Most belong to returning exiles. But their appearance is reassuring to many Iraqis. Under Saddam, their illegal possession could carry the death penalty.

The portrayal of Baghdad as an oriental version of the Far West in Hollywood Westerns misses the point. It ignores the fact that life is creeping back to normal, that weddings, always popular in summer, are being celebrated again, often with traditional tribal ostentation. The first rock concert since the war, offered by a boys' band, has already taken place, and Iraq's National Football (soccer) Squad has resumed training under a German coach.

THERE are two Iraqs today: One as portrayed by those in America and Europe who wish to use it as a means of damaging Bush and Blair, and the other as it really exists, home to 24 million people with many hopes and aspirations and, naturally, some anxiety about the future.

"After we have aired our grievances we remember the essential point: Saddam is gone," says Mohsen Saleh, a geologist in Baghdad. "A man who is cured of cancer does not complain about a common cold."

There are indeed two Iraqs: one where the American troops run the show and one where the Fedayeen Saddam run around and shoot Americans with impunity. I''m willing to bet this person didn''t go to Fallujah.

Yep, and there are two Americas: one where people go to work and school and have friends and family, and one where gang members and criminals run around and shoot Americans with impunity. I''m willing to bet you don''t live in Compton.

Way to look right past the point Rat.

The point is that life is different in Iraq; better for some, worse for others. Unfortunately, some American troops are stuck hanging around those in the ""worse"" category.

If you read that article and think that life is ''worse'' for any Iraqi, then ::shakes head::

I''m reading it while bearing in mind that it only focuses on a relatively small aspect of Iraq. The country is much larger than Baghdad. If you are foolish enough to think that everything is just rosey over there, why don''t you go pick up an M-16 and stand watch in Fallujah? Surely it is safe all over the country, according to this article.

Where exactly is it safe everywhere? The US? Care to go for a walk in parts of LA?

Do you think that the Iraqi people are better or worse off (in general) than they were 1 year ago today?

Like I said, way to look right past the point.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

Where exactly is it safe everywhere? The US? Care to go for a walk in parts of LA?

Glib, glib, glib.

LA does not have the Fedayeen Saddam running around planting bombs under Humvees! Iraq is still a war zone and there is still combat going on there. Why are you trying to downplay the deaths of American soldiers?

Do you think that the Iraqi people are better or worse off (in general) than they were 1 year ago today?

Show me an unbiased analysis on the lifestyle of the average Iraqi. This article, as I''ve said, is a small slice of life.

You''re right Rat, but he did point out that this is a problem in approximately 1% of the country, mere weeks after major hostilites ended.

It''s fine to want to criticize everything, but an acknowledgement of the big picture would be nice every once in a while. We''ve done an amazing and wonderful thing in Iraq.

A little perspective on American casualties is important as well. The US military suffers about 3 non-combat, active duty deaths a day.I don''t say this to belittle the sacrifice of any serviceman in Iraq, but we should keep in mind that as combat duty goes, inverstments in training and equipment has made our military the most secure and ""safe"" in history under enemy fire.

Plus, while we should mourn the deaths of these fallen heroes, don''t denigrate their sacrifice by implying that it wasn''t worthwhile. ""Life"" is not the most important American value, and to imply that it is insults every soldier who puts their life on the line, or dies, for freedom, going back to the Revolutionary War. The soldiers who fall in Iraq chose their way of life and chose to risk that life in defense of your security and freedom, as well as the freedom of future generations of Iraqi people.

So for those of you who tally up each death and talk about ""unacceptable"" casulaties and how one soldier dead is too many, you are wrong. Everybody dies. There are plenty of bad and senseless reasons for death. But some things are worth fighting and dying for, and the article above makes the sacrifice of these fallen Americans absolutely noble and heroic in my eyes.

Again, show me a complete, independent assessment of the quality of life for the average Iraqi now. Again, I haven''t seen any of you post anything of the sort.

Why do you assume that such a thing exists for Iraq when no such document exists for any other country in the world?

In this case, I think I''ll take the antecdotal evidence of people talking to actual Iraqis over your opinion.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

Why do you assume that such a thing exists for Iraq when no such document exists for any other country in the world?

There are. What is the average salary of an Iraqi? What is their average life-span? What is there retirement age? What is the average home price in Iraq? Will all Iraqis have the right to vote? How many live below the poverty line? What percentage of Iraqi homes have electricity and clean running water? What''s the population breakdown by age, region, and ethnicity?

In this case, I think I''ll take the antecdotal evidence of people talking to actual Iraqis over your opinion.

And you accuse me of forming my opinions based on antecdotal hearsay...

Rat, are you stating that the article above is untrue?

Fine Rat. Please send me a complete, independent assessment of life in the US.

Don''t send me a 1000 individual studies. Send me the one complete study you refer to.

I do not know enough about the article, the writer, or the paper she writes for to say anything for sure. However, the article itself is very narrowly focused but claims that the lives of Baghdad citizens is the same for everyone across the country. As JMJ pointed out, not all of America is like LA, nor is it like Sleepy Suburb, Georgia. To make a blanket statement like in this op-ed piece about a country that is still in a state of war is inaccurate.

Okay Rat. Let''s address the blanket claims that are made, and you can point out the errors, one by one.

1. Do you think that the people of Iraq want Saddam back?

2. Do you think that there is widespread popular support for attacking coalition troops?

3. Do you dispute the claim that violent attacks against the troops occur only in the ''Sunni triangle'' region?

4. Do you doubt that some Iraqis put up American flags on the 4th of July to show support for the US?

5. Do you dispute that Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr said, ""The coalition must help us stabilize the situation,"" he says. ""The healing period that we need would not be possible if we are suddenly left alone.""

6. Do you claim there is widespread famine? Do you dispute the claim of bazaars having more food than any time since the 1970''s?

7. Do you think there are any political prisoners, executions, torture or limits on freedom of expression?

8. Do you claim there is a mass exodus of angry Iraqis to Iran or Syria?

9. Do you think there is censorship of ideas there?

I could go on, but I think I have made my point. Unless you claim that the article is false and we are, in fact, treating the Iraqi people as badly as Saddam did, there is no way you can argue that the Iraqi people are worse off today than they were even 1 year ago.

I am sorry that your righteous indignation is all in an uproar about overblown conspiracies, but the Iraqi people are so much better off now than they have been that it makes me proud.

The fact that the Iraqis want to make April 9 (the day Saddam''s statue fell) a national holiday should speak volumes about how much they appreciate us. It is a shame you don''t appreciate their freedoms as much as they do.

I really would like to organize a Ralcydan, JohnnyMojo, Rat Boy cage match. If anyone has a giant cage please private message me.

It''d be 2-on-1. Hardly fair. But I would pay money to see an actual debate between Ral and Ratty.

I think with Rat Boy''s Rat-Evasion Super Power, it''d be a pretty fair fight. Also, he''s a liberal so he''s twice as strong!

I think with Rat Boy''s Rat-Evasion Super Power, it''d be a pretty fair fight

Now that''s funny.

And liberals are only twice as strong because they are driven by emotion. Once the rage and sadness wear off, they don''t have anything left to stand on...

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

1. Do you think that the people of Iraq want Saddam back?

Which Iraqis? Some don''t, some who benefited by his rule do. Many believe he is still alive and are afraid to help the US, lest they end up like those dead Iraqi police cadets and the mayor of that one Iraqi town.

2. Do you think that there is widespread popular support for attacking coalition troops?

There''s no widespread support for stopping it. People are afraid of Saddam.

3. Do you dispute the claim that violent attacks against the troops occur only in the ''Sunni triangle'' region?

Show me proof that the attacks are only committed by Sunnis.

4. Do you doubt that some Iraqis put up American flags on the 4th of July to show support for the US?

Show me proof.

5. Do you dispute that Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr said, ""The coalition must help us stabilize the situation,"" he says. ""The healing period that we need would not be possible if we are suddenly left alone.""

One cleric. What do other clerics say?

6. Do you claim there is widespread famine? Do you dispute the claim of bazaars having more food than any time since the 1970''s?

Bazaars in Baghdad. Again, you''re using one slice of life to justify your belief that the entire country is like this.

7. Do you think there are any political prisoners, executions, torture or limits on freedom of expression?

Not by the Ba''athists. Then again, you could consider the deaths of the police cadets and the mayor are politically motivated killings.

8. Do you claim there is a mass exodus of angry Iraqis to Iran or Syria?

No, but there''s probably a mass exodus of angry Iranians and Syrians to Iraq that you''re just dying to tell us about.

9. Do you think there is censorship of ideas there?

Show me an all-Iraqi newspaper.

Unless you claim that the article is false and we are, in fact, treating the Iraqi people as badly as Saddam did, there is no way you can argue that the Iraqi people are worse off today than they were even 1 year ago.

I am sorry that your righteous indignation is all in an uproar about overblown conspiracies, but the Iraqi people are so much better off now than they have been that it makes me proud.

The fact that the Iraqis want to make April 9 (the day Saddam''s statue fell) a national holiday should speak volumes about how much they appreciate us. It is a shame you don''t appreciate their freedoms as much as they do.

I''m sorry, I guess being free in a war zone is so much better than being repressed by an impotent despot in a war zone.

Until you can demonstrate an actual quality of life improvement in the Iraqi people, I''ll still contend that the only difference between Saddam and no-Saddam is wall decorations.

Rat, Johnny Cochrane would give his left testicle to get you on a jury.

No he wouldn''t. I was with Dershowitz for most of last night''s trial of Pete Rose.

Until you can demonstrate an actual quality of life improvement in the Iraqi people, I''ll still contend that the only difference between Saddam and no-Saddam is wall decorations.

Either you didn''t read the story above, or you are just burying your head in the sand and yelling ""Bush sucks, Bush sucks, nyah, nyah, nyah!!!""

"ralcydan" wrote:

Now that''s funny.

And liberals are only twice as strong because they are driven by emotion. Once the rage and sadness wear off, they don''t have anything left to stand on...

Would a liberal have these views:

* I support the military. I also support spending increases to replace aging weapons technology and pay increases to personnel. I have supported a local organization of mothers who''s children are currently serving overseas in Iraq with no word on when or if they''ll come home. I don''t support the current missle defense system; more research is needed to make it a viable defense against nuclear missles.

* I support some aspects of the Republican stimulus package, specifically towards small businesses. I don''t support tax cuts that only benefit the wealthy and large corporations.

* I support a policy of laissez faire in regards to the markets, but not if criminal acts are being conducted.

* I support the ban on partial birth/late-term abortions. However, the entire concept of abortions should not be decided by men; it is a woman''s choice whether or not to ban it.

* I am a firm believer in the Second Amendmant and own several firearms. However, I don''t believe private citizens have the right to own military weapons. If they want them, they can join the Army.

* I support the ban on human cloning. Such science is beyond what God/Nature intended and I frankly don''t believe humanity right now has the wisdom to utilize it properly.

* I believe what Bill Clinton did five years ago was wrong, DEAD wrong. He not only hurt several women, he also hurt his family, which is completely unforgiveable in my Catholic eyes. He also betrayed the trust of the American people and got exactly what was coming to him.

* I have voted for or wanted to vote for Republican candidates for political office. I voted for Dan Lungren to be California governor in 1998. I voted for John McCain to be president in 2000. I would have voted for Dick Riordan to be governor last year had he stuck around and I will vote for any other candidate other than Gray Davis in the recall election as it will no doubt happen.

* I support the president''s plan for aid to Africa, however I think the US could afford to spend a bit more. I also think the Administration could make it possible for generic AIDS drugs to be made so that Africans suffering from that plague could have access to affordable medicine.

* I support sending peace keepers to Liberia. This will go a long way to repairing the US''s image across the world by helping to end human bloodshed in that country. I only wished that the Administration would have been willing to something, anything, to end the killings in the Congo. Or Rwanda, for that matter.

* I support Colin Powell. He is perhaps the best thing to happen to the Republican Party since Abe Lincoln vowed to keep the US whole. If he had one flaw, it is that he is too humble to seek higher office. He would have easily defeated Gore in 2000 and might have been able to defeat Clinton in 1996. Unfortunately, he''s fallen victim to factions within the Administration that either don''t like him or don''t support his position on world affairs. I genuinely fear that these factions will drive him out of his current office, and this would probably be the worst thing to happen to the Republican Party in a long time.

* I supported the concept of removing Saddam Hussein from power. This man executed more people in his reign than all the states of the Union combined in the same time period. He used chemical weapons against the Iranians. He used them against the Kurds. He might have used them in the first Gulf War, at least that was the theory. He sponsored an assassination plot against George H.W. Bush. He has sent funds to Palestinian suicide bombers. However, he was not behind 9-11, nor was ever involved with al-Qaeda and Osama bin Ladin. Simply put, both monsters hated each other with a passion. Bin Ladin considered Saddam to be a Stalinist infidel. Saddam considered bin Ladin to be a religious zealot and a threat to his position. I do not agree that going to war with Iraq was a component in the War on Terror. I do not believe that the Iraqis had an active nuclear weapons program. I do not believe that an already ailing army was a threat to the stability of the Middle East. I finally do not believe that if he had any WMDs left after air strikes and inspections that they were much of a threat to the US. The causus belli for this war was not just, in my opinion. However, when American lives were on the line in combat, I supported the quick and victorious resolution to the conflict. Do the ends justifiy the means here? That all depends on what the means really were.

* I do not support any effort to curtail the homosexual lifestyle, and I strenuously oppose Senator Bill Frist''s attempt to place a Constitutional ban on gay marriages. These matters should be left to the states, but I also think no church or religious groups should be forced to recognize a legally-recognized homosexual marriage.

* I oppose John Ashcroft. His personal views on topics do not fall in line with the current national beliefs. His PATRIOT Act is an affront to our democracy. As Ben Franklin said, ""Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."" If the price of my safety is my freedom, then my safety just isn''t worth the cost.

* I oppose this new, politically active Hollywood. Although they have a right to have an opinion and should NOT be black-listed for it, it''s a rather tiring display. I frankly get sick of these people who seem to not be only against the Administration (nothing wrong with that), but with America as well. It''s no wonder you see American celebrities moving out of the country.

* I oppose massive ""peace"" demonstrations that do nothing but cause mischief and crime. Stopping traffic and smashing storefronts is not civil disobedience or discourse.

* I opposed the so-called ""Axis of Weasel,"" especially after they refused to help in Iraq following the toppling of the Ba''ath Regime. If their goals were truly so noble, they would''ve contributed to the welfare of the Iraqi people without hesitation.

* I strongly oppose Donald Rumsfeld. He seems to me to be the next Robert McNamara; a steely-eyed intellectual who thinks he knows better than his military subordinates. Take the allegations laid out in an article or two which said that Rumsfeld ignored advice from several generals to commit more ground troops to the war, saying that Rumsfeld wanted to prove that such a war could be fought with less troops. I find that attitude astonishing. The reason you fight a war is to win. Holding back like that is dangerous and can result in many deaths. And perhaps it did. There is also the report from Bob Woodward''s Bush at War that on September 12, 2001, Rumsfeld suggested that the US should attack Iraq as the first military action after 9-11. That is so horribly wrong it makes you wonder about his integrity.

* I also strongly oppose Rumsfeld''s subordinate, Paul Wolfowitz for the same reasons, but also because he seemed to have an unhealthy obssession with how the Gulf War ended. He thought that the US should have continued to drive to Baghdad, Coalition be damned. That would have been a reckless act and it would have completely turned the region upside down needlessly. I agree that Saddam should have been removed from power, but not like that. Nor like how he was removed now (more specifically, the reason why he was removed).

* I oppose Dick Cheney, for many of the reasons I oppose Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. I question his integrity in awarding the rebuilding contracts in Iraq to his old company, Haliburton, which he still holds stake in, although he can''t touch it until he leaves office. I also question his integrity in regards to the sealing of documents relating to meetings he held with key industry leaders to discuss an energy policy. Not only could it relate to energy policy as it relates to California (and as a citizen of that state, I''d like to know if his actions have needlessly costed my family and I money) but also to this nation''s foreign policy. I am disquieted by reports that while he ran Haliburton, he negotiated to build a pipeline in Afghanistan with the Taliban, an acknowledge human rights abuser and harborer of the 9-11 terrorists and their leadership.

* More and more, I oppose George W. Bush. Leaving aside the misgivings I had for him in early 2000, his actions months after 9-11 worry me. Before even considering the will of the American people or the international community, he proclaimed ""f*ck Saddam, we''re taking him out"" in March of 2002. He has increasingly ignored the advice of what are perhaps his best advisors in favor of some of his worst advisors. His flippantness and candor aren''t called for in his current line of work, with his recent ""Bring it on"" being the worst example of word choice in recent memory. This latest scandal is symptomatic of a larger problem, one that will hopefully be revealed sooner rather than in a tell-all book 20 years from now. If getting him out of office means losing someone like Colin Powell, then so be it. It''s not like Powell was exerting much influence over the president these days.

This is where I stand. If need be, I''ll repost this again if I ever get accused of being a whacko, anti-Republican liberal ever again.

Until you can demonstrate an actual quality of life improvement in the Iraqi people, I''ll still contend that the only difference between Saddam and no-Saddam is wall decorations.

The article above demostrates an actual quality of life improvement for the Iraqi people. I honestly can''t imagine your motivation in making a statement like the one above. You would have to be living in a news vacuum to say that ""the only difference between Saddam and no-Saddam is wall decorations"" - that or be foolish or crazy. And I don''t think any of those apply to you, Rat.

If exiles returning to their homeland, protests in the streets without fear of governmental reprisal, freedom of religion, and the return of wrongly imprisoned and tortured citizens to their families don''t matter to you, then you have lost all credibility on this thread.

I assume you are just ""contending"" to be contentious in this case. But a big picture check is really called for on a statement like that.

JMJ, I agree that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. Only idiots argue that he was anything but a Very Bad Man.

What I don''t get is why it had to be done in such a cack-handed way.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

Either you didn''t read the story above, or you are just burying your head in the sand and yelling ""Bush sucks, Bush sucks, nyah, nyah, nyah!!!""

It''s one damn article focusing on Baghdad. Is what she said true for Fallujah? Basra? Umm Qasr? Nasirya? Karbala? The Kurdish-controlled areas? There''s more to Iraq than Baghdad.

ALG...

I get the point, but what the hell is ''cack-handed''?

Heh. I suppose should try to avoid the more...unique british expressions on these forums.

[size=9]It means ''doing something badly'' for those who couldn''t guess[/size]

I''m not sure what part was cack-handed (I like it. I might just have to start using it, much like saying a place with a lot of attractive women is ''ass soup''), or at least what part you are referring to.

But in the end, all that really matters is how good a job we do at providing the Iraqi people with liberty and democracy.

Pages