Rise of the Idiotocrocy

Now Donald Rumsfeld is saying that the Iraqi elections might not be held in the entire country due to the insurgent movement, only selected parts of it:

As Reported by CNN Sept 24th - Rumsfeld said, "Let's say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn't because the violence was too great. Well, so be it. Nothing's perfect in life, so you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet," he said.

Not perfect? This is the most inept and incompetent administration I have ever seen! No, it is not better than not having an election at all. How can you have elections in a country that has multiple religious and ethnic factions and not include everyone in that election? The Sunni and Shiite populations already distrust one another. The Kurds distrust everyone. The risk of a civil war is immense. You cannot have a legitimate election in Iraq that excludes ANYONE without it causing more problems than it solves. No Iraqi that is excluded from voting will accept the results of the elections as legitimate, and it will only give more ammunition to the insurgents to rally disenfranchised Iraqis to their cause. Look at all the division caused by the 2000 election in the U.S. and the belief that thousands of Floridians were denied their right to vote. Now extend that to Iraq where the people see that the difference in who controls Iraq could be a difference between life and death. There is no way that an election that does not include all Iraqis could bring anything but more violence and blood shed. Rummy needs to go...