Iraq referendum possibly rigged (1 Viewer)

[supercharged]

Unusually High Vote Totals Prompt Review Of Iraq Referendum
10.18.2005 8:23 AM EDT

Some provinces reporting up to 99 percent of ballots approve the new constitution.

Iraqi election workers transport ballot boxes in Baghdad on Sunday
Photo: Ahmad Al-Rubaye/Getty Images

Not in his wildest dreams could President Bush have hoped for democracy to take hold this hard and fast in Iraq. Which is exactly why Iraqi election officials are investigating some unusually high vote totals in 12 Shiite and Kurdish provinces where as many as 99 percent of eligible voters reportedly cast ballots in favor of Iraq's new constitution.

The investigation could call into question the results of the referendum held on Saturday, according to a report by The New York Times. The Independent Election Commission of Iraq released a statement Monday night that said the results of the referendum would be delayed a few days as election workers had to "recheck, compare and audit" the results because of the high number of "yes" votes (see "Iraq Charter Vote Goes Smoothly; Constitution Likely To Pass"). The commission did not suggest that there was voter fraud involved, but that international voting standards require voting procedures to be re-examined whenever a candidate or ballot question receives more than 90 percent of the vote.

"When you find consistently very, very high numbers, then that is cause for further checking," a commission official said. "Anything over 90 percent either way usually leads to further investigation." The delayed vote-counting process could potentially push back the planned December 15 elections for a full-term parliament.

The votes in question came from 12 provinces that were majority Shiite and Kurdish, the two leading tribal factions in the country, which had strongly supported the document. The Times questioned why Shiite or Kurdish leaders would resort to fraud, given that their groups make up 80 percent of Iraq's population and could have easily won the referendum with just a fraction of votes from the minority Sunni areas.

The Associated Press reported that among the Sunni fraud allegations are reports that police took ballot boxes from heavily "no" districts, and that some "yes" areas had more votes than registered voters.

In a country that was already fiercely divided going into the referendum, with Sunnis — many loyal to deposed leader Saddam Hussein — unhappy with several of the power-sharing provisions in the document, the allegations of possible fraud could add fuel to the tensions and drive more Sunnis to join the insurgency, according to the Times.

Given the suggestion of fraud, Sunni leader Mishaan al-Jubouri said he favored a thorough investigation. He claimed that the Shiite and Kurdish political parties in power "were filling out forms and stuffing them into boxes. ... They were also voting in the names of those who hadn't come to vote." He also claimed that monitors in several predominantly Shiite southern provinces such as Najaf and Karbala initially reported modest voter turnout, but after the polls closed they released figures that seemed very high. The Times could not verify al-Jubouri's allegations.

In an attempt to head off the possibility of fraud or intimidation at the polls, the election commission deployed 57,000 election observers drawn from local aid groups and 120 representatives of political parties. But Kurdish National Assembly member Mahmood Othaman said the monitors were largely partisan.

None of the 12 provinces that are getting a closer look had Sunni majorities, according to officials, despite reports of similarly lopsided votes against the constitution in those areas. Three of the 18 provinces in the country have a Sunni majority. In total, 64 percent of registered voters, about 10 million Iraqis, cast ballots in the referendum, and preliminary results show that the constitution appears to have been approved by about 65 percent of voters.

In the shadow of the country's budding democracy is the dark specter of its past, as Hussein and seven senior members of his regime will go on trial Wednesday to face charges that they ordered the 1982 killings of almost 150 people from the mainly Shiite town of Dujail after a failed assassination attempt on the country's former dictator (see "Saddam Hussein Reportedly Confesses To Ordering Executions").

The trial is only expected to take a few weeks. If convicted, Hussein and his co-defendants could face the death penalty.

— Gil Kaufman

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1511658/20051018/index.jhtml?headlines=true

 

[Comrade nathan]

On SBS news they showed a man voting 7 times.

 

[Götterfunken]

Iraq referendum possibly rigged.

Well, duh.

 

[Rorix]

Uh, OK. So what are we discussing?

 

[Calculon]

The Sun will possibly not rise tomorrow. What's your point?

 

[supercharged]

Uh, OK. So what are we discussing?

That Iraq is in a state of shambles?

 

[Calculon]

That Iraq is in a state of shambles?

And hence we should withdraw and allow it to fall even further down the pit of despair?

 

[breaking]

That Iraq is in a state of shambles?

O RLY?

 

[SashatheMan]

99 persent. wehy not just make it 100 .

 

[supercharged]

And hence we should withdraw and allow it to fall even further down the pit of despair?

It's going to go that way regardless of what happens due to human greed and clashing religious/ethnic tribal interests. The secular Baathists as imperfect as they were, were the only ones who could hold the country together with relative peace.

 

[Calculon]

It's going to go that way regardless of what happens due to human greed and clashing religious/ethnic tribal interests. The secular Baathists as imperfect as they were, were the only ones who could hold the country together with relative peace.

What makes you think a government composed primarily of shi'ites couldn't do the same, without significant use of force?

 

[Raginsheep]

How bout they stay for the long term and instead promote the growth of a new national Iraqi identity that is not based on tribal and religious lines?

 

[supercharged]

What makes you think a government composed primarily of shi'ites couldn't do the same, without significant use of force?

Because each group wants all of the power and oil revenue to be controlled by their own clan. If the Shias get to dominate, the Sunis and the Kurds will oppose the government with the force of arms. They aren't gonna try to elect politicians out (they can't because they are a minority anyway) when they can simply blow up or shoot any government official they don't like.

 

[supercharged]

How bout they stay for the long term and instead promote the growth of a new national Iraqi identity that is not based on tribal and religious lines?

Won't happen, the Iraqis want the Americans out. They will keep fighting the Americans until they get out, and once they do, they'll turn on each other Balkans style.

 

[Iron]

Condi says that the insurgency is very unpopular in Iraq - all polling is showing this. How could they be when they slaughter women and children? She added that civilians are themselves attacking insurrgents, especially the foreign ones.
The major divide is sectarian, and that's being sorted out constitutionally (which is the thread topic). Although she wouldnt rule out the possibility of U.S troops still being there in ten years to achieve this

 

[Calculon]

Because each group wants all of the power and oil revenue to be controlled by their own clan. If the Shias get to dominate, the Sunis and the Kurds will oppose the government with the force of arms. They aren't gonna try to elect politicians out (they can't because they are a minority anyway) when they can simply blow up or shoot any government official they don't like.

But wouldn''t a government which represents upwards of 3/4 of the population be better than one which is wholly composed of those from a minority group?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Supercharged, would you be happy if the iraqi's don't start killing each other?

 

[supercharged]

Condi says that the insurgency is very unpopular in Iraq - all polling is showing this. How could they be when they slaughter women and children? She added that civilians are themselves attacking insurrgents, especially the foreign ones.
The major divide is sectarian, and that's being sorted out constitutionally (which is the thread topic). Although she wouldnt rule out the possibility of U.S troops still being there in ten years to achieve this

Of course Condi will say some BS like that. They also said that the referendum thing at the begining of the year would stop the violence.

But the thing is, when those insurgents blow stuff up killing innocent Iraqi as well, Iraqi bystanders dont blame the insurgency, they blame the Americans for 'not providing security'

 

[Calculon]

Of course Condi will say some BS like that. They also said that the referendum thing at the begining of the year would stop the violence.

But the thing is, when those insurgents blow stuff up killing innocent Iraqi as well, Iraqi bystanders dont blame the insurgency, they blame the Americans for 'not providing security'

And that supports your argument, or lack thereof, how?

 

[supercharged]

And that supports your argument, or lack thereof, how?

The Americans can't control shit in Iraq, no-one supports their BS cause. Iraq is a tribal country which can only be held together with a tough guy Baathist style dictatorship. Once the secular rule is removed, the tribes and their religious fanatic leaders will all kill each other in bloody power struggles. It's better to have one secular dictator calling all the shots, than several rival mullahs and their angry mob followers dukeing it out until someone ends up on top of the pile.

The Americans basically broke open a hornets nest when they invaded Iraq, and now they're being stung! Doesn't matter if they stay or pull out, it's lose/lose either way with Iraq. Just bad karma for their neo-imperialism.

[LatelineNews 2005-10-19] WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declined on Wednesday to rule out American forces still being needed in Iraq a decade from now.

Senators warned that the Bush administration must play it straight with the public or risk losing public support for the war.
Pushed by senators from both parties to define the limits of U.S. involvement in Iraq and the Middle East, Rice also declined to rule out the use of military force in Iran or Syria, although she said the administration prefers diplomacy.

``I don't think the president ever takes any of his options off the table concerning anything to do with military force,'' Rice said.

Rice appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations committee for only the second time since members gave her an unexpectedly tepid endorsement to replace Colin Powell in January, and she fielded pointed questions about U.S. intentions and commitment on Iraq from lawmakers who said they are hearing complaints at home.

``Our country is sick at heart at the spin and false expectations,'' Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., told Rice. ``They want the truth and they deserve it.''

Rice said Iraq's police and Army forces are becoming better able to handle the country's security without U.S. help, and she repeated President Bush's warning that setting a timetable for withdrawal plays into terrorists' hands.

``The terrorists want us to get discouraged and quit,'' Rice said. ``They believe we do not have the will to see this through.''

Rice said the United States will follow a model that was successful in Afghanistan. Starting next month, she said, joint diplomatic-military groups - called Provincial Reconstruction Teams - will work alongside Iraqis as they train police, set up courts, and help local governments establish essential services.

By State Department design, Rice testified before the committee just days after Iraq apparently approved its first constitution since a U.S.-led coalition ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003. Her appearance also coincided with the start of Saddam's trial in Baghdad for a 1982 massacre of 150 of his fellow Iraqis.

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., agreed with the Bush administration's stay-the-course approach but said there are legitimate questions to ask about the future.

``We should recognize that most Americans are focused on an exit strategy in Iraq,'' said Lugar, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman. ``Even if withdrawal timelines are deemed unwise because they might provide a strategic advantage to the insurgency, the American people need to more fully understand the basis upon which our troops are likely to come home.''

An AP-Ipsos poll this month found 61 percent of respondents disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq while 32 percent said they approve. In August, 53 percent said the United States made a mistake by going to war while 43 percent said it was the right decision.

The figures represent a sharp drop-off from strong support for the war in the early going. The war also had overwhelming support in Congress, including from most of Rice's questioners Wednesday.

``One thing the Vietnam generation learned is no foreign policy can be sustained without the informed consent of the American people. And we haven't gotten that informed consent in terms of them knowing what they're signing on to from here on out,'' Sen. Joseph P. Biden Jr., D-Del., told Rice. ``So I'm not looking for a date to get out of Iraq. But at what point, assuming the strategy works, do you think we'll be able to see some sign of bringing some American forces home?''

Rice did not address the Vietnam comparison, and said the question of withdrawal is one for military planners.

``I really don't want to hazard what I think would be a guess, even if it were an assessment, of when that might be possible,'' Rice said of a troop withdrawal.

Later, Sen. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md., told Rice that her response to questions about U.S. troop withdrawal leaves open the possibility that U.S. forces could be in Iraq five or even 10 years down the road. Rice did not dispute that.

``I don't know how to speculate about what will happen 10 years from now, but I do believe that we are moving on a course on which Iraqi security forces are rather rapidly able to take care of their own security concerns,'' Rice responded.

Boxer read quotation after quotation from administration figures about Iraq, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's February 2003 prediction that the war could ``last six days, six weeks, I doubt six months,'' to make the point that the war has not gone as the administration predicted.

Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, read portions of a letter from a father who lost a son in Iraq. The letter called the war a ``misguided effort.''

``We have to really level with the American people,'' Voinovich told Rice. ``This is not going to be over in two years ... we're not going to just be able to walk out of Iraq and this is going to be over.''