March 22, 2010, - 4:18 pm

Muslim “Democracy”: Iraq Refuses Recount After Rejecting 50% of Christian Votes

By Debbie Schlussel

Did our American soldiers really go to Iraq to fight and die so that Shi’ite Muslim extremists tied to Iran could take over?  Sure seems like it.

Last week, I told you about the rejection of 30% of American, mostly Christian votes cast in the Iraqi elections.  I’ve since learned from Chaldean (Iraqi Catholic) sources in the Detroit area that at least 50% of their votes were thrown out, in order to keep Shi’ite Muslims in power and help Iran-friendly extremist and murderer Muqtada Al-Sadr gain power (as he did in the elections).  As I noted, this is the “democracy” that Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens said shows us that Iraqis “love democracy more” than Westerners do.


“Elections”: Iraq’s Faux-Democracy is For Muslims Only

Now, more of this Bret Stephens delusion:  despite throwing out the ballots of the Iraqi Christians (who’ve largely been driven out of their country via death threats, kidnapping, murder, and other forms of persecution and violent intimidation), the Iraqi electoral commission refused to have a recount.

Iraq’s electoral commission on Sunday brushed aside increased pressure from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other politicians demanding a recount in the close parliamentary race that could unseat the incumbent leader and other officials who have dominated Iraq’s transition to democracy.

The March 7 vote to elect the 325-member parliament proceeded smoothly, with minimal violence, but Iraq’s leading political parties are increasingly agitated over the uncertain outcome. Partial results released so far make it impossible to tell whether Mr. Maliki’s alliance or the bloc led by his closest challenger, former Premier Ayad Allawi, will win the most seats and thus the chance to form the next government. At least one-third of the current members of parliament are in danger of losing their seats. . . .

In the run-up to the elections, Mr. Maliki’s challengers accused him of abusing his power after security forces under his direct command launched a wave of arrests among competing political leaders. The prime minister also intervened in a controversial decision to ban hundreds of candidates from the race for their alleged ties to Saddam Hussein’s former party, a decision seen as adversely affecting Mr. Allawi’s slate. . . .

Western diplomats and election observers have praised the work of the election commission and agree that the vote was free and fair.

Half of the Christian votes are thrown out and the Shi’ite government arrests Sunni candidates, and that’s “free and fair”? On what planet?

I repeat: Was this really a cause our boys should have fought and died for–the extension of the Iranian Shi’ite hold on the Middle East?

Uh, not really.

9 Responses

Iraq’s democracy will last just a little bit longer than the presence of American troops. What a complete mess the whole fiasco has been. Even the health care bill is tied into this fiasco.

KK on March 22, 2010 at 4:35 pm

Muzzies are very cleaver.

goldenmike4393 on March 22, 2010 at 4:35 pm

BTW Debbie, as you may know, Stephens, in his role as Editor-in-Chief of the Jerusalem Post, supported the Expulsion from Gush Katif.

We thus already know that he doesn’t understand much about democracy or freedom.

S: Yes, I know. He’s also against settlements in the “West Bank.” DS

skzion on March 22, 2010 at 4:44 pm

[From the article Debbie quotes – Western diplomats and election observers have praised the work of the election commission and agree that the vote was free and fair.]

Was Jimmy Carter behind this? He also certified the fraudulent election Chavez “won” in Venezuela.

I_AM_ME on March 22, 2010 at 4:57 pm

Does it really matter what they do in Babylon?
Is it NOT true that Iraq is “Babylon” in scripture?

Who cares? on March 22, 2010 at 7:28 pm

And the most radical Shi’ites at that.

Little Al on March 22, 2010 at 8:32 pm

Debbie, your question screams for an answer…

[Was this really a cause our boys should have fought and died for–the extension of the Iranian Shi’ite hold on the Middle East?]

A similar question must we ask after reading your piece on Afganistan abuse of women last week…

I’m all for supporting our military troops in harms way, but this all begs the Woodstock (gag) lyrics:

“1-2-3— what are what are fightin 4?” Having bases in the middle east I understand, but nation building with muslims of any stripe is lunacy!!

BB on March 22, 2010 at 9:38 pm

Come November our own elections will mirror the Iraqi debacol, Obama has just recently instructed AG Eric Holder to restore funding to his Acorn cronies.

ARISHEM on March 23, 2010 at 6:21 am

The battles for Iraq and Afghanistan are primarily for the purpose of installing Democracy. This will convert all the citizens to lovers of America according to the fevered ramblings of Bush and his insane cohorts.

The more likely result is that a bunch of Hamas clones will develop. We are feeding and breeding our own worst enemies.

Especially with the insane rules of engagement in effect in these countries, they are nothing but useless death traps for those that put their lives on the line for us.

We should plant bombs in strategic places that could be exploded remotely when necessary and get out of these places as soon as possible.

Facts Life on March 23, 2010 at 8:46 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field