Alot of bloggers are decrying this Rumsfeldian comment:
“Let’s say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country in some places you couldn’t because the violence was too great,” Rumsfeld said. “So be it. Nothing’s perfect in life. You have an election that’s not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet.”
Asked later by reporters to elaborate, Rumsfeld said: “Is it dangerous? You bet. Will there be elections? I think so. Might there be some portion of the country where the terrorists decide they’re going to mess things up? Possibly. Does that mean that there won’t be elections? No.“
How does that statement stack up against this?
US officials are looking at ways to postpone the 2 November presidential poll should “terrorists” attack the United States near election time, a US magazine is reporting.
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge on Friday said: “Al-Qaida is moving forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in the United States in an effort to disrupt our democratic process.” However, he admitted US intelligence had no information about any specific plot.
But unnamed counterterrorism officials told Newsweek on Sunday they were considering a proposal to delay balloting in the event of an attack.
So, it’s OK to have elections in Iraq despite the violence and attacks which would leave out large swaths of the country including the capital(!), but in the US…well, that’s a different story.
I wish I could say that I find it hard to believe that opposition parties in the US aren’t pointing this out, but considering the TweedleDee and TweedleDumb-ness of this election, it isn’t at all surprising. I do think many Iraqis noticed the hypocritical double standard.