# The Iraqi Vote Has Begun... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2005, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-vote-has-begun/287398 "2005-01-30T07:07:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-vote-has-begun/287398/181 "2005-02-01T18:22:59Z")
**Wrath:** _I still fail to see how offering congratulatory remarks or even sugar-coating amounts to cheerleading._ Sorry, I can’t figure out what’s bothering you about the term “cheerleading”. I explained my reaction as well as I could. **NI:** \*Clinton’s fault. \* Nope. It was simply that if the Bush Administration **hadn’t** sold us the WMD line, it would not have been able to drum up adequate support for invading Iraq: > [@](#): > > [December 2002 poll](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-iraqpoll17dec17-480pa1an,1,3757570.story?ctrack=1&cset=true) > > Two thirds of the public have no confidence at all that the Iraqis will give a complete and truthful list of their weapons and another 26% say they are not too confident (for a combined 92% who have no confidence). But more than three out of five surveyed don’t think war would be justified, unless there were glaring omissions in the weapons declaration, that is, a pattern of serious violations. […] > > However, about half of the respondents think that if the U.N. inspectors don’t find any evidence of these weapons in Iraq, they then would be opposed to invading the Middle East country with U.S. ground troops. Interestingly, women were divided over this idea (45% favor going to war even without evidence, 43% oppose the war), while men were more inclined to oppose war without concrete evidence (55% vs. 37% who are in favor of war even without clear proof). […] > > The respondents also cite protecting the U. S. (27%), removing Hussein from power (27%) and ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (23%) as their top reasons why they are supporting the war. Bush hyped the WMD threat because he wanted to convince the voters to support the invasion. Fidelity to Clinton policies (and since when has Bush felt obliged to be faithful to Clinton policies, anyway?) had nothing to do with it. ---
**Author:** ![ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZombiesAteMyBrain)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-vote-has-begun/287398/182 "2005-02-01T19:24:35Z")
Whatever this election was, it was not democracy. How can it be called a ‘free’ election, either, when the invading power had a veto over who could stand for election and who could vote? When the USA’s own rules don’t apply to Allawi and Chalabi - both former criminals. [http://electroniciraq.net/news/1836.shtml](http://electroniciraq.net/news/1836.shtml) See above website, especially > [@](#): > > 1. Large areas of the country are not expected to be able to vote. > Interim leader Ayad Allawi stated that there are 4 provinces where the security situation militates against voting – he didn’t mention that they include Baghdad, and up to half of the population. > The people of Falluja have not been registered to vote or given voting cards. > A lot of Iraqis believe that a lot of the attacks and unrest have been orchestrated by the occupying forces using covert operations, stock-in-trade of both the interim prime-minister Allawi and the current US viceroy (‘Ambassador’) John Negroponte. The areas where security ‘militates against voting’ are those where voters can’t be relied on to vote for someone ‘unpalatable’. > There’s been intimidation in some areas – Felicity Arbuthnot reported a case of a family visited by their local shopkeeper who asked for their ration book ‘for safekeeping’. Ration books are needed as ID for voters and the family refused. Later the shopkeeper came back in tears – he’d been threatened, on his family’s lives, to collect all the ration books. > 2. The rules for polling and who can or can’t be a candidate were set, essentially, by the US. > Rules were set by the Independent Iraqi Electoral Commission, or some similar arrangement of those words. The group, bar one or perhaps two members, were appointed by Paul Bremer, before handing over “power” in June. > The Commission has absolute power to bar any candidate or organisation. It has banned a number of candidates but is so secretive that nobody knows who has been forbidden or for what reason. There’s been no due process, no establishing a case against a candidate before barring. > Candidates and organisations taking part have to swear allegiance to Bremer’s law > One of the bars is “moral turpitude”. That in itself is not unusual- many countries don’t allow a person with certain convictions, for example, from standing. The bar does not, though, apply to either Ahmed Chalabi, a US appointee to the interim government who has been convicted (in his absence) of massive fraud, or Ayad Allawi, US-appointed interim prime minister, who was a covert CIA operative commanding bombings including a school bus and a cinema in Iraq during Saddam’s rule. Can you really call this a ‘democratic election’??? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-vote-has-begun/287398/183 "2005-02-01T19:47:13Z")
Intellectual honesty is a rigorous standard, friend **Zombie** , so I have to retain a bit of suspicion about your cite site. Not that I’m not inclined to agree, I most assuredly am, but for the same reasons cited above: I can’t readily believe any source of information, because everybody has an agenda. This is not a criticism, merely a caveat. However, that said, if they are telling the truth…then its far worse than I imagined. For instance, they claim to answer my question about a “sanitized” list of parties participating. They say “Yep, sure was.” I don’t doubt it, but I’d like to some corroboration from other sources. Also brings to mind another lurking suspicion: that the reason there are so many parties involved is to present a false image of openness. This thesis could be entirely blown apart by proof that decidedly anti-US parties _did_ participate, but I ain’t holding my breath. Thanks for the cite, anyway, I’ll keep an eye on them. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-vote-has-begun/287398/184 "2005-02-01T20:10:18Z")
> [@ZombiesAteMyBrain](#): > > Whatever this election was, it was not democracy. > [@Rashid Majid](#): > > [We have freedom now, we have human rights, we have democracy. We will invite the insurgents to take part in our system. If they do, we will welcome them. If they don’t, we will kill them.](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/31/international/middleeast/31scene.html?pagewanted=2&adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnlx=1107288853-eqsog7zJKEWE7VDtrKOGjA) > [@Hassan Jawad](#): > > [Do you hear that, do you hear the bombs? We don’t care. Do you understand? We don’t care. We all have to die. To die for this, well, at least I will be dying for something.](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/31/international/middleeast/31scene.html?adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnlx=1107288853-eqsog7zJKEWE7VDtrKOGjA) It’s just fuckin’ killing you, ain’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-vote-has-begun/287398/185 "2005-02-01T20:12:04Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Also brings to mind another lurking suspicion: that the reason there are so many parties involved is to present a false image of openness. This is easier to dismiss… New “democracies” tend to have way too many parties… since there hasn’t been time for wider political unions. Specific interests, groups and cities end up making their own parties instead of joining a similar one. Our first elections in Brazil there were like 23 + presidential candidates and many more parties. Other countries I’ve observed have this multitude of parties and chaotic political dispersal. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-vote-has-begun/287398/186 "2005-02-01T20:58:10Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > …and since when has Bush felt obliged to be faithful to Clinton policies, anyway?.. [Since always.](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Bush+follows+Clinton%22&btnG=Search) ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-vote-has-begun/287398/187 "2005-02-01T21:11:15Z")
**New Iskander** , that was a pretty pathetic attempt at “evidence”: a Google search revealing a whole 16 (!) hits on “Bush follows Clinton”. Since a Google search of “Bush reverses Clinton”, on the other hand, produces a whole 27 hits, by your line of “reasoning”, my “evidence” is obviously much stronger than yours. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-vote-has-begun/287398/188 "2005-02-01T21:17:22Z")
And you don’t even wanna know the results on “Clinton follows bush.” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-vote-has-begun/287398/189 "2005-02-01T21:31:41Z")
Boy, what a crushing rejoinder, **Manny**. Poor **Zombie** with his cites and evidence, rolled over by two whole quotes! From actual Iraqis who agree with _you_! You really smeared him good, a veritable rhetorical juggernaut! I only regret that, in your haste to defend the Shining One, you neglected to provide any actual substance, or any basis beyond the personal testimonial of two! whole! Iraqis! for your assertions. Did you actually read any of **Zombie’s** cite, as above? Can you actually refute any of it? Or would you prefer to double the weight of your argument by adding two! whole! _more!!!_ Iraqis? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-vote-has-begun/287398/190 "2005-02-01T21:50:31Z")
> [@Uncommon Sense](#): > > You need to get out of that closet you live in. You’re being asphyxiated by your own farts. And you need to get out of **Great Debates** if you intend to post direct personal insults. [/Moderator Mode] ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-vote-has-begun/287398/191 "2005-02-01T21:54:25Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Boy, what a crushing rejoinder, **Manny**. Poor **Zombie** with his cites and evidence, rolled over by two whole quotes! From actual Iraqis who agree with _you_! You really smeared him good, a veritable rhetorical juggernaut! > > I only regret that, in your haste to defend the Shining One, you neglected to provide any actual substance, or any basis beyond the personal testimonial of two! whole! Iraqis! for your assertions. This game can be played _ad infinitum_. People believe what they want to believe anyway. No one is ever swayed. Truth either doesn’t exist, or is unknowable. The world is a frustrating place. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-vote-has-begun/287398/192 "2005-02-01T22:27:34Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Since a Google search of “Bush reverses Clinton”, on the other hand, produces a whole 27 hits, by your line of “reasoning”, my “evidence” is obviously much stronger than yours. Well, I was trying to be nice and circumspect, but it doesn’t play with lefties. So, [here is a full list](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Bush+follows+Clinton%22&hl=en&lr=&filter=0). 88 matches, read’em and weep. (your cite has 40 matches, not 27, btw) Now, let’s consider the substance. Per my list, “Bush follows Clinton” on… - “war in the Middle East” - "social policy on gays " - “Environment” - “Drug war” - “Land For Peace” (Palestine conflict) Per your list, “Bush reverses Clinton” on… - “Environment” - “FEDERAL AID FOR ABORTION COUNSELLING OVERSEAS” - “basic rights to Medicaid patients” “Environments” cancel, the final score is 88-40, subscore is 4-2, game over. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-vote-has-begun/287398/193 "2005-02-01T22:31:47Z")
**New Iskander** , you’re just being silly here. At least, I hope you’re just being silly, and don’t seriously believe that comparing lists of a few dozen Google matches actually says anything significant about a President’s deliberate policy choices. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-vote-has-begun/287398/194 "2005-02-01T22:39:24Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Did you actually read any of **Zombie’s** cite, as above? Can you actually refute any of it? Your instincts were better the first time, when you expressed skepticism about the “cite.” Electroniciraq is a joint venture between longtime pro-terror propagandists Electronic Intifada and Voices in the Wilderness, a “peace” group that’s been kissing Saddam Hussein’s butt for almost a decade, even going so far as providing human shields (free! No compensation from Saddam required!) prior to the liberation. And no. I’m not the tiniest bit interested in what those scum-sucking terrorist-lovers have to say about anything, even for purposes of refutation. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-vote-has-begun/287398/195 "2005-02-01T23:27:11Z")
You got a cite for Electronic Intifada being ‘pro-terror’? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-vote-has-begun/287398/196 "2005-02-01T23:32:47Z")
Of course, someone who didn’t have as much respect as I for your relentless intellectual honesty might find that a wee bit convenient. But if you say they are “pro-terrorist”, well, how can we have any doubt? But, just out of curiosity, in what specific ways are they “pro-terrorist”, other than earning a snide set of quotation marks around “peace”. To be frank, your political leanings are on unabashed display, as are my own. Providing human shields to prevent war may well be naive, even silly, but I hardly see how that qualifies as being “pro-terrorist”. As to the assertions outlined by friend **Zombie’s** cite, I am very interested in any light that can be shed on them. If they are mostly true, the election was a farce, if only half are true, the election was a deeply flawed excercise in futility. For a specific, can anyone point to the existence of and inclusion of a political party that can be clearly identified as being opposed to US policy in Iraq? If none such exists, wouldn’t that cast grave doubt on the validity of the proceedings? And that site is not the only place, IIRC, where I have seen references to the Allawi admin dampening criticism. Simply screaming “Liar!” is not a refutation, **Manny** , it is more suggestive of weakness than strength. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-vote-has-begun/287398/197 "2005-02-01T23:36:11Z")
Well, **I** care about getting the Straight Dope even if **manny** would rather just sling insults, so I can undertake to refute at least one of **Zombies** ’ points: > [@electroniciraq](#): > > 1. Large areas of the country are not expected to be able to vote. > Interim leader Ayad Allawi stated that there are 4 provinces where the security situation militates against voting – he didn’t mention that they include Baghdad, and up to half of the population. While it was indeed **expected** , prior to the election, that elections might not even be held in at least four of the six most strife-filled governorates which do in fact contain about 50% of the Iraqi population—AFAICT, polling places were set up in all 18 of them. Estimated turnouts for 16 were [broadcast](http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO501F.html) two hours before poll closings— > [@](#): > > At the start of the live relay, Al-Lami listed the voter turnout in each governorate as follows: “70 per cent in Al-Sulaymaniyah Governorate (northeastern Iraq), 60 per cent in Salah-al-Din Governorate (north of Baghdad), 60 per cent in Al-Ta’mim Governorate (northern Iraq), 82 per cent in Duhok Governorate (far northern Iraq), 65 per cent in Baghdad Al-Rusafah, 95 per cent in Baghdad Al-Karkh, 90 per cent in Karbala (southeast of Baghdad), 50 per cent in Diyala (Governorate, northeast of Baghdad), 66 per cent in Babil (Governorate, south of Baghdad), 75 per cent in Wasit (Governorate, southeast of Baghdad), 66 per cent in Basra (Governorate, southeastern Iraq), 80 per cent in Dhi-Qar (Governorate, southeastern Iraq), 92 per cent in Maysan (Governorate on Iranian border, southern Iraq), 80 per cent in Al-Muthanna (Governorate, in southern Iraq), 50 per cent in Al-Qadisiyah (Governorate, to south of Baghdad), and 80 per cent in Al-Najaf (Governorate, southern Iraq). Vote turnout in Al-Anbar (western Iraq) and Salah-al-Din governorates is a big surprise; it will be announced in the coming news conference (as heard), God willing. The number of polling centres opened is 5171 in all of Iraq’s governorates.” > > Source IECI Press Conference, Al-Iraqiyah TV, Baghdad, in Arabic 1224 gmt 30 Jan 05 —although the figures have since been contested: > [@](#): > > 8 million Iraqis went to the polls, about 60 percent of the electorate. (CNN, 30 Jan, 6 PM EST) […] > > In five out of 18 governates, according to a Russian parliamentary observer, the elections were either cancelled due to the lack of security or were marked by a very low turnout. (Novosti, 30 Jan). This statement contradicts the figures presented by the IECI at the Press Conference, which indicate voter turnout of 50 per cent or more in all the governates. (including Sunni regions where there was a boycott, as confirmed by several press reports). ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-vote-has-begun/287398/198 "2005-02-01T23:53:45Z")
Still no cheers for Bill Clinton’s vision of free Iraq being vindicated by recent election. My, what a gloomy lot. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-vote-has-begun/287398/199 "2005-02-01T23:58:46Z")
> [@Avenger](#): > > You got a cite for Electronic Intifada being ‘pro-terror’? > [@elucidator](#): > > Simply screaming “Liar!” is not a refutation, **Manny** , it is more suggestive of weakness than strength. Tell ya what. If a credible media organization reports on this, we’ll check it out. While it’s still from the Mouth of Saddam, you feel free – it won’t surprise me a teensy bit. I ain’t giving them a click any more than I would to a Holocaust denial site’s. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2005, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-vote-has-begun/287398/200 "2005-02-02T00:10:19Z")
I’ve been unable to find independant confirmation about exclusion of political parties, but I did find this. [90,000 Iraqi Jews excluded from voting](http://www.iraq4u.com/forum/m_2146/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#2146) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-vote-has-begun/287398.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-vote-has-begun/287398.md?page=11)