mburbank
Sep 24th, 2004, 11:33 AM
Rumsfeld: Violent areas in Iraq might not vote
Defense secretary, Iraq leader say elections will be held as scheduled
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has suggested that parts of Iraq might be excluded from elections set for January because of rising violence.
That violence continued on Friday, as U.S. warplanes pounded targets in the Sunni Triangle town of Falluja and at least four Iraqis were killed and 10 others wounded in an attack by insurgents in Baghdad.
On Thursday, Rumsfeld had expressed optimism that elections will push through as scheduled.
But at a U.S. Senate Committee hearing he raised the possibility polls might not be held in all of Iraq.
"Let's say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn't because the violence was too great," Rumsfeld said, hours after the leaders of the United States and Iraq met in Washington.
"Well, so be it. Nothing's perfect in life, so you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet," he said.
Okay, so, first of all, if you exclude the areas of Iraq that are most opposed to the US choice for strongman, excuse me, president, who do you suppose will win?
And second
"Let's say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in swing states, you couldn't because the threat of terrorism was too great, Well, so be it. Nothing's perfect in life, so you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet,"
Say, what of we held an election there where you could only vote for the people we picked, like the one Sadaam held right before we blew his country up? The one where he got, like 98% of the vote? That would be better than no election, wouldn't it? Nothing's perfect. Mission accomplished right? We won , right?
Defense secretary, Iraq leader say elections will be held as scheduled
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has suggested that parts of Iraq might be excluded from elections set for January because of rising violence.
That violence continued on Friday, as U.S. warplanes pounded targets in the Sunni Triangle town of Falluja and at least four Iraqis were killed and 10 others wounded in an attack by insurgents in Baghdad.
On Thursday, Rumsfeld had expressed optimism that elections will push through as scheduled.
But at a U.S. Senate Committee hearing he raised the possibility polls might not be held in all of Iraq.
"Let's say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn't because the violence was too great," Rumsfeld said, hours after the leaders of the United States and Iraq met in Washington.
"Well, so be it. Nothing's perfect in life, so you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet," he said.
Okay, so, first of all, if you exclude the areas of Iraq that are most opposed to the US choice for strongman, excuse me, president, who do you suppose will win?
And second
"Let's say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in swing states, you couldn't because the threat of terrorism was too great, Well, so be it. Nothing's perfect in life, so you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet,"
Say, what of we held an election there where you could only vote for the people we picked, like the one Sadaam held right before we blew his country up? The one where he got, like 98% of the vote? That would be better than no election, wouldn't it? Nothing's perfect. Mission accomplished right? We won , right?