TigerHawk has an interesting grammatical analysis of this morning’s New York Times editorial on the Iraq election, which exposes what we might call a subtextual ambivalence about this weekend’s event. I can understand this. The leaderships of The Times and similar traditional publications are conflicted. They are certainly in favor of democracy and yet if this election is even relatively successful and three or four years down the line Iraq is struggling along as a fledgling democracy, possibly even instigating further democratic reform in the Middle East (maybe it already is among the Palestinian Authority), then they will have been revealed to have been on the wrong side of history.
But as an ambivalent as the NYT may be, their language is nothing compared to James Zogby, President of the Arab American Institute, whose desire for the elections to fail resides only centimeters from the surface of his words: “There are deep divisions that exist, divisions that are so deep and pronounced that this election,
instead of bringing people together, may very well tear them apart.”
UPDATE: Compare Zogby’s negativism to this: “On Sunday, the sun will rise on the land of Mesopotamia. I can’t wait, the dream is becoming true and I will stand in front of the box to put my heart in it.”