I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Is that link right? Because it doesn't look right to me.
You don't look right to me either. You kind of look like a prevert.
Atrios,the link goes to page 2 of the Frank Rich article linked earlier, which doesn't contain the quoted text.
K
Atrios,the link goes to page 2 of the Frank Rich article linked earlier, which doesn't contain the quoted text.
K
ah, I found it
here's the correct URL
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...9-
2003Nov8.html
Thank you keith.
Jeepers, you mean we can't take a shattered, deeply factional country and shoot its people until they form into a liberal democracy? Who could have possibly predicted that?
Thanks for correcting the link Atrios, I am pretty sure you know I was joking....
Maybe members of the DNC will be available after 11/2004 to serve?
The United States is deeply frustrated with its hand-picked council members because they have spent more time on their own political or economic interests than in planning for Iraq's political future...
Um, duh? Operation FUBAR working just as predicted (by the Left)...
Well that said, all in all this is probably a good thing, and in fact, shows some sense somewhere in Fearless Leader's administration.
Reading Salam Pax I definitely got the idea that the Council was ineffective and was not respected by the Salam Pax class at the least.
So if they do as the article suggests they are considering, implementing the French plan, the loya jirga model, this is probably a good thing overall.
I want to think they are only doing this so they can move out earlier, but hell, I want us to move out at an earlier date too.
The Council looks and smells like a sock puppet. Let's hope they can get to a hemi-semi-demi democratic gov't that doesn't.
(Of course, if you folks had been reading my mind in early May, you would have heard me advogating then for such a prov. council...)
And that's my theory.
The United States is deeply frustrated with its hand-picked council members because they have spent more time on their own political or economic interests than in planning for Iraq's political future
Someone forgot to tell the Governing Council not to emulate its American patrons.
Quick: what's the Arabic for "Do as I say, not as I do"?
.
The members of Iraq's Governing Council probably figure that it would be difficult to "communicate with the Iraqi public" when they're in the process of picking bullets out of their heads.
Let the STONECUTTER's rule!
ISG
What is it good for?
$87 Billion
Say it again
"We're unhappy with all of them. They're not acting as a legislative or governing body, and we need to get moving," said a well-placed U.S. official who spoke on the condition anonymity. "They just don't make decisions when they need to."
Translation:
"We're unhappy with all of them. They're not acting as our rubber stamp, and we need to get the hell out of Iraq before the election campaign heats up" said a well-placed U.S. official who spoke on condition of our swallowing the exact quote he gave us uncritically and without analysis. "They just don't make descisions when (we) need them to."
The United States is deeply frustrated with its hand-picked council members because they have spent more time on their own political or economic interests than in planning for Iraq's political future, especially selecting a committee to write a new constitution, the officials added ha ha ha does the 911 inquiry sound familiar... what ever happened with that? You know, the one that Kissinger was assigned to....
The United States is deeply frustrated with its hand-picked council members.... 'We're unhappy with all of them. They're not acting as a legislative or governing body, and we need to get moving"
damn straight, Bush has an election to worry about this time next year. He needs to pull out troops and declare victory in Iraq so that Dr. Strangefeld can prepare them for Operation October Surprise duty in Syria or Iran or...
Oh for God's sake.
What pisses me off is that I and many others (we all had a big walk together... remember that?) said not to do this. And then they did it anyway.
And now they want me to figure out how to get their cocks out of the crack.
I don't freaking know!
Why I oughta....
This may be a stupid question but...what if the current Iraqi Governing Council doesn't want to go anywhere? They're just supposed to stop being the Governing Council because we tell them to?
(I understand that they have been our puppets, but might they just decide to strike out on their own? Or do we have their wallets and, um, jewels in a squeeze?)
This thing continues to get more twists than a corkscrew. So now the French, aka Afghan, model has been found and can be polished up along with the other missing artifacts. GPA refuses to rubber-stamp us, so we'll install an assembly we can't possibly control, which is then supposed to make it easier for us to get the hell out of here. Alice, I don't think we've hit the bottom of the rabbit hole yet.
"Who gives Halliburton rule?
Who caves to Bushitler fools?
We do!
We do!"
This may be a stupid question but...what if the current Iraqi Governing Council doesn't want to go anywhere? They're just supposed to stop being the Governing Council because we tell them to?
They serve at the pleasure of the President.
s/n:r
so when BushCo declares victory in Iraq around next March and abandons the Iraqis to their fate, is he going to prance around in front of another one of those "Mission Accomplished" banners or some other overblown production to celebrate Glorious Leader's triumphant victory?
Hey I've got an idea for that one Mr. Rove, let's have Bush personally execute a ter-uh-ist like the emperor does in the movie Gladiator.
This is disastrous for the whole reconstruction effort. It looks like the US is looking for an exit strategy, not a mechanism for building stable, liberal democratic Iraq. This is where the schism between Rove and the neo-cons blows wide open.
So, Iraq's Governing Council is "looking after their own political or economic interests than in planning for Iraq's political future."
Explain to me how that is different than the GOP with America's.
Who will complete their constitution first, Iraq or the European Union? My bet, Iraq even though the European Union has had a couple of years head start.
Elrod, please expand on the break between Rove and the neocons ... is it that Rove seeks Bush re-election and the agenda of the neocons is further reaching, although it has depended on the Bush administration to date, or am I missing something.
What exactly is the schism you describe?
oh yeah, remember those mass graves that Philly G was talking about on that other Iraq thread? I wonder if some of these graves could be included in the massive 300,000 bodies?? from gulf war 1 Seymour Hersh writes in the New Yorker that a two-star general ordered a massacre against a five-mile line of retreating Iraqi soldiers, and did so two days after a ceasefire went into effect. Hundreds of soldiers were murdered, men and boys who posed no threat and didn’t know the war was still on. Many civilians, including children, were also shot. The numbers are still unclear because the corpses were buried quickly by the tank-bulldozers
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockw.../
mccaffrey.html
Interim Governing Councils -- they just don't make 'em like the used to. Sigh.
"Who will complete their constitution first, Iraq or the European Union? My bet, Iraq even though the European Union has had a couple of years head start."
Piss off, troll.
Who controls our media whores?
Who tells lies to start a war?
WE DO, WE DO!
Who screams 'traitor' in your town?
Who keeps all dissenters down?
WE DO, WE DO!
Who makes Halliburton rich?
Who runs the economy into a ditch?
WE DO, WE DO!
Who keeps dead soldiers out of sight?
Who rigs every election night?
WE DO, WE DOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Web New Junkie,
The schism is the one between the neo-con true believers - Bill Kristol, for example - who honestly believe that the US effort in Iraq is a Middle Eastern Marshall Plan, and that we should be prepared to enlarge our military force by as much as possible there vs. the poll-watching Rove who sees a public growing increasingly impatient with the situation in Iraq and looks for any way that Bush can stand down our forces there, even if Iraq isn't really stable - though with a "victory declared" to be sure. The tensions are there but they aren't necessarily wide open. But a neo-con true believer must believe that pulling US troops out of Iraq before a Constitution (or stability) is in place is betrayal.
good. I hope they eat each other alive.
Bush/Rove wants to be certain he can begin withdrawing troops before the General Election. That's what this is all about.
What's tragicomic about this situation is that in the rare instances the IGC tries to do something for Iraq, the US occupation authorities won't let them.
Bush is fukt.
He is a liar.
Every day that passes proves that.
Begin or not, the real neocons don't think we should even be considering withdrawing troops. They want us there for a long, long time.
The people of the United States are deeply frustrated with the Chimpy hijacked government because they have spent more time on their own political or economic interests than in planning for Americas future.
Maybe Chimpy should just install a Nazi government in Iraq like he is trying to here.
The Iraqis don't care. They hate them. They keep trying to kill them.
They're really pissed that they raised a stink about the Turks. That's where all this talk is coming from. Their puppets aren't so puppet-like any more.
Loya Jirga? So who gets the head seat at the table? Sistani or Sadr? Because once you do that, the three leading Shia players, Hakim, Sistani and Sadr will be there and they won't be bound to pick US puppets.
The US wanted to change Iraqi politics. All that would is kick off civil war.
So our hand-picked governing council dedicates more time to its own political and economic interests than the future of the country? That apple didn't fall very fall from the tree, did it?
I'm filing an application first thing Monday to copyright the phrase "We told you so". I'll be charging a very reasonable royalty of US$0.10 every time the phrase is used.
I expect this time next year I'll be wealthy enough to buy my own little island so that I can ride out the shit storm should Bush get re-selected.
Sorry, renato, beat you to it.
As we prepare to celebrate Thanksgiving, the holiday where we reflect upon the birth of our nation, of freedom and goodwill, of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... I can't help but think forward to the day a free Iraq will one day celebrate the anniversary of when our country invaded theirs, shocking and aweing our way into their very hearts and minds. How we hand-picked their Constitution's Founding Fathers, who were then instructed by us in exacting detail what steps they needed to follow in order to be free. How we killed all their leaders and converted them to Christianity, freedom of religion-style. What a proud feeling their children will get, memorizing the names of their liberators before they go out for recess to play in the Depleted Uranium.
Those will be Thanksgivings to remember.
Someone enlighten me on this, lets say that we exit, either in a good or a bad way. This means that our military leaves the country and the oilfields are completely turned over to the Iraqi citizens, right?
And soon, monkeys will fly out of my butt.
Loya Jirga? So who gets the head seat at the table? Sistani or Sadr? Because once you do that, the three leading Shia players, Hakim, Sistani and Sadr will be there and they won't be bound to pick US puppets.
I hear Saddam Hussein needs a job.
That's what's going to happen, isn't it? After all this death, misery and destruction, somehow, that bastard's going to end up in charge in Iraq again...
The problem with the reconstruction effort is that the whole operation is based around greed; all the people in charge (both the administration in this country and the governing council in Iraq) care about is how to get oil pumping out of Iraq as soon as possible, while doing little to ensure the welfare of the people.
I believe that of the $87 blllion, the money not lost through corruption will mostly be used on "security forces" to "pacify" the people.
The whole concept of "the money from oil exports will pay for reconstruction" is faulty. In a well governed nation, the priority of natural resources should be given to its citizens (i.e. The Iraqis should get the "first dip" of Iraqi oil, so to speak.) and the surplus would be then sold to foreign nations.
Concentrating money on actually helping the Iraqi as oppose to getting oil would be both beneficial and economical in the long run. But I suppose expecting long-term thinking from CEOs accustomed to fast and short-term profits is rather foolish.
The sad thing is that I really do support a liberal interventionist policy, one that uses American force to support human rights and democracy. But the difference between liberal interventionists like myself and neo-conservatives - who hide their imperial ambitions behind the cloak of humanitarian rhetoric - is that I believe in multilaterism, diplomacy and consistency. Sure, the UN isn't always effective, neither is NATO. Rwanda was a shameful example of the former and Bosnia an example of the latter. But the institutions, with prodding from its leaders, can bring about positive change around the world if they really care to. What's more, if we continue to rely on "friendly dictators" then we can expect our troubles to worsen. But I don't see Bush really following through on this. For example, when are we going to apply pressure to Uzbekistan, whose dictator is every bit as vicious as Saddam Hussein. Are we really going to follow through on pressuring Egypt to concede to real elections? And, of course, when will Sharon get the message that his continued defiance of the UN is every bit as intolerable as Saddam's defiance? To neo-conservatives these issues are mere annoyances, easily explained away by their inconsistency with our "national interests." To me, these cases highlight what a fraud all the neo-con rhetoric about human rights and democracy is.
Well good for us!:
http://www.newsday.com/sns-ap-sa...-span-
headlines
another success in the war on terr-uh!
My impression is that the IGC was never fooled about the realities of the situation. The guerillas and Baathists have the real grassroots power, the Americans the military and economic overlordship, and the IGC has seen its job in getting the best terms for the common people out of both sides.
So that leaves about 7 hours out of every 8 hour workday for them to look out for their own interests. I'm so surprised that they do!
Just a note on that Saudi bombing - the hospital that received casualties first reported 'dozens' of deaths - only to revise down to 5 less than an hour later.
"Immediately after the explosion Saturday night, there were widely conflicting reports of the number of dead. An official at a Riyadh hospital said dozens of people were killed, but, when contacted again, said only that some people were dead.
One resident in the compound, Rabie Hadeka, told Al-Arabiya television that "about 20 to 30 people have been killed and 50 to 60 injured." She told Al-Arabiya that "shattered glass was spread everywhere after we heard three very strong explosions."
But Al-Arabiya television reported that four people, including one child, were killed. It also reported that the bodies of the attackers had been found, but didn't say how many there were."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/
news...saudi_explosion
wow.
http://www.salon.com/news/featur...3/11/08/powers/
chunkstyle, thank you proving my point. Iraq will have a constitution before the EU. So much for the "enlightened, democratic" Europe.
I have "proved' nothing.
Neither have you, Anon.
Don't put words in my mouth, troll.
It doesn't matter if the EU has a constitution because each and every nation within western Europe has a functioning Constitution - and a stable liberal democracy to boot. Iraq not only has no constitution but it has no stability, no legitimate government, no liberal democracy, and from the looks of things, not even a shell of a provisional government.
Well, gosh -- who woulda thunk that what "works" for the U.S. wouldn't work for a wholy unformed, chaotic region that has just recently been declared on the road to democracy, and led by "hand-picked" fucknuts from this administration?
Gollygee... I'm glad it works for *this* country anyway...
How did Valerie Plame's husband put it?
Oh, yeah, I remember.
We're fucked.
the bastards obviously have no clue what they're doing
The United States is deeply frustrated with its hand-picked council members because they have spent more time on their own political or economic interests than in planning for Iraq's political future.
So, in other words, they're behaving like the fratboy coward, defib Dick, and the rest of the US kleptocracy.
I'm shocked, shocked that these Iraqis would be like that.
Shocked, I tell you. Shocked.
Everyone above who points out that if they are feathering their own nests that they are just following the Bush model are right.
I don't think the Bush junta will pull out next year unless their oil is secure, that was the reason for the whole thing. Even the glory of Little George's "administration" comes second to money.
Expect more bombing of civilians, more retaliation against American troops, more transparently phony "governments" being installed more terrorism, ... Don't be surprised if it widens into a regional war. This was a much bigger folly than we expected last spring. It's going to get a lot uglier, a lot,lot uglier.
What you shouldn't sit up nights for is more coverage by the media. Even their entertainment divisions kow-tow to the Republican-fascist party.
Oh, the troll above with the crack about the European constitution. The Europeans are responsible for their constitution, not us. Thanks to Bush we are responsible for Iraq's.
Ahem. And we British have never had a written constitution. And we're the US's closest ally. So if a country's democratic value is in direct relation to how much of a constitution is written, then what does that say about America's friends...
Honestly, don't these morans (sic) EVER think through what they are saying?
But back to the topic at hand, it's possible that IGC can't follow US policy; they only rule with the sufferance of the Iraqi people, not it's assent. If they don't show some independence from Washington's line, they'll have absolutely no future in Iraq (and I mean that literally) except behind those bits the Americans can militarily fence off. It shows the enormous level of disconnect between American policy and the Iraqi public that the Administration is only now noticing that the IGC isn't working... but STILL hasn't understood why that is.
Britain's lack of written constitution is a pecularity which would not be likely to succeed elsewhere.
Atrios: Britain's lack of written constitution is a pecularity which would not be likely to succeed elsewhere.
Does Israel have a written Constitution? How about New Zealand?
.
Juan Cole had the best idea six weeks ago: dust off the 1928 Iraqi constitution, remove all references to "king," tweak it here and there to require a supermajority to amend it, and use it to elect a constituent assembly. Then, get the hell out of the way as it rewrites it to suit the current Iraqi people. Not a perfect strategy, but a valid one.
renato,
Just the other day i was thinking about how much Shru a Dub resembles Emperor Comodus (the real one was even worse that Waquine(sp?) Pheonix's character).
Ceasar Comodus liked to dress up like a gladiator and fight in staged duels. he is known to have done this on over 200 occasions. he won every time. He also personally executed hundreds of criminals. He thought himself a man of the people.
Sound like a certain pResident?
Hail Ceasar!
After all this death, misery and destruction, somehow, that bastard's going to end up in charge in Iraq again...
Oh you mean he's hasn't been in charge since we moved into his offices?
Power doesn't just include the trappings of power, such as the fancy suit and palace.
Power flows, as someone wisely said, from the barrel of a gun.
But really, power flows from the will of the mind behind the finger on the trigger.
They aren't worried about how this will look come election time since they're planning on rigging that anyway. Bush could bugger a goat in the Rose Garden, with a live CSPAN feed, every thursday between now and the election and he'd still "win". Just like 2000.
Besides, didn't we all agree that they'll just film one division returning home over and over again and show that durring the election cycle? With a compliant Fox news, ready and willing to Laci Peterson us to death, who at home will nottice that it's the same footage?
Laci Peterson? Jorge, have you been living under a raq for the past 15 minutes? The latest pablum-du-jour is Rosie O'Donnell. Get with the program, Jack.
I've heard a rumour that IGC *is* working on a constitution, and Bush is *very* unhappy with it.
Well, until Walter Bagehot started writing about it, no one even knew there was a British Constitution.
L Sprauge deCamp had a fleeting reference to such a document in his novel Lest Darkness Fall.
Here's what I found on one website:
A constitution is a set of laws on how a country is governed. The British Constitution is unwritten, unlike the constitution in America, and, as such, is referred to as an uncodified constitution. The British Constitution can be found in a variety of documents. Supporters of our constitution believe that the current way allows for flexibility and change to occur without too many problems. Those who want a written constitution believe that it should be codified so that the public as a whole has access to it – as opposed to just constitutional experts who know where to look and how to interpret it.
Amendments to Britain’s unwritten constitution are made the same way – by a simply majority support in both Houses of Parliament to be followed by the Royal Assent.
The British Constitution comes from a variety of sources. The main ones are:
Statutes such as the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Act of Settlement of 1701.
Laws and Customs of Parliament; political conventions
Case law; constitutional matters decided in a court of law
Constitutional experts who have written on the subject such as Walter Bagehot and A.V Dicey.
There are two basic principles to the British Constitution:
The Rule of Law
The Supremacy of Parliament
Iraq not only has no constitution
Not true. Iraq had a constitution under Saddam. The Bushites are engaged in rewriting for the benefit of their friends Halliburton and Bechtel.
It's hard to type when I'm ROTFLMAO about this story, but seriously, folks is anyone keeping a tally of the number of Iraqis (members of the interim council, interim municipal governors, judges, police trainees) who have been assassinated since this all began for co-operating with the US?
I'm sure all anti-Iraq war protesters are wondering, as I am, did we have to be SO right about what would happen?
Let's see: How would Rove handle this?
I don't think actual conditions, or the make up of the Governing Council in Iraq will play too great a role.
It goes like this:
1) Draw down forces starting in the spring and make sure to have lots of photo ops for the returning heroes reunited with families. White House cermony to pin badges on heroes. Touching speach about sacrifice, democracy, etc.
2) Announce that you have established the "foundations" for a Democratic Iraq. There will be lots of chaos and mayhem but our private contractors (Dyncorp), possibly through non-US employees, will neutralize any individual who emerges to organize against our interests. Plausible deniability is all that's needed.
3) When you've won the election, manufacture an excuse to invade Syria, Iraq, Somalia, or whoever is next on the PNAC list. Rally round the flag, 80%approval, etc.dropping to 50% before 11/08 and here we go round again.
MG
I think the democratic leadership could take a page out of the ILC on this occasion.
Not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but remember Bush's comments of last week or so - they're killing members of the revolutionary council because we've been so successful by creating it. Hmmm... another lie?
Somewaht off topic but not really: there was an article in the CS Monitor about a month ago noting that the US was considering adopting an Israeli training program for occupation forces.
At the time I thought, "That's ironic," and moved on. It just dawned on me today that if we're looking to train our occupation troops on their model, we must be shredding civilians at a greater rate than they are.
/
I'm becoming apoplectically lysdexic.
MG - they will manufacture an excuse to invade Iran, Syria, or whomever BEFORE the election not after.
Operation October Surprise. You can bank on it.
"Among several options, the administration is also considering changing the order of the transition if it looks as though it could drag on much longer than the United States had planned."
aaahhhh!!! so they do have a plan
Who's the guy in charge of that Governing Council that's outlived its usefulness?
Oh, yeah--Diem.
should we be concerned, here?
oh, s**t, the strings on the puppet broke. is this nation building, establishing democracy in the Middle East or what?
There is no one to support because there is no Iraq government. We'll have to leave an anarchy behind.
Unsurprising.
Damn, first in war, last in peace.
...to ensure that the United States can turn over political power at the same time and pace that troops are withdrawn...
Well hell, that could be decades.
...The United States is deeply frustrated with its hand-picked council members because they have spent more time on their own political or economic interests than in planning for Iraq's political future...
Translation: How DARE those Iraqis not blindly follow our orders! They're supposed to be furthering OUR interests, not theirs!
Popinjays, the lot of them.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
