Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Losing Argument: Limited elections are a-okay.

Losing Argument:

"Let's say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn't because the violence was too great. Well, so be it. Nothing's perfect in life, so you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet." –Donald Rumsfeld, 9/23/04


Why it's a loser:

Partial elections are never acceptable and the Secretary of Defense should not be aiming for the "not quite perfect." On Sunday, Secretary Powell told FOX News, "For the elections to have complete credibility and stand the test of international scrutiny, I think what we have to do is to give all the people of Iraq an opportunity to participate. Just as we would have difficulty with partial elections here in the United States . . . I think it has to be throughout the country." The U.S. cannot and should not make everyone vote, but everyone in Iraq should be given the opportunity to vote. The Administration’s inability to plan in Iraq should not be an excuse for it to exclude parts of the country in the democratic process. Shutting out certain voices would also be a recipe for more violence and resentment toward the U.S. (Washington Post)