At least "on paper" it sounds like Bush gets it ... now if he could just convince his vice president, his party, his minority whip ... ok, you get the picture.

"Democracies always reflect a country's customs and culture, and I know that," Mr Bush said. "Yet democracies have certain things in common; they have a rule of law, and protection of minorities, a free press, and a viable political opposition."

I sincerely doubt that I am the first "media" source to ask this question, but nevertheless, here goes nutin':

Why is it that there has been one election in Iraq and everyone is acting like everything will be just peachy-king from here on out? "Elections" by themselves do not lead to freedom, democracy, or prosperity without the underlying legal and administrative institutions essential to good government. Most importantly, the benefits of democratic governance cannot be realized without mechanisms built in to preserve minority rights in the face of majority rule. Without such protections, a "tyranny of the majority" could easily arise, taking the form of an extremist government and/or a hard-line theocracy (see Algeria). This would defeat our only remaining purpose for removing Saddam and his cadre from power. So the upcoming crafting of the Iraqi Constitution will be extremely important, as will the reformation of the existing Iraqi legal code and the functioning of the Iraqi judiciary.

I've heard it said that the most important election for Iraq isn't the one that just happened, it will be the next one (which I take it mean either the upcoming set of super-elections -- in which the representatives elected in January will elect a government -- or the next set of elections several years from now, which will serve as a signpost for the progress that Iraq (hopefully) makes over the next few years).

An election might be a necessary first step, but ultimately it's a relatively small accomplishment compared to the challenges ahead. Transition to a democracy by itself does not create civil rights or eliminate corruption -- as evidence we need only to look at the experience of the former Soviet Union.

Sometimes the headlines from Fark.com are so damn funny they just have to be preserved for posterity here on the old blog:

Army spends $5 million to create Xbox game Full Spectrum Warrior. Cheat codes are "Halliburton" for unlimited supplies and "Rumsfeld" for unlimited lives.

St. Petersburg Times http://sptimes.com/2005/02/20/Worldandnation/Did_the_Army_get_out_.shtml

The underlying issue in the article is two-fold: (1) did the Army get it's money's worth in paying to have this product developed, and (2) should the developers be able to take a taxpayer-funded product and sell it to the masses without royalties being paid to the Army or the US Govt.?

I saw this product demonstrated on TechTV last year (much like Grandpa Simpson's refusal to recognize Missouri as a state, I will always refuse to call it G4TechTV), and I was less than impressed. I assumed that the poor graphics quality was not an issue, given that it was the interactive capabilities of the game that were most important. Now, from reading the article, it appears that those interactive qualities are inadequate as well.

On the second issue, I'm really curious to know what other types of "secret porkbarrel" projects like this are out there. One other that comes immediately to mind is the law that allows drug companies to make billions off of research conducted by public universities or funded under NIH grants.

The Bayh-Dole Act enabled universities and small businesses to patent discoveries emanating from research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the major distributor of tax dollars for medical research, and then to grant exclusive licenses to drug companies. Until then, taxpayer-financed discoveries were in the public domain, available to any company that wanted to use them. But now universities, where most NIH-sponsored work is carried out, can patent and license their discoveries, and charge royalties.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5886411/ (reviewing "The Truth About Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It" by Dr. Marcia Angell)

Unbelievable. Karl Rove (Slimemaster(TM)) & Co. are revving up the slime-machine to go after their next perceived roadblock -- the AARP. So now instead of "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" (which turned out to be a few bitter vets whose view of the world was anything but the "truth") now we're going to get Seniors for the Truth, or something or other.

This could get ugly. And it's sure to be entertaining ... there are few things that I like better than a good ole "women in prison" movie, but this could be it.

Ahhhh the irony ... or is it hypocrisy?

Dean also said the Bush administration has ignored the mounting threat in Iran and North Korea. "We picked the low hanging fruit in Iraq and did nothing" about the other, more dangerous regimes, he said.

Perle had his own barbs, too. He began his opening comments in the 1 1/2-hour debate by saying Democrats "looked at the Democratic Party and chose a physician to lead them."

Perle, a veteran of the Reagan administration and a former Pentagon adviser, was forced by one of the questioners to recast a comment he made on Sept. 22, 2003, in which he predicted that within one year, there would be "a grand square in Baghdad named for President Bush."

"I'd be a fool not to recognize that it did not happen on the schedule I had in mind," Perle said, adding that he did not deny that the administration had made mistakes in Iraq.

But, Perle added, "I will be surprised, yet again, if we do not see a square in Baghdad named after this president." He did not specify a time.

I wonder what the Republican Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist (that's Dr. Bill Frist, M.D.) thinks about having doctors in high-ranking positions within the party? I guess Richard Perle's brain is set on attack mode (pun intended) to the exclusion of rational thought.