Vote counting begins in Iraq
Thread Starter
Sinner
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,599
Likes: 0
From: NoVA
Vote counting begins in Iraq
Vote counting begins in Iraq
Strong turnout reported, even among Sunnis, in historic elections.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Vote-counting at polling stations across Iraq is beginning Thursday night, after Iraqis turned out in droves to elect their first full-term parliament since the ouster of Saddam Hussein.
Turnout was so heavy across the country that the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq gave provincial governments the discretion to keep polls open an hour past its 5 p.m. closing time. It was not clear where polling stations exercised this leeway.
Polling stations would close after the last person to arrive in line by 6 p.m. votes, IECI spokesman Farid Ayar said.
Also streaming to the polls were Sunni Arabs, who had stayed away from the polls in previous elections only to find they barely had a voice in government.
The high turnout was remarkable, considering curfews, bulked-up security, border closings, road closures and traffic bans across the country. In some cases, voters had to take long walks to get to polls. Many were seen happily thrusting their purple ink-stained fingers at photographers -- the colored fingers a symbol of Iraq's free elections.
Scattered violence was also reported.
Nonetheless, one volunteer poll worker in Baquba deemed it "a special day."
"It's the beginning of our new life," said Buthana Mehdi, a schoolteacher. (Watch the interview with the poll worker -- 5:31)
The White House, under pressure from critics at home for its Iraq strategy, said it was encouraged by the large turnout Thursday.
"The Iraqi people are showing the world that all people of all backgrounds want to be able to choose their own leaders and live in freedom," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
About two-thirds of the 15 million registered voters, or 10 million, were expected to vote. Final results from the 33,000 polling stations around the country probably won't be available for "two weeks or more," said Ayar, the election official.
Expected to fare well are the ruling coalitions during the transitional period -- the Shiite-led United Iraqi Alliance and the Kurdish bloc.
U.S. and Iraqi officials are hopeful that greater Sunni participation in a post-Hussein government will quell the Sunni-dominated insurgency.
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad said that Sunni Arab participation appears better than during the January election and the constitutional referendum in October.
He pointed to Falluja, a hotbed of the insurgency in the Sunni Arab heartland of Anbar province as an example. As of early afternoon there, he said, "Over 120,000 people had voted. So indications are very good with regard to the Sunnis."
The Washington Post's Jonathan Finer corroborated a large turnout in Falluja, saying many of the polling places there ran out of ballots and ballot boxes, and election workers were trying to replenish supplies.
Ayar, the election official, said that electoral officials responded to complaints about the shortage of polling materials. The unstable "security situation" prevented "some polling stations" in Anbar province from opening, he said.
A strong turnout was also reported in the Sunni Arab-dominated Salaheddin province, where Hussein's hometown of Tikrit is located, CNN's Christiane Amanpour said. (Watch report on high Sunni turnout -- 2:43)
She also reported a high Sunni turnout in southern Baghdad, with people saying they made a mistake by shunning the January election and want their voices to be heard.
In Ramadi, CNN's Nic Robertson reported that local clerics used mosque sound systems, usually reserved for calls to prayer, to urge people to vote.
Local Sunni militias were also providing security at the 23 area polling stations, because the police force remains inadequate.
A celebratory atmosphere took hold in some locations. In the eastern Ramadi neighborhood of Sufiya, candy was being handed out, as people came to vote.
Khalilzad said that people arrived to polls with families "almost like going to a wedding."
He noted that the success in integrating the Sunni Arab community into the political process was a factor that would contribute to the start of a pullout of U.S. forces after the elections.
Strong turnout reported, even among Sunnis, in historic elections.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Vote-counting at polling stations across Iraq is beginning Thursday night, after Iraqis turned out in droves to elect their first full-term parliament since the ouster of Saddam Hussein.
Turnout was so heavy across the country that the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq gave provincial governments the discretion to keep polls open an hour past its 5 p.m. closing time. It was not clear where polling stations exercised this leeway.
Polling stations would close after the last person to arrive in line by 6 p.m. votes, IECI spokesman Farid Ayar said.
Also streaming to the polls were Sunni Arabs, who had stayed away from the polls in previous elections only to find they barely had a voice in government.
The high turnout was remarkable, considering curfews, bulked-up security, border closings, road closures and traffic bans across the country. In some cases, voters had to take long walks to get to polls. Many were seen happily thrusting their purple ink-stained fingers at photographers -- the colored fingers a symbol of Iraq's free elections.
Scattered violence was also reported.
Nonetheless, one volunteer poll worker in Baquba deemed it "a special day."
"It's the beginning of our new life," said Buthana Mehdi, a schoolteacher. (Watch the interview with the poll worker -- 5:31)
The White House, under pressure from critics at home for its Iraq strategy, said it was encouraged by the large turnout Thursday.
"The Iraqi people are showing the world that all people of all backgrounds want to be able to choose their own leaders and live in freedom," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
About two-thirds of the 15 million registered voters, or 10 million, were expected to vote. Final results from the 33,000 polling stations around the country probably won't be available for "two weeks or more," said Ayar, the election official.
Expected to fare well are the ruling coalitions during the transitional period -- the Shiite-led United Iraqi Alliance and the Kurdish bloc.
U.S. and Iraqi officials are hopeful that greater Sunni participation in a post-Hussein government will quell the Sunni-dominated insurgency.
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad said that Sunni Arab participation appears better than during the January election and the constitutional referendum in October.
He pointed to Falluja, a hotbed of the insurgency in the Sunni Arab heartland of Anbar province as an example. As of early afternoon there, he said, "Over 120,000 people had voted. So indications are very good with regard to the Sunnis."
The Washington Post's Jonathan Finer corroborated a large turnout in Falluja, saying many of the polling places there ran out of ballots and ballot boxes, and election workers were trying to replenish supplies.
Ayar, the election official, said that electoral officials responded to complaints about the shortage of polling materials. The unstable "security situation" prevented "some polling stations" in Anbar province from opening, he said.
A strong turnout was also reported in the Sunni Arab-dominated Salaheddin province, where Hussein's hometown of Tikrit is located, CNN's Christiane Amanpour said. (Watch report on high Sunni turnout -- 2:43)
She also reported a high Sunni turnout in southern Baghdad, with people saying they made a mistake by shunning the January election and want their voices to be heard.
In Ramadi, CNN's Nic Robertson reported that local clerics used mosque sound systems, usually reserved for calls to prayer, to urge people to vote.
Local Sunni militias were also providing security at the 23 area polling stations, because the police force remains inadequate.
A celebratory atmosphere took hold in some locations. In the eastern Ramadi neighborhood of Sufiya, candy was being handed out, as people came to vote.
Khalilzad said that people arrived to polls with families "almost like going to a wedding."
He noted that the success in integrating the Sunni Arab community into the political process was a factor that would contribute to the start of a pullout of U.S. forces after the elections.
Thread Starter
Sinner
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,599
Likes: 0
From: NoVA
Originally Posted by DVPGSR
And many Democrats want us to believe the war in Iraq is a failure.
lol
lol
it's sarcastic dude
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
This rocks for Iraqis, just to play the devil's advocate, one could still call the war a failure since the U.S. is arguably not benefitting at all..and the U.S. made all the sacrifices...
and of course beleiving the war is a failure, is very different from wanting people to beleive it's a failure, the latter sort of iimplies a sinister intent, no?
The main point here though is what a great thing for the Iraqi people.,
and of course beleiving the war is a failure, is very different from wanting people to beleive it's a failure, the latter sort of iimplies a sinister intent, no?
The main point here though is what a great thing for the Iraqi people.,
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 58,579
Likes: 0
From: Lll
Originally Posted by DVPGSR
And many Democrats want us to believe the war in Iraq is a failure.
lol
lol
__________________
.
.
I need sleep...
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
From: NH
Originally Posted by b00gers
I am really not one to stir things up. But as someone who is not really that politically involved or even that updated on current events, wasnt the purpose of the war something completely different? I dont remember hearing about us going to war to give Iraq a democracy.
Push to shock!
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,583
Likes: 0
From: Palo Alto, CA
Originally Posted by DVPGSR
That was one of many reasons that we went to war. WMD was the big one and the only one Democrats focus on because it allows them to play politics with the war.
As far as Iraq goes....give it 5-10 years. After all, South Vietnam survived as a "democracy" for over 10 years with US support, and collapsed 2 years after the US pulled out. Hell, the US itself took nearly 7 years to establish itself after the Revolutionary War, and in that period the whole thing nearly fell apart. So, let's see what happens in 10 years.
it's sarcastic dude
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
un-Touch'd krew
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 51,774
Likes: 1
From: My own level of hell
Q Is the President ready to go to war with Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, as the President said in his State of the Union, the President is prepared to take whatever action is necessary to protect the United States, protect our allies, and to protect the peace internationally. And I can assure you that no decisions have been made beyond the first phase of the war on terrorism. The President has been very plainspoken with the American people about the need to fight the war on terrorism wherever terrorism is. And he's focused right now on Afghanistan, but the President has been very clear that time is not on our side because of the threats posed by nations and terrorists against the United States.
Q Does he know of any connection with the current fight against terrorism by Iraq? Does he have any evidence?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, when the President referred to the axis of evil, and identified North Korea, Iran and Iraq, what the President was referring to is their -- not only their support of terrorism, which is plain -- they are on the State Department list of terrorist states -- but also their development of weapons of mass destruction, their willingness in the case of several of those nations to export technology and material and provide weapons of mass destruction. And the President does fear the marrying of any of these nations with terrorist organizations.
Q Well, we have weapons of mass destruction and we don't permit any inspection.
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, if you're suggesting that there's a moral equivalence between the United States' success in keeping the peace for 60 years with our weapons and the actions of terrorists, I would urge you to reexamine that premise. I see no moral equivalence.
Q Senator Daschle said yesterday that it's right to take a very close look at the problems presented by Iran, Iraq and North Korea, but the President should be careful with the kind of rhetoric he used by labeling them the axis of evil. Any response to that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Senator Daschle's remarks are confusing because it appears that he has changed from what he said the night of the State of the Union address when the President spoke to the nation about the axis of evil. Let me cite for you what Senator Daschle said in an interview on January 30th with Good Morning America.
When asked specifically about the President's reference to the axis of evil, Senator Daschle said, "We know that we've got to take more preventive action, and the President outlined some of the steps last night, and I think the Congress supports him, Charlie." And he continued, "And if it takes preemptive strikes, if it takes preemptive action, I think the Congress is prepared to support it." So it just seems that something has changed with Senator Daschle or perhaps he has had a change of opinion, but it does not appear that he is perfectly consistent.
Q In those comments he didn't say anything about the President's phrase, axis of evil. This is the first time he has come out and said that phrase is a little hot.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's why I raise it then. When he had a chance to say that when interviewed the morning after the speech, he indicated otherwise, because he was asked in that interview exactly about the axis of evil. And, at that time, he had nothing negative to say about it. In fact, he went on to indicate that the Congress would support the President if the President deemed it necessary to take action.
Q Ari, in the drug control strategy opening statement, the President talks about how internationally, drugs finance the work of terrorists, profits fund their work. As you know, in Afghanistan, the poppy crop is about to be replanted in March. What is the United States prepared to do about the crop? Will we wipe it out? Are we going to do anything to stop Afghanistan from becoming the heroin capital of the world?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there's no question that drug use has a direct funding for terrorists; that casual drug users, non-casual drug users, serious drug abusers, as a result of their purchase of drugs, it ultimately does support many terrorist organizations around the world.
In Afghanistan, this is a topic that has been discussed with the Interim Chairman of Afghanistan. It is an issue that the Afghani government is concerned with, and I think that as a result of the prosecution of the war against terrorism, you will see a diminution of the amount of poppy in Afghanistan that is exported for drugs. Can we eradicate all of it? Is that a possibility? I don't think anybody is prepared to say that will happen in a country that is as lacking in central control as Afghanistan. But it will represent an improvement because there will be a diminution of the supply.
Q But are you saying that this is Chairman Karzai's job, or will this become a function of the U.S. military? Chairman Karzai has said that they will eliminate drug-trafficking, but they've also got a big job on their hands in order to do it.
MR. FLEISCHER: They have a big job on their hands. I think you will see the United States in a variety of means be helpful to the government of Afghanistan. I'm not indicating that's anything that the military will play a role in, but the United States wants to work with the government of Afghanistan to help eradicate their drug crops.
Q Why not take a more proactive role, rather than just being a helper? Why wouldn't the military actually go in and do some of the work here?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, when it comes not only to eradication of drugs in Afghanistan, but helping Afghanistan become an independent, strong nation, the United States is going to be working to train Afghanistan's military, and that's something which Chairman Karzai and the President talked about. Chairman Karzai recognizes the importance for Afghanistan to be able to stand on its own feet and take action across the board, not only in this one area of drug production, but in terms of law enforcement and rule of law and openness, transparency, in Afghanistan. He wants to create an Afghanistan that is able to take care of its own matters. And the United States will be helpful to Afghanistan in that endeavor.
The United States won't do everything for Afghanistan. We cannot and we should not. But the United States will help Afghanistan in a number of areas, including drug eradication.
Q I just want to be clear on this. You're saying that the United States will not take any direct action to eliminate heroin in Afghanistan going forward?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I didn't say that. I talked about the role of the military. I said the United States will continue to work productively with Afghanistan. And a number of steps have not all been determined. They are a young country. They are just -- still in a state of war. So there will be a series of developing actions with Afghanistan, not all of which can be known right now.
Q You are saying the U.S. military would not take a part in eradicating --
MR. FLEISCHER: Ron, I have heard no discussion about the United States military taking part in that role. Now, again, I want to stress that Afghanistan is a young country. There will be continued actions with Afghanistan. Afghanistan is still in the middle of a war. But not all steps can be known with how we're going to cooperate with Afghanistan, because, again, there are still an interim government. They don't know all the steps they'll be able to take. But across the board, the United States wants to be helpful and work with Afghanistan. It's in both our nation's interests.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0referred%20to
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, as the President said in his State of the Union, the President is prepared to take whatever action is necessary to protect the United States, protect our allies, and to protect the peace internationally. And I can assure you that no decisions have been made beyond the first phase of the war on terrorism. The President has been very plainspoken with the American people about the need to fight the war on terrorism wherever terrorism is. And he's focused right now on Afghanistan, but the President has been very clear that time is not on our side because of the threats posed by nations and terrorists against the United States.
Q Does he know of any connection with the current fight against terrorism by Iraq? Does he have any evidence?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, when the President referred to the axis of evil, and identified North Korea, Iran and Iraq, what the President was referring to is their -- not only their support of terrorism, which is plain -- they are on the State Department list of terrorist states -- but also their development of weapons of mass destruction, their willingness in the case of several of those nations to export technology and material and provide weapons of mass destruction. And the President does fear the marrying of any of these nations with terrorist organizations.
Q Well, we have weapons of mass destruction and we don't permit any inspection.
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, if you're suggesting that there's a moral equivalence between the United States' success in keeping the peace for 60 years with our weapons and the actions of terrorists, I would urge you to reexamine that premise. I see no moral equivalence.
Q Senator Daschle said yesterday that it's right to take a very close look at the problems presented by Iran, Iraq and North Korea, but the President should be careful with the kind of rhetoric he used by labeling them the axis of evil. Any response to that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Senator Daschle's remarks are confusing because it appears that he has changed from what he said the night of the State of the Union address when the President spoke to the nation about the axis of evil. Let me cite for you what Senator Daschle said in an interview on January 30th with Good Morning America.
When asked specifically about the President's reference to the axis of evil, Senator Daschle said, "We know that we've got to take more preventive action, and the President outlined some of the steps last night, and I think the Congress supports him, Charlie." And he continued, "And if it takes preemptive strikes, if it takes preemptive action, I think the Congress is prepared to support it." So it just seems that something has changed with Senator Daschle or perhaps he has had a change of opinion, but it does not appear that he is perfectly consistent.
Q In those comments he didn't say anything about the President's phrase, axis of evil. This is the first time he has come out and said that phrase is a little hot.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's why I raise it then. When he had a chance to say that when interviewed the morning after the speech, he indicated otherwise, because he was asked in that interview exactly about the axis of evil. And, at that time, he had nothing negative to say about it. In fact, he went on to indicate that the Congress would support the President if the President deemed it necessary to take action.
Q Ari, in the drug control strategy opening statement, the President talks about how internationally, drugs finance the work of terrorists, profits fund their work. As you know, in Afghanistan, the poppy crop is about to be replanted in March. What is the United States prepared to do about the crop? Will we wipe it out? Are we going to do anything to stop Afghanistan from becoming the heroin capital of the world?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there's no question that drug use has a direct funding for terrorists; that casual drug users, non-casual drug users, serious drug abusers, as a result of their purchase of drugs, it ultimately does support many terrorist organizations around the world.
In Afghanistan, this is a topic that has been discussed with the Interim Chairman of Afghanistan. It is an issue that the Afghani government is concerned with, and I think that as a result of the prosecution of the war against terrorism, you will see a diminution of the amount of poppy in Afghanistan that is exported for drugs. Can we eradicate all of it? Is that a possibility? I don't think anybody is prepared to say that will happen in a country that is as lacking in central control as Afghanistan. But it will represent an improvement because there will be a diminution of the supply.
Q But are you saying that this is Chairman Karzai's job, or will this become a function of the U.S. military? Chairman Karzai has said that they will eliminate drug-trafficking, but they've also got a big job on their hands in order to do it.
MR. FLEISCHER: They have a big job on their hands. I think you will see the United States in a variety of means be helpful to the government of Afghanistan. I'm not indicating that's anything that the military will play a role in, but the United States wants to work with the government of Afghanistan to help eradicate their drug crops.
Q Why not take a more proactive role, rather than just being a helper? Why wouldn't the military actually go in and do some of the work here?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, when it comes not only to eradication of drugs in Afghanistan, but helping Afghanistan become an independent, strong nation, the United States is going to be working to train Afghanistan's military, and that's something which Chairman Karzai and the President talked about. Chairman Karzai recognizes the importance for Afghanistan to be able to stand on its own feet and take action across the board, not only in this one area of drug production, but in terms of law enforcement and rule of law and openness, transparency, in Afghanistan. He wants to create an Afghanistan that is able to take care of its own matters. And the United States will be helpful to Afghanistan in that endeavor.
The United States won't do everything for Afghanistan. We cannot and we should not. But the United States will help Afghanistan in a number of areas, including drug eradication.
Q I just want to be clear on this. You're saying that the United States will not take any direct action to eliminate heroin in Afghanistan going forward?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I didn't say that. I talked about the role of the military. I said the United States will continue to work productively with Afghanistan. And a number of steps have not all been determined. They are a young country. They are just -- still in a state of war. So there will be a series of developing actions with Afghanistan, not all of which can be known right now.
Q You are saying the U.S. military would not take a part in eradicating --
MR. FLEISCHER: Ron, I have heard no discussion about the United States military taking part in that role. Now, again, I want to stress that Afghanistan is a young country. There will be continued actions with Afghanistan. Afghanistan is still in the middle of a war. But not all steps can be known with how we're going to cooperate with Afghanistan, because, again, there are still an interim government. They don't know all the steps they'll be able to take. But across the board, the United States wants to be helpful and work with Afghanistan. It's in both our nation's interests.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0referred%20to
__________________
"I'll keep my money, guns and freedom. You can keep the "Change."
"I'll keep my money, guns and freedom. You can keep the "Change."
it's sarcastic dude
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
the answer to the second answer is sort of making me laugh here, if I'm reading it right it could be paraphrased:
Q: What proof is there of Iraq's ties to terrorism?
A: Well first off the president said so. Secondarily the ties to terrorism are plain, WMDS, also we are not afraid of saying so.
Q: What proof is there of Iraq's ties to terrorism?
A: Well first off the president said so. Secondarily the ties to terrorism are plain, WMDS, also we are not afraid of saying so.