No, of course it doesn’t matter. In the current administration style always trumps substance. It has to be acknowledged that they accomplished SOMETHING by holding elections, although what exactly has been accomplished remains to be seen. I doubt that this ‘election’ will have a significant impact on the overall flow of the situation there. This election will not change the general flow of events. At this time my call is that we will see civil war within the year.

"Does is matter that an Iraqi election official is claiming 72% voter turnout even though that number is extremely exaggerated?"

I would like to see your source for the number being extremely exaggerated.

"Even if there had been 0% voter turnout, the Bush administration would still use the simple notion of an "election" to claim a grand political victory, which they'll exploit at every opportunity."

Unsubstantiated whining. Come back when you have some evidence that this would have been done; until you can present such, all you have is empty rhetoric.

"I would like to see your source for the number being extremely exaggerated."

The Sunnis barely turned out. MSNBC reporters in Iraq repeated throughout the morning that 72% isn't anywhere near accurate. Never-the-less, do you honestly believe we'll ever accurately know for sure? Do you mean to tell me that after the litany of lies, you still trust the White House / Pentagon / CIA, etc...?

"Unsubstantiated whining. Come back when you have some evidence that this would have been done; until you can present such, all you have is empty rhetoric."

Come back? Who's site is this? And it's not empty rhetoric. It's all based on previous observations. The war has been going horribly since "Mission Accomplished" yet the Bush administration (and the campaign) has been claiming it's going really well. Al Gonzales is praised even though his fingerprints are all over torture in Cuba and Iraq. The list goes on and on. Talk about empty rhetoric.

"The Sunnis barely turned out. MSNBC reporters in Iraq repeated throughout the morning that 72% isn't anywhere near accurate. Never-the-less, do you honestly believe we'll ever accurately know for sure? Do you mean to tell me that after the litany of lies, you still trust the White House / Pentagon / CIA, etc...?"

What does the CIA have to do with the elections? What does the Pentagon have to do with them at all, given that US troops were ordered to stay our of sight to avoid any sense of U.S. pressure to vote? You're appealing to incredulity and novelty; saying that you don't believe it because you won't believe it and handwaving about the Central Intelligence Agency whose job it is to gather information on foreign governments and militaries, not report on public elections.

As for low turnout, here's the Reuters article: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=7475713

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.main/index.html

"Initial reports indicated voter turnout appeared to be higher than expected, even in Sunni-majority areas where insurgent attacks have occurred on a near daily basis.

Many voters proudly displayed their ink-stained fingers in defiance of the insurgency. Each person who voted dipped his or her finger in ink to prevent people from voting twice.

The IECI clarified an earlier estimate of a 72 percent turnout, saying that the "figures are only very rough, word-of-mouth estimates gathered informally from the field."

"What is certainly the case is that turnout has exceeded expectations throughout the country," the statement said.

U.N. election organizer Carlos Valezuela told CNN that though he was "happy with the turnout," it was too early to report numbers."

So no, no one's claimed that 72% is a final hard number. When the people making the estimation say it's a rough preliminary estimate, yet you imply that it was intended as a final figure and was faked, I begin to doubt your objectivity.

"Come back? Who's site is this?"

A poor choice of words on my part. My apologies.

"And it's not empty rhetoric. It's all based on previous observations."

I question the relevance of said observations. See below.

"The war has been going horribly since "Mission Accomplished" yet the Bush administration (and the campaign) has been claiming it's going really well."

No argument there, but the war and occupation and the elections are entirely different matters.

"Al Gonzales is praised even though his fingerprints are all over torture in Cuba and Iraq."

No argument there either. Is he involved in the Iraqi election? No? Red herring.

"The list goes on and on. Talk about empty rhetoric."

You'll find I'm no fan of Bush. You'll also find that I'm even less of a fan of Hussein, and think that for all the screw-ups of this war, the elections are a bright spot and we don't need to rant on about how it's all irrelevant just because we don't like the President. None of this has substantiated that Bush would be claiming huge victory on 0% turnout; you're simply engaging in handwaving. If you want to lambast the President for fouling up the way the war's been handled, by all means, do so. He's Commander in Chief; that's his responsibility and he failed in it. But bash the man for the things he's done wrong; there's enough volume of material there that you hardly need to drag out things irrelevant to him to flame him about. (Note that an Iraqi official made the 72% claim, not anyone from the military or White House. Could possibly have been a CIA operative, but I doubt it; they'd want a lower profile than that.)

Oh, and you might want to maintain more consistency in your front page news stories. The progression of stories on here looks something like this: "These elections are going to suck."->"These elections are still going to suck, despite preliminary reports."->"These elections suck. Let me make some vague accusations of media fraud."->"The elections didn't matter and never did." Let's here it for moving goalposts.

"What does the CIA have to do with the elections? What does the Pentagon have to do with them at all, given that US troops were ordered to stay our of sight to avoid any sense of U.S. pressure to vote?"

You're totally missing the point. The administration has lied to us repeatedly and without shame. Why should we believe anything they say?

"You're appealing to incredulity and novelty; saying that you don't believe it because you won't believe it and handwaving about the Central Intelligence Agency whose job it is to gather information on foreign governments and militaries, not report on public elections."

I was was making a broader point about the credibility of the administration. The CIA is now loaded down with GOP rubber stamps.

"As for low turnout [snip] So no, no one's claimed that 72% is a final hard number. When the people making the estimation say it's a rough preliminary estimate, yet you imply that it was intended as a final figure and was faked, I begin to doubt your objectivity."

First, note the time and date on the initial post. When I wrote the article, all networks were reporting 72% -- some gave qualifiers, others reported it as fact. And I don't think I ever said, "72% is the number." I said, "IF it's the number."

"I question the relevance of said observations. See below."

Okay, you're missing my point. Any observation of the Bush administration deserves to be filtered through previous actions and statements and they've given us no reason to believe a damn thing they say.

"No argument there, but the war and occupation and the elections are entirely different matters."

NO! Not when it comes to Bush's spin.

"No argument there either. Is he involved in the Iraqi election? No? Red herring."

*sigh* I never said he was. I was simply questioning the veracity of the administration and how they smear lipstick on pigs time and time again -- in a concerted effort to turn everything into good news.

"[snip] But bash the man for the things he's done wrong; there's enough volume of material there that you hardly need to drag out things irrelevant to him to flame him about."

I refuse to give Bush an inch of ground. I will not do it. And again, the elections and the Bush spin are two separate things. Was I not clear on that? James Carville says, "If Bush walked on water, I'd say, 'What? He can't swim?'"

"(Note that an Iraqi official made the 72% claim, not anyone from the military or White House. Could possibly have been a CIA operative, but I doubt it; they'd want a lower profile than that.)"

Who knows where the number came from. But my point was that cable news widely reported it.

"Oh, and you might want to maintain more consistency in your front page news stories. The progression of stories on here looks something like this: "These elections are going to suck."->"These elections are still going to suck, despite preliminary reports."->"These elections suck. Let me make some vague accusations of media fraud."->"The elections didn't matter and never did." Let's here it for moving goalposts."

I never once said the elections didn't matter. I'm simply questioning what the effect will be and I'm most certainly going to question Bush's spin on this as well as how he's going to exploit it.

My basic point in the article above was that the election results are irrelevant when it comes to how the administration would spin it. Do you think for a second that if things went badly Bush wouldn't declare victory?