Well, they're talking about having elections in January for Iraq. The only problem is that there is so much violence and insecurity that there are probably parts of the country where people aren't going to be able to vote. You know, places like Fallujah, Najaf, Sadr City, etc.
I just can't see why this would be a problem for anyone. They're saying that 75% of the country would still be able to vote. That should be sufficient to silence critics, but no.
Even Donald Rumsfeld, in his patented ask-himself-a-question-then-answer-it style, said, "You have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet."
Who can argue with that?
In fact, with threats of terrorist attacks on the United States -- especially in places like New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago -- maybe they would like to implement a similar plan here. As long as 75% of the states can vote, everything should be fine. That means they can eliminate 12 or 13 states.
- California
- New York
- Illinois
- Hawaii
- Vermont
- New Jersey
- Massachussetts
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Rhode Island
- Maryland
- Washington
- Oregon
I mean, who could possibly see that as unfair? Seventy-five percent of the country still gets to vote!