Join 3,425 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Saddam Hussein wins 100% of the vote
October 16, 2002 2:38 AM   Subscribe

Saddam Hussein wins 100% of the vote in a hilarious display of so called democracy
posted by JonnyX (67 comments total)

 
If the U.S. had 100% turnout last election, perhaps we wouldn't even be worrying about Iraq's vote, eh?
posted by FilmMaker at 2:45 AM on October 16, 2002


G. W. Bush wins 48% of the vote in a hilarious display of so called democracy

(sorry... no more trolling... ever. I promise)
posted by cadastral at 2:46 AM on October 16, 2002


Did any of you guys find it funny that CNN took it suriously?
posted by ZupanGOD at 2:47 AM on October 16, 2002


Saddam has not appeared in public since December 2002.

Oh my. Saddam must have a time travel machine!
posted by Keen at 2:53 AM on October 16, 2002


Wow. This could be our first Saddam-bashing thread!
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 2:53 AM on October 16, 2002


Don't get me wrong, I mean, he's a great guy. But these numbers... they seem improbable.
posted by cadastral at 2:54 AM on October 16, 2002


Hitler still wins. On one dirigible over Berlin Hitler got 42 votes. There were only 40 people on board.

Man, ol' Saddam still lives in Hitler's shadow. I bet he cries every night that because he'll never be more evil.
posted by nyxxxx at 3:06 AM on October 16, 2002


apparently he admires Winston Churchill. I think he has the wrong end of the stick.
posted by JonnyX at 3:08 AM on October 16, 2002


"This is a unique manifestation of democracy which is superior to all other forms of democracies even in these countries which are besieging Iraq and trying to suffocate it," Ibrahim said at a news conference in Baghdad, apparently referring to the United States.

I'm sorry, but is there anyone else out there who couldn't help but laugh out loud at this statement?
posted by cohappy at 3:24 AM on October 16, 2002


I laughed out loud, cohappy. I laughed all the way through this BBC story this morning.
posted by Summer at 3:35 AM on October 16, 2002


"Hussein Sinjari of the Iraqi Institute for Democracy told the BBC's World Today programme that 94.5% of 3,500 people questioned were against Saddam Hussein continuing his rule."

something sure smells of fish!
posted by JonnyX at 3:39 AM on October 16, 2002


The good news is that it has to bee all down hill from here for the guy. He's peaked. How do you top 100%?
posted by vbfg at 3:40 AM on October 16, 2002


wow if you hadnt posted it on mefi i might have missed that piece of news.. thanks!
posted by carfilhiot at 3:43 AM on October 16, 2002


almost as hilarious a display of democracy as the Supreme Court stopping votes from being counted.
posted by cru de meon at 3:56 AM on October 16, 2002


indeed
posted by JonnyX at 3:57 AM on October 16, 2002


Yeah, a dictator suppressing his people by killing and jailing members of the opposition sure is comparable to the situation in Florida. Nice sense of proportions you've got there, cru de meon.
posted by dagny at 4:18 AM on October 16, 2002


CNN:

Will Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's future be determined at the ballot box rather than the battlefield? Iraqi citizens are preparing to go to the polls to decide whether Hussein stays in office. We bring you the story in part one of our week-long series, "Iraq, You Decide."
posted by ZupanGOD at 4:29 AM on October 16, 2002


Bush winning 48% of the vote would be relevant if the US used a direct electoral process for choosing a President. It doesn't, so it isn't.

It's not like people were unaware that this sort of situation could occur, but once it happens and the result is not to their liking it's a "hilarious display of democracy". Not that I like Bush, but it's how the system works, and has worked since 1776.
posted by PenDevil at 4:49 AM on October 16, 2002


It's not like people were unaware that this sort of situation could occur, but once it happens and the result is not to their liking it's a "hilarious display of democracy". Not that I like Bush, but it's how the system works, and has worked since 1776.

Depends on your definition of "has worked". A flawed process ignored till a disputed result arises doesn't make it any less flawed.

Whether it's _fair_ to compare Bush's election to Saddam's one-person yes/no vote is another matter... but I'm sure it's always good for a laugh.
posted by digiboy at 5:09 AM on October 16, 2002


political cartoon
posted by chaz at 5:14 AM on October 16, 2002


Some of them even voted in their own blood
posted by jonvaughan at 5:28 AM on October 16, 2002


It's his theme song, Whitney Houston's "I Will Always Love You," that gave him the edge, I bet. Does that mean that Bobby Brown is officially part of the axis of evil?
posted by ph00dz at 6:11 AM on October 16, 2002


I hear that before the election he had a rousing televised debate with one of his body doubles.
posted by picea at 6:17 AM on October 16, 2002


I know that the vote was a joke, but there is still a ton of support for Saddam in Iraq. If anything, the threat of a US attack on Iraq seems to have galvanized Iraqi support behind him.

As much as Iraqis might dislike Saddam, they'd rather vote for him than vote for Bush. I doubt that the US military will find the capture and occupation of Iraq to be the walk in the park that Afghanistan was.
posted by insomnia_lj at 6:20 AM on October 16, 2002


Gosh, you think maybe this vote was rigged?

Where's Jimmy Carter when you need him?
posted by moonbiter at 6:32 AM on October 16, 2002


My favorite line: "We don't have opposition in Iraq. They are situated in northern Iraq. Inside Iraq, there is no opposition."

So northern Iraq is not inside Iraq? Or is this just a bad translation?
posted by moonbiter at 6:36 AM on October 16, 2002


insomnia_lj: I don't know about that, Hussein is part of the Sunni minority (only about 16% of the population). The Shi'ite majority and the Kurds have fought Saddam before with the Shi'ite clerics calling for an uprising in 1991 to overthrow him.(cite)

Saddam reigns not because of popular support but because of intimidation and violence against his own populace.
posted by PenDevil at 6:39 AM on October 16, 2002


but there is still a ton of support for Saddam in Iraq

Well you might think about "voting" for him too if his government threatened to torture your children and rape your wife all while you have the privilege of watching....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:04 AM on October 16, 2002


Yes, Steve, and remember, they took all the babies out of incubators too....
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:12 AM on October 16, 2002


and ate them.
posted by matteo at 7:19 AM on October 16, 2002


Sleep well at night making fun of the plight of others...

I bet you think that 6 million wasn't really that many either? Or maybe that is all a big hoax, eh?


fuckwits.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:26 AM on October 16, 2002


Okay, Steve, I'll ignore your obvious Godwin and press onward.

The point is that it's dangerous to pass all this off as "oh, they were held at gunpoint." All I was saying is that there's no good in trying to convince us that everyone thinks Saddam is the reincarnation of Satan because, to be honest, a lot of people don't think that. I can't be sympathetic to the "plight" of people who A. don't feel that plight themselves and B. probably aren't even in this over-exxagerrated plight you're babbling about. This isn't Yugoslavia where there was more massive an outpour of support for removing the president.

The honest truth that you and all of us have to accept is that albeit shortsighted and dangerous for themselves, a vast quantity of Iraqis support Saddam Hussein; all estimates indicate that this level of support has increased over the last several years, not declined.

In the meantime, all you're doing is trying to convince us the already obvious: that Saddam is a bad, bad man. We've already established your rationale: Saddam bombed his own people, so now we have to go... well, bomb his own people. Suggesting more "evidence" that Saddam tortures babies and eats kittens isn't going to change the fact that some people in Iraq hate him, and some people are willing to die for him.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:43 AM on October 16, 2002


Well that confirms it: Saddam is in fact insane. I mean, a 92% vote for him would have been a useful bit of propaganda. Instead he went for solid proof that the election was rigged. dumb.

(As for Bush getting 48% of the vote in his election... in fact more than 50% voted for Nobody. It was a great victory for political apathy.)
posted by sfenders at 7:48 AM on October 16, 2002


obvious Godwin

You know, you are using this a bit out of context from what it was intend.... If you and I are having an argument about what sports team is better or why you think flat tax is a bad idea, and I called you a Nazi, for no reason but lack of argument... That is Godwin's law.

But if we are having a discussion about totalitarian regime that is murdering their own population, and I make a reference to the Holocaust... Then it is relevant. Calling "GODWIN" is just an attempt to ignore and/or sidestep the comparison... You are using it as a crutch to avoid discussing the topic at hand. Making fun of the systematic rape and torture of the Iraqi people, is no different than making fun of the systematic mass murder of Jews and others by the Nazis... or any other group of people that have been murdered or oppressed by an authoritarian government.

dangerous to pass all this off as "oh, they were held at gunpoint."
No, it is dangerous to give this credibility. This is a man who has numerous body doubles because he fears his own assassinations from his own people. Right now he has his Republican Guard in the city of Baghdad because when the invasion starts, he need to lock down the city so the people do not revolt and assist the allied forces. The Iraqis can not wait to get rid of this man...

there's no good in trying to convince us that everyone thinks Saddam is the reincarnation of Satan because, to be honest, a lot of people don't think that.
So because some people are unaware of Saddams actions, and don't belive that he is a evil man, I should just keep it to my-self? Yeah that makes sense...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 8:09 AM on October 16, 2002


I mean, a 92% vote for him would have been a useful bit of propaganda. Instead he went for solid proof that the election was rigged.

Well, considering that the last vote reportedly went 99.98% in his favour, he didn't leave himself much room for producing a piece of positive propaganda.
posted by digiboy at 8:15 AM on October 16, 2002


point is that it's dangerous to pass all this off as "oh, they were held at gunpoint."

No, X, that's the point. It's not that they all hate him, it's that they have no choice to make. No one expects unaniminity in voting, but the fact that it's a farce is the dangerous part. A people should have the right to some degree to choose its leader and NOT BE BOMBED WITH NERVE GAS (a la the Kurds).

"Hussein Sinjari of the Iraqi Institute for Democracy told the BBC's World Today programme that 94.5% of 3,500 people questioned were against Saddam Hussein continuing his rule."

Then again, maybe they do all hate him.
posted by The Michael The at 8:23 AM on October 16, 2002


It's fascinating to me that democracy as a concept is so powerful that even the worst villains feel compelled to ape it.

XQUZYPHYR, I don't accept your premise that any large number of people are willing to die for Saddam Hussein. But supposing you're right? If it's true that he's a "bad, bad man" and also that a "vast quantity" of Iraqis want him to be president. Isn't anyone who supports him either hopelessly (willfully?) ignorant, or else complicit, and morally compromised? I guess I just don't understand what difference it makes whether they support him or not, at this point.
posted by coelecanth at 8:23 AM on October 16, 2002


The Iraqis can not wait to get rid of this man...

How do you know?
posted by digiboy at 8:31 AM on October 16, 2002


fair enough, dagny, that's how you feel about it. To me, it is tragic that a country that calls itself a "democracy" would do things to attempt to intimidate a citizen. It doesn't matter if it's a guy being thrown in prison or killed in Iraq, or if you're an African-American voter in Florida whom was "accidentally" placed on the felon rolls or got pulled over by the police just to keep them from making it to the polling place. It's all equally tragic in my opinion, because democracy ceases to function if only select voices can be heard.

The lack of anger over the 2000 election, the low turnout, and the prevalence of attitudes such as your's coming from America is a clear sign that Americans can't handle democracy and probably don't even want democracy anymore. You all claim to stand for it, and trumpet yourselves like some beacon of freedom, but then you have presidential elections that are the envy of African warlords and 3rd World dictators, you undermine free elections in South America, and you stay silent on voting irregularities in Pakistan. America only likes democracy when it's convenient, otherwise it's just too difficult for you.
posted by cru de meon at 8:39 AM on October 16, 2002


Enlighten us, Steve, are there any Holocaust deniers around here?
Name names, please
posted by matteo at 8:42 AM on October 16, 2002


Also, for those who are interested in such things, the P.R. agency-engineered myth of Iraqi soldiers throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators after the invasion

My favorite part:
The story was a fabrication and a myth, and Nayirah, the teenage Kuwaiti girl, coached and rehearsed by Hill & Knowlton for her appearance before the Congressional Committee, was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. By the time Macarthur revealed this, the war was won and over and it did not matter any more.
posted by matteo at 8:58 AM on October 16, 2002


Dagny sez... Yeah, a dictator suppressing his people by killing and jailing members of the opposition [snip]

I think people were comparing the legitimacy of the elections, not the actions the respective leaders take while in power. May I suggest a cup of decaf?

Meanwhile, Steve sez... ...fuckwits

Temper, temper. I'm sure your outrage is all in the name of protecting the innocent, but you'll catch more flys with honey, baby.
posted by holycola at 9:20 AM on October 16, 2002


It's fascinating to me that democracy as a concept is so powerful that even the worst villains feel compelled to ape it.

I don't know about that. It's not just that it's a powerful idea, but that it has succeeded in gaining the moral highground while remaining so broad as to mean anything. Hence farces like this. I wonder if in the age of monarchs, they would have claimed that their states were democracies because their subjects hadn't actively rebelled. Maybe it's time for a more narrow definition of democracy. Or a new term altogether.
posted by Summer at 10:25 AM on October 16, 2002


God, I hate to be backing Steve up on this one, but from what this article says, it's seems that the election is both a propaganda ploy and an intimidation tactic against his own people. The last two sentences are particularly chilling.

"Yes Iraqi citizens,vote your conscience but remember, we know who you are and we know where you live..."
posted by echolalia67 at 11:49 AM on October 16, 2002


if you're an African-American voter in Florida whom was "accidentally" placed on the felon rolls or got pulled over by the police just to keep them from making it to the polling place.

Evidence?
posted by Karl at 12:42 PM on October 16, 2002


Karl,
there are many Florida voter intimidation threads on MeFi, and a shitload of news stories all over the Internet.
What about searching Google if you have problems with that?
posted by matteo at 1:14 PM on October 16, 2002


You can start your reading here

Or here

Or here

Here maybe?

Gotta love those police checkpoints
posted by matteo at 1:22 PM on October 16, 2002


In none of those stories did I find mention of *only* blacks being waylaid by roadblocks and prevented from voting, while whites crashed freely through the police barricades and headed to the polls to (ostensibly) vote for Bush. Hell, for that matter what makes them think only blacks were voting for Gore? I personally know black people in my home town that unapologetically voted for Bush.

I guess I was hoping cru de meon had some concrete evidence she was willing to share to support that these stories are heretofore going to be stated as fact.
posted by Karl at 1:49 PM on October 16, 2002


"I wonder if in the age of monarchs, they would have claimed that their states were democracies because their subjects hadn't actively rebelled."

Certainly not - they would have pointed out that their states weren't democracies, and agreed on what a good thing that was. Can't have the great unwashed running the show or everything goes to hell.
posted by nickmark at 2:12 PM on October 16, 2002


How do you top 100%?

If Saddam is still around for the next election, I'm sure he'll find a way.
posted by hippugeek at 2:55 PM on October 16, 2002


enough already!
posted by JonnyX at 4:45 PM on October 16, 2002


JonnyX : here's how SH did it . what a blast :-)
posted by taratan at 12:02 AM on October 17, 2002


matteo:

All these links are from late 2000, shortly after the election. There's no follow-through. Wonder why? See below.

Your third and fourth links don't contain anything about police checkpoints at all.

The first and fifth links both refer to a single checkpoint, two miles from one polling station. The second link may also refer to the same incident, but it's so vague you can't tell.

That checkpoint, two miles from one polling station in Leon County, near the state capitol of Tallahassee, was thoroughly investigated by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. A single person testified that she had been stopped and asked to show her driver's license. Two of the three nearby voting precincts are predominantly white, not black. Random checkpoints to assess vehicle compliance with safety regulations have been part of standard Florida police practice for almost two decades. No other incidents of police checkpoints have been alleged. Despite the fact that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and its report have been criticized as highly partisan and pro-Democrat, even they could not come up with any credible evidence that there was ever more than one police checkpoint anywhere near a polling station, or that the one in question was anything other than a normal police operation, unconnected to voting.

Wonder if the Guardian, Common Dreams, and others who reported this are ever going to print retractions? Somehow, I suspect not.

That 'police checkpoints' were set up by the Florida government to prevent people from voting is an urban legend. It's been investigated. It never happened.

Stop spreading this lie.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 12:33 AM on October 17, 2002


A more recent link, from the probably not Communistic ABC News. Is Disney good enough for you, since The Guardian is so far left for your taste?
I quote from ABC:
Florida's Republican state government has quietly changed a controversial voting policy that removed as many as 2,800 names from the state's voting rolls last year and may have been a factor in George W. Bush's slim presidential election victory.
Bush won by just 537 Florida votes.
The policy, based on an interpretion of a Florida law, specifically removed from the voting rolls the names of Floridians convicted of felonies in other states, even if they had retained their voting rights in those states or had them automatically restored after serving their sentences.
..."Black voters were confronted with a multitude of non-uniform election practices that impeded their exercise of the franchise or disenfranchised them," charges the suit, to which the the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP, and three other groups are parties.


"Highly partisan report"? Well, the Fla government was not partisan during the 2000 mess, right?
I respectfully remind you that Bush is the Republican who managed to get the smallest percentage of the black vote since Barry Goldwater (cool stat, huh?)
Targeting of black voters in Jeb Bush-run Florida, when polls demonstrated that almost no blacks were going to vote Republican? No way man, that would have been unethical...

Stop spreading this lie
Lie?
Relax, Slithy
You got your man in the White House, after all
Who knows, maybe next time he'll win the election, too
posted by matteo at 1:19 AM on October 17, 2002


Two years ago, immediately after the election, it was an serious allegation, that deserved to be investigated. But after it has been investigated, and shown to be false, and is still repeated -- it's a lie.

As I said: don't continue to spread it.

matteo, since you're resorting to innuendo and snarkiness, changing the subject, and not addressing my response, I'll assume you concede the point.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 2:16 AM on October 17, 2002


so alot of Black voters are convicted of felons? Is that what you are saying?

If Florida law says "Felons can't vote" well then they can't, no matter their skin color....

But hey, keep reaching....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:17 AM on October 17, 2002


But if we are having a discussion about totalitarian regime that is murdering their own population, and I make a reference to the Holocaust... Then it is relevant. Calling "GODWIN" is just an attempt to ignore and/or sidestep the comparison...

Bunk as fuck. ~~~Godwin's~~~ has been declared numerous times, more numerous than I care to document, of the left arguing in protest of the USA PATRIOT Act and more recently Operation Tips. The exact same fascist shit you bolster Steve, as not having any place in Iraq. Godwin's certainly lost it's sting of late. The right and the left using it and all. Except the urgency of your Godwin qua Saddam=Hitler smacks of relenting to absurd conservative agitprop.

First off, you have to be in power to be an Ameri-Nazi. Second off Saddam Hussein isn't in power insofar as he was installed and was maintained via American interests for more than a generation, was the gatekeeper of so much American funneled ~~~Weapons of Mass Destruction~~~ and he also happened to be a sort of rogue his US handlers dispensed themselves of sometime in the late 80's. Where was your outcry then? How powerful then, is Saddam Hussein? Powerful enough for you and millions more to take their eye off the ball and dedicate yourselves to meaningless cheerleading. Who cares if Saddam is bad. Look at your own toilet of a country. What do you do with that mess?

I see, we wait until war is declared by our own rogues and then find war and slaughter fine and well, because we believe those very rogues that happen to be our "leaders" at the time. It allows us to criticize and kill. As long as they're American I suppose. Hypocrite.

so alot of Black voters are convicted of felons? Is that what you are saying?

If Florida law says "Felons can't vote" well then they can't, no matter their skin color....

But hey, keep reaching....


Welcome to Metafilter Steve. Keep reading. . .
posted by crasspastor at 3:02 AM on October 17, 2002


I'll assume you concede the point.

Re-read my posts and my links, I did more than enough to provide evidence. I can't link you to a million reputable sources. It's a waste of time, believe what makes you feel comfortable.
You like to believe that Florida 2000 was a squeaky-clean election, go ahead. Spread the word.
Most serious people will look at you funny, though
posted by matteo at 11:25 AM on October 17, 2002


And:

Steve,

youwrote that there are Holocaust deniers here on MeFi, please name names as I have asked you. Otherwise I have to write you off as a troll, and I can't take you seriously enough to answer you
(A hint, since you're pretty new around here: going around calling people fuckwits won't help you to create a constructive environment for your arguments
posted by matteo at 11:39 AM on October 17, 2002


You finally respond to this 48 hours latter? Bah... Move on
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:45 AM on October 17, 2002


"finally"?

*shakes head*

well, you made your latest comment nine hours ago, not 48 hours. do the math:

posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:17 AM PST on October 17
posted by matteo at 11:25 AM PST on October 17

Is it 48 hours?

also, I'm in a different time zone, sometimes I'm not online as you troll on MeFi

anyway I see that you're checking this thread out pretty quick: it took you 6 minutes to answer me...

you didn't answer tho: who's the Holocaust denier on MeFi? who?

I won't move on until you quit with your fuckin slander
posted by matteo at 12:04 PM on October 17, 2002


"I have to write you off as a troll"
Call me pot, I'll call you kettle... get it?

you're checking this thread out pretty quick
Don't flatter your self; this is the first time I have been on MeFi all day...

Excuse my previous quick estimate:
Those comments being discussed were roughly 30 & 31 hours ago...

But here we go anyway:

Matt I did not say that any one is a Holocaust denier; I alluded to the fact that denying, or making light of the atrocities of one people (The Kurds for example) you are no better than the bigots that deny the Holocaust... Every one reading the threat picked up on this apparently, but you...

I really don't care if you take me "seriously enough to answer"...

I don't take you seriously....

More so, don't be so conceded to give me a "hint", I need none from you... I can tell from your always-cheery disposition that you have made your share of foes here, my self-included.

My member number might not be as "salty" as some, but that matters not when it comes to the substance of my argument...
Along that line, you are being very elitist attempting to belittle me by my member number...

As for calling people "fuckwits", as I understand it, that is MeFi's officially sanctioned curse word... and I will use it as I see fit...

The comments making fun of the plight of the Iraqis was out of line... and you know it.

I won't move on until you quit with your fuckin slander
First I am not slandering anyone, you make your self look like a fool by posting comments like you did... Not my fault..

But Matt, I think you have some charges of your own to answer...

crasspastor: I love to read, but it is hard when you post a dead link


I stand by my point; calling "Godwin" is over used, and often as a crutch to avoid discussing the topic at hand. You can defend Saddam all day (Don't know how you can, but hey... That's your problem) and it doesn't change a thing....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:43 PM on October 17, 2002


Steve,

having doubts about a preemptive attack on Iraq without a UN resolution does not amount to defending Saddam

I can tell from your always-cheery disposition that you have made your share of foes here, my self-included.

I have also made some good, smart friends (not that it's important: this is a weblog for links and discussion, not a social club or support group)
Steve, if you don't like me, I take it as a badge of honor (same for you with me of course)
"Elitist"? If I say that I'm older than you, is that "elitist" too?
posted by matteo at 12:57 PM on October 17, 2002


having doubts about a preemptive attack on Iraq without a UN resolution does not amount to defending Saddam
No, it is deflecting and changing the subject... We were talking about mass murder of Iraqis...

If I say that I'm older than you, is that "elitist" too?
If you say that you are more intelligent than me because you are closer to death, yes.

Is that all you have to say? For the fire and brimstone you seemed to have under you, that is not much of a response....


Reply if you like, but I am off of MeFi for the rest of the day... Till tomorrow...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:14 PM on October 17, 2002


matteo, I'll try one more time. Read carefully.

Are you actually reading what I post? You have not addressed what I wrote, and you're accusing me of things I never said.

You like to believe that Florida 2000 was a squeaky-clean election, go ahead.

I never said that, or anything like that. The electoral process in Florida was deeply flawed, and the legitimacy of the Bush administration was cast into doubt by it; no one denies this.

I am not addressing the entire election mess in Florida, or defending Jeb Bush's administration, or the printing of the ballots, or the use of Vote-O-Matics, or the wording of Florida election law, or poll opening and closing hours, or the certification of absentee ballots, or any of the other myriad alleged irregularities in the Florida electoral process. Or at least not at the moment.

I am trying to correct a single factual error, which you were propagating: your claim that there were police checkpoints established for the purpose of intimidating black voters. The links you provided were either not relevant or referred to a single police checkpoint in Leon County. That event was thoroughly investigated by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. There was no evidence of an attempt to intimidate voters.

Are you willing retract what you said, and concede that there is no evidence of police checkpoints being used to intimidate black voters in Florida during the 2000 election? If you are, good. But if you aren't, if you persist in this accusation despite its being proven false, I will have to write you off as a crank.

Which will it be?
posted by Slithy_Tove at 10:46 PM on October 17, 2002


Saddam is of course not the only one committing massacres against the Kurds. The US has helped with quite a few Kurdish massacres itself. Torture, forced expulsion and rape, were consistantly used.
This from a government that is called on to help "liberate" the Iraqi Kurds.
As for the Iraqi elections: Mark Steel had the best commentary so far that I've seen.
posted by talos at 4:29 AM on October 18, 2002


Good one.
posted by adampsyche at 4:39 AM on October 18, 2002


« Older Led Zeppelin Reunion Tour....  |  Is it all about oil?... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments