Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday that Iraq might conduct only limited elections in January, excluding areas where violence was too severe for people to go to polls.
"Let's say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn't because the violence was too great. If there were to be an area where the extremists focused during the election period, and an election was not possible in that area at that time, so be it. You have the rest of the election and you go on. Nothing's perfect in life, so you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet," he said.
Rumsfeld testified just hours after Iraqi interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and President Bush both insisted national elections would be held on schedule in January despite the flaring insurgency.
I guess Rumsfeld thinks it's perfectly okay to simply disenfranchise countless Iraqis opposed to the US and its puppet government by red-lining entire cities that have shown themselves to be hotbeds of such sentiment.
Has this cunning but apparently simpleminded misanthrope even considered what effect such a patently fraudulent election would have on prospects for civil war in that country? Has he reflected on what the wholesale exclusion of cities like Najaf and Fallujah would spell in terms of increased anti-american feeling and terrorist recruitment? Or are fanning the flames of ever-expanding Jihad part of an unspoken plan to guarantee the US a permanent and irrevocable role in "pacifying" Iraq?
Closer to home, maybe Rumsfeld would consider election results that counted only pro-administration votes not only "free and fair", but a mandate. Perhaps he and the Bush administration would like simply to hold the November elections without counting any "Blue State" votes at all- sort of like what they did in the 2000 election only on a much larger scale. After all, as Rumsfeld said, "So you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet."
I'll say it is! Particularly if the said "imperfection" works in your favor. Maybe we should all apply that reasoning to our tax returns.