Inconsistent on elections

National parliamentary elections in Iraq have been scheduled for Jan. 30, 2005. But with kidnappings and bombings, mortar attacks and assassinations relatively common, many citizens there appear to be truly fearful for their safety if they turn out to vote.

In a dramatic illustration of the life and death concerns confronting the Iraqi people, 17 religious, regional, and secular groups in Iraq have called for the elections to be delayed for several months.

Bush, however, has rejected their misgivings.

"It's time for Iraqi citizens to go to the polls," scolded the president in a statement to reporters in the Oval Office. "The elections should not be postponed. We are very firm on the Jan. 30 date."

Who is the "we" he is referring to? The American people have been told that our troops are over there to bring freedom to the Iraqi people. How then can we ignore the reality of what the Iraqis themselves appear to want?

The danger and chaos the Iraqis point to is obviously real. Indeed, the actions of the president himself makes that evident: Bush is sending additional American troops to Iraq in a bid to make the nation more secure for the elections.

By early January, U.S. troop strength in Iraq will climb from 138,000 to 150,000. That's actually more troops than were on the ground when the invasion was launched in March 2003.

American officials have been candid in explaining that additional troops are needed to boost security before the national elections -- and due to the continuing violence of the insurgency. But having to send in more soldiers is not an encouraging sign -- for the American people, for our troops, or for the Iraqis -- and like it or not, it certainly does recall the type of buildup of forces we saw in the Vietnam War. Administration officials are quick to dismiss comparisons with Vietnam, of course, but the numbers don't lie. They're going up, not down, as are, tragically, our casualties.

Beyond that, however, it is inappropriate for the president of the United States to stand before the world and tell another sovereign people when they should hold their own national elections. If the Iraqis want to hold off for a while, that's their right, or it should be. And it's our right, or it should be, to pull our people out of there and let the Iraqis sort things out for themselves.

In a bitterly ironic twist, in that same Dec. 2 session with reporters, Bush went on to say that other nations should stay out of the disputed election in Ukraine.

"I think any election, if there is one, ought to be free from any foreign influence. Any election in any country must reflect the will of the people and not that of any foreign government," he said, just minutes after telling the people of Iraq how and when to handle their election.

The inconsistency of those statements by our president makes the heart sink.

JB