Democrats accused Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage of "phoney optimism"

Political opponents of the US government have questioned its ability to ensure that full elections are held in Iraq in January 2005.

Democrats accused Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage of "phoney optimism" after he said voting would be open to all Iraqi citizens.

Mr Rumsfeld said on Thursday that the elections might be limited because of the level of violence in Iraq.

Appearing before a Congressional committee, Mr Armitage admitted that any election in Iraq would be "messy".

But he insisted: "We're going to have an election that is free and open - and that has to be open to all citizens."

"And it's got to be our best efforts to get it into troubled areas as well. That's why I think we're going to have these elections in all parts of the country," Mr Armitage said.

He said he had heard nothing of a plan to limit the elections, avoiding the most violent areas.

Mr Armitage was speaking one day after Mr Rumsfeld said it might not be possible to conduct voting in some places targeted by militants.

"So you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet," Mr Rumsfeld told senators.

The BBC's Daniela Relph in Washington says relations between the Pentagon and the State Department have themselves been messy of late.

Our correspondent says managing a post-war Iraq has seen tensions between sections of the Bush administration, with the State Department usually cautious in public and Mr Rumsfeld often favouring a more direct approach.

Mr Armitage faced hostile questioning from Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee's foreign operations panel.

Congressman Dave Obey from Wisconsin told him it was time to "can the phoney optimism" and added it was going to take "a minor miracle" for the Iraqi elections to take place on time in January.

"This occupation is going to last longer than the Second World War," Mr Obey said.

She accused the Bush administration of misleading Congress and the American people over what could be achieved in Iraq.

She said: "Voter lists haven't actually been created yet. Parties haven't actually been formed."

Democrats accused Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage of "phoney optimism"

I'd like to see any Democrat 5 seconds after they said that to his face in private.

BTW, who spells "phony" with an "ey"? Is that like an "our" (as in colour) thing with the Brits?

"So you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet," - Rumsfeld.

1789: First presidential election in the United States.

New York failed to appoint its allotment of eight electors therefore no electoral votes cast from NY.

North Carolina and Rhode Island had yet to ratified the United States Constitution therefore no votes were cast from those states either.

1864: American Civil War.

The following states did not cast votes in that election nor were they represented in Congress during the duration of the Civil War.

Alabama
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia

1868: Three years after the end of hostilities three states did not cast votes because they were as yet
"reconstructed".

Mississippi
Texas
Virginia

Until the 23rd Amendment was ratified on March 29, 1961 citizens of Washington, DC could not vote in Presidential elections.

Today citizens of the following territories cannot vote in Presidential elections:

Puerto Rico
Guam
U.S. Virgin Island
American Samoa.

I think Iraq will survive if the election is held in the law abiding sections only.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.