portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

government | human & civil rights | imperialism & war

Rumsfeld sets stage for mass disenfranchisement of Iraqi voters

Within hours of George Bush's assurance that "free and fair" elections in Iraq would proceed on schedule, he was sharply contradicted by Donald Rumsfeld, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say Rumsfeld's remarks give a clearer idea of what the United States considers "free and fair."

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.
it's called 24.Sep.2004 11:43


Democracy, American Style...

could see this coming for miles. 25.Sep.2004 13:40

this thing here

and once the rationale for war of WMD's in iraq is gone, and once the rationale of democracy in iraq is "too difficult" to achieve or simply disappears entirely, and now that saddam is in a cell, then what possible rationale is left for the continued deaths of american soldiers and iraqi civilians?

rumsfeld, all of them, all of 'em are evil bastards. every rational they have given so far has fallen away, imploding under it's own stupidity or the stupidity and lack of due planning of the leaders who proposed it in the first place. it's all so sad and full of shit.

does anyone really believe that a man like rumsfeld gives a shit about democracy in iraq, in america, anywhere, if he himself says he'll settle for some half assed version in iraq because the going got too tough? he's demeaning his own rationale. what does that tell us about the man and the rationale...

it was never about weapons. it was never about demoracy. not with so many dead people, not $4,000,000,000 a month. not for that price...