home

Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 11:12:50 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Polls have now been open for three hours. There has been a steady flow of voters in some parts of Baghdad--and a steady round of explosions and gunfire. 14 million Iraqis are eligible to vote. How many will actually vote is still unknown.

This should be contrasted with Ramadi where Jim Maceda, MSNBC's reporter, says the election has been a "total failure." With 600,000 residents, only 150 people have voted. Only one voter showed up at Maceda's polling place. He says the intimidation worked. Ramadi is considered a litmus test because of the large number of moderate Sunnis.

Then there's this: An unscientific poll from the new issue of Time Magazine on Americans' views on the future of Iraq.

[edited to delete graphic, it skewed the site.]

[via Baghdad Dweller.]

More reading: RobertFisk, "This election will change the world. But not in the way the Americans imagined."

Washington Post : Iraqi Wonder: Was it Worth It?

< R.I.P., Jim Capaldi, Traffic Drummer | Why is the Violence Lighter Than Expected? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting | 37 comments (37 topical)
    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 11:24:34 PM EST
    Is there a single example in known human history where a "war of liberation" by an outside power has brought democracy to a land previously subject to totalitarian rule? Post WWII Japan doesn't count, they were a defeated enemy subject to explicit occupation with no pretense that we were there as friends. (And of course we are still there.)

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 11:53:02 PM EST
    Germany, Japan, South Korea. The left not only doesn't learn from history, it doesn't know history.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 12:54:19 AM EST
    Oh you are so wrong about history, my good son! James Robertson, the fact is guys who were democracy guys rebuilt the nations that we had been at war with, do you know who FDR, Is? and the reason why japan was rebuilt? because of the War korea, and south korea was rebuilt as what was called a bull-work against the Reds. and by the way hisory is not what you think it is.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:14:43 AM EST
    Gee, 72% vote and it is a failure.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 05:49:51 AM EST
    Jim I think you are oversimplifying the issues by posting the same comment in every thread regarding the 72%. If no Sunnis vote this will cause some serious issues down the road.Yes this is a very high turnout, but I would stop short of calling this a success or a failure this early and see what the reactions from the Sunnis.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 06:23:20 AM EST
    GregZ - You are overstating. I only pointed out the 72% on one other thread. Will there be other problems? Of course. But the real news is that the terrorists failed to stop the election, and that the turn out is very high. Have some hope. Have some faith.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 06:29:20 AM EST
    72% is not accurate or confirmed yet I just heard Rice say that on TV, some have said 55%, its too early to rattle off statistics about the success of this election. Is it great to see this vote? Yes Do I think it will resolve some of the situations there? Honestly I don't know but I don't see how the Sunni population will ever accept the Shi'ite in this election if they did not vote.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 06:36:06 AM EST
    If you count the Cold War the amount of countries liberated are too numerous to name here. Of course you forgot Afghanistan as well. About 60% of American voters turned out to re-elect the President. In Israel where they live & breathe politics 63% turned out last election.72% in Iraq is a major victory. It would be Ok if a few of you libs actually admitted that.Hell....some of you could even be happy for the Iraqi people. We won't laugh at you. Mark W.......still the PRESIDENT

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 06:39:33 AM EST
    great now we will listen to how libs don't care about Iraq yet we were the only ones speaking out against carpet bombing of Fullajah. what a bunch of hypocrites. It seems Kurdish and Shi'a population turned out with very few Sunnis voting.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 06:46:46 AM EST
    If we had "carpet bombed" we would have killed our own troops who were going house to house. It sounds good though. Too bad it didn't actually happen but don't let the truth get in your way. Propaganda does not require you tell the truth. Speaking of propaganda. I wonder why Time published (and you felt it necessary to re_publish here)an "un scientific" poll they allegedly took in the Us that is very negative about the Iraq elections but didn't bother to take a poll in Iraq? Mark W......Still the PRESIDENT

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 07:04:07 AM EST
    From the BBC:
    Iraq's electoral commission held a news conference 90 minutes before polls closed to say turnout was estimated at 72%, with 90% or more in some Shia areas. But electoral official Adil al-Lami did not say how these figures had been reached. Earlier, the top UN electoral adviser Carlos Valenzuela offered a much more cautious assessment, saying turnout appeared to be high in many areas, but that it was too early to know for sure.


    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:05:54 AM EST
    et al - It would be intersting to see the state by state demographic of Time's circulation. My guess is that it is heavily read in the Blue states, less so in the Red. Thus the poll result will reflect a Blue state bias ofd against our involvement.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:29:11 AM EST
    The big lie - liberal media. Like the wmd, there will probably be a lot of talk about these initial reports of 72% turnout. Later, if/when the evidence suggests much lower turnout and profound election irregularities, that will be swept away as unimportant. I would love to be wrong about this. I suspect that in January 2006 we will still be fighting the "insurgency" and the "elected Iraqi govenment" will be keeping their heads low in the green zone and living at the US feed trough. Hope I am wrong. They never had it so good it has been said.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:30:41 AM EST
    Probably the reason there's going to be several elections in Iraq this year is that the Bush administration sees elections as propaganda opportunities. In between the propaganda opportunities, everyone knows that more Americans and Iraqis will be killed and wounded.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:38:37 AM EST
    "the fact is guys who were democracy guys rebuilt the nations that we had been at war with, do you know who FDR, Is" Hmm - I suppose a few definitions are in order. The US is not, and never as been, a democracy. It's a republic, and there's a huge difference - pure democracies are unstable, and tend towards autocracy very quickly. Second, the US - small r republican since 1787 - is rebuilding Iraq with the help of a bunch of other free states. Third, You might want to read up on the utter chaos (3 million starved to death from 1945-1949) in the post war German rebuilding years Fourth, I'll give you another example where representative government was forced - India. It didn't exist culturally or historically in India prior to the British Empire's hegemony, but has been stable there - with hiccups - ever since.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:44:36 AM EST
    Back to the question about an outside power overturning a totalitarian govt and establishing a democracy? The French helped the nascent colonies get free of King George and establish this American democratic experiment. Our colonial interest in individual liberties and our disinterest in monarchs traced back to the French revolution which for all its excesses was a critical moment and movement in political evolution. I hope that in looking back a few years from now I may feel that an Iraqi democracy somehow fits into that centuries old pattern of democracy, but I don't think that is likely. I suspect that Iraq will look more like Guatemala, Columbia after we help them with their political system. Hope I am wrong about this. I was correct back in the 70's when we overthrew the democratically elected government in Chile. Our guy Pinochet still seems to fit in the mold of Karzai, Chalabi, D'Aubisson and others we have propped up in our nation-building adventures.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#17)
    by glanton on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:46:21 AM EST
    Look guys we can be against our military action in Iraq and still be hopeful that it turns out as well as possible. I hope the election goes smoothly and lots of Iraqis vote. When our soldiers come back they will be able to say they were present for the first democratic election in the history of the ME, sans Israel. That aint all bad.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:08:17 AM EST
    glanton - We can be against our military operations, but hope they turn out as best possible? Uh, look. Soldiers do military operations. If you are against military operations, then you have to be against the soldiers.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#19)
    by glanton on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:19:02 AM EST
    Poor wording. Obviously I'm talking about policy, our presence there in the first place. This is carryover from the other thread. It's no secret I think going in was a horrible mistake. But that doesn't mean I have to write off the good things that result from it. That's what I'm saying. And by the way: it is the soldiers and the Iraqis who voted, and not Dubya and his cabinet, to whom the credit ought to be going today.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#20)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:27:55 AM EST
    OK 72% may be correct, IN SOME AREAS. C'mon people, at least pretend you can see through the spin.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimcee on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:30:11 AM EST
    Seems to me things are a lot better in the Iraqi elections than even the Administration thought they were going to be. Very little "resistance"/terror from Zarqawi's minions, a pretty good turn out and a chance that Iraq may become a fledgling democracy. This seems like better news than some corresponents on this site can handle. As far as Sunni's not turning out, this was their choice and if they don't want a say in how their country is to be run they made that choice freely and will have to live with their decision. Many have used the S. African first post-aparthied election as an example and it is a good one. If the Africaaners had refused to participate would that have meant that the election in S. Africa was iillegitimate? No and Sunni refusal does not make the Iraqi election illegitimate either. I just hope this will work out for everyone concerned.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#23)
    by glanton on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 11:26:27 AM EST
    Mark's really on a roll with absurd statements today, as are the othjer neocons on this site. The sterotypes are bound to play out throughout the media today as they always do, though. Doesn't make em true. "Liberals are against liberty." What a bunch of fascist propaganda. Personally what I'm against is the arbitrary waste of human lives. Ity doesn't matter to me who wastes them, whether they be Dem or GOP. But I do notice that this modern GOP is much more cavalier about sending people to their deaths than any faction I have ever seen in the United States. And why should they not be? They themselves have no conscience, and they damn sure have nothing to lose. Now Mark and jimcee and other idiots think this is a victorious day for Dubya. Yeah, Dubya really stuck out his neck, personally, to make elections happen didn't he? He wins either way, smug isolated self-righteous pandering corporate Machievellian bastard that he is. Let the bootlickers have their day. It doesn't make them anything other than bootlickers.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 11:58:52 AM EST
    I hope I am wrong about this business. You can think what you want, I hope I am wrong. I believe that the right-wingers generally want things to turn out good also, we may disagree almost completely on process and to a lesser extent what is "good," but I don't ascribe evil intentions or desires to the right wingers generally. I think they are naive, misguided, incorrect on many things, but I think they desire good outcomes. The problem as an Israeli historian has said is not that we are too much like the Nazis, but that we are not more different.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 12:08:02 PM EST
    duplicate comment deleted

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#25)
    by glanton on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 12:22:13 PM EST
    ca: To each his/her own, I suppose. My disagreements with the right wingers, however, about what is "good," cannot possibly be characterized as "to a lesser extent." If you are cavalier about human lives, lives which gamble from your own safe, comfortable, isolated little sphere, your sense of "good" is stratospherically different than mine. To name one of scads of examples.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 01:15:11 PM EST
    Yes, I agree Glanton. The lives are negotiable, but the rightwingers think they are saving lives by taking lives in military action. They perceive a "good" through military action that you and I do not subscribe to, but I bet they would say that their approach recognized the sanctity of life and will reduce loss of life in the long run. I disagree strongly with their process and it's outcome. Demonizing the other side generally just blinds us to their humanity and their belief in their good intentions. I would be very satisfied to have just the right wing military afficionados manning the barricades at the green zone today. I think they would understand the flaws in their process quickly.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 01:16:34 PM EST
    typing too quickly and visiting with one of my Sudanese sons at the same time. Above should have said, lives are not negotiable

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 03:37:51 PM EST
    CA - If France and England had acted early on, Germany would never have started WWII. Sometimes military action is the only way. So save your holier than thou attitude for someone who doesn't know any history.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 04:08:48 PM EST
    I think a strong case can be made that the Treaty of Versailles with its over-aggressive of Germany as loser in WWI guaranteed WWII. Maybe if France and England had acted early on, we could have had WWII from 1938 to 1942 or 3. A lot of speculation. and a little history. Jim, I believe you think the policies you support will bring "good" results. I just think you are wrong. And by the way, in my cosmology, there really is no possibility of holier than thou, it's all holy. You, me, Saddam, Osama, the moon, the stars, the plank in our eye.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#30)
    by glanton on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 04:28:34 PM EST
    It's interesting, I've recently had occasion to go through some old New York Times papers in September and October of 1933, and much of '34. The Chicago Tribune as well. Funny thing is, both papers at that time teem with American writers doing everything they could to portray a "fair and balanced" look at the Nazis, writing off the anti-Hitler crowd as reactionary. It's time some of you guys dropped the "America knew Hitler was bad before anyone else" routine. And of course ca is on the mark with the Treaty of Versailles comment. None of the hawks like to look at that, either. Such truths dispel the "American government as White Hatted Saint" mantra we're all supposed to swallow. Like any other civilized nation with some history under our belts, we have effected some good and we have also made terrible mistakes throughout. But all along we've been expansionist, especially in terms of economics.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:33:07 PM EST
    glanton - I said France and England, not the US. The US had some very strong pro German groups, and was very isolationist. England and France also had this problem, although Churchill in particular immediately recognized Hitler for what he was. But Churchill was not in power, and was always a hard man to like. If you want to find the idoit child in all of that, it was Chamberlain. Was the treaty too harsh? Perhaps. That is a popular explanation.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:38:21 PM EST
    CA - In my view, evil does exist, so everything cannot be holy. Oh BTW - Glanton - When the Germans re-occupied the Rhur Valley, Hitler's instructions was for the military to immediately withdraw if there was any resistance. France did nothing but protest. WWII might have been prevented by two .30 caliber bullets.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#33)
    by glanton on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:59:03 PM EST
    Jim, Touche on France re WWII. I think we're more or less in agreement on all this. Blake wrote, "All that lives is holy." I understand why you do not subscribe to this but I sure as hell do. That we sometimes find it necessary to kill is undeniable, but that doesn't make it glorious by any stretch. The untimely extinguishment of life is a tragedy to me always. Bush I speaks of this position frequently, of course (albeit in hyper religious terms), and at least pretends to respect it, though he doesn't agree. I hope you can extend the same respect. Long days and pleasant nights.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:26:28 PM EST
    Mystics have always known that is all holy. Jesus said love your enemy. MLK said bring light to darkness. You can't defeat evil with stronger, better-armed evil. You can only replace the evil with that approach.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 01:04:21 AM EST
    Lets all hope this iraq thing ends soon, and get our people home and let the "europeans" do the job.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 06:49:24 AM EST
    Glanton - The argument of does evil exist has gone on for quite sometime, I seem to remember Jesus on the mountain top with the Devil.

    Re: Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting (none / 0) (#37)
    by glanton on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 08:10:05 PM EST
    Jim: I remember that too. I'm not going to pretend to say that evil does not exist. It's a tough question, theologically as well as ethically, that has existed as long as people have. And in the end, my arguably exaggerated valuation of human life has little to do with moral questions. I wince when I think of American bombers blowing up people in Iraq, I wince when I think of the insurgents killing our brave men and women. I cannot help it. And I think Dubya's team is just so cavalier about it all, they have this attitude like hey, it's worth it, 'nuff said. And I notice that none of them has ever tasted that kind of mortal danger, economically, militarily, whatever. Besides: Too many Americans (like Bush, Ashcroft, and Doctor Ace) have this Lord of the Rings approach to evil, as though there were flesh and blood human beings who act as nither more nor less than vessels for the great eye of evil. That's absurd. People have motives and tend to see themselves as doing good. I'd bet Hitler thought he was doing good. Same with bin Laden. New Kids on the Block thought they were doing good, too, I'd imagine.

    Iraq Elections: First Three Hours of Voting | 37 comments (37 topical)