Democrats & Liberals: Archives

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote :
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3— United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam’s presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.

Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, who was running for president, and Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, the candidate for vice president.
A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson’s policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.

The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta.

Few members of that junta are still around, most having been ousted or exiled in subsequent shifts of power.

Significance Not Diminished

The fact that the backing of the electorate has gone to the generals who have been ruling South Vietnam for the last two years does not, in the Administration’s view, diminish the significance of the constitutional step that has been taken.

The hope here is that the new government will be able to maneuver with a confidence and legitimacy long lacking in South Vietnamese politics. That hope could have been dashed either by a small turnout, indicating widespread scorn or a lack of interest in constitutional development, or by the Vietcong’s disruption of the balloting.

American officials had hoped for an 80 per cent turnout. That was the figure in the election in September for the Constituent Assembly. Seventy-eight per cent of the registered voters went to the polls in elections for local officials last spring.

Before the results of the presidential election started to come in, the American officials warned that the turnout might be less than 80 per cent because the polling place would be open for two or three hours less than in the election a year ago. The turnout of 83 per cent was a welcome surprise. The turnout in the 1964 United States Presidential election was 62 per cent.

Captured documents and interrogations indicated in the last week a serious concern among Vietcong leaders that a major effort would be required to render the election meaningless. This effort has not succeeded, judging from the reports from Saigon.

NYT. 9/4/1967: p. 2.

About the Sunni disenfranchisement: I have a feeling that they’ll get what they want. Apparently, because 3 provinces in Iraq are overwhelmingly Sunni, they basically hold a veto over the constitution (which will be the biggest contribution of this government).

Good coverage, AP. A psuedo step toward democracy. But not the implementation of democracy by any standard that would be defended in the West.

There is a pragmatism without principle attached to every step of the US’s engagement with Iraq. We have seen such leadership before in Iraq. It is kind of like taking a field slave and moving them to the house. It looks and feels different and better, but, essentially, little had changed.

We are seeing the same kind of leadership on SS reform, the Medicare Rx reform, tort reform, and very likely on tax reform here in the US. A pragmatism without principle. Children everywhere are fortunate not to understand what this presidency portends for their future because a climate of fear is a horrible environment in which to raise children.

Jon Stewart was right when he said that if you are down on the voting in Iraq then you are truly too far left to be saved. Anyone who has lived in an Arab country, as I have, will agree that this is a massive step forward. Irregularities, of course, but the Iraqis are much further along than the United States was during its first years as a “democracy”. Women are voting, non-property-owners are voting, racial minorities are voting. The absurd belief that no election is good unless it is perfect would negate every election in the history of democracy.

Other liberals, like Bob Herbert at the NYTimes, complain about the ‘uninformed electorate’. I wonder how he would have felt when people made the same claims - with probably similar data to back it up - to argue against blacks and women voting in this country.

Democracy is not perfect, but it - and what happened in Iraq yesterday - is so much closer to self-government and the will of the people than anything in Iraq’s history that it should be a day of rejoicing for all people who love democracy. Don’t lock yourselves out of that group by dumping on anything and everything that has George Bush’s fingerprints on it.

It may all go to hell in a handbasket (or should I say to pot?), but surely it is a step forward. Considering the voting habits or non-voting habits of a large portion in this country and the problems encountered in every election from outright fraud to just plain stupidity, we should be generous in our speculations for the future, and wary enough not to turn our backs too quickly.

Chops, no one I know is denigrating the joy and exuberance the Iraqi people feel over having conducted an election. Almost all Americans left or right wish for world peace and functional and efficient democracy around the globe.

I am happy for the Iraqi’s. It was not an election one would throw up as a template for democracy however. Elections conducted under martial law to try to insure safety for voters, ballots without candidates names, a virtual lack of any campaigning by and for the candidates and what they stand for as to how the Constitution of Iraq should be drafted.

NO! This was not a shining example of democracy in action. It barely can be defended as a free election. But, it is nonetheless, a huge step forward for the Iraqi people compared to the elections conducted under Hussien’s regime.

And lest American folks get too exuberant, the cost to American children for this election is going to be huge, in taxes, reduced national benefits from across the board spending cuts in everything from the Veteran’s administration to American roads and infrastructure and education.

Nothing in this world is free. And the cost of any thing is not accurately ascertained until the opportunity costs have been summed into the equation.

AP,

Only about 44 people were killed

That number includes the 9 homicide bombers so in actuality only 35 Iraqi voters were killed.

As hopeful as a 56% turnout of eligible voters is (it could have been worse), President Bush is calling the vote a victory. It seems a little foolish to call a 56% turnout a victory so quickly, especially since lack of security left the Sunni population disenfranchised. That’ll come back to haunt us.

It is the very terrorists and ex-Bathists that the Sunni’s were allowing to remain in their midst that were threatening the election. The Sunni’s feared the thought of going from a ruling minority to a ruled minority. Rather than boycotting the elections and using terrorist threats to try and derail the process they should have been trying to energize their electorate
and turn out voters who supported their candidates. Their actions guaranteed that they would be underrepresented in the new government. You cannot blame that on anyone but the Sunni’s.

“Iraqis don’t know who they’re voting for, but they know one thing - they’re voting on their future,” said Salam Majeed, an Iraqi-born city councilman from suburban Philadelphia.

You stop there and do not finish the brief statement concerning Mr. Majeed’s brothers who were murdered by Sadam’s Republican Guard in the 1980’s.

How about other quotes from Mr. Majeed.

“It’s a great day, a great day for Iraq, and for America,” (Intelligencer)

Majeed insists such attacks are not the work of “real Iraqis” but that of a minority of Saddam Hussein’s loyalists who are afraid of losing power. “You guys call them Muslim extremists,” he said. “We don’t. We call them terrorists, who slaughter all, even the innocents. That’s not an Islamic teaching. If you read the Quran, it doesn’t tell you you should blow up a car in the middle of Baghdad and kill 15 people.” (Intelligencer)

“I came here to vote for these boys,” said Salam Majeed, pointing to his sons, Jawal, 14 and Badahr, 12. “This is their future, that’s what I’m here for, the future of Iraq.” (Cybercast News Service)

The timeline is uncertain, but the Iraqi American, with his American-born wife and American-born sons, plans to return to help transform his ancient country into a nation with new ideals. “Iraqis are smart, educated and conscious of what’s going on around us,” he said. “It is the start of a new Iraq. And we will build it.” (Intelligencer)

According to the State Department Weekly Update 26 January 2005

Voter education messages and political advertisements are dominating the radio, television, and print media.

The International Mission for Iraqi Elections (IMIE) organizing international monitoring. IMIE is focusing on the election process in Iraq, as well as the registration and voting process outside Iraq.
Participating countries sending monitors include Albania, Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, Ghana, Indonesia, Mexico, Panama, UK, Yemen and the Association of Central and Eastern European Election Officials.

Voter education is a principle focus of IECI, Embassy Baghdad, and NGOs in Iraq. Television commercials, print ads, and over 500,000 posters are focusing on explaining the process, encouraging participation, and recruiting polling staff.

Political advertisements, candidate interviews, and political debate are prevalent on major television networks.

A twenty minute step-by-step video on the election is airing on local television stations.

A public service announcement encouraging Sunni participation began airing this week.

It sounds to me that the Iraqi Electorate was given ample information on the election process and candidates.

AP,
I think its wonderful how many Iraqi’s came out to vote - and shows how much they really desire freedom (although there have been some reports that many people in the vicinity of Baghdad believed their food rations were going to be cut if they didn’t show up at the polls).
They demanded those elections rather than going along with US planners original proposal of a complex caucus system (which was an attempt to _avoid_ elections and would have made it much easier for us to control the selection of a government), and it was great to see how happy they were to do so. The fact that they didn’t know what the hell they were voting for didn’t really seem to dim the celebratory aspect of the IDEA of casting their ballots.
But the problem I see (aside from the fact that the Sunni’s didn’t vote for the most part, as you pointed out in your article) is that despite the election, the Iraqi people may never get anything close to freedom.
According to polling, over two thirds of the countries population wants America to leave - but the U.S. Army’s top operations officer has said that troop strength there will remain at the current level of about 120,000 for at least two more years. And journalists have been reporting on the fact that the U.S. is installing anywhere from four to 14 permanent military bases.
Of course, Rumsfeld has dismissed all these reports of a permanent US presence as “inaccurate and unfortunate”, much as he did in 2003 when he claimed that there had been “zero discussion” among senior administration officials over building permanent bases. But I don’t trust Rummy one iota.
So, no matter how much they gush over these elections and keep using the rhetoric of spreading freedom, I feel we should continue to examine the real motivation behind why the Neo-Con’s would want to establish a permanent presence. It would be naive and illogical of us (not to mention ignorant, in an historical sense) to pretend that this administration desires true democracy Iraq if they intend to completely ignore the will of the Iraqi people - who overwhelmingly want us to leave.

Chops, Kirk, et al. why are you guys so down on America? Do you really believe we couldn’t have done better? Why didn’t we?

I think its great that so many Shiites and Kurds voted - even though they didn’t know who or what they were voting for in most cases. If nothing else, it’s let the genie out of the bottle in that country.

Kirk, to tell you the truth, I’m not sure what the point of your post is. 35, 44, hut-hut-hike! I’m not sure your nitpicking the number of dead makes it better.

You do, however, bring up a good point about the Sunnis and the alternative to insurgency. In fact, I was dead set against handing over the Iraq government until the insurgency was quelled and the whole situation straightened out - and I let Bush and my representatives know it.

If you guys believe this election was the best we could do, you’re not as smart as I think you are. Decisions were made knowing full well they would produce a questionable election. Mission accomplished.

I don’t see it mentioned anywhere, but the same Iraqis installed by the Coalition Provisional Government are the same guys that made the list for the interim government, and they’re the same guys who look set to take seats in the new government when the ballot results are made public.

Add to that the $9 billion these same guys can’t account for, their penchant for torturing prisoners by electric shock and beatings, and the fact that all the election officials and vote counters work directly for them (how come the counts are being done in secret?), and you have to at least consider the possibility that we’ve helped the Iraqis replace one corrupt regime with another.

I was totally against handing over the government until Iraq had a strong constabulary, an uncorrupt judiciary, and had taken some confidence-gaining steps toward real democracy. But at every juncture, the Bush administration put domestic political calculations ahead of doing everything possible to make Iraq a shining example of democracy.

Hip-hip-hooray for giving Iraqis the vote. Now what’s the plan for making sure the Sunnis don’t intensify their insurgency, keeping Kurdistan integrated into the political process, curbing the graft and corruption, and making sure the next election (if there is one) has more legitimacy than this feel-good showpiece?

An astute argument, Adrienne. I could not agree more with your statement:

“It would be naive and illogical of us (not to mention ignorant, in an historical sense) to pretend that this administration desires true democracy Iraq if they intend to completely ignore the will of the Iraqi people - who overwhelmingly want us to leave.”

AP,

why are you guys so down on America?

You need to be looking in a bigger mirror and asking yourself why are you so down on America? You are the one who is bashing every thing this country is doing. Providing fodder and ammunition for the terrorists. All this while our troops are still in harms way. You know maybe the Kennedy was right, this is getting to be Bush’s Viet Nam and the blue teamers are doing everything in your power to see that it does.

I don’t see it mentioned anywhere, but the same Iraqis installed by the Coalition Provisional Government are the same guys that made the list for the interim government, and they’re the same guys who look set to take seats in the new government when the ballot results are made public.

You see AP that is the way that a Representative Republic works. People get to vote for who they want to represent them. If you are right and the same guys come out on top in this election it is because that is the way the Iraqis voted, regardless of how you feel about the worthiness of those elected. Even though I think that the people of Massachusetts and California are nuts to continue to elect Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer and Pelosi if that is who they want representing them it is their vote not mine.

The distinction of 35 vs. 44 is significant. Saying “44 people were killed” implies that terrorists killed 44 people in addition to themselves. To not clarify that number is misleading, just as it is misleading to include the 19 terrorists on the casualty list from 9-11-01.

A.P., do you have anything positive to say about the election? You sound a bit reluctant!

You are the one who is bashing every thing this country is doing.

No. I am the one asking why we’re not doing better. You are insisting this is the best America can do. I don’t believe that.

And Ghandi, “Hip-hip-hooray” doesn’t count as positive? I guess Bush set the bar for praising his election pretty high, didn’t he?

If you are right and the same guys come out on top in this election it is because that is the way the Iraqis voted

…Or were told to vote by the candidate’s election helpers, “I really just did what they asked me to do,”

AP,

No. I am the one asking why we’re not doing better. You are insisting this is the best America can do. I don’t believe that.

I never said we could not have done better. Nothing is ever perfect especially where 14.2 million voters in a countries first democratic election is concerned. Everything could be better than it is or was or will be.

Or were told to vote by the candidate’s election helpers, “I really just did what they asked me to do,”

I find it very hard to believe that someone would brave going to the polls when they had been told that they would be considered infidels and killed, only to vote the way someone tells them to because they are an election judge. If you are brave enough to defy the terrorists, you are brave enough to defy the election judge.

I should have said 14.2 million registered voters.

Kirk, it was 14.2 million eligible voters. IIRC, the number of registrered voters is about 13 million. Which is nitpicking, because a million or so either way doesn’t affect your point. :)

I never said we could not have done better.

So then you just don’t care that our leaders aren’t upholding our high American standards and ideals? That explains a lot.

Seriously, doesn’t it bug you that this election was marred by the disenfranchisement of the Sunnis? It’s not like it was a surprise. Everybody saw it coming. The Bush administration made a whole series of wacky excuses and justifications for it.

No matter what anyone’s feelings on the actual invasion of Iraq, everyone sincerely wanted this election to be a shining example of representative democracy. The kind of beautiful example that led Russians and Eastern Europeans to bring the USSR toppling down. In the absence of any other valid reason for invading Iraq, this election was a golden opportunity to assist reformers throughout the Middle East.

But Iraq’s new government won’t be representative. It short-changes about 20% of the population. By any definition, a representative democracy should represent all its citizens. This one does not. And the reason it doesn’t is a result of the decisions made to get us here.

As for the poll workers telling the voters who to vote for, I don’t make this stuff up. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but the fact is, most Iraqis had no idea who was running or what their platforms are. I pointed that out in a previous article.

Kirk said:

I find it very hard to believe that someone would brave going to the polls when they had been told that they would be considered infidels and killed, only to vote the way someone tells them to because they are an election judge. If you are brave enough to defy the terrorists, you are brave enough to defy the election judge.

I watched the news this evening in which an Iraqi used those exact same translated words AP quoted “I really just did what they asked me to do.”

AP,

So then you just don’t care that our leaders aren’t upholding our high American standards and ideals? That explains a lot.

My point is that if you wait until it is as good as it can be, you will never do anything. Once again, everything could be better than it is or was or will be. The wait for “as good as it gets” is an eternal wait.

Seriously, doesn’t it bug you that this election was marred by the disenfranchisement of the Sunnis?

Words have meaning and need to be used in the correct context.

The New American Standard Dictionary defines disenfranchisement as To deprive of a privilege, an immunity, or a right of citizenship, especially the right to vote; disenfranchise.

To use a word that fans emotional rhetoric in an incorrect context reveals much about the strength of the argument and the motivation of the user.

The Sunnis were absolutely not disenfranchised, they had the right to go to the polling places just as every other Iraqi did. If they choose not to vote that is there choice and theirs alone. Roughly eight million Iraqis defied the terrorist threats to cast their votes, the Sunnis could have followed the same path to a democratically elected government. Their choice not to participate does not equal disenfranchisement.

But Iraq’s new government won’t be representative. It short-changes about 20% of the population. By any definition, a representative democracy should represent all its citizens. This one does not.

Is our government not representative? Does it short-change about 50% of its population because they choose not to participate in the electoral process?

I didn’t say you made anything up. I simply said that I could not believe someone would be brave enough to defy the terrorist’s warnings and then not be brave enough to tell a poll worker to take a flying leap if they told them how to vote.

most Iraqis had no idea who was running or what their platforms are. I pointed that out in a previous article.

I also pointed out in a previous post the many steps that were taken to insure that Iraqis knew who was running and the issues. In addition to those listed above by the State Department I have also found that the Civic Coalition for Free Election (CCFE) also worked to educate the electorate.

CCFE is a non-partisan movement of 76 civic organizations from across Iraq.

They produced 5 TV programs to encourage Iraqis to vote

Sponsored candidate debates

Distributed posters and fliers as part of a get out the vote campaign

Sponsored a series of Town Hall Meetings and Conferences

Obviously quite a lot was done to help insure an informed electorate. However, just as in the US some don’t care or just don’t get it.

My point is that if you wait until it is as good as it can be, you will never do anything.

In my day, we called that a “cop out”. How about this: If you’re not going to try your best, why bother?

The Sunnis were absolutely not disenfranchised, they had the right to go to the polling places just as every other Iraqi did.

Do you remember why the major Sunni parties decided to boycott the election? US forces couldn’t secure the Sunni communities. Sunni politicians tried and failed to rally constituents in the insurgent-controlled areas. To say they chose not to vote - like they were just being petulent - is pretty silly.

As if reading your mind, I know your next argument will be that it’s their own fault for sheltering insurgents. Do you think the majority of them want to live in a combat zone? The basic truism of counter-insurgency is, you can’t expect support from people you can’t protect.

The current number and mix of US forces in Iraq cannot protect Sunnis from the extortion and revenge of insurgents.

Everyone said an election held under the current security situation would not be legitimate. The Bush administration made wacky excuses, and the majority Shiites and the already semi-autonomous Kurds just don’t care. Unless the Sunnis can be brought back into the political process (hammering home the the point that this election was kinda pointless), central Iraq is going to be a running wound delaying, or even killing, any chance at creating a liberal democracy.

Obviously quite a lot was done to help insure an informed electorate. However, just as in the US some don’t care or just don’t get it.

Kirk, I think you take being an American for granted. These people have never participated in a democracy before. They never had government class in highschool like you and I did.

I heard a reporter ask an Iraqi if he understood what democracy was. He replied, “It’s not complicated. You just check a box on a ballot.”

Also, I’d be interested in knowing how many debates and town hall democracy meetings took place in Anbar province in 2004. Not many, I suspect.

AP,

In my day, we called that a “cop out”. How about this: If you’re not going to try your best, why bother?

There is no “cop out” here, simply a statement of fact. There is only one thing that cannot be improved upon and that is God. Every other thing has room for improvement. That includes you, me, the Iraqi election and anything else you could name. If there is a “cop out” it is from those who do not have the courage do take action and choose to wait on the perfect moment or situation that will never come.

As if reading your mind, I know your next argument will be that it’s their own fault for sheltering insurgents. Do you think the majority of them want to live in a combat zone?

No, I doubt that most do want to live in a combat zone. So, they should do something about it like provide information to coalition forces about the safe houses / movements of the terrorists or voting for example. Could they loose their life for doing something about it? Yes. However, if those who do not support the terrorists do nothing the terrorist grip on them will only grow.

An analogy that I can draw is a neighborhood taken over or controlled by Street Gangs and drug dealers? In those neighborhoods the police are limited in the actions they can take without the assistance of the residents of that neighborhood. The police like the coalition forces need information on those terrorizing the neighborhood.

How do you explain the Sunnis who did vote? How is it that they were not in your words disenfranchised? These people choose to vote. They decided that the terrorists were not going to control their lives, they took it upon themselves to exercise their right to vote sending a very clear message to the terrorists. Those Sunnis who did vote are much like the residents who decide to take their neighborhood back from the Street Gangs and drug dealers. It starts with a few brave souls and builds from there. If the Sunnis want representation, it is their duty to what must be done to insure their vote is counted. Some obviously did, unfortunately not all followed the lead of these brave souls.

Kirk, I think you take being an American for granted.

Oh far from it. I understand that being an American brings certain obligations like making sure I am informed about the candidates and process before an election for instance.

I heard a reporter ask an Iraqi if he understood what democracy was. He replied, “It’s not complicated. You just check a box on a ballot.”

I heard a US college student interviewed before our election. He stated that he was voting for Jim Kerney. He could not name a single thing Jim Kerney had done or state a single position that Jim Kerney held, but he knew that he was not voting for Bush.
Both your example and mine serve to prove my statement below.

Obviously quite a lot was done to help insure an informed electorate. However, just as in the US some don’t care or just don’t get it.

Some don’t care, others don’t get it. If you don’t get it, it is your responsibility to educate yourself and be sure you are prepared to vote. If you do not have the sufficient desire to go to the polling place there is not much that can be done about that.

Did the Iraqis get to vote on whether the US should be allowed to establish 14 permanent military bases in their country?

Did the Iraqis have any say on this? If not, at what point will they?

Contractor Contract Total:
Post-War Contractors Ranked by Total Contract Value in Iraq and Afghanistan
From 2002 through July 1, 2004

Kellogg, Brown & Root (Halliburton) $11,431,000,000

Parsons Corp. $5,286,136,252
Fluor Corp. $3,754,964,295
Washington Group International $3,133,078,193
Shaw Group/Shaw E & I $3,050,749,910
Bechtel Group Inc. $2,829,833,859
Perini Corporation $2,525,000,000
Contrack International Inc. $2,325,000,000
Tetra Tech Inc. $1,541,947,671
USA Environmental Inc. $1,541,947,671
CH2M Hill $1,500,000,000
American International Contractors, Inc. $1,500,000,000
Odebrect-Austin $1,500,000,000
Zapata Engineering $1,478,838,958
Environmental Chemical Corporation $1,475,000,000
Explosive Ordnance Technologies Inc. $1,475,000,000
Stanley Baker Hill L.L.C. $1,200,000,000
International American Products Inc. $628,421,252
Research Triangle Institute $466,070,508
Titan Corporation $402,000,000
Louis Berger Group $327,671,364
BearingPoint Inc. $304,262,668
Creative Associates International Inc. $273,539,368
Readiness Management Support LC (Johnson Controls Inc.) $214,757,447
Chemonics International Inc. $167,759,000
Harris Corporation $165,000,000
Science Applications International Corp. $159,304,219
DynCorp (Computer Sciences Corp.) $93,689,421
Raytheon Aerospace LLC $91,096,464
Lucent Technologies World Services, Inc. $75,000,000
EOD Technology Inc. $71,900,000
NANA Pacific $70,000,000
CACI International Inc. $66,221,143
Earth Tech, Inc. $65,449,155
Development Alternatives Inc. $49,117,857
Vinnell Corporation (Northrop Grumman) $48,074,442
Abt Associates Inc. $43,818,278
Parsons Energy and Chemicals Group $43,361,340
International Resources Group $39,230,000
Management Systems International $29,816,328
SkyLink Air and Logistic Support (USA) Inc. $27,200,000
Ronco Consulting Corporation $26,131,923
AECOM $21,610,501
Blackwater Security Consulting L.L.C. $21,331,693
World Fuel Services Corp. $19,762,792
Laguna Construction Company, Inc. $19,536,683
Weston Solutions, Inc. $16,279,724
Motorola Inc. $15,591,732
Stevedoring Services of America $14,318,895
Miscellaneous Foreign Contract $13,489,810
Raytheon Technical Services $12,412,573
Kropp Holdings $11,880,000
Military Professional Resources Inc. $11,433,491
General Electric Company $8,525,498
Foster Wheeler Co. $8,416,985
Inglett and Stubbs LLC $8,175,245
Stanley Consultants $7,709,767
Liberty Shipping Group Ltd. $7,300,000
TECO Ocean Shipping Co. $7,200,000
University of Nebraska at Omaha $7,072,468
PAE Government Services Inc. $7,007,158
Anteon International Corporation $6,800,000
Michael Baker Jr., Inc. $5,999,566
Detection Monitoring Technologies $5,584,482
American President Lines Ltd. $5,000,000
Ocean Bulkships Inc. $5,000,000
S&K Technologies Inc. $4,950,385
Signature Science $4,704,464
United Defense Industries, L.P. $4,500,000
Simmonds Precision Products $4,412,488
AllWorld Language Consultants $4,051,349
Sealift Inc. $4,000,000
MZM Inc. $3,640,896
SETA Corporation $3,165,765
Chugach McKinley, Inc. $3,068,407
Diplomat Freight Services Inc. $2,604,276
Federal Data Corporation $1,991,770
Stratex Freedom Services $1,978,175
Social Impact Inc. $1,875,000
Global Container Lines Ltd. $1,850,000
Midwest Research Institute $1,765,000
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. $1,700,000
Cellhire USA $1,465,983
J & B Truck Repair Service $1,353,477
Artel $1,254,902
Structural Engineers $1,113,000
Dataline Inc. $1,028,851
Red River Computer Company $972,592
Global Services $910,468
AOS, Inc. $866,988
McNeil Technologies, Inc. $716,651
DHS Logistics Company $601,497
Global Professional Solutions $590,232
Dell Marketing L.P. $513,678
Unisys Corporation $435,000
Tryco Inc. $400,000
Sodexho Inc. $324,120
Segovia Inc. $320,636
Force 3 $274,651
Baldino, George F. $263,000
Advanced Systems Development, Inc. $259,959
Triumph Technologies $228,924
Nuttall, James S. $187,000
Alexander, Deborah Lynn $168,625
International Global Systems, Inc. $157,383
Night Vision Equipment Company $153,118
Reabold, Miguel (Michael) $136,603
Native American Industrial Distributors Inc. $123,572
Ward Transformer Sales & Services $115,000
EGL Eagle Global Logistics $111,000
Young, Brian $106,150
Paro, Amy K. $94,457
Tekontrol, Inc. $85,146
Sampler, Donald L. $81,000
Giesecke & Devrient America $72,700
GTSI Corp $70,220
Expedited World Cargo Inc. $55,004
Lab Safety Supply $53,379
LandSea Systems, Inc. $47,750
Comfort Inn $47,324
Cartridge Discounters $40,492
Bald Industries $35,734
CDW Government, Inc. $35,174
S&C Electric Company $34,800
John S. Connor Inc. $34,153
Outfitter Satellite, Inc. $33,203
Logenix International L.L.C. $29,000
Landstar Express America Inc. $24,396
Redcom Laboratories $24,375
Export Depot $21,182
Intelligent Enterprise Solutions $19,835
GPS Store, Inc., The $19,761
Transfair North America International $19,351
Atlas Case, Inc. $17,243
Mediterranean Shipping Company $13,000
Capital Shredder Corporation $11,803
Bea Mauer, Inc. $9,920
SPARCO $9,215
Electric Generator Store, The $6,974
Cybex International $4,838
Total Business $4,696
Hardware Associates $4,304
Staples National Advantage $4,194
EHI Company $3,956
JSI Inc. $3,376
Complement, Inc., The $3,358
MEI Research Corporation $3,276
WECSYS $3,040
Smith Office Machines Corporation $2,961
Kollsman Inc $100

From: www.publicintegrity.org

It seems that the author of this post is another of those people who dislike, maybe even hates, the United States. He mocks the reasons given for going into Iraq, specifically the presence of WMDs. What I beleive the author fails to acknowledge is the fact that the leaders of all of the other major nations in the world, Chirac, Putin, etc. believed the same thing. Unfortunately the information was wrong, but that does not mean that we were lied to. I still believe, as Joseph Liberman does, that we caught the biggest WMD in all of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. Although the Sunnis did not vote in large numbers that does not make the vote illegitimate. Millions of people each year don’t vote in the United States and I do not see you saying that our elections are illegitimate for this reason.

Voting irregularities happen in all elections. Think back to 1960 when ballot boxes were stuffed in Chicago to help John Kennedy win the election. I guess from that we know how Democrats feel about voting irregularities.

If you don’t like America you could always move to France. I think that your rhetoric would fit in nicely there. Maybe you could even write speeches for Chirac.

Nathan, you need to lay off the Kool-Aid. I am a super-patriot. It’s the faux-patriots like yourself who keep America from achieving it’s full potential. Why do you want to hobble America? Don’t you want to see America succeed? Why do people like you always insist that America can’t do better?

BTW, I love this argument, “What I beleive the author fails to acknowledge is the fact that the leaders of all of the other major nations in the world, Chirac, Putin, etc. believed the same thing.”

I fail to acknowledge it because it’s an ignorant statement. By 2003, exactly NONE of those people believed that Iraq had WMD. Inspectors had been crawling all over that country for months. The IAEA had already certified Iraq had no nukes or nuke programs, and UNMOVIC was weeks away from certifying no bio-chem weapons.

Seriously, why do you think everyone opposed the invasion? Do you think they just got up one morning and decided to “hate America”?

If you seriously believe that anyone but the US (and maybe Bush’s poodle) believed there was WMD in Iraq when we went in, you were lied to.

Nathan, I hope I addressed all your concerns. Thanks for posting.

Kirk, all you did was quote some of my previous post, and then completely reiterate your previous post. In reply, all I can do is point you back to my earlier post again.

I should number these so I can just say “#4”. :)

The problem with you and your kind, Pundit, is that you and your kind are sitting there refusing to eat your CROW. Soros and Moore are doing the same.

Sometime back, it was asked “where are the dancing Iraqies greeting us with flowers?” Well, this past Sunday you saw many of them doing the Electric Boogaloo on TV.

You can’t get past your hatred of this administration and you can’t see the good that has come out it. You’re just waiting for the milk to spoil so you can sound out in unison “I TOLD YOU SO!”

Face it, your decision to lean towards the left has left you empty due to weak political control, so you lash out in contempt and distrust. Only a Clinton goverment was worthy of your praise.

Get over it.

Why are the Bush-fans so bitter? Is it because they know America should be better than it is? Are they disappointed in themselves because they compromised their duty to this great nation by electing a man they know is woefully inadequate just because he calls himself a Republican or a Christian?

BTW, Sunni leaders are officially calling the election illegitimate. No surprise there, but what do you do about it now? Expect the Sunni insurgency to continue, if not worsen. Expect Sunnis to block any constitution that doesn’t give them extraordinary powers.

All this should have been worked out before an election was held. You don’t hold an election when you know it will be declared illegitimate. It’s absurd. Now some Shiite leaders are saying they’ll give Sunnis a seat at the table regardless of what happened at the polls.

As I said in my original post, “it makes me wonder why those 44 people had to die if these guys are just going to negotiate seats amongst themselves with no regard for the actual outcome of the election.”

It seems like all this election did was legitimize Shiite rule and serve President Bush’s political agenda.

AP is right to state the importance of Sunni perception that the election is illegitimate. However, it seems obvious that a person’s voluntary decision not to vote because they choose to boycott the election doesn’t make an election illegitimate. Is mandatory voting (as practiced in Australia) truly democratic? Is the right to abstain a right that should be protected? If so, Sunnis excercised their democratic rights along with everyone else.

Since the constitution has to meet a 2/3 approval in the polls, it shouldn’t particularly matter if Sunnis are underrepresented in the 275-seat assembly. So long as there are SOME Sunnis there, they will merely carry more individual clout in the process than they would have otherwise. Here’s an important question: if the constitution is voted down, what happens? Does it go back to be redrafted? That seems more likely an outcome than the country’s immediate decline into revolution and anarchy.

{{scratches head}}

Bitter? I’m not bitter….I thought I labeled you as bitter? Maybe I’m bitter at your bitterness?

BTW, read the word bitter for many times and it starts to look funny.

Bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter,…

I believe America IS BETTER than it wast 5 years ago. And YOU might believe that this President is woefully inadequate, but the majority of the US population who voted does not.

So what this argument and every other argument from here on forth boils down to is that you are against a President because he was not your choice. Many of you are bitter, sore losers who see a victory for the administration as a chance to criticize and quarterback their choices.

Elections on Jan. 31st - they did happen when many said they wouldn’t. What about the insurgency, you say. Well, you’re damn right, we’re gonna keep an eye on them. But if you think because of insurgency Bush is going to abandon the Iraqi people, you’re sadly mistaken.

” You don’t hold an election when you know it will be declared illegitimate. “

Could this have been said about our last two elections. Sounds like more liberal whining to me. There are always going to be sore losers. It just seems that liberals have a habit of doing it more often.

It’s Iraqi people’s elections, and if the people are not empowered to take action if corruption proceeds in these elections, than this war was fought for nothing. The Bush administration will not allow that to happen…and neither will the Iraqi people.

AP,

Kirk, all you did was quote some of my previous post, and then completely reiterate your previous post. In reply, all I can do is point you back to my earlier post again.

Oh no, far from it.

In fact, I agreed with you that most Sunnis likely don’t want to live in a combat zone. I also pointed out that if they want things to change it is their responsibility to get involved and put in motion actions that will help move that change along.

I find it rather fascinating that you continue to avoid direct questions that you have no legitimate answers for. So, just in case you were not trying to avoid answering and just missed it I will ask again.

How do you explain the Sunnis who did vote? How is it that they were not in your words disenfranchised?

Is our government not representative? Does it short-change about 50% of its population because they choose not to participate in the electoral process?

Chops, Kirk, et al. why are you guys so down on America?

So then you just don’t care that our leaders aren’t upholding our high American standards and ideals?

Kirk, I think you take being an American for granted.

It’s the faux-patriots like yourself who keep America from achieving it’s full potential. Why do you want to hobble America? Don’t you want to see America succeed? Why do people like you always insist that America can’t do better?

Is it because they know America should be better than it is? Are they disappointed in themselves because they compromised their duty to this great nation by electing a man they know is woefully inadequate just because he calls himself a Republican or a Christian?

AP, you really need to drop the time tested Liberal Tactic of trying to put your opponent on the defensive by emotional rhetoric, questioning their patriotism and love of country. People who use these tactics do it for a reason, they are trying to cover up for their inadequate arguments. If they can provoke their opponent into a defense of their patriotism they shift the debate from the argument they can not defend with fact and reason. Talk about a “cop-out”.

I think that the neo-libs just can’t stand the fact that they have lost 2 elections in less than 3 months.

Big Al:
“The problem with you and your kind, Pundit, is that you and your kind are sitting there refusing to eat your CROW.”

And the problem with “your kind” seems to be that you have an insatiable appetite for the shite sandwiches being handed out by this administration. Too bad we’re downwind of you, because though you keep pronouncing them delectable, we know that what you’re eating stinks to high heaven.

“You can’t get past your hatred of this administration and you can’t see the good that has come out it.”

Cart before the horse, there. You see, if some good would just start coming out, there’d be far less hatred.

“You’re just waiting for the milk to spoil so you can sound out in unison “I TOLD YOU SO!”“

Honey, we’ve been saying that all along, and that milk is so fecking spoiled its hard, aged CHEDDAR at this stage.

“Face it, your decision to lean towards the left has left you empty due to weak political control, so you lash out in contempt and distrust.”

Change the word left with right, and the word control with rationality, and apply where needed.

“Get over it.”

We can’t, because we love this country, and hate watching the Neo-cons feed “your kind” shite sandwiches, while flushing everything else down the toilet.

You know there’s nothing worse than a poor winner.

AP,
As we have said from the beginning,there weren’t enough troops to do the job right in Iraq.

It was great to se that statue of Saddam coming down. However, the looting and the unrest afterwards was unconscionabe. If there is to be a stable Iraq, the Iraqi’s now need to stand up for themselves.
Bush continues to screw around and pat himself on the back for having his “vision”. Until there is security in Iraq, real security, in Iraq, we will continue to see the violence that kept the Sunni’s away from the polls. Until the Iraqi people elect a “real government”, not just a puppet of the United States, we are just pissing in the wind.

Patriot,

The reason that all of those countries opposed the invasion of Iraq is because of their business interests. Do you think it is any coincidence that a large part of the weapons they are finding come from the French and the Russians? These are countries that do not even want to forgive the debt of the Iraqis.

The French also avoided it because they do not want other nations doing what they can only dream of doing. The French are so worthless and have become so emasculated militarily that they do not like to see anyone else develop the type of military that we have.

So Nathan,
Does that include the millions of people that marched in protest?

Since the constitution has to meet a 2/3 approval in the polls, it shouldn’t particularly matter if Sunnis are underrepresented in the 275-seat assembly.

Gandhi, there’s a clause in the interim constitution that says if a majority in three provinces votes down the constitution, it goes back to the drawing board. Sunnis (and Kurds) have a majority in three provinces.

How do you explain the Sunnis who did vote? How is it that they were not in your words disenfranchised?

Is our government not representative? Does it short-change about 50% of its population because they choose not to participate in the electoral process?

As I said in #4,

Do you remember why the major Sunni parties decided to boycott the election? US forces couldn’t secure the Sunni communities. Sunni politicians tried and failed to rally constituents in the insurgent-controlled areas. To say they chose not to vote - like they were just being petulent - is pretty silly.

…The current number and mix of US forces in Iraq cannot protect Sunnis from the extortion and revenge of insurgents.

If 50% of American voters were kept from the polls by credible and immediate threats to thier wives, children, and themselves of torture and murder, I’d consider them disenfranchised. Wouldn’t you?

It also turns out that tens of thousands of Sunnis that did brave torture and murder to vote, were unable to do so.

The reason that all of those countries opposed the invasion of Iraq is because of their business interests.

I’m glad you’re not still arguing that everybody thought Iraq had WMD when we went in. It warms my cockles to go back & forth with reasonable people. Nathan, do you believe that a couple businessmen control the entire foreign ministries of twenty-some-odd democracies? Because that’s what you’re saying.

These are countries that do not even want to forgive the debt of the Iraqis.

It might interest you to know that Russia and France have forgiven Iraq more than 80% of the debt.

Your last paragraph isn’t even worth responding to. That’s just wacko talk.

Oh, I read the clause all right. What I’m saying is that the next election will in many way be more significant than this one. Regardless of who was elected to the 275-seat assembly, they know they have to meet the approval of voters in certain Sunni provinces. So they will moderate their demands for the constitution accordingly, and listen carefully to the demands of the few Sunnis on the assembly.

What I’m saying is that the next election will in many way be more significant than this one.

No doubt. If the Sunnis don’t get on board with a constitution by the end of the year, there won’t be another election.

Regardless of who was elected to the 275-seat assembly, they know they have to meet the approval of voters in certain Sunni provinces.

That’s why it boggles my mind that Bush & Allawi went ahead with the elections without doing whatever it took to get the Sunnis on board - starting with securing the Sunni provinces so that’s no longer a credible barrier to participation.

AP,

If 50% of American voters were kept from the polls by credible and immediate threats to their wives, children, and themselves of torture and murder, I’d consider them disenfranchised. Wouldn’t you?

No.

Once again, words have meaning. Disenfranchise: To deprive of a privilege, an immunity, or a right of citizenship, especially the right to vote; disenfranchise.

The Sunnis were not deprived of their privilege, immunity, right of citizenship or their vote. The majority choose not to vote because their “leaders” told them to boycott the election because it wouldn’t be fair. Thousands of Sunnis did vote which proves that the Sunnis were not disenfranchised.

If there was disenfranchisement of the Sunnis, it was by their own leadership and no one else. The Association of Muslim Scholars an association of Sunni groups released a statement saying that the election “lacks legitimacy because a large portion of these people who represent many spectra have boycotted it.” Notice the Sunnis themselves say boycotted not disenfranchised.

If they are under-represented in the National Assembly all the Sunnis need to do is look to see if their finger is purple from the mark of voting or their thumb is brown from setting on it.

Follow the link below to get a first hand look at what it was like for two young Iraqis to vote.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/01/people-have-won.html

Of course they boycotted it, Kirk. Security was a big enough concern that Sunni leaders couldn’t expect high turnouts from their constituents. Once they saw the US and Shiites were going ahead with the election anyhow, it was their only recourse. And it all came down to lack of security.

You say thousands of Sunnis came out to vote, but it was only 25-30% of eligible voters. The US and Allawi knew that was going to be the case and held the election anyhow.

Now, the Sunnis and Shiites are horse-trading for spots in the government as if the election never happened - and the votes aren’t even counted yet. What was the point, except to legitimize Shiite rule? This election didn’t bring Iraqis together as a nation. So far, it’s only exacerbated the tension.

This is not the best result that could have been achieved. It was pretty damned half-assed.

BTW Kirk, why are you so against securing Iraq? Don’t you want to get Zarqawi? How come you guys on the right aren’t yelling for more troops in there?

AP,

Of course they boycotted it

You really need to make up your mind. Were the Sunnis disenfranchised or did they boycott the election. You can’t have it both ways.

To say that they were disenfranchised is to suggest that somehow the government or coalition authorities denied them their right to a vote, which simply is not true.

As you now admit many boycotted the election as they were asked to do by their leadership. The Associated Press on October 23rd reported the following.

The Association of Muslim Scholars, created only 18 months ago but now the most influential representative of Iraq’s Sunni Arabs, is threatening to boycott the January balloting if U.S. and Iraqi troops storm the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Fallujah.

So, obviously the Sunni leadership was not afraid of the terrorists in their midst. They called for a boycott of the election to protect the terrorists.

This is not the best result that could have been achieved. It was pretty damned half-assed.

You are absolutely right on that point. The Sunnis could have exercised their right to vote. However, they followed the dictates of their half-assed leaders insuring that they would be vastly under represented in the new General Assembly. Once again, they have no one to blame but themselves.

BTW Kirk, why are you so against securing Iraq? Don’t you want to get Zarqawi? How come you guys on the right aren’t yelling for more troops in there?

There you go again. Using that old Neo-Lib Tactic of trying to put your opponent on the defensive by using emotional rhetoric, questioning their patriotism and love of country to cover up for your inadequate arguments. Those are asinine questions and you know it.

Were the Sunnis disenfranchised or did they boycott the election. You can?t have it both ways.

Except that it is both ways. Your assumption that the two are mutually exclusive is wrong. As I mentioned several times, the boycott was called because Sunni leaders knew lack of security would prevent most Sunnis from voting. That’s a well reported fact.

The Sunnis could have exercised their right to vote. However, they followed the dictates of their half-assed leaders

Sunnis weren’t voting because they’d be killed by insurgents. Only 93 of the 330 polling sites in Ninevah province even opened, the rest were attacked, looted, or intimidated into closing. Knowing that’s exactly what would happen, the Sunnis protested the election and called for a boycott.

And rightly so. If Bush and the Shiites really wanted a legitimate election, they would have secured the Sunni areas first. But Bush couldn’t postpone the election because Sistani forced him to set a date, and the Shiites needed the election to cement their dominance. The whole process had little to do with representative democracy in Iraq.

The election was a power play by Sistani and the Shiites with no regard for creating a legitimate democratically elected government.

Those are asinine questions and you know it.

No, I don’t. Every step of the way you’ve acknowleged that lack of security is the root of most problems in Iraq, yet you bristle whenever anyone on the left suggests that President Bush hasn’t done enough to secure the country. Is Iraq totally secure, or not? You can’t have it both ways.

AP,

Once more I will provide you with the AP report below. Where does it say that they are threatening to boycott because of security fears?

The Association of Muslim Scholars, created only 18 months ago but now the most influential representative of Iraq’s Sunni Arabs, is threatening to boycott the January balloting if U.S. and Iraqi troops storm the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Fallujah.

That is right, it doesn’t. It says that they are trying to protect the terrorists by boycotting if we move into Fallujah to clear them out.

Sunnis weren’t voting because they’d be killed by insurgents.

Thousands of Sunnis did vote without being killed. How is it they were not disenfranchised? Were only certain Sunnis singled out by the terrorists as targets if they voted?

The election was a power play by Sistani and the Shiites with no regard for creating a legitimate democratically elected government.

Is that why the ticket supported by Sistani had several Sunni candidates?

Quite frankly, the Shites would have dominated the General Assembly even if every Sunni would have voted as they make up 60% of the population. There in lies the true reason for the Sunni boycott. They want to maintain the false position of dominance they held under Sadam despite their minority status.

Is Iraq totally secure, or not?

No, Iraq is not totally secure and even if we sent every single member of the US military we could not make Iraq “totally secure”. Again nothing is ever perfect and waiting for it to be would be an eternal wait.

If you aks me.. I would say dat the whole thang is BULL sheet..

AAAAnnn fouda mo.. The whole thang means nuttin!!

It plays like this.. one guy hooks up wit anotha due.. and the pair of em hook up with some other due’zz.. from thier.. they make sure they can take out the remaining opposing due’zz.. then they either take each other in a winner take all battle to the end.. or share the spoils together.. this usually happens if USA gits the overwhelmingly largest stake yo..

Throughout da whole dizzle.. and this is the shizznit right nere yo.. the boyz making the calls waz the boyz starting the shits too.. they waz just making up lies and creating sense deterants for the masses through media blockouts and shit yo.. jus check out how many of dem reporters haz been snapped!! too many .. how many.. too many..

Well.. I’m bout to get sonic on da cronic.. ya know..

They knew it from the get go..