Tuesday, January 18, 2005

At What Point Can an Election be Called a Sham?

When there will be more votes coming from out of the country than in?

When the candidates won't even declare themselves publicly for fear of assassination?

When the alleged "election monitors" won't come closer to the action than a nation away?

When any semblance or pretext of civil liberty is totally shut down three days in advance of the election?

When a very significant slice of the electorate and political parties are boycotting the election because of it's shamness?

When the security situation is so bad in a geographic area which is home to over 50% of the country's population, that an average of over 20 people a day (non-combatants) are being killed by guerilla forces?

When continuous threats are being issued against anyone who bothers to come out to vote?

When poll workers are resigning en masse for fear of their lives?

At what point is the media going to be willing to call a spade a spade, and expose this sham election in Iraq for what it is?

Think about this for a moment. If this election were being held in any other country in the world, under the conditions this one is being held under, in the shadow of an occupying force other than that of the U.S. military, how legitimate would the U.S. government consider such an election?

And that's your rhetorical question for the evening.