Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Iraqi Voter Turnout Placed at 72% (AP)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
doxieone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:32 AM
Original message
Iraqi Voter Turnout Placed at 72% (AP)
Edited on Sun Jan-30-05 08:33 AM by doxieone
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-me/2005/jan...


Iraq Voter Turnout Placed at 72 Percent

ASSOCIATED PRESS

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -

An Iraqi election official said Sunday that 72 percent of eligible Iraqi voters had turned out so far nationwide.

The official, Adel al-Lami of the Independent Electoral Commission, offered no overall figures of the actual number of Iraqis who have voted to back up the claim.

Al-Lami said the percentage of registered voters who had gone to the polls in some Baghdad neighborhoods was as high as 95 percent.

Iraqi officials had predicted that up to eight million of 14 million eligible voters - just over 57 percent - will turn out for Sunday's election to choose a National Assembly and governing councils in the 18 provinces

(snip)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
1. The Kurds are voting in droves..
The Shi'ia are turning out (if their neighborhood isn't too "mixed") but the Sunni are staying home (and being very careful with their fountain pens, I'll bet)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. Yea, this is going to be a great representative government,
With a third of the counrty not voting. A very volitaile third. . .

And the Kurds are going to want to separate. That's even better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scurrilous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #13
26. Kurds Say They Will Demand Key Iraq Post
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050129/ap...

<snip>

"Kurdish leaders from rival factions in northern Iraq have united in hopes of winning a large bloc of seats in Sunday's National Assembly vote and say they will insist that either the presidency or the prime minister's job goes to a Kurd.

The two top positions in Iraq's interim government are currently held by a Shiite Muslim and a Sunni Arab, the country's two largest communities."


...and if the Kurds don't get what they want? What then?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
142. This is a great day for Kurds
They can get major representation in the Iraqi Parliament which they will use to gain autonomy and eventually statehood.
These people are smart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
recidivist Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #142
154. I've got no problem with that.
The Kurds are the Poles of the Middle East. They are an occupied nation and have sought independence for generations. Of course Iran, Iraq, and Turkey don't like the idea, but tough noogies.

By all reports, the Kurdish areas have been doing spectacularly well since the war. There is no reason to suppose that won't continue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qwertyMike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #154
169. KURDISTAN!!!!!
Yaaaaaaaaaaaay. No more gassing with US supplied chemicals!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
2. this is such BS
just more crap from the US appointed Iraqi Puppets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Has Baghdad Bob reapperaed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
66. 72% of the 10% who registered is merely 7 out of 100 voters.
Only 10% of eligible voters registered and 72% of the registered voters voted. That means merely 7 out of 100 Iraqi people voted. Not impressive. Plus, they are voting for 7,000 unknown candidates. Ridiculous.

I hear that the Iraqis are really electing "a process" rather than candidates to represent them. That's the latest spin on this lotto draw for a "representative" government. Disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #66
117. where do you get the 10% of eligible voters registerd statistic? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #117
143. Corporate media.
10% of those eligible to register in the US actually registered.

Now, if merely 10% registered to vote here, the percentage in the violent environment of Iraq is likely even lower.

If merely 7 out of 10 Iraqis in the US voted, imagine how few voted in war-torn Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #143
153. That's what I thought - that figure is for U.S., and not in Iraq.
You are making an incorrect assumption that the figure in Iraq is "likely even lower." A lot of people didn't register here because they are far-removed from Iraq, and don't feel any reason to vote for a country they are no longer a part of in any significant way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #153
157. So, your assumption that a higher % of individauls voted in Iraq,...
,...is somehow a more reasonable, fact-based assumption than mine?

Okay. That's fine. I'll stand by my assumption that the violent environment and destroyed infrastructure in Iraq likely resulted in an even lower % of individuals casting a vote.

I'll also stand by my characterization of voting for 7,000 unnamed candidates as something more akin to a lotto pick than a "vote".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #157
163. A higher percentage of individuals did vote in Iraq
The problem is the voting in Sunni minority areas was low relative to the rest of the country.

I do think most voters in Iraq knew if they were voting for Allawi's party, Al-Sistani's Shia party, etc. It's not quite as bad as a lotto.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rayofreason Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #163
216. voters
Clarke1,

I agree with your comments. Millions voted in Iraq, and they knew exactly what they were doing, as well as the risks. We should celebrate people committing millions of individual acts of courage. Those who were at the forefront of the civil rights movement in the 60's in Mississippi would know the feeling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #216
253. Wrong analogy
Our federal troops didn't go in gassing the rednecks out of existence during the 60's and they say, "Hey NOW let's hold the election."

Which Iraqi candidate is telling the USA to get the "f" out of there?

Democracy?

What will we do when some bully forces us to have religious morans imposing their views and no voting ever...?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Another W Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #66
257. Here's some more accurate numbers for you
OK, the population of Iraq is 25,000,000. 56.3% of the population is 15 yrs. old or older. Let's make an educated guess and say approximately 54% of the population is over 18 years old (assuming the voting age was 18 - although I frankly don't know). 25,000,000 x .54 = 13,500,000 people of voting age. Now, I have heard from several media sources that 8 million people voted in Iraq (and these media sources were the Corporate Old Media - not Fox News - so it must be trustworthy information). 8,000,000 estimated voters divided by 13,500,000 people of voting age = 59.25% voter turn-out. The estimates I have heard via Large Corporate Old media are 60% voter turnout, so my calculations are within 3/4 of 1 percent of the media estimates. I think this is frankly astonishing. We here in the red and blue states turned out about 64% and we didn't go to the polls under the threats of death by terrorists, so congrats to the Iraqi people.
Iraq is 45% Sunni (which includes the Kurds who are Sunni, but not ethnic Arabs so this faction is split racially), and 50% Shiite, and 5% Christian and others.
If the Sunnis stayed home because they were intimidated by terrorists or just thought that it was a waste of time because they were already in the minority, well that is there problem and certainly doesn't take away from the legitimacy of the election. Had the Republicans stayed home last November and the Democrats showed up in huge numbers, I doubt that the Democrats would be crying that they didn't win a legitimate election, they'd be jumping for joy and celebrating their huge voter mandate and spending their "political capital" already.
Note: I read the user agreement, and this is my first post. Yes, I'm a conservative, but no I'm not trying to incite or offend anyone. I'm just trying to add to the discussion. The user agreement was a little fuzzy on whether or not you would get tossed just for being a conservative or if you also had to be obnoxious about it. I don't think that what I've written is offensive, and I think I've done my homework - so I'd hope that I don't get tossed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
67. It's BOGUS bullshit.
"Turnout" is typically a measure of the number of registered voters who show up to vote. Since this is a standalone two-phase "election," it's equivalent to measuring how many people at a restaurant have a main course after their appetizer and calling it 'repeat customers'. There's not a single person who registered who didn't do so with the intention of voting in this one election. It's not at all like any other country where longtime already-registered voters 'turnout'. (If we were to measure the number of people who voted among those who registered within 2 months of an election, we'd probably get "turnout" near 80-90%.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #2
94. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #94
96. Whatever it is, it's bullshit
Totally bogus made-up numbers by this fucking piece of shit Bush administration. They need turnout to be high to claim victory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mogster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #94
99. I prefer to complain and whine n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #94
102. ROFL
The Iraqi 'officials' (bush puppets) have already downgraded their number to 60% and they still have not said where that number came from. This is a sad farce, plain and simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #94
104. WOW!!!!
where did you hear that? Fox News???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greybnk48 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #94
113. 92% of American Iraqi ex-pats did NOT vote---CNN
But where numbers cannot be verified, there is a 72% turn-out. Sounds like our elections!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Clio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #94
120. I don't know any Iraqis, but I know bullshit when I smell it
sniff, sniff
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpy the poopthrower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #94
127. Actually turnout is only estimated at 37% now.
See how easy it is to make numbers up out of thin air?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #127
140. Is Karl Rove an Iraqi Reporter?


Sounds like he is a paid political conxultant like Armstrong Williams to me.

Bulllllllllshit!

How can they call it a "free and fair" election when they have cleared the streets of cars and armed guards are everywhere?

Even we have more "freedom" than they did today.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lebkuchen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
109. You took the words out of a hundred people's mouths
mine included
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmokingJacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #109
123. moi aussi. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #109
222. Oh you aren't being nearly generous enough.
I'd place that in the thousands. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
115. this 'ganda' is best served with koolaid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XNGH Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
122. Fraudulent Election
This election is an absolute fraud. It does NOT represent ALL the groups like the Sunni and the candidates are mostly US puppets. The people whi voted are either paid off or too stupid to be voting anyway. Sounds like a recent US election to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClayZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #122
160. If you want to spread democracy like frosting...
first you have to have the ingredients in your own cupboard. Argh! I am surprised we didn't ship over black box booths instead of cardboard boxes.

"Joseph Stalin who is reputed to have said "those who vote determine nothing;those who count the vote determine everything".

Still I will hope for PEACE!

ClayZ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
3. Will anything think less of me if I consider any "news" resports
on the Iraqi election to be propaganda bullshit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zippy890 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. No, because that is exactly what it is -eom-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rzemanfl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
12. No, but I would think less of you if you believed that crap. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don Claybrook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #3
29. No. It puts you in the sentient being column
72% my butt. This would effectively mean that every adult citizen in Shia areas of Iraq turned out to vote. No way in hell, not even close.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
106. What sources would you consider reliable? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #106
129. I'll be honest and at this point admit that I can't
rely on anything coming out of Iraq. My contact in the country is no longer there. I got used to having a personal eyewitness account. The discrepancies with official news reports were so glaring I simply can't trust anything coming out of that region. Especially anything that paints a rosy glowing picture of a situation I know cannot have improved that quickly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #3
108. Exactly.
Why am I skeptical? Because I know Bush's ways. I've already posted a list of possible speeches after the outcome of the "election". There were 2 scenarios, and they were exactly the same.

= meaning, it doesn't matter what happens today. They are going to claim victory.

Color me not impressed :smoke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laurab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
225. I hope not cause that's what they are!
Freedom is on the march.......of course you can't walk on the streets safely, and you need an army to protect you if you attempt to vote, but, hey, democracy doesn't come cheap, especially *'s brand of democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hadrons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
5. oh boy ....
An Iraqi election official said Sunday that 72 percent of eligible Iraqi voters had turned out so far nationwide.

The official, Adel al-Lami of the Independent Electoral Commission, offered no overall figures of the actual number of Iraqis who have voted to back up the claim.

the bold says it all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SouthernDaisy Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #5
27. The International Herald Tribune reporting differently
>>>>
Official reports that 72% cast ballots

BAGHDAD Iraqis turned out in force Sunday in the first free election in half a century, defying insurgents who staged a wave of suicide and mortar attacks across the country that killed at least 21 people.
.
Seventy-two percent of Iraqi registered voters turned out, according to an electoral commission officer, Adel Lami, as tight security prevented a feared bloodbath on election day

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/30/news/iraq.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #27
53. Why should anyone believe them?
They are a newspaper owned by corporations of the occupying power, with no actual reporters on the ground.

I note they say 72% of registered voters, not 72% of eligible voters. I recall hearing that only a small percentage of eligible voters registered. So, this 72% turnout is probably more like 10 to 20 percent, if that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouvet_Island Donating Member (227 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #53
244. IHT is a different beast than the rest of them.
The current owners are not paying that much respect to the traditions of the paper, there have been a slight dive in the quality of some of the reporting there lately. Most of it still holds up, the editorial and letter pages are an oasis of reality based debate. What is published in that paper amounts to a far better picking apart of the Bush administration than most of what I see here, with one exception that is the quality of the previous US election. They posted some very interesting things in advance of them, though.

I think they deserve our respect, while it is easy to toss at them from below they have to deal with the consequences of their action on a daily basis. The attack on journalistic freedom and free speech by the current US administration is a far more important battle than each heated propaganda fight, and I believe those people are on our side.

I dont think it is fair to say that they dont have people on the ground, the papers purpose is to condense the large, as in global, picture and they publish a wide range of writers, of which several are on ground.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Clio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #27
121. How many Iraqis registered to vote?
If it's 72% of 1,000,000, then what do you have out of a total estimated 14,000,000 eligible voters?

Nice try, though.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #121
145. Since 10% registered in the US, I'll bet far fewer registered in Iraq.
Edited on Sun Jan-30-05 01:59 PM by Just Me
In light of the violence and destroyed infrastructure, I doubt even 10% registered. It is possible that less than 2% of Iraqis who could have voted cast a vote. YIKES!!! And, even those few who did "vote" haven't a clue who they voted for,...more like participation in a lotto pick than a "vote".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Clio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 02:10 PM
Original message
One of our new trolls is reporting that no voter registration was needed
because the ration books served that purpose.

Also claims that 8-14 million Iraqis voted.

After all, if the Washington Post says so, it must be true.

Just like the Post reported that Jessica Lynch was "fighting to the end" and suffered multiple combat wounds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
254. And did future babies vote?
this is something Chimpy missed out on... Future babies of repugs will vote repug... Let the future be now. Of course dad will cast HIS vote for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
6. Great News!
I am so glad that the Iraqis now have an established democracy. So we can expect our troops to start withdrawing within the month, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacefreak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. News update
Flying Pig seen over Iraq. >sarcasm off<
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElectroPrincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #10
19. Truth be told, I submit more liike 30% ... BIG LIES NOW!
Edited on Sun Jan-30-05 08:59 AM by ElectroPrincess


Joseph Goebbels must be turning over in his grave screaming, "Rove, You beautiful bastard, I love you!" The lies are so big and brazen it's beginning to freak me out.

http://www.nazi-lauck-nsdapao.com/joseph-goebbels-nazi-...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. RIGHT! the goal that President Bush stressed over and over and over
in the lead up to the war has BEEN ACHIEVED!! Oh what glorious and visionary leadership we enjoy!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rzemanfl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
8. My cat is worth $100,000.00 but I have this chance to trade her for
a $150,000.00 dog. These numbers mean nothing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VirginiaDem Donating Member (574 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #8
35. Trade her! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:45 AM
Response to Original message
9. Is that counting the ones in graves or something?
Give us a brake where could they get those figures?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lawladyprof Donating Member (628 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:52 AM
Response to Original message
14. If 60% are Shia, what percent are Sunni and Kurds?
To get to 72%, what percent of each group are voting? We have heard that virtually no/very few Sunnis are voting so. . . ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. 60-20-20
72 would be right for near total participation from shiites and kurds in their safe homeland areas plus a moderate to poor turnout in baghdad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catnhatnh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:52 AM
Response to Original message
15. If 72% are DONE voting already....
...then I'll guess Ken Blackwell wasn't in charge of machine allocation....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
youngdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
16. This just in;
The easter bunny, Santa Claus, and the tooth fairy really exists. I know this because a leprechaun just came and told me.

Wake up America. Are we the only sane people left that actually believe and know that this is utter bullshit?

Can't wait for more "news" on this...

Going back to talking to the leprechaun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
17. The actual turnout is 100%
Everyone who turned up and voted did that's 100% see?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadisonProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. Except the ones that got blown up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. If they voted the still count
if they didn't they don't

100%
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mom cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #24
64. The vote was just counted!
Allawi and George Bush won by a landslide.
Actually I heard that the results will not be available for at least a week and that they are being counted in Jordan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #64
73. Oh I am expecting W to rush out and claim victory any minute
That is the MO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #73
76. Get ready for a doozy of a State of the Union address on Wednesday.
Edited on Sun Jan-30-05 10:52 AM by oasis
:boring:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #73
84. I only wish it could have been true.
Bush elected as president of Iraq. Then we could send him there. LOL.
:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mom cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #73
256. Yep.....You pegged that one. King George the turd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
20. NBC, Brian Williams just said - 72% at one precinct, 50% at one,
4% at one. That sounds much more accurate then nationwide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peekaloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #20
46. I give him credit for not donning the suit and pom-poms
a "general sense of unease" was how he described his surroundings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reichstag911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #20
217. Brian WIlliams?!?
NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams thinks Limbaugh should get
more credit

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501240007

So much for BW...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
21. Color me skeptical... until
several days of post election reporting. A lot of news does eventually get out - and overtime a more realistic picture emerges.

Any report that makes percentages claims, but can't give any numbers of voters, (as is the case in this item) just can't be taken seriously. If in several days, numbers are reported from numerous sources (eg not all emanating from a single original source) that seem consistent with this, then I will believe it - and be impressed, given all of the security concerns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #21
55. I won't be impressed by anything I hear in the next few days
There are no international monitors and no media to speak of, while the occupation authorities have an overwhelming motive to lie about turnout and the result. One would have to be extremely gullible to believe anything that is claimed on the matter by occupation authorities or their appointed "government" in the next few days, or ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GettysbergII Donating Member (664 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #55
150. How is the vote beig counted?
Is Diebold around? I know SAIC is deeply involved with Iraq to the tune of billions of dollars? Those guys can make their magic voting machines and tabulators say whatever Bushco wants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_State_Elitist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #55
207. The propaganda right now is absolutely amazing...
I mean we haven't seen this since, since, since, well mid 2003 when the war started.

NAVY SEALS ROCK!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
23. I'm so glad Authorized Propaganda doesn't balance my checkbook..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
25. "An Iraqi election official said"
Uh huh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kikiek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
28. Just throw out a number no one will be listening when it is corrected.
Edited on Sun Jan-30-05 09:35 AM by kikiek
This country suffers from very short attention spans. They have forgotten it was about WMD's not "democratic elections" already. They have made such a big deal out of people waiting an hour to vote. Hell that is nothing compared to 8-10 hour wait here in the supposed model for democracy the USA. Did they really need to vote to tell them who won?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
booksenkatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
30. Even if this were true
Even if all the Iraqis in the world are jumping up and down and clapping and dancing and crying for joy; even if there were really and truly 100% turnout for this election; even if the winner of this election were truly the choice to represent the majority of all Iraqis:

Was this worth destroying the United States of America? Was this worth sending our nation tumbling into the toilet? Was this worth destroying our reputation and the worth of our word in the world? Were the lies worth it? Was this worth the billions and billions of dollars emptied from our nation's treasury? Was the enrichment of Halliburton and the Carlyle Group worth it? Was this worth the bloodshed of soldiers and of innocents? Was it worth losing your arms, little Ali? Was there NO OTHER WAY to have achieved this? Am I supposed to jump up and down and clap and dance and cry for joy that MY nation has been turned into a shitpile and everyone in the world hates MY nation now? There is no democracy here in America, but I am supposed to be overwhelmed with good cheer that it exists for the Iraqis?

I can't think of a single cause outside of the borders of my country that would be worth destroying my country for. And that's what has happened, I don't care how happy the Iraqis are. I mourn what my country has become, and I am bitter because I know what she could have been. So I'm sorry if I can't join in the joy today.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kikiek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #30
34. I'm with you 100 pct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #30
45. You're 100% correct. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scottxyz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #30
57. Patsified's post is on www.daoureport.com!!!
Too bad you can't nominate an individual post for the front page of DU - just an entire thread.

But patsified's post DID get nominated for the "Front Page" of www.daoureport.com !

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
booksenkatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #57
83. Cool! I posted some clarification below on #79
My original post sounded so isolationist, and I didn't mean it that way at all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #30
114. Patsified, that was one awesome post.
And I share your sentiment. Our country has become incredibly fragmented. We only see the news in segments, never as a cohesive whole, in for example our role in world affairs. And what's happening to the US. We are supposed to jump for joy because of Iraq and its "freedom" today.

The media corrals us into thinking one way or another. But when do they take a sweeping view of everything that's going on?

Thanks for the cohesive look.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laurab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #30
226. I don't think there's much joy anywhere
Not among the Iraqis, certainly not in the US (with the exception of those who are shamelessly running our country into the ground). No democracy is going to exist for Iraqis - it's still going to be a mess, but maybe they'll kick us out soon. That's the only good thing I can see coming out of this. However I doubt *'s puppets will be doing any kicking. I certainly feel no joy. I just continue to feel anger at what bushit is doing to our country, AND to the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JusticeForAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
31. When the tsunami first hit
the number of dead was placed at 10,000.

Something tells me this "official" (Iraqi voting) number is going to do anything but rise over the next several days...God forbid...these people can't even count their innocent dead, let alone who voted in this sham...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
llmart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
32. Anyone who believes this bullshit is seriously ignorant....
We don't even get that kind of turnout in our country.

Give me a friggen' break.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Plaid Adder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
33. NPR keeps saying "we have no idea how he came up with that number"
When even the NPR anchors are skeptical, you know that's trouble.

I know how he came up with that number: they wanted it to be good and big, but they figured the 90s would be too high (Saddam Hussein used to win with 99%) and they figured it should be an odd number so people didn't think they were just making it up.

We'll see what happens. I remain skeptical, but it would be nice if I was wrong about this. If it works out better for them, I can stand all the Bush gloating.

The Plaid Adder
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VirginiaDem Donating Member (574 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. "This just in---He pulled it out of his ass." n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demgrrrll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. I thought Juan Cole wrote something about 10 percent. I need to go look
Edited on Sun Jan-30-05 09:54 AM by demgrrrll
again to see what he wrote about the percentage but it was no where near 72 percent. I trust his sources. On edit. It was 9 percent of certain factions. I wish I could remember where I read the real breakdown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElectroPrincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. LOL, I always think of Al Frankin ...
When such terms are used, "Talking out of one's butt." He was the first person who I heard that from and I will always find it humorous and surprisingly satisfying to my senses. <eg>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:49 AM
Original message
ok but
I hate to nitpick, but 72 is an even number. Perhaps you meant something else by 'odd'? Unusual?

I'm suprised that Nationalist Propaganda Radio has the balls left to be sceptical about anything other than evidence of obvious election fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #33
42. You have to have a fig leave account for fraud one way or another
If your were going to stuff the ballot box what would you do to hide them tricks :shrug:


http://homepage.mac.com/rcareaga/diebold/adworks.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #33
50. Wasn't the Andy Borowitz satire great this morning?
He was recalling Karl Rove giving him a million dollars at a Denny's restaurant to plug gop policies. "But it did not affect my writing".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
classof56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #50
100. Andy is one of the best satirists going.
He rarely fails to give me a good laugh, even on my grimmest of days. This piece was one of his better ones. Hope he posts it on his website so I can send it to friends who "get" him. I noted, though, that Liane Hansen felt she needed to clear up the matter of the lapel pin. ;-)

Incidentally, I find myself listening to NPR less and less these days, but I am hooked on the Puzzlemaster segment. Glad I tuned in a few minutes early and heard Andy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #33
139. You bring up a point that the media keeps effing with. "They" keep
saying that "Iraqis are voting in free elections for the first time in decades".

Didn't Iraqis vote when hussein was in charge? I realize that he would get 98-99% of the vote and may have been the only one on the ballot, but the "librul media" are acting like until bush* invaded and killed a bunch of them off, no Iraqi ever even HEARD of voting. I'd be surprised if they had a word for "VOTE" before 2003, is the image the media is presenting.

I mean they voted for years upon years, the only thing missing was a choice. So are there any published numbers of turnout in saddam's last bush*lection? THAT is what today's turnout should be gaged against. After all, if we can't get MORE people to turn out to vote than saddam could, how can bush*s alleged goal be attained?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applepicker Donating Member (8 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
37. A Democratic Election Is Still A Good Thing
We should commend the Iraqi's that braved the conditions and went out to vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #37
39. we should indeed
and now that our mission (version 17) is accomplished, we should get the fuck out immediately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #37
41. This election is not democratic. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #37
60. Yes, if they ever have one we will.
This, on the other hand, is a farce. There are no international, neutral observers. There is no independent media presence on the ground. The occupation authorities and the occupation appointed government have tremendous motivation to lie about the result. To hold an honest election under these circumstances is impossible, and devalues the entire idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
booksenkatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #37
79. Yes, a democratic election is still a good thing, BUT (an important BUT)
not if it happened because my country was destroyed in order to make it happen. See my post #30 above.

Call me selfish, but I won't destroy my country for anyone. We should fight to help when we can, we should send soldiers as needed, money as needed, to help a worthy cause outside of the borders of this country. BUT I WILL NOT DESTROY MY COUNTRY FOR ANY OTHER COUNTRY. No matter how nice your country is or what your goals are. Be it Iraq or Israel or any other country. Period.

And welcome to DU!
:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
candy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #37
97. Welcome to DU!! Enjoy your visit. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applepicker Donating Member (8 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #97
144. Thank You
My son has been posting here for a long time and invited me to take a look. I am a retired man on Social Security and have a lot of time on my hands. I will add to the discussion when I think I have something meaningful to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
candy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #144
152. I also am retired and on Social Security----welcome.
When I signed on to DU I figured I wouldn't have much to say since most of the posters were so young(sometimes I didn't even know what they were talking about)but I hung in and learned a lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Clio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #37
130. What, exactly, were they voting for today?
Do you even know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MGKrebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
43. They just need to keep the charade up for the State of the Union address.
They can correct the numbers after that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihelpu2see Donating Member (935 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
44. see the BBC report
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4219569.stm

There reporting is much clearer than or MSM

snip

Iraq's electoral commission held a news conference 90 minutes before polls closed to say turnout was estimated at 72%, with 90% or more in some Shia areas.

But electoral official Adil al-Lami did not say how these figures had been reached.

Earlier, the top UN electoral adviser Carlos Valenzuela offered a much more cautious assessment, saying turnout appeared to be high in many areas, but that it was too early to know for sure. .....

snip

they addressed my thoughts....72% of what... and how can they have come to these numbers and was Ohio Sec. of State there??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #44
47. Funny 72 could be a transposition
adds up to 9
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
48. International observers put the # at 54%
The 72% is from the Allawi Government. He learned his math from mr. bush* himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #48
62. What international observers are even there?
I thought they were in Jordan, watching through telescopes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #62
141. No, they are watching live feed monitors provided by bushco. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #141
234. I see your point.
Technically, telescopes would be more trustworthy, even if the curvature of the earth does get in the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
49. A misinformation campaign--like releasing reports of "finding WMDs"
The compliant media is again a tool of the bush government. Early in the war on Iraq, the government purposely released misinformation that WMDs had been found in various locations. It worked. The sheep believed it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClayZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #49
56. They are channeling "Bagdad Bob"
All the US mainstream is "Channeling Bagdad Bob". I know he is not dead but his spirit has somehow taken over. ARGH!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #56
63. Was he Saddam Hussein's press secretary?
My memory is foggy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClayZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #63
65. Yes, and he lied so much it was funny...
Sorry for the strange sence of humor I have. <<grin>>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #65
78. Yes, he was a joke
Looks like he got the last laugh, though. My country is f-*-c-k-e-d.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClayZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #78
164. Purple fingers don't cancel US bloody hands.
An election is coming. Universal peace is declared and the foxes have a sincere interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry: T.S. Eliot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
51. 72% turnout - Here is a little math to show how impossible this is.
5200 polling stations
times
10 hours voting
times 60 minutes per hour
gives
3.12 million voter minutes at polls

Approx 15 million eligible voters
time
72%
gives
10.8 million voters

Or, a voter casting a ballot steadily every 20 seconds at every polling in the country station all day long.

Do you believe this? In a country that has never held an "election"? Where there are over 100 parties for voters to choose from? Where the polling stations locations were kept secret until two days ago? Where polls are actually being attacked? And tight security measures are presumably in place?

This is a fairy tale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #51
54. Thanks for the math. It's so sad that they will just tell this baldfaced
lie and the BushBots will fully believe it. Bush of course will declare himself a hero and their savior. Disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #51
61. However, polling stations have more than one voting booth.
At the same time, I'm sure it took well over a minute for most Iraqis to figure out the ballot and who to vote for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #61
69. Actually, we don't even know that
Given that the location of the 5200 polling stations were kept secret until a day or so ago, and there are no independent international observers, and there is are independent media (if any media at all). There might well be only one booth per poll for all we know.

Knowing the Bush government had a hand in this, you have to think that polling stations in areas they don't like (i.e. the population won't vote the way they like) are inconveniently located, with very few actual ballot boxes.

Most of the ballot boxes are probably in the Green Zone, being stuffed as we type.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #69
88. If Sistani's party doesn't get a big win, you'll know something's wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibDemAlways Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:09 AM
Original message
C-span started Washington Journal
this morning with an LA Times Reporter calling in from the Green Zone to report on the elections. The situation is so bad over there that these so-called "reporters" can't even leave the bubble. What the hell use are they? One reporter on MSRNC did venture out and was near Ramadi. He was wearing full combat gear on camera. Yet these shills continue to paint a rosy picture. One flak was overjoyed that "only" 29 people had died in election-related attacks, like that was something to be proud of.

And for what? So the BFEE can have a propaganda victory and convince moronic Americans who don't know any better that Iraq will now have "freedom"? The BFEE makes a living by stealing elections. Anyone who thinks the outcome isn't predetermined is living in fantasyland.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibDemAlways Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #51
82. Consider that each "voter" first had to pass
through security that practically included body cavity searches. Then he or she was handed a complicated ballot from a person wearing a mask. Then he or she had to stand behind some little cardboard lemonade stand platform and read through the ballot to determine which candidates were worthy. After "voting" he or she had to have ink stamped on the hand to signify that they had "voted." (I have to wonder if those ink stamps were in the shape of concentric circles.)
All the while said voter had to worry about being blown to bits.

Not only is it mathematically impossible. It's ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MGKrebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #51
86. CNN says 30,000 voting booths.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.main/ind...

But it doesn't really matter. Less than 25% are even registered to vote apparently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #86
89. How would CNN know anyway?
Did Anderson Cooper leave the Green Zone for ten minutes to be shown a Potempkin Voting Poll? They will report anything they are told to report, with no verification. The whole thing is farcical, and the mindless cheerleading of the U.S. media will be the most farcical aspect of it all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #89
191. I assume their numbers come from the Iraqi election commission.
Which is the same source the New York Times uses. Whether they are accurate numbers or not, I cannot say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #51
190. turnout, the math
I was in the process of posting a thread noting how the turnout numbers are ridiculous, and I started to do the calculations. Today's New York Times estimates 8 million voters turned out. They refer to that as a high turnout: "The chairman of the Independent Election Commission of Iraq, Fareed Ayar, said as many as 8 million people turned out to vote, or between 55 percent and 60 percent of those registered to cast ballots. If 8 million turns out to be the final figure, that would represent 57 percent of voters."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/international/middlee...


The CIA's own World Fact Book calculates Iraq's population to be just under 25.4 million. 59.7 percent of that 25.4 million are age 15 and older. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.ht...

I would assume the voting age is 18, so we can't calculate precisely. But if we use the population totals for 15 and over, 8 million voters are 59.6 percent of the population. If the voting age is 18, the percentage is higher. Now, this does not include all of those voting in the US, Australia, and other countries. That is very important to know. Secondly, it assumes that 8 million number is correct. It may very well not be.

If the NY Times number of 8 million is correct, that is indeed a significant percentage of the electorate, more than votes in US elections. That seems improbable to me, but it is possible that these elections are more important to Iraqis than we as anti-war critics believed.

I actually would love for the Bush propaganda to be true. Let the Iraqis elect a national assembly and tell us to get the hell out of their country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #190
196. But how could you believe there were 8 million ballots?
Edited on Sun Jan-30-05 05:29 PM by daleo
The whole point is there is no oversight by independent observers. An election like this would require international observers, and thousands of them, from truly neutral countries, if such entities even exist. They would have to be at every polling station, watching for fraud like hawks.

None of this has happened. The ballot boxes could all be merrily stuffed in the Green Zone for all we know. Do you really think Bush wouldn't fix an election in a country he lied about in order to invade it?

My calculation of the claimed turnout was just a way to make people think of how unlikely a high turnout number was, given the security situation, the complexity of the ballot, the inexperience of pollsters/scrutineers/etc., the secret poll locations, no car travel allowed, and the possibility of being killed.

The real evidence of how fraudulent the election is will be when the results are announced, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #196
200. I acknowledged that I don't know
Edited on Sun Jan-30-05 05:45 PM by imenja
and that it struck me as improbable. Neither of us know.
A major factor to consider, as I also noted, is how many votes came from overseas ballots, where the obstacles to voting are not violent. Your calculations also overestimate the raw vote numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #200
204. My original calculations were based on the 72% turnout claim.
As I say, they were only meant to be illustrative.

I can't wait to see how well the exit polls match the vote count. That has usually been one of the main ways to detect electoral fraud. If there are no exit polls, or if they are done by the same people as the regular "voting" then that will tell you plenty right there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #196
202. paper ballots and hand counts
I also hope those who insist hand counted paper ballots are "obviously" less prone to corruption consider this when planning their reforms of our own elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
52. There was NO election in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistertrickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
58. 72 is as good a number as any other. This is an UNKNOWABLE
number. Not only is it a lie, it couldn't be known even if it were true.

Next they'll be telling us how many snowflakes fell in the Georgia blizzard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tsiyu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
59. Uh DUHHHHH Only 25% are registered
according to recent news reports. If 72% of them voted, only around 18% of the voting age public cast ballots.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #59
70. Yes, this is what I thought I recalled as well.
So, this is a way of telling a lie (72%) with deniability. If even this is true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tsiyu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #70
90. And half of America doesn't give a damn
The Repukes will be spewing that 72% figure around all week, whether it reflects the truth or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #70
185. Except
The lie is the claim that few registered.

52% of the entire population of Iraq registered. That's a calculation easily done on your own.

of the remaing 48%, many were not of voting age.

Do the math, and you will see that this was a pretty big election any way you look at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #59
149. Others have cited the registration rate at 10%
Where are those figures coming from?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #149
183. Nowhere
These numbers came out of fiction.

52% of the total Iraqi population registered to vote. Of the remaining 48%, some were of the age where they cannot vote. So, it's substantially higher than 52% of the voting age population that registered.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #59
182. Prove it
I did the calculation myself. 52% of THE ENTIRE IRAQ POPULATION registered, which means the 48% remaining includes people who are not of the age to register.

Show me a single link that says otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cal04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
68. official later backtracked
Claims of 72% turnout in Iraq
Baghdad - An Iraqi election official claimed on Sunday that 72% of eligible Iraqi voters who had registered had cast ballots so far.But the official later backtracked and offered conflicting, lower numbers for the turnout.

The official, Adel al-Lami of the Independent Electoral Commission, offered no overall figures of the actual number of Iraqis who have voted as of Sunday afternoon to back up the initial claim.

After being questioned by reporters, he offered lower and conflicting numbers of the percentage of eligible and registered voters who had cast ballots. Earlier, the top US adviser to commission, Carlos Valenzuela, offered a much more cautious assessment, saying turnout appeared to be high in many areas, but that it was too early to know for sure.

There has been little sign of voters in some heavily Sunni areas, such as the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi, according to witnesses. But Valenzuela said earlier that some voters had shown up in the two cities.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_16...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #68
71. Maybe they are letting U.S. marines vote in Fallujah
After all, Iraqis living in the U.S. who have never set foot in Iraq were granted the franchise. Why not U.S. marines, who have at least visited the country?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
72. Bush will use the 72% number frequently in his State of the Union speech
Edited on Sun Jan-30-05 10:46 AM by oasis
Wednesday. Only then will it become widely accepted. "Our leader has spoken" and the sheeple follow. :dunce: x 59 million.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #72
75. He will phrase it carefully, though.
Something like "Iraqi election officials have reported a turnout of 72%, among the highest in the world".

Then later, when challenged with the truth, he (and the media) will claim they were just reporting what an Iraqi official had said. That clarification will be reported at the bottom of the classified ads in the NYT and on the CNN crawler at 2 a.m. Fox won't even bother with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #75
81. They still couldn't reach 99 % Saddam got.
LOL. Even if voter turnout is high, what exactly does it have to do with democracy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #81
85. True, everyone being fixated on turnout ignores other things:
1 - There is no reason to believe that votes will actually be counted accurately. In fact, it is a dead certainty that rampant fraud will go on, given the lack of controls.

2 - It ignores the fact that Bush never said he wanted to invade Iraq just so they could have fairy tale elections. It was supposed to be about weapons of mass destruction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #81
98. LOL! Bwa ha ha ha!!!
Nailed it, lizzy!! :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #75
87. When you have a mandate you can report flimsy evidence as fact. He
doesn't have to backtrack anymore. 59 million jackasses gave him a mandate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
two gun sid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
74. MSNBC now reporting 60%
registered voters voted. about 8 million. Numbers dropping like a rock now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #74
77. How many people have even registered?
The number of voters can not obviously be higher than the number of registered voters. But of course, who is counting when Bush is involved?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #77
91. CNN reports 14.2 million registered to vote
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.main/ind...

The 72% turnout figure is pure fantasy. This same story says the Iraqi electoral commission clarified how it arrived at that figure: by making an educated guess.

It doesn't take much thinking to realize that in a first-time election using paper ballots in a locked-down country, instantaneous poll numbers aren't going to happen. It's going to take a few days before the numbers firm up; take everything you hear with a grain of salt until then.

From the article:
U.N. election organizer Carlos Valezuela told CNN that while he was "happy with the turnout," it was too early to report numbers.

"I would rather until we have much better reporting to be able to come up with figures," he said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #91
93. So CNN says 14.2 million out of 14.8 million eligible voters registered?
Methinks CNN will repeat any balderdash the Bush government tells them to say. This would be equivalent to claiming that 96% of all eligible U.S. voters were registered.

Saddam and Baghdad Bob must be having a chuckle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #93
103. Like I said, no usable info will surface for days n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TR Fan Donating Member (160 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #93
133. Confusion regarding "voter registration" in Iraq
appears rampant here. Effectively, Iraqis living in Iraqi are already "pre-registered" by having food rationing coupons, as discussed here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41044-20...

<snip>
Because Iraqis do not have to take any steps to register to vote -- food rationing accounts serve as voter rolls -- requests for corrections are essentially the only gauge of voter involvement in the registration process for the Jan. 30 election.
<snip>

The 25% number discussed herein seems to originate from the Iraqi expats who have registered to vote overseas, as illustrated here:

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB7KSNBE4E.html

<snip>
Less than 25 percent of eligible Iraqi expatriates have signed up to vote in Sunday's elections, officials said Tuesday, the last day for overseas registration.
<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #133
245. That explains where the "25%" figure came from
How about "10%"?

Anyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cal04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #74
92. About 60% of Iraqis voted, officials say
Few voters turned out in Sunni areas west and north of Baghdad and some polling stations remained shuttered, reports say.

Iraq's Sunni Muslim population makes up about 20 per cent of the country. It appears many are heeding the call of clerics to stay home because they say the vote will create a Shia-dominated political system.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/01/30/iraq0...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #92
107. A BBC report clarifies the 60% claim
Officials said up to 8 million people could have voted. In other words, 60% is in some sense a possibility but not being reported as a fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrats_win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #107
111. 60% means 100% Shiite turnout & 50% Sunni turnout
Assuming 14 million eligible voters, that works out to 8,270,000 voters. (Total population: 40% Sunni and 60% Shiite) But this is a very optimistic number since the Sunni turnout will be much less than 50% and 100%-and-above turnouts only happen in Ohio.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davhill Donating Member (854 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #111
137. Half the Sunnis are Kurds
They will vote in greater numbers than the Shiites
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Massachusetts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
80. Lies, Damn lies, and Bu$hco lies
72% of what? Figures don't LIE, LIARS Figure! :dunce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
95. The BBC report
From the BBC Online
Dated Sunday January 30 15:29 GMT (7:29 am PST)

Iraq election declared "success"

The first multi-party election in Iraq for 50 years has been declared a success as polls officially closed.

The electoral commission claimed a high turnout and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the country had taken a "huge step forward".

Blasts in Baghdad - some apparently claimed by militant leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - killed at least 25.

Correspondents say there was a marked division in turnout between Sunni, Shia and Kurdish strongholds.

Read more.

For decades, the BBC has been a traditional source of news for those wishing to be informed but living in lands deprived of a free and independent press. That is why this American, living in the age of Bush and corporatism, turns to the BBC Online.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #95
105. Naturally, Rice and puppets would call anything a success
It hardly matters what they say.

Here is cute way to lie in the BBC report:

"Iraqi electoral officials estimated that up to eight million Iraqis could have voted - more than 60% of those registered."

The old "could have" dodge - as if stating something was possible was somehow equivalent to reporting a fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #105
134. But Condi has never lost her respect for the truth
. . . because she never had any to begin with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #95
116. Comments
Edited on Sun Jan-30-05 12:34 PM by Jack Rabbit
From the BBC report in post 95:

In the Shia Muslim south and Kurdish north of the country, lines formed at polling stations and there were smiles and tears among voters.

But polling stations in many Sunni-dominated cities in the centre of Iraq were closed or deserted, as voters stayed away out of fear of attack or opposition to the poll.

One question we may ask is whether the percentage of those voting includes people living in Sunni areas where there is no voting. Does it include Falluja?

In November -- and, indeed, in 2000 -- the Bushies demonstrated that they are very adept at identifying blocks of voters who oppose them and finding ways of suppressing the vote. In Ohio, the Republican Secretary of State made sure that traditionally Republican precincts were adequately equipped and that traditionally Democratic precincts were not. In Republican precincts in Ohio, nobody had trouble voting; in Democratic precincts, people stood for hours in the rain to vote against Bush. It wasn't classical fascism, where such people are stripped of their citizenship; nor was it the kind of populist fascism that characterized the Jim Crow and those whom the power structure wished to suppress were simply terrorized by night riders. However, it is voter suppression and it is fascism.

The backdrop of war provided Bush and his fascist aides with a pretext to suppress voter turnout. He bombed Falluja in November. This, we in this country were told, was to eliminate insurgents. However, it was no secret that Falluja was going to be attacked after the November elections; the insurgents left and the people of Falluja remained. They, who have taken no active part in the fighting against the occupation but who support that resistance, were the ones punished.

It is true, as the Bushies charge, that elements of the resistance do not want any election and have terrorized potential voters into supporting a boycott of the polls. However, for the people of Falluja, there was no choice at all. They couldn't vote or even refuse to vote if they wanted to. If they could and did vote, they would have no doubt voted against candidates preferred by their colonial masters in Washington.

There were other problems with the election campaign. These were outlined by John Nichols in an article appearing yesterday in The Nation Online. Nichols points out that no party running in the election, including the Shiites allied with Ayatollah Sistani, put a demand for timetable US withdrawal from Iraq as part of the party program. Says Nichols: "This constraint upon the debate effectively denied the Iraqi people an honest choice." Whatever the outcome of the election, we know from independent polling, as Nichols asserts, that a majority of the Iraqi people want the occupation to end. No credible Iraqi government will request Bush keep his troops in Iraq.

This was a very strange election campaign. Candidates were afraid to campaign in public. The best ways for candidates to get their message out was over the airwaves, which the quisling Allawi was able to do on his behalf and the behalf of the other neoconservative puppets in the interim government, and through the mosques, as Ayatollah Sistani's allies were able to do.

One would have the idea that the Iraqi election is a choice between parties who have no interest in any real democracy: puppets to a colonial power on the one hand; Islamic republicans on the other.

Nichols draws the following conclusion:

That democracy has been denied in Iraq is beyond question. The charade of an election, played out against a backdrop of violence so unchecked that a substantial portion of the electorate-- particularly Sunni Muslims--avoided the polls for reasons of personal safety, featuring candidates who dared not speak their names and characterized by a debate so stilted that the electorate did not know who or what it is electing.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NIGHT TRIPPER Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
101. Results in **Zarqawi won the election by a landslide! WOW-72% of 1/10th of
what?
sarcasm?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
110. I wonder if overseas voters are being rolled into these turnout claims?
It seems entirely likely to me that turnout will be inflated by including the overseas voters in the Iraqi totals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibDemAlways Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #110
112. The whores were certainly interested in these overseas voters.
Much easier and safer to report from London than Baghdad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #110
118. It doesn't sound like
According to NPR yesterday, turnout among eligible overseas Iraqis is no more than 25% and maybe even as low as 10.

On the other hand, I don't think there are enough such people to skew such figures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
119. US appointed Iraqi election official said Sunday that 72 percent...
Hmmm.

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainscents Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #119
125. Real truth will come out!
I am going to listen Laura "Air America" this afternoon. I'm sure, she'll have few guess calling in from Iraq to talk about the election. In next few weeks, truth will leak out.

For now, I don't believe any of this bullshit lies!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressivebydesign Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #119
132. See post above.. Only 25% of eligible were registered....
But they leave that out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #132
138. Where is the link to the 25% registered number?
Not doubting you, just wanted to read the link to that number. From what I read, there were 13 million registered voters:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/...

and the country has a total population (including those who are under the legal age to vote) of 25 million:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.ht...

That looks like 52% of the nation was registered to vote, which means that it's substantially more than that number as a percentage of the ADULT population.

Perhaps those numbers are wrong, but I'd like to read about it if possible. Do you have a link to this 25% claim?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
124. My opinion of the vote:
After all the votes are counted, Bush will proclaim victory. His state of the Union address will be peppered with "freedom", "Victory", "liberty", and he will proclaim that the Iraqi people are now free.

His speechwriters are using Roget's Thesaurus to get the wording right, at this moment.

What will he have accomplished? He'll buy himself some time. Time to move quickly and establish the 14 bases that the US is building in various parts of the country. Time is not on his side. As the fuse is burning, frustration and hatred and terrorism threatens our tenure in the Middle East.

It did not turn out as they assumed in the beginning. While Bush has been the eager cheerleader once again, urging the Iraqi's to "dodge the bombs" and vote "For Freedom, For Family", it's important to realize that the US at first didn't want national elections.

There's an article on CounterPunch which explains what happened. After the uprising in 2003, it became clear that the US could not rule Iraq directly any longer. It was impossible. A deal was brokered with Al-Sistani to hold elections.

The elections will strengthen the US hold on Iraq, not lessen it. The winning party will be a puppet to the US. Bush will have a much greater stranglehold on the country now. He will use the results, meager though they may be, as a cover for our legitimacy.

Now, we're not the Occupiers any longer. We're the "helpers".

And ultimately, the Iraqis will pay the ultimate price. Under the guise of free choice, Bush will hijack their hopes, their dreams, and turn it into his Asset.

Not only has he demolished the country by bombs, bullets and torture. Now he is about to commit the ultmate crime, and wrap his tentacles around their psyches and take what's left.

Much worse than bombs, in my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Magleetis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
126. I'll wait to see
what Aljazeera reports. No US news source is credible. The payola checks must be flying out of Washington today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applepicker Donating Member (8 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #126
151. Are you serious?
Do you consider Aljezzera a reliable source? I am not being trying to be a pain, I am serious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Clio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #151
166. Al-Jazeera was started by former staff members of the BBC
Edited on Sun Jan-30-05 04:19 PM by Ms. Clio
It's at least as reliable as any U.S. media source.

By the way, you never answered my question--just what are the Iraqis voting for today? Enlighten us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applepicker Donating Member (8 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #166
209. Here goes
They were voting for their own parties in National elections. I hope this is move towards freedom. Freedom is never a bad thing. I wish them the best as I want our troops home as soon as possible.

I want to say something else as well. I just registered here at the encouragement of my son who has been posting here a long time. He said I could learn a lot here. I am 65 years old, a life long Democrat, and a retired husband and father. I find some of the attacks on each other here rather distressing. If we are all working towards a common goal we should work to support each other. By the way, I am not referring to your comments but rather to other attacks I have seen against others on this forum. I appreciate reading the civil exchange of ideas and I hope others feel the same way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Clio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #209
223. Real freedom is never a bad thing, I agree
Edited on Sun Jan-30-05 09:55 PM by Ms. Clio
I happen to think that nothing that happened today remotely resembled real freedom. I also never believed in WMDs, and knew we were being lied to about that, the Al-Qaeda connection, everything, from day one. Thus, I begin with a profound distrust of this administration and anything and everything it says and does.

Starting from such a foundation, and with 150,000 soldiers still bombing their cities and shooting at them and breaking down the doors of their homes to take away from family members, and threatening them with the loss of their food rations if they don't vote--I do not believe anything I recognize as democracy will emerge.

This can be a rough and tumble place sometimes, especially during critical periods like this one. If someone really annoys you, just hit that little sleeping man icon with the zzs over it and they will disappear forever.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #209
247. But...but..."There ought to be limits to freedom"...
Jesus Jr. said this. Yes, he did! So if freedom is "never a bad thing," what does this say about freedom with limits? Do limits make freedom better, or worse, than, say, freedom without limits?

Do we wait for Jesus Jr. to clue us in to what he meant by this statement, or do we wait and see his example in Iraq?

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?docu...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Magleetis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #151
203. Yes
I do consider Aljazeera a credible source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikido15 Donating Member (637 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #151
240. Yes.
They have been a victim of the Bush propaganda machine because they give a voice to the Arab people. They are considered reputable by many news organizations around the world. I see reprints of their articles all the time, just not in US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RCPJAP Donating Member (52 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
128. We'll know more whenever
Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell are flown in to assist with tallying the votes in Jordan. Here's the latest. Looks like the 'officials' are backtracking big time.

Iraq's Electoral Commission backtracked on earlier estimates of voter turnout in the election, saying a previous figure of 72 percent "was just an estimate" and indicated the actual figure was lower.

At a news conference, commission spokesman Farid Ayar called the 72 percent figure a "guess" and said maybe up to 8 million Iraqis voted, which would be a little over 60 percent of registered voters.

"Percentages and numbers come only after counting and will be announced when it's over ... It's too soon to say that those were the official numbers," he said. "The numbers are only guessing."



http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/MAR055907.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #128
165. I don't believe anywhere near 8 million, or 60% either.
Edited on Sun Jan-30-05 04:19 PM by daleo
The truth is, with no international media and no international observers, and the electoral process being run by an occupation authority, there is not a single claim that can be verified.

As Swamp Rat says, this is not an election.

On edit - We are now so far down the rabbit hole, that an "election" that we would have laughed at Stalin for pulling off in an occupied east block county in 1952 is being hailed as a triumph for democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Clio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #128
168. Yes, the numbers will be whatever the U.S. decides they are
Welcome to DU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
131. Unfortunately this will be the Monday Morning Headline across America
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattP Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #131
135. Voting
Why don't they have Automatic voter registering in this country then, or is Iraq ahead of us in freedom?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpaceBuddy008 Donating Member (206 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
136. CBS Sunday Morning show reporter:"there were irregularities"
how could she know that already?
they just started voting

she could not resist a projection injection into the mass mind

a little perception management as if all elections have irregularities and thats entirely normal and expected

America is civilized?

Did you see this?

U.S. soldiers put captions on gruesome photos of Iraqi dead
by Plutonium Page
Fri Jan 28th, 2005 at 12:22:52 PST

I read about this several days ago, but couldn't find much information on it until today.
Apparently, some U.S. soldiers have set up a website dedicated to their conquests in Iraq. They've posted a variety of photos, including ones of dead Iraqis, complete with captions.

I am going to give you two news articles that report this.

One is from The Australian. The other is from uruknet.info ("information from occupied iraq"), which links to Dahr Jamail's articles, among other things.

The uruknet.info article has the pictures the soldiers took. I won't post the pictures themselves because they are very graphic, and very disturbing.

http://dailykos.com/story/2005/1/28/152252/844

STOP! Extremist End-Timers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
146. Wolf Blitzer on CNN just now says that some precints reporting 100%
turnout. Sure! I've got a bridge to sell CNN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #146
167. The media cheerleading is grotesque.
The Soviet Union of the 1950's probably had a more critical press.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RememberWellstone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
147. Good news indeed.
They chose democracy, which is good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rayofreason Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #147
158. good thing
By the comments I have read, many (most?) here don't think that today's vote was a good thing.

Too bad, especially on a site called "Democratic Underground".

This election, plus the Palestinian vote, are causing head-scratching among Arabs. As a Palestinian friend of mine said "Why are the only Arab elections taking place under occupation?" I consider such questions to be a good thing as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #158
159. I agree, it's a good thing
I can dislike Bush, dislike the war, and still think the elections held today were a good thing.

I just don't understand why some of my fellow DU'ers feel the need to drag EVERYTHING down if it is in some way connected to Bush.

You know, Hitler made the trains run on time. I can hate Hitler, and still like it when the trains run on time. It doesn't mean I am endorsing Hitler because it was his policies that led to the trains running on time...I can appreciate a good thing in itself.

Elections in middle eastern countries that previously had no elections are a good thing. Even if it's a flawed election, it's still good that people there get used to the concept of voting for leaders. And even if a bad person brought those elections around, it's STILL a good thing in itself that the election was held.

Sometimes, I think DU is full of a bunch of depressed people...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #159
171. This is not an election.
Had the Soviets pulled this off in their occupied countries during the cold war, we would have rightfully rejected it for 100 good reasons. In fact, they used to always preface their occupied zones with "Democratic Republic of ...". This is no different.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #171
176. A lot of people voted
All reports, even the most conservative reports, show that a LOT of people voted, for one of over 100 political parties. I'm sorry, but that IS an election. It may be flawed. It may have a long way to go, but it's still an election.

A lot of people risked their lives today to vote in that election, and I do not think it's right to demean their effort by claiming what they did was meaningless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redbluffian Donating Member (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #176
177. I agree
One look at the smiling faces tells the story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Clio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #176
184. A lot of reports claimed that Jessica Lynch was a superheroine
A lot of reports claimed that torture was only perpetrated by "just a few bad apples."

Did they turn out to be true, or false?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #176
192. An election requires oversight by independent observers.
Edited on Sun Jan-30-05 05:11 PM by daleo
Who exactly is monitoring this election? Just the occupation authorities. What media is observing the process? Just a few CNN types who put their toes outside the green zone for a second, and made a "report", which was essentially a government supplied script.

The original vote in Ukraine was far more democratic than this.

Honestly, if there was an election held in the U.S., and the only oversight was by an invading army and the collaborators they put into power, how seriously would you take the result? Especially when that army said they had no plans to leave for at least a decade, and they had a history of killing and torturing political opponents.

On edit - And remember, this election and the news of it are being brought to you by precisely the same people who claimed Iraq had immense amounts of weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent threat to the western world. Not one single word of that was true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rayofreason Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #159
172. good thing
Mistwell-

I wish there were more like you here who know a good thing when it stares them in the face.

The reality-based community better adjust to the reality that the Iraqi people reject the jihadists and want a government of their own making. We should help them do that and then get out as soon as they ask, but no sooner. There would be no better way to pay the debt to the Iraqi people.

And for all those who want to wallow in conspiracy theories and illusions that the Iraqi people were secretly against the election and in favor of thugs who think that gays should be stoned and women kept veiled and ignorant - thank God that you are far removed from reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #172
188. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
rayofreason Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #188
208. one day
Ms. Clio,

Actually, I have read comments on this site for months, but today decided to register so as to be able to post.

As for your "facts", isn't Moqtada al Sadr a candidate? I didn't know that he had agreed to anything, and he is no friend of the occupation.

Also, are you in the habit of using condescending appellations with anyone who disagrees with you? I have no problem with you, or anyone else, having a very different opinion from mine. Is that another opinion that you do not share?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matilda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #159
218. The Iraqis have had elections for decades.
It's just that Saddam always won with close to 100% of the vote.

What makes you think this one is any different in the way it's run?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Clio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #158
162. No, many don't believe in dressing up bullshit and calling it democracy
You can roll in it all you like, however.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Clio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #147
161. Stuffing ballots into a box does not magically produce "democracy"
Or would you be satisfied with such a "democratic" process here in the U.S.?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #161
178. Are you saying, if it isn't as good as we have it, it's nothing?
Are you really saying that, if this election is not the equivelent to the elections in the US, then it's meaningless? Because that appears to be what you are saying.

This is a step in the right direction, even with all the problems. If you can't see it, you've become lost in absolute negativity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Clio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #178
181. It is absolutely meaningless, as will become all too clear
in the next weeks, months, and years.

Don't make me laugh--this doesn't begin to approximate an election in the U.s. We have never had an election forced on us by an occuping army that has already killed 100,000 of our citizens and never plans to leave.

Did you believe in WMDs, too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #181
212. A "forced" election?
You gotta be kidding me.

Nobody is forcing people to run for office, or to vote. In fact, half this thread is about how a lot of people are not voting...don't make ME laugh.

It's a good thing that people are voting. It's a good thing they had an election. It isn't anywhere near perfect, but that doesn't make it a bad or meaningless thing. This IS a step in the right direction, despite the war itself being a bad thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #178
199. If you deposited money in a bank, and it stole your money
Would you say, oh well, it is better than no bank at all? If an election is fraudulent enough it is worse than nothing, because it papers over dictatorship.

This election is only a bit of theater, to make the invasion and occupation seem legitimate. If Bush gets away with this, he will go on to another country, and another. Eventually, though, it will blow up in everyone's face in the worst way imaginable. That's what is wrong with giving assent to this process.

Besides, the war was about weapons of mass destruction. Was this pretend election worth the lives of 1500 or so U.S. troops and 10 to 50 times that many Iraqis? That's one expensive ice cream cone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #199
213. No evidence of that
There is simply no evidence at all that this election is being fraudulently run. No evidence at all of a dictatorship. I'm sure you could have (and perhaps would have) claimed the same thing about the first election in the US.

I was and am still against the war. I think you can consistently oppose the war while still thinking that this election in Iraq is a good thing. In fact, I think ethical people will inevitably come to that conclusion. It doesn't mean the war was worth it, as I do not believe the means used to achieve this goal were worthwhile. However, I can still with good conscience say that elections in themselves are a good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #213
233. At best, there is no evidence for or against the honesty of the vote
Edited on Mon Jan-31-05 12:49 AM by daleo
Since we have no evidence in favor of honesty, but plenty of evidence in favor of Bush's dishonesty in every other area of life, the prudent assumption is that the elections were rigged. Furthermore, the fact that there were no international monitors or media allowed in the country is further evidence.

(Although there have already been claims by Christians in northern Iraq that they weren't allowed to vote by Kurds. I am sure other inconvenient claims will trickle out.)

On edit - The problem with saying these elections are better than nothing is that it will lead Bush to do the same thing again - lie, invade, occupy, have pretend elections to legitmize the invasion. Eventually he will go too far, and the entire world, not just the victimized country, will suffer.

Were the U.S. army to withdraw, and an election to take place subsequent to the withdrawal, then that process would possibly have legitimacy. Granted, it would lead to bloodshed, but that is likely to be the eventual result anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #233
239. Bush did NOT run this election
"Since we have no evidence in favor of honesty, but plenty of evidence in favor of Bush's dishonesty in every other area of life, the prudent assumption is that the elections were rigged."

Bush didn't run this election. Indeed, he tried to stop it. This election was run by Iraqi's. The polls are manned by the Iraqi people. The ballots are tabulated by Iraqi people. You show me a single link to any article that indicates that the US is linked in any way to any kind of fraud happening there. I'm sorry, but this is just more random speculation...


"On edit - The problem with saying these elections are better than nothing is that it will lead Bush to do the same thing again - lie, invade, occupy, have pretend elections to legitmize the invasion. Eventually he will go too far, and the entire world, not just the victimized country, will suffer."

See, that is a load of crap. I can approve of these elections without approving of Bush, and without encouraging Bush to invade another country. These are not Bush's elections. He didn't want these elections, he tried to stop these elections, and the result of these elections may well be Iraq kicking US forces out. I'm big enough to admit that the WHOLE F'ING PLANET ISN'T ABOUT BUSH. This election CAN be a good thing without it being all about Bush.

"Were the U.S. army to withdraw, and an election to take place subsequent to the withdrawal, then that process would possibly have legitimacy. Granted, it would lead to bloodshed, but that is likely to be the eventual result anyway."

Look...could it have been done better? Sure. But the fact that it happened is still a good thing. I think, in your Bush-centrist world, NOTHING that is in any way possibly linked to Bush can possibly be good. That isn't realistic, and it's shortsighted.

For example, the Holocaust of WW2 directly led to the founding and funding of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. I can think the Center is a good thing, without in any way thinking that the WW2 holocaust was a good thing. US slavery eventually led to the US civil war which led to the 14th amendment to the US Constitution. I do not have to think that slavery was a good thing for me to think independantly that the 14th amendment is a good thing. You can in fact judge a thing for what it is worth on it's own, without condemning it for the things that came before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #239
246. I don't mean what you think, but what the Bush admin thinks.
I am sure it is logically possible to see the elections as positive, yet still deplore the invasion. I am not impugning your ability to do so, or even the rightness of the position.

However, the Bush administration will take the two as a package - if you accept the legitimacy of the election then you accept the legitimacy of the invasion. That is the position they will assume, whether you and I like it or not.

If the new government kicks the U.S. military out, I promise to eat a shoe-cake, just like that bow tie fellow on TV did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redbluffian Donating Member (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #147
175. Choice is Good
Anytime people have a chance to participate in shaping their government and choosing their leaders, it is a good thing, not always perfect, but what is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Clio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #175
186. They're not choosing any leaders today
It seems that you don't really understand what this "election" was all about.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
148. Do they mean the Iraqi's that are "here?"
Or there? I noticed on the news Iraqi's were voting "here" in America. Oh sure... no shot at being shot. Sorry for that bad pun on words, not meant to be derogatory, yet it sure makes it "safer" to vote here then in the war-zone of Iraq.

Funny, isn't it how other countries get more support for their "voters," supported by the Chimp-in-Charge then we get here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #148
180. Only 10% turnout of US Iraqi's
Actually, turnout was VERY low for Iraqi's living abroad. It's not ex pats...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arikara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
155. The number doesn't matter, its just for propaganda purposes
they threw it out there for the media whores to gush over the high turnout. When the truth comes out later it will be totally buried and not reported at all by the msm. All the faux and other msm viewers will be brainwashed that the elections were a great success.

Mission accomplished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rlev1223 Donating Member (593 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
156. Turnout among dead Iraqis: 0%
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacifictiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
170. wasn't saddam elected with 90% of the vote?
guess reality depends on the spin machinery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rayofreason Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #170
174. Saddam
No. 100%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #174
179. Nobody else on the ballot
There was nobody else on the ballot for prior elections, and elections were not held in anything like this manner.

There are over 100 political parties this time. Some of them are parties the US does not like, such as the communist party.

If people cannot see that this is a good thing (even though we got here in a bad way)...then I guess Bush has just gotten to them. You've become the characture that Republicans paint you as.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lakerstan Donating Member (599 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
173. Does anyone have a copy of the Iraqi Presidantial debates?
Oh, yeah - they didn't have debates, or discussion of the issues. They didn't even have the names of the candidates until a few days ago.

This is a traveshamockery.

Capricorn One - Wag the Dog - Iraqi elections

Update: I just heard that the winner was Kermit the Frog. He apparently won because of his skills as a puppet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #173
187. I can tell you who I would vote for in my town
Without a debate.

In fact, MOST of this nation, for the bulk of the history of the nation, saw no debates ever, nor even ever saw what the candidate they were voting for looked or sounded like.

What's a farce is you dragging down a good thing, because you dislike another bad thing (Bush). You can appreciate Iraqi's going out and facing danger to vote, without liking Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lakerstan Donating Member (599 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #187
194. Thanks for making my point!
In a true democracy, people wouldn't have to face danger to vote.

Can you honestly say that all Iraqis have the same access to voting, no matter which region they reside?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #194
210. Can you say it has to be perfect...
...for it to be Democracy?

Come on. Some people in the United States face some danger going to the polls as well. Some people in the US have more limited access to the polls than others. That doesn't mean the US isn't a Democracy, or that elections in Iraq are not a step in the right direction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #187
201. So you are saying that they can vote a straight party ticket
Even though the ballots have 100 parties? Do you really think these ballots, regardless of how many there are, will be counted accurately.

Bush didn't go to the trouble of lying about weapons of mass destruction and invading a country on the basis of that lie in order to allow the people to vote in any old government they like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #201
211. No idea
I have not heard about inaccurate counting issues. I have no idea how solid their counting system is. Why do you assume it's so impossible to count them? Italy seems to have very few problems with a similarly cumbersome number of people running.

I am no Bush fan myself. But I have not seen any sign of him controlling who gets to run for office. The friggen Communist Party is registered and getting plenty of votes. You telling me Bush set that up to happen as well?

Come on guys...cut the Iraqi people a little slack. It's not perfect, but it IS their own system, with their own people running for office for the first time, and their own people counting the votes, and their own people registering to vote for the first time, and their own people actually voting for the first time. It's not going to be perfect, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good thing. I may be against the war, but that doesn't blind me to seeing that Iraq having more of a real election than ever before is a good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
twaddler01 Donating Member (800 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #211
224. it is unfortunate
Edited on Sun Jan-30-05 10:03 PM by twaddler01
but this whole Bush thing is getting everyone confused. Who are we to believe anymore? There is a good chance Bush cheated to win his election in the first place, as a lot of people think. Then, a lot of people say Bush won fair and square...

The truth us, this whole situation is messing up people's heads. We might be right that the Iraqi's did have their own election, which is great. How do we know that the U.S. didn't have an influence on the decision whatsoever? There's a lot more at stake than some people realize. Was it oil? Was it that we wanted to spread democracy? Or was it that Bush wanted Iraq to be free in order for us to get to the other nations such as Iran and Syria (for various reasons)?

It's sad, but because of Bush, I can't even say that the Iraqi election was nessesarily a good thing. If I look at the situation with Bush out of the picture, I think it was great that we helped the Iraqi people out and allowed them to finally be free from oppression. However, because Bush is there, I honestly can't say where I stand either way.

This propaganda makes me sick. I can never believe the news anymore.

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #211
230. The point is, it isn't their system
The election is a product of an invasion and occupation. It is open to rampant cheating, and there will be rampant cheating, or more accurately already has been rampant cheating. Bush didn't go to all this trouble in order to let the process be dictated by the free will of Iraqis. He has lied about everything else, so this too is a lie. If you want to believe in fairy tales, that's your right, though.

This fairy tale has cost 1500 American dead, 20000 American wounded, and over 200 billion dollars. Also, tens of thousands of Iraq dead, and many times that many wounded. And British, and others. And the credibility of the U.S. around the world. No half baked election will bring any of that back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
189. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
zanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
193. They've revised the number.....
I just heard on MSNBC that they revised it down to 60%, then they said they didn't know what it was. (Iraqi Provisional Gov't.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stockholm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #193
197. Then it would make the total number around 7,8 Mn voters n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
195. lucky for us observers were too scared to make sure they voted properly (.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
198. 8million show up to vote=72 percent turnout? What a Joke.
How many people actually live in Iraq do we have the numbers. Take the 8million who voted and divide by the total Iraqis and you have the real number, probably like ten percent.
Love these fudged up numbers by the election officials. "Some neighborhoods at 95 percent", let's see if there are 100 people left in on neighborhood and 95 show up to vote, I guess that makes 95 percent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #198
214. You can check it yourself, it looks about right
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.ht...

25,374,691 total population. Roughly 55% are of an age to vote according to the factbook, leaving about 13,956,080 people eligible to vote, not including those living abroad. However, the turnout for those living abroad was EXTREMELY low (8% in the US, for example), so that isn't a big factor.

From what I read, "Iraq's 13 million registered voters":

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/...

Therefore, if 8 million voted, that is roughly 61.5% of the reigistered voters...which is indeed pretty darn close to the 60% number they are putting out.

By ANY calculation, it's a big turnout. Even if you take the most conservative numbers possible, exagerate them by doubling them, you STILL have a big turnout inside Iraq any way you slice it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proudbluestater Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
205. Is there a person alive with an IQ north of 50 that would believe that ?
They are utterly shameless and horribly foolish at the same time.

Exit polls show most voted for -- wait for it -- CNN will be calling it as soon as Mitofsky's computer comes back up and the tallies have been "adjusted."

Allawi voters will be shown to have voted later in the day, sending him surging to victory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
98geoduck Donating Member (590 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
206. High turnout due to prop 666...
Get Bush the hell out of our country!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #206
215. See, that might indeed be why the turnout was high
I think it is entirely plausible that this relatively high turnout was a vote for the US to get the F*** out. Why people have decided to "spin" this high turnout as a negative I do not know...as far as I am concerned, it's a good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattP Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #215
219. Elections
Most new countries that have new votes have way high turnouts, they were saying the Sri Lanka had a 98% turnout for their first elections, the only reason ours is so low is we don't have same day registration and we are jaded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
220. There is no reason to be badmouthing the Iraqis' elections
Edited on Sun Jan-30-05 08:29 PM by 0rganism
By any meaningful quantitative measure, I am positive that they will turn out to be at least as fair and well-participated as those in Ohio. If they got 72% turnout, then the more power to them, and shame on us for not being able to match what the Iraqi population was able to do in spite of the car-bombs and itchy occupational trigger fingers. If they got 60% turnout, fantastic. It still beats average turnout in the good old USA.

I say the real farce is not the elections in Iraq, but that Americans are so fucking unconcerned with our own democracy. We'll spend billions to "democratize" these foreign countries and can't even get enough voting machines -- black box or otherwise -- to "democratize" downtown Cleveland. If it were an accident, I might be able to forgive us, but the evidence is overwhelming that it's been the gameplan all along to depress urban turnout in our own country.

So let's applaud whichever Iraqis took time to put their asses on the line by voting today, and find a way to motivate our own lethargic base in the upcoming elections. 2006 may seem like two years from now, but it starts today as far as I'm concerned.

As for Iraq, we'll have to wait and see how this plays out. The great crime so far has been bush taking credit for personal bravery on the part of the voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NIGHT TRIPPER Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #220
227. No, just act like they really had fair elections & all turned out to vote
What a joke!
Not badmouth the Iraqi election?
it's all been more "fake" than Diebold.
Do you know how many were arrested before the election?
Something like 8 thousand reported-
Guess they supported the opposinig team.
And do you know who got to actually run?
Only U.S. approved Ben Dover boys.
Remember the highly supported "governor" who met to "negotiate" with the "U.S."?
He was the favorite of most of the citizens and they tricked him and arrested him under the pretense of negotiation--threw away the key last year--

No, let's not "badmouth" it--but Let's just talk about the reality of it--how's that?
it badmouth's it's own self.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #227
228. I agree, let's talk about the reality of their elections, and our own
Edited on Sun Jan-30-05 11:27 PM by 0rganism
About 72% of what I see in this thread is DUers whining(if it's possible to whine in type) about how "72% turnout is an overstatement." Yeah, so what? It'll be revised downward later, like all big bush numbers, but that's beside the point; if they had 60% turnout it's more democratic than what we get here.

> Not badmouth the Iraqi election?
> it's all been more "fake" than Diebold.

Of course we don't know the full extent to which Diebold robbed us. Might've been a few governorships and senate seats, or it might have been the presidency twice in a row. And we're supposed to be the epidomy of "free world democracy"? At least the Iraqis get a paper trail and a hand count from the start; we pay hundreds of thousands of dollars just to have such a thing considered in our courts.

> Guess they supported the opposinig team.

"Opposing Team"? There were tons of political parties on the ballot in Iraq. The only real "opposing team" here is the insurgents, who any occupying army is obliged to arrest.

> Remember the highly supported "governor" who met to "negotiate" with the "U.S."?

No I don't recall this. By all means, tell me more. What was his name? Which province did he govern? What legitimacy did he have at the time? Was he one of those guys who just walked into the administrative building after the Ba'athists left and appointed himself to the office? Who measured his popular support, and when?

We should talk about the reality of the situation, and leave behind all this crapola about how undemocratic the turnout number is until we find a way to repair our own broken systems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NIGHT TRIPPER Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #228
235. Can't even consider talking about the "right way" to invade and
occupy a country that posed no threat to us or any of its neighbors. (which by the way is undeniably against international law and punishable)
i'll find you the link about the governor--no Bathist-it was all over D.U.--

-"The only real "opposing team" here is the insurgents, who any occupying army is obliged to arrest"-->
Do you actually think that the Resistance to this occupation are "insurgents" or terraists ?
-hmmm, maybe on the evening "news"--Remember Weapons of medium destruction? Believe that too?

The opposing team is anyone who wants to get the U.S. out ...
call them about 90% of the Iraqi population, or call them insurgents
---maybe they're "insurging" by despising us for killing over a hundred thousand of their citizens using assortments of goodies like cluster bombs, depleted uranium, and even napalm (documented use in Fallujah)--that's right, those that who dislike occupation but aren't attacking invaders are just as bad because they're probably insurging in thought !!

Would you consider the idea of submitting to some invading force in our own country "proper behavior" ? I'm just saying hypothetically if the tables were turned.

The elections were fake.--Elections staged all for the sake of the American audience, some of whom accept the idea that killing mass civilians and torturing is ok if it's fer freedumb.

Can there really be elections under martial law? I'll answer that- there can't be, sorry.

and repairing our own system? how? when people actually believe the bought and paid for corporate news broadcasts that differ so greatly form the reports the rest of the world gets( free press exists but not here).
Chimp is never leaving. ever. You'd have to drag that 6th grade level spoiled rich brat coke head alchoholic out by his ears screaming and kicking yelling he's c'mander in cheeef! never leaving. ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #235
242. I'm not talking about the clearly illegal & arguably immoral invasion, tho
The ends do not justify any means -- and certainly these ends we see now are far from what I'd require for a justification of the means chosen to achieve them.

However, once the invasion was committed, we were obliged (under those same laws that made the invasion itself illegal) to restore order and some functioning civilian government. Clearly the occupying army cannot do this under current leadership, so we have to rely upon the invaded and occupied to come up with something.

> Do you actually think that the Resistance to this occupation are
> "insurgents" or terraists

There really isn't a better single word to use than "insurgents", although it does connote a rebellion against an established government which would be a much higher standard than the ad-hoc puppetry we've engaged in so far. I would not call the resistance "terrorists" although they do use terroristic methods at times, because that would be too limited and the cause of false association. It's fine with me if you call them resistance or guerillas or whatever. It does not change the fact that the occupational authority is treaty-bound to stop them as long as it is an occupational authority.

> Would you consider the idea of submitting to some invading force in
> our own country "proper behavior"?

Not necessarily. In any case, an invading force signatory to Geneva and Hague conventions would be required to stop the non-submitters from disrupting national infrastructure. I do think you're piling far too much negativity on the term "insurgent" that I certainly didn't intend through its use. Saying that the "opposing team" is the insurgency is not an insult to anyone, as far as I can tell.

> The elections were fake.--Elections staged all for the sake of the American audience

*shrug* same could be said for our domestic ones

> repairing our own system? how?

It's not gonna be easy.

> Chimp is never leaving. ever.

You could be right on this much. There's that old saying, "you can't vote out what you didn't elect in the first place." At the very least, I expect Brother Jeb or some equally vile republican will take over in 2008 no matter what we do. But something must be done to rebuild at the local and state level, even if it's as low key as ensuring that urban voting precincts get the equipment and training they need to conduct an election. We have to repair the foundations of our democracy, such as it was.

It's either repair, or total revolution. And if it comes to that, I'll proudly call myself an insurgent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #227
229. False
"And do you know who got to actually run?
Only U.S. approved Ben Dover boys"

This is 100% false. US had no voice at all in the selection process...hence the Communist party had lots of people running.

If you have a link to anything that says otherwise, let's see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NIGHT TRIPPER Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #229
236. True- no one who wants the U.S. out is approved-show me a candidate
that would boot Halliburton--and make the U.S. abandon that new huge permanent military base.
let's see even one description of any candidate.
no one in Iraq even knew which candidate was which.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #236
237. Show me a link
You seem to be all talk. Show me a link that said the US had any say in the selection of candidates. Show me, or admit this is pure speculation on your behalf.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NIGHT TRIPPER Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 03:41 AM
Response to Reply #237
241. show me a link about ANY candidate at all-what do you know about them?
nothing?
tell me info about one candidate--and then, if you can, find one who supports the expulsion of U.S. troops , U.S. bases, and want to nationalize the oil and end Halliburton's "privatization"--and then find one who wants a theocracy--
Now tell me with a straight face the U.S. has had nothing to do with the selection.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #241
250. Can't answer I see
Edited on Mon Jan-31-05 12:40 PM by Mistwell
You made an assertion. I am asking you to back it up with a link. And you are countering with "No, you prove me wrong". No, I don't think so. You're the one that made the assertion, and therefore the burden is on you to back it up. You're the one trying to tell me with a straight face that the US set up the communist party, and the Hezbollah party, amoung others, to run for office in Iraq!

Here are some people running that I think clearly demonstrate they were NOT put forward by the US to run:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4051977.st...

The People's Union contains the Iraqi Communist Party, once one of the strongest communist movements in the Arab world, and an independent candidate, Hikmat Dawud Hakim.

Communist Party leader Hamid Majid Musa said the list contained "257 cultural, social and democratic figures, in addition to candidates representing various sects and nationalities".

One of those on the People's Union list is Culture Minister Mufid Muhammad Jawad al-Jazairi, who represents the communists in the interim government.

The Communist Party was the subject of harsh repression under the Saddam Hussein regime, but re-emerged immediately after his fall.

The party - which has existed since 1934 and helped to topple the British-backed monarchy in 1958 - traditionally draws support from poor southern Shias.

Also running are:

the Assyrian National Party (wants to be allies with Syria, one of Bush's axis of evils);

The Kurdistan Communist Party;

The Kurdistan Democratic Socialist Party;

The Kurdistan Movement of the Peasants and Oppressed;

The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (an influential Shia party that was based in Iran for much of the time Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq - clearly NOT friends of the US);

The Hezbollah Movement in Iraq (okay, let me repeat that again - the f'ing HEZBOLLAH MOVEMENT IN IRAQ is running, and you think they are backed by the US?!?);

and the Islamic Master of the Martyrs Movement.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NIGHT TRIPPER Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #250
252. no need, illuminaughty's got it covered- read up
:)
you are "told" theses groups are running--believe it when you see Hezbollah win-
Eyewash-
I remember hearing interviews on pacifica radio last year after the invasion of an Exellent articulate educated Iraqi leader who was very supported by the majority of the population. I will research and find his name.
He was killed soon after he made indications he wanted the U.S. out of Iraq. Honestly do you believe the murder was the result of "terra ists"? The man was supported by those who do not like the U.S. occupation. i will find his name-

These current occupiers (who do not represent the United States but do pretend to) want to continue to "own" Iraq and are allowing NO opposition to their scheme of draining the country's resources for Corporate advancement and profit.
They hope to lever the rest of the world into submission after they have aquired all major oil sources.
They even admit it.
Read up on PNAC.
They signed off on it in 1998.
Planned the Iraq invasion well before 911.
http://www.pnac.info /

wouldn't it be "lovely" though if these slimeballs actually were trying to help people instead of dominate groups and their resources.
Democracy? Freedom?
No --freedom to them means "Freedom to do Business".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #252
260. Your position is...extremely unlikely
All the evidence indicates that the US is not in any way behind who is chosen to run for this election, and many MANY political parties and people are running who are directly opposed to the US and to Bush.

I am not "told" these groups are running...the BBC is reporting it, and you have not a single shred of evidence to refute it.

You thinking, in what appears to be an extremely paranoid manner, that PNAC is in some way behind the current elections in Iraq (which the US initially opposed), is in my opinion an illogical assertion.

I'll ask one last time...give me a link to anything which indicates that THIS election is being run by the US, that the US decided on who was allowed to run and not allowed to run. Show me a link. Or, in the very least, admit that it is your personal guess that the US is behind the election but you have not seen direct evidence of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NIGHT TRIPPER Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #260
262. I told you, look at illuminaughty's link and learn
Edited on Mon Jan-31-05 08:31 PM by NIGHT TRIPPER
now just look and quit insisting they had fair elections!
You have been lied to.
Maybe you listen too much to Rush Limpballs on drugs!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illuminaughty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #229
243. Here's a link for starters
We are famous for influencing "elections" or installing dictators in the place of a democratically elected leader.

Even someone new to this hideous part of our history will have trouble refuting the facts after doing just a small amount of research.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0927-04.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #243
259. That isn't even ABOUT this election
Check the date, and read your own article. It's about the interim government from last year...not this election. And the author seems unaware that it was the US *opposing* further delays in this election.

Sorry charlie, but your going to have to do better than an outdated article about a different event.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #229
258. The Communist Party was not listed under its own name.
Makes it pretty hard to vote for the Communist Party when you can't find it on the ballot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #220
231. If you can't trust Bush in the U.S., why would you trust him in Iraq? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matilda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
221. This from Riverbend
"People in many areas are being told that if they don't vote - Sunnis
and Shia alike - the food and supply rations we are supposed to get
monthly will be cut off. We've been getting these rations since the
beginning of the nineties and for many families, it's their main
source of sustenance. What sort of democracy is it when you FORCE
people to go vote for someone or other they don't want?" (Jan. 22nd)

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com /


I don't think Riverbend is in the business of telling lies. Sadly,
this sounds about right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ScottSA Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
232. Amazing
How did Bush pull this off?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikido15 Donating Member (637 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #232
238. London Guardian puts it at 52%
Which seems a bit more realistic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rebel_blogger Donating Member (70 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #238
248. Has anyone seen a link to a website that studied some of the
"election" video and reports seeing some of the same people over and over? It's a good bet that most of that was shot somewhere other than Iraq. Afterall, it's all about making it look "legitimate". They faked an entire election here, how hard would it be to fake one there, too??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jswordy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
249. I Googled News searched "Iraq voter turnout"...
...and got 72 percent and 60 percent in different stories. Then some stories offered no turnout, rather saying it may be above the 57 percent predicted, or that it is expected to be over the U.S. turnout.

But one thing stayed consistent: Iraqi officials all said in every story that official turnout figures won't be known for days.

So it's ALL SPECULATION!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chitty Donating Member (918 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
251. So - If the cost of the
war is approaching $300 billion and 8 million Iraqi's voted, that means the rough cost to the US for every vote is $37,500.

WOW - such a deal!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SKKY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
255. Despite what some might say, I think this is a good day for...
...the Iraqis. I don't agree with the War, or why we went it, but anything less than this would cheapen the lives of my fellow shipmates, soldiers, airmen, and marines who sacrificed for this. I guess I'm at the point of hoping something good can come out of this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistwell Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #255
261. I'm with yah mate [EOM]
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 28th 2017, 12:49 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC