Bipolar Guardian

From the British "rag" (and I mean that in every sense of the word) the Guardian, come two opposing views on the upcoming Iraqi elections. One is a well thought-out argument in favor of keeping the election timetable in Iraq. The other is a typical and ugly of the administration as NAZI officers and zombies?
In his pro-election opinion, Charles Krauthammer compares the situation in Iraq to the US Civil War:

In 1864, 11 of the 36 states did not participate in the American presidential election. Was Lincoln's election therefore illegitimate?
In 1868, three years after the security situation had, shall we say, stabilized, three states (and not insignificant ones: Texas, Virginia and Mississippi) did not participate in the election. Was Grant's election illegitimate?
There has been much talk that if the Iraqi election is held and some Sunni Arab provinces (perhaps three of the 18) do not participate, the election will be illegitimate.
Nonsense. The election should be held. It should be open to everyone. If Iraq's Sunni Arabs - barely 20% of the population - decide that they cannot abide giving up their 80 years of minority rule, which ended with 30 years of Saddam Hussein's atrocious tyranny, then tough luck. They forfeit their chance to shape and to participate in the new Iraq.

Maybe the cartoonists at the guardian are just against elections in general.