One hundred persons demonstrated against the continued failed US policies in Iraq. President Bush has timed the forced elections in Iraq to correspond to the period just before his state-of-the-union address, and there is little doubt he will take full advantage of the opportunity to extol the virtues of his policy. But it will take more than positive sound bites to convince the US population that the war in Iraq is going well. Previous comments left by visitors to this site have questioned the small number of participants appearing at recent protests claiming they represent an insignificant minority. A just released poll shows that that is not true. Fifty-eight percent of Minnesotans believe the war is going badly compared with 38% who believe that it is going well. “And by 56 percent to 33 percent, the Minnesotans polled said it would not be possible to hold a fair election in Iraq today, and by 52 percent to 42 percent, a majority predicted that Iraqis would not accept the legitimacy of the government that would be formed after Sunday's elections.†Well, are the people of Minnesota right or are the elections in Iraq a “grand moment in history†as President Bush claims? Let’s look at some facts. Iraq is in chaos. It’s been that way since the occupation began. In many respects, the country is less ready for elections than when the US first conquered Baghdad. The US, which has the responsibility for maintaining law and order, cannot even keep Americans safe behind a walled fortress in Baghdad called the Green Zone. Today, just hours before the election, the US embassy was attacked and two Americans were killed. Meanwhile, the US is asking Iraqis to risk their lives to vote. How will the US protect Iraqi voters and the international election observers? Well, the US doesn’t have to worry about the election observers because they are not at risk – they are safe in Amman, Jordan where they intend to stay for the entire election. Iraq is just too dangerous for them to operate (and the US-run government will not let them enter the country). What are the Iraqis voting for? Anyone reading this probably knows as much about the Iraqi elections as Iraqis do. There were roughly 7000 candidates represented on the ballot, but individual names are not listed. Instead, the names of political parties appear on the ballot. Within the last few days many of the candidates have dropped out of the race making the elections even less transparent. Further, the polling places are not being announced until the day of the election. No wonder numerous Iraqi groups are boycotting the elections. Most of these groups want elections to be held after the occupying forces leave Iraq. Secular Iraqi groups argue that the appearance of political parties on the ballot rather than individuals raises the chance of dividing the country even more. Parties have developed around tribal, geographic and religious groups. Robert Fisk, a journalist and expert on the Middle East, reports that Sunni Muslim leaders throughout the region fear that the outcome will place Shiites in power and threaten their regimes, ones that are not democratic yet are friendly to US interests. Isn’t it ironic that the US supported Saddam Hussein to reduce the likelihood of a Shiite fundamentalist government taking root in Iraq and now the US will spend more than 300 billion to install that Shiite-fundamentalist government? The cost to the US taxpayer has been enormous, but the cost to Iraqis is even more dear. Estimates are that more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, half of whom are women and children. Isn’t it wonderful how the US responded so generously to the natural crisis resulting from the Tsunami? Why then do Iraqi children die in silence? Is that liberation? Is that bringing the Iraqis freedom? Indeed, it’s disgraceful and it doesn’t represent family values or for that matter any values. Besides the “friendly-fire†deaths of innocent Iraqis, the US has soiled its reputation by promoting torture. We learned this week that in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the place where terrorist suspects have been held for years without trials, a group of women was assigned to use sex to threaten devoutly religious Muslim men. Because a group of women was ASSIGNED for this purpose, this is evidence that the torture represents policy rather than low-level, rogue personnel. The report says that the tools of these women representing the US were miniskirts, thong underwear, and fake “menstrual blood.†The fake menstrual blood was smeared on the face of a victim. Asking US women to act like prostitutes in an attempt to gain information from suspected terrorist suspects does not make us safer. To the contrary, it forces moderates in the Muslim world to move more toward the positions of the Muslim fundamentalists. Who in the Middle East would want to import THESE US “values†of democracy? Further, nominating the men who approved this torture to the position of Attorney General and to the head of Homeland Security solidifies these awful acts as US policy. This reinterpretation of international law – calling parts of the Geneva Convention quaint and obsolete and saying that torture only occurs when the injuries result in organ failure -- sends the wrong message to the rest of the world about US values and its views about “freedom.†In the US that I believe in human rights apply to all persons of the world, not just Americans. I also consider a pre-emptive war based on fabricated evidence an abuse of human rights. The US has no basis for occupying Iraq. It’s clear then that this is not a “great moment in history†but rather a shameful one. This protest was sponsored by the Anti-war Committee and WAMM. Neither group was advised about the content of this commentary before it was submitted. http://www.pbase.com/kayakbiker