Yesterday Secretary of War Defense Donald Rumsfield suggested that some elections are better than no elections when it comes to Iraq.

“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,” Rumsfield said, hours after the leaders of the United States and Iraq met in Washington.

“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.

So say in on November 2nd the people in Idaho, New Jersey and Ohio aren’t allowed to vote. Do you think the people of the United States would consider the winner of the election to be the actual leader of the election? You thought it was bad in 2000, imagine 3/4 an election in Iraq imposed by an occupying power…