My Sharansky – Bush’s favorite book doesn’t always endorse his policies. By Chris Suellentrop

Yeah, I know I said the Washington Post’s version of Slate wasn’t worth reading, but I still take a look to try to find tidbits of good among the endless stream of rhetoric.

In this article, Mr. Suellentrop insists that President Bush’s ‘recommended read’ somehow speaks contrary to current policies. His first, and largest reference is in the paragraph quoted below, which he claims shows criticism of policy. In fact, the quoted text simply outlines the ideal, without making any comparison to real world facts and current situations.

Sure, we can all agree that Iraq would be better off if the upcoming elections were held in a peaceful, civil environment. There’s no argument that the terrorists intent on disrupting the democratic process will have grave, negative effects on the elections. I am quite sure George W. Bush would be among the loudest voices to back those sentiments in any discussion of the matter. The simple fact is, the sooner we turn operations over to the Iraqi people, the sooner we can get our people home. Given the short attention span of the American people, the President can’t afford to let this situation simmer for years while we get things fully under control. Will the process suffer because of the relatively quick elections? Probably.

Does that mean Slate’s Suellentrop and/or Mr. Sharansky are in favor of a long, drawn out occupation and complete victory over insurgents before we allow the Iraqi people to gain a voice in their future? Of course not – these are the same people screaming at the administration to get us out of Iraq.

The “ideal” is rarely a viable plan for reality. Sharansky surely knows this; but Slate’s Suellentrop has, of course, found another method to twist meaning and intention against each other in a vain effort to reach up and slap the President.

Shame on you.

Slower Elections:
Pages 72-74: Sharansky directly criticizes the administration’s haste to hold elections in Afghanistan and Iraq. He writes that “elections are not a true test of democracy.” In fact, “elections are never the beginning of the democratic process.” The Allied powers after World War II “wisely decided not to hold federal elections in Germany for four years. Had elections been held in 1945 or 1946, the results probably would have undermined efforts to build German democracy, something those who hope to build democratic societies in Afghanistan and Iraq would be wise to keep in mind.”