Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I've called USA Today McPaper since it hit the stands 20 years ago.<< You and a lot of other people. I prefer to think of it as the "People" magazine of the fourth estate. I cannot help but note that the "McNews" crack did not appear when the article appeared to be critical of the process...
Originally Posted By DlandDug Sorry, this is all I get when I click on the link: >> Page Not Found. This might be because you typed the web address incorrectly. Please check the address and spelling ensuring that it does not contain capital letters or spaces. It is possible that the page you were looking for may have been moved, updated or deleted. Please click the back button to try another link. Or Visit the BBC News Home Page. Visit the BBC Sport Home Page. Explore our full list of sites and services.<< I really do want to read the BBC article, to find out if it (like the USAToday piece) has more to say other than "apparent fraud."
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>It is interesting that the US paper is downplaying the possibility of fraud but the UK paper isn't.<< Since I cannot read the BBC article, I cannot comment. But the USAToday piece doesn't appear to downplay anything. Rather, their reporters are simply printing verbatim statements by the various players. Granted, artful editing by those who bring these articles to the WE boards could make it appear that one position or another is being promulgated. But that would be so... dishonest...
Originally Posted By TomSawyer You can read the article - just go to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk" target="_blank">http://www.bbc.co.uk</a>, then to the News page. It's currently listed on the right hand side of the page under "Other Top Stories" - or you can go to the Middle East page and see it there. The link under "Other Top Stories" is the one that says "Iraq vote counts 'point to fraud'". I don't know why the direct links aren't working.
Originally Posted By DlandDug The direct link didn't work because the pesky "<<" was attaching itself. I read the article from the BBC, and did note two statements: >>Earlier, United Nations election officials in Iraq said the vote had gone well, but some Sunni Arab politicians have alleged corrupt practices were allowed to boost the "yes" vote.<< and >>There was international approval that the vote went ahead relatively peacefully, and that turnout was high, even in Sunni areas where some groups urged a boycott.<< Taken as a whole, both articles are fairly benign, albeit the BBC seems clearly more inclined to view the process with suspicion.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Ah... gotta love the BBC. After another record turnout in an Iraqi election, their intrepid reporters managed to find an area where voters were... not enthusiatic! <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4346210.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wor ld/middle_east/4346210.stm</a> EXCERPTS: Headline: >>Iraq vote fails to thrill Kurds<< Lead: >>At polling stations in this biggest of the mainly Kurdish cities of the north, there was little of the bustle and excitement that accompanied the general elections here on 30 January.<< >>On a tour of voting centres, there was no sign of the enthusiastic queues and crowds that were a feature of the January elections.<< But after that breathless lead, we get: >>But those who did vote were enthusiastic. "We want to show people that we are Kurds and we are voting, we are proud to show people that we also have the right to be a partner in the new Iraq," said Shahin Omar, resplendent in one of the glittering, spangly robes worn by Kurdish women on special occasions. "Of course it's a step towards being independent, that's what we believe and that's why we're voting," she added.<< And buried deep in the article we read: >>One possible explanation was that many did not bother to vote because they regarded the outcome as a foregone conclusion.<< (P.S. The "low" turnout was up to no more than 66%.) As I said before, to critics, every silver lining has a cloud.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Liberal moonbat rule # 35 from their political playbook. " If an election does not go like we want it to go, ALWAYS claim voter fraud or voter intimidation " The election going well in Iraq is something many liberals did not want.... thus this thread exists. Seems to me the IRAQI troops did a great job at security. Want the troops to come home? Keep cheering on the new Iraqi troops as they take over the security of their new democratic government and country.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I didn't realize the Iraqi electoral commission were liberal moonbats...
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Want the troops to come home? Keep cheering on the new Iraqi troops as they take over the security of their new democratic government and country.> GO IRAQI TROOPS! GO!!! WHOO-HOOOOO!
Originally Posted By ElKay Again, whether or not there is actual fraud in the voting is not the most important factor. It's the preception amoung the Sunni that they are being cheated by the Shia, Kurds, UN or even the US has the potential of a huge blow-out of violence. The Independent Electoral Commission is behind the eight ball on allowing even an appearence of fraud to surface. Ultimately, the US will be roundly blamed since we are still the ultimate authority. Recall a week ago, there were reports that the IEC wanted to change the criteria for rejecting the Constitution from 2/3 of the people who cast their votes in 3(?) of the provinces to 2/3 of the registered voters. This smacks of an intent to rig the election against the Sunni. So can the Sunni have ANY confidence in the election process IF there are now charges that there is a major over count with a majority leaning toward YES? How can US critics NOT compare this charge of vote fraud to even the 2000 election in Florida where the brother of a candidate purges tens of thousands of African American voters off the voter lists and when the results were contested the final say was put up the the Sect'y of State, who just happened to be the Bush campaign chairwoman? Additionally, the decision by the State's supreme court was nullified by a majority of the US Supreme Court, on a 5 to 4 partyline vote? It all boils down to a matter of trust, NOT the process of filling out a piece of paper or a punch card that makes an election. IF the people don't have confidence in the leaders or institutions you can have meaningless elections that don't change anything or could cause chaos.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Of course the Sunni's think there is fraud. They are used to decades where the Sunni guy received 100% of the vote. Besides... I've heard that the Sunni Secretary of State is Baghdad Bob. He has even less credibility than Harris... well, almost less credibility.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Again, whether or not there is actual fraud in the voting is not the most important factor. It's the preception ...<< Exactly. Forget about the facts, let's deal with how people FEEL about the issue. Facts and information are such pesky things, especially when they interfere with what people "just know."
