Third Party & Independents: Archives

VEM, you invoke “American principles” amidst your angry name-calling against Rumsfeld here, but are you aware of the fact that the United States held elections during the Civil War and that much of the country was unable to participate because of the political situation? Was it stupid and callous, in your opinion, that Nathan Bedford Forrest and Robert E. Lee didn’t get their chance to vote for Lincoln because they were so busy shooting at US soldiers at the time?

What Rumsfeld is saying is absolutely correct and has very solid precident in our own country’s history. Having some election is far better than having no election at all. It’s no different than saying that some stability is better than total chaos.

But let’s be honest. What’s really at stake here is that ANY election in Iraq would be a defeat for the left because it would represent a step forward. The left is so invested in the storyline that Iraq is an unsalvagable disaster that they actually need to ensure that it is one. If this includes undermining the UN interim PM by calling him a US puppet (the exact line used by al-Zarqawi whenever he’s beheading somebody), then so be it.
Iraqis must be kept from the ballot box at all costs because that would be a blasphemy against John Kerry’s one and only hope for being elected!

Defeat and failure—that’s all Kerry can hope for now. And he’ll do what he can to ensure it, even if it means demeaning and sneering at those trying to bring the vote to people who have never had it before. I don’t know how John Kerry and his staff can look at themselves in the mirror. Some things are just more important than trying to win an election when you feel it slipping from your fingers.

Nicely said, V. Edward. I was struck speechless by Rummy’s comments as well!

Question: Do we have any backup plans as to what to do in case we are hit @ Election day? And, what would really be a game plan in equity and fair play re?

Martin—

Ummmm…the Southern states had succeeded from the Union and therefore did not get to vote in the election, hence the Civil War…this is not a right or left issue, it an issue of human right and fairness. The facts speak for themselves…

Alex—

I do not know if we have a backup plan, if there is a terrorist attack in or around Election Day. Needless to say complete chaos would ensue, but I doubt whole regions of the country would be summarily dismissed.

Ok, I have a serious question for you guys. Lets assume that it is virtually impossible to get ALL of Iraq secure enough to hold elections in every single town in that country. I think thats a reasonable assumption (and lets say that it would reasonably take up to 5 years to get some part of the country secure enough to hold elections there). Partisanship aside- what would you do about elections given that situation? Should we lie to the American and Iraq people and just ignore the fact that some parts of the country- due to incredibly difficult circumstances- just arent secure enough? Or should we just wait another five years to have elections? Which situation is more preferable?

In short- please answer Rummy’s question:
“Is it better than not having an election?”

If you really think about it, its not as easy as you would have us believe. This article is a perfect reflection of the left’s attack on Bush’s Iraq policy. It shows that there are problems but offers nothing in terms of realistic solutions or ANY better alternatives.

moreover, as I see it, Rummy is doing what the left has accused Bush of refusing to do- looking at the situation in Iraq more realistically. Didnt you guys say that is a good thing? I cant even keep track anymore- but I have come up with a helpful way to standardize and understand the left position on any given issue- figure out what Bush or one of his higher ups has said and take the opposite view. Its an incredible algorithm that works wonders!

Well honeslty Misha i would say that no elections should be held until all people can vote. If it takes 5 years then so be it.

The cornerstone to any TRUE democracy is for each citizen to have free and fair access to the vote, so a vote without all available citizens participating is in my opinion not democratic.

My opinion may come from the fact i live in a country that has compulsory voting, so i guess voting is so engrained into the psyche that it seems strange that some countries have such low regard for the vote and poor voter participation.

Matt- I understand that position and respect it. I do not know where I stand on this- but it seems like that there is some point where disenfranchising ALL of the people for X number of years is worse than disenfranchising some of the people. Its a very difficult issue, and what I was pointing out is that the true complexitity of it was ignored by this article.

Misha—

I would like to think that common sense and an unswerving belief in the Constitutional principles underlying our Republic govern my stance on any given issue and inform opinions thusly. My stances again Bush and his minions stems not from leftist leaning ideology but again common sense and an unassailable faith in the rule of law without which we would have anarchy.

So in my mind the war against Iraq was and is wrong and unlawful. That notwithstanding Bush and his minion have made all the wrong decisions concerning this war; there can be little argument on this point. If indeed we are to bring freedom and democracy to this hapless land and use it as an example, should we at least to all we can to ensure the first election is fair and just?

I did not ignore the complexities of the issue, but acknowledge them fully. It is the Bush Administration that time and again refuses to acknowledge to complexities of this war. In answer to your question: five year is a long time to what for an election. So I advocate this. Hold a true (U.N. and Arab League) sponsored Constitutional Convention in a neutral state, say Jordan, and invite acknowledged and respected leaders from all three factions (i.e. Shia, Sunni, and Kurd) in Iraq to attend. These men and women with U.N. help would then hash out a true Constitution, one that guarantees equality before the law and equal representation for all. How is that for a start?

For once, I’d actually agree with the direction Rumsfeld is indicating. Ready or no, there will be elections in Iraq January 31st. There’s little choice. The war is already ‘lost’. However, we’re in an election season, and neither party can come out & admit the obvious without committing political suicide. Conducting an election gives the US the cover it needs for withdrawing. That’s good, because we have to pull out anyway. Everyone reading this has encountered the suggestion about pulling out- remember the NIE estimate, the Novak column, limitations on troop rotations- so expect this idea to keep appearing.
And would it be so bad for the US? Saddam is gone. If re-elected- er, elected- the Bush administration could claim success. After all, the Iraqis have been offered their golden opportunity, what is it to us if they squander their chance? Yes, I know, it will take a lot of doublethink to swallow that line and the geopolitical ramifications of an Iranian-domitated Middle East, but get used to it, we’ll be expected to forget everything else we’ve heard & believe that reasoning if Bush wins.
If Kerry is elected, expect a similar result, because the exact same limitations of the Iraqi situation apply to Kerry as to Bush. In fact, it might even take longer for a Kerry administration to disengage, precisely because international help might temporarily alleviate the problems with troop rotation and costs. But not even international help will change the basic strategic problems in Iraq. Blair is not long for the political world. Could Kerry convince France or China or Russia to step in and replace the Brits? The Chinese would be a plausible alternative. The French population would be opposed, and the Russians have their hands full in Chechnya. The Chinese, with the fastest growing economy in the world, would stand to benefit most from a stabilized supply of Middle Eastern oil, even more than the US. Would it be wise to turn to the Chinese for help?
By the way, remember how Rumsfeld lied about knowing where 30% of Saddam’s weapons were located? Why wasn’t Rumsfeld fired for that?

I think the analogy to the US Civil war holds quite nicely. The South insisted they were a separate country and (this is key) the Union didn’t recognize their insurrection and held US elections anyway while excluding them.

Similiarly, if the Sunni triangle wants to maintain an insurrection, they’ll be choosing to disenfranchise themselves. If they want to participate in democracy, they have that choice—they can inform on al Zarqawi and the other foreign militants running the insurrection and give us the coordinates to bomb their rotten little beheading studios. Then they can vote.

Or look at it another way—is the ability of every citizen to vote really the standard necessary to hold an election? What if a natural disaster occurs somewhere in the US on election day? Must the election be cancelled? What if there’s a flu epidemic in Florida that keeps a substantial number of the elderly in bed? What if the Sci-fi Channel runs a Star Trek Marathon and Howard Dean’s supporters can’t tear themselves away and vote (okay, that last was a joke, but my point remains).

VEM, good thinking article.

Misha,
Iraq can and must have a full election in January. How would be the best way to acheive this matter is open for debate. However, I would call for all sides to stop fighting for the day. Place polling places in every major city, heavily armed of course. And provide armed transportation to and from the polling places. Although Iraq may not see everyone vote for their future, we must do everything within our (the world) power to ensure the fairest election possible.

Rumfeld is wrong about only having part of the country vote because it will lead to more disenfranchisement and violence. Could you imagine what the people in Flordia would of done if the Supreme Court would of ruled that Flordia’s election was unconstitutional and therefore the state forfeited it’s right to have its electoral college votes counted?

Martin-
Bush declared victory without having completely taken hold of the country. The consequences of that have been an incomplete control of the territory that has not changed even with Saddam’s capture or the passing of sovereignty to the Iraqis.

Bush seems to be more concerned with the outward benchmarks of success than the necessary goals that support them. He invaded with just enough forces to win the war. He passed on Sovereignty having never pacified the country. And now, it seems like he might have elections without involving the entire country.

Does Bush have to do everything half-ass. What make Bush think he’s so special that he doesn’t have to finish what he starts? For a person who claims such bold forcefulness in his speeches, he’s a wimp in his actions.

Martin. Your claim that the insurgency is all foriegn fighters is a joke. There are foriegn fighters there but the bulk of the resistance is being done by nationalists who believe they are defending their country.

The belief that the Resistance is limited to 3 provinces is fiction. There is nothing to keep them in those provinces. A dozen men in a bus can go anywhere in Iraq. Sure as hell the heavily fortified US Army can’t stop that.

Aldous.