Bush accepts responsibility for war "based on faulty intel"

Just like old times hey?!




Under Saddam there used to be near-total turnouts for 'voting'. Guess if you are having the crap beaten out of you or hanging up by you arms, this democracy stuff is 'non-core'.

Supporting Saddam was once a 'vital' step in fostering democracy in the ME. When the Iraqiis have a Govt that can ask the USA to leave and can also make their own deals for the sale of their 'oil' without the White House rubber stamp they'll have freedom, of sorts.....

I am impressed with the news media on this one. It's been the number 1 story going on 30 hours now. I was afraid it would fade away and get buried under something stupid like missing teens in Aruba. My local paper "The Idaho Statesman" broke the story on page 9. Is that lame or what?

The Iraq turnout for the vote was between 70 and 80%. A most impressive turnout.

hey, just think if we could do that in the US

If we could do that in the US, it's unlikely that GW Bush would be president today. The problem with out government is the same as Mark Twain's observation about the weather -- evrybody talks about it but no one does anything about it.

Merry Andrew is correct. President George W. Bush was elected in 2000 with only47.8% of the vote. Even more distressing, Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 receiving only 43% of the vote.

Shameful

It's hard to say. Alot of the elderly I know are more republican oriented. What is interesting is that in my state, with the exception of the two largest cities, Bush would have won. Those two cities made up enough votes to have the state swing towards Kerry.
I did hear that there is questions by the Sunni's. They are trying to figure out how, if they are the largest population in Baghdad, that anybody else but their representative could be leading. But, the media is saying that the overall votes wont be tallied up intil early Jan.
The Sunni's are saying that if their not the majority there will be violence.
OH Joy! Just what I need.

So, all that means was that GHWBush was so bad that he couldnt evenmake it a race

Are you referring to Bush's 47% or Clinton's 43%?

The 2002 voting turnout was 51%.

In 1992 it was 49%.

(The highest since 1936 was in 1960: 62.8% [Kennedy elected].)

I believe you are mistaken, Walter Hinteler. You do not give a source but I will do so.

quote from "The Presidential Difference" by Fred I. Greenstein P. 231

Candidate Party Electoral Vote Popular Vote

Election of 1992

Bill Clinton Democrat 370 43%
George Bush Republican 168 37%
H. Ross Perot Independent 0 19%


Election of 1996

Bill Clinton Democrat 379 49%
Bob Dole Republican 159 41%
H. Ross Perot Independent 0 8%


*****************************************************

Again, the key point is that Bill Clinton did not receive over 50% of the vote in either of his elections

Don't doubt that and never did.

I was just referring to the total turnout in comparison to the probably about 70% in Iraq.