Is that the stuff of Page One? In the past, the Times has seemed remarkably unconcerned about voter fraud when it appeared to play a likely decisive role in the victory of Venezuela’s leftist strongman Hugo Chavez, or of Clinton-fave Aristide in Haiti. It also treats Ahmadinejad in Iran as if he were the legitimately elected president of Iran, notwithstanding that the mullahs barred opposition candidates from even contesting. Why is it suddenly a major story in Iraq that a result expected, in places, to be one-sided turned out to be really one-sided?
And note that the NYT only knows about the suspected fraud because the Iraqi election officials announced they were looking into suspicious results. And remember the media's strange acceptance of Saddam's 99.9% reelection prior to the Iraq War with 100% voter turnout without even a peep from the MSM about the validity of the vote.
I look forward to the NYT reporting on the confusing butterfly ballot in Ramadi that led thousands of elderly Sunnis to vote for Pat Buchanan.
This will be resolved under Iraqi law. I celebrate that fact even as I am concerned that violations might have happened in the first place.
