Today's Austin American Statesman editorial (http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editoria l/stories/12/15iraqelect_edit.html) about the Iraqi election is welcome for two reasons. First off, it is a very good editorial. Second, it avoids partisan politics. It praises the power of democracy and doesn't doubt that democracy can flourish in the Middle East: "Once again, Iraqis are demonstrating to the world the power of democracy. Self-governance has such strong appeal that it is now found around the globe, in places where monarchy, tyranny and despotism once seemed indestructible." It acknowledges the bravery and desire of Iraqis to vote: "In Iraq, voters must brave roadside explosives, suicide bombers and machine guns to dip their finger in purple ink and vote for their candidate of choice. That's not easy, and it should shame those elsewhere who won't bother to cross the street to cast a ballot." And especially, it acknowledges that a successful, democratic Iraq is good for the U.S. and would also be the quickest path to end the war and bring back the troops: "Americans should cheer today's vote no matter how they feel about the war in Iraq. A successful government is the quickest path out of the war for the United States." Best of all, there is no mention of the partisan squabbles about the Iraq war, nor are there any backhanded slaps at the President. The Statesman's editorials, as well as many of its syndicated columnists, have usually been critical of the President's "handling" of the war while at the same time advocating the exact strategies and objectives that the President is pursuing. (Just about any Thomas Friedman column, for example, follows this template.) The final paragraph of today's Statesman editorial reads, "Eventually, Iraq must be left to the Iraqi people, and this vote is the most important step yet in that process." The Statesman's editors did a good job today. GREGG