Seventy-nine percent of Iraqi voters approved the constitution in the nationwide referendum held Oct. 15, according to official results released Tuesday. That’s great news and a historic milestone. It doesn’t mean, of course, that Iraq is safer now — as evidenced by Monday’s attack on a Baghdad hotel. Or that Iraq doesn’t still face a huge challenge holding together a divided country — the Sunni minority overwhelmingly opposed the constitution. But the vote is a powerful statement about the desire of most Iraqis to live in freedom and govern themselves.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
15 Comments
Hehehe, you’re kidding, right?
We’re setting up a break away republic in the north (Kurds) which is scaring our putative allies the Turks to death.
We’ve got a nice theocratic Shia state going in the south, like Iran.
And in the middle is a whole load of Sunnis that are just madder than hornets about the whole deal.
Progress marches on . . .
If this is success, what does defeat look like?
Check this out–Syria’s next
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20051024/syria_the_next_iraq.php
“So I ask: Is it possible, after everything we’ve learned about the Bush administration’s lies and deception over Iraq, after the staggering cost of that misguided war to the United States, is it possible that the American body politic is going to let Bush, Cheney and Co. get away with shattering another Middle East state?
“It’s possible. Because it’s happening.”
Serious Galahad, I read the link. Great find. I hope it’s on the mark. That part of the world is a festering pest hole and it needs to be cleaned up. We can kill 2 birds with one stone. Clean out the terrorists, and secure the oil. I think the middle east would make a great US oil terminal. (Great way to try out some of our tactical nukes)
Nah . . . not even YOU believes that.
I’m not biting.
The only reason this constitution passed was the inclusion of a provision that said it can be debated and changed at a future date. In other words,the constitution is not settled at all.
I seem to recall that we left the issue of slavery unresolved at the the Constitutional Convention and came up with a jury rigged compromise satisfying to no one. A later generation settled the remaining issues with a number of votes taken during the battlefield Congress of of 1861-65.
Oh come on, Galahad, what’s a few nukes between friends?
I wonder if Iraqis consider this as important a milestone as we do.
The only viable solution for Iraq is partition.
I’m reasonably sure that complexities do not figure into Ian’s worldview, but what would be wrong with making Iraq into 3 nation states?
Is it that the Sunnis would not share in the oil revenue? What is it that Turks have to fear about Iraqi Kurds? Iran and the Shi’ites; is a muslim state so bad? — especially when compared to the current state of affairs?
But the press said these votes would never happen because Iraq was such a violent cesspool? What happened? Were they wrong again? Come to think of it….where are the 10,000 dead in New Orleans? Where are the mug shots of the people who raped and murdered in the Super Dome which was so breathlessly “reported.”
Oh, that’s write, it’s only BushCo that are a bunch of incompetent fat liars.
I’m no huge fan of the MSM, Joe B., but who said that the votes would never happen?
Just curious because that’s one I hadn’t seen.
Also, given Bush’s clear record of lying and incompetence, it seems to me that the MSM has been remarkably restrained in commenting on it.
3 different nations? It would turn into the Israeli and Palestinian conflict. These groups all hate each other and the terrorism against each other will just continue, no amount of democracy can overcome the hatred that’s gone on forever. At best, when the dust settles and we get bored and leave, there will be civil war in Iraq.
Galahad….and before you say this was for the election in January…you guys all said the January election would never happen, which was my point. Without January, there would be no vote this past week.
Election Triumph BeliesNetwork Naysayers
On Monday’s Early Show, CBS’s Dan Rather was ebullient. “This is an inspiring story and this is a joyful place today. Iraqis awoke today with a glint, a sparkle of freedom in their eyes,” Rather exulted one day after millions of Iraqis voted in a free democratic election. “Even some areas influenced most by Sunni insurgents had a solid turnout yesterday,” Rather noted. “The insurgents have suffered a significant setback.”
Rather was right to be cheered by Sunday’s events, but if the Iraqis had listened to the chorus of negativity coming from reporters in the days and weeks before the vote, he might not have had any good news to report. Pessimistic journalists suggested the election would be worthless and dangerous: Too few would vote to make the results “legitimate” while at the same time an army of terrorists would create a “bloodbath.”
? Election Might “Demolish” Iraq: On his syndicated Chris Matthews Show this weekend, the openly anti-war MSNBC anchor comically suggested that the election might destroy Iraq. In a show taped before voting began, Matthews set up the topic: “Birth of a nation — will elections unite Iraq or ignite civil war? Will this weekend’s vote create a country or demolish it?…For Iraqis, a moment teeming with risk and potential: liberation or devastation.”
? A “Bloodbath” on Sunday: FNC war reporter Steve Harrigan, who spent most of the last two years in Iraq, was deeply pessimistic in a Friday morning appearance on Fox & Friends. “I think there’s going to be a bloodbath on Sunday,” he predicted. “All over the place, especially in Baghdad and a few other cities, Mosul….About half the country’s in big trouble.” NBC’s Matt Lauer hit the same theme as he began that morning’s Today: “Bloody countdown. Amid growing violence, will Iraq be able to hold its first free elections in more than 50 years?”
? “No Way” Election Can Happen: Two months ago, some reporters suggested that the plan for holding elections on January 30 was an optimistic fantasy. On the November 26 Today, NBC’s Katie Couric said elections “seem to be really questionable at this point in time.” A few days later, on the December 5 Evening News, weekend anchor Mika Brzezinski declared that the situation in Iraq “seems only to worsen as election day gets closer and closer….Some are now saying there is no way the election deadline can be met.”
? …And No Legitimacy: Reporters argued the vote would mean nothing if the minority Sunnis stayed home. “If nearly a quarter of the population does not participate,” ABC’s David Wright wondered on World News Tonight January 5, “will the vote be legitimate?” And anyone predicting a high participation rate was labeled an “optimist,” i.e., unrealistic. “Election officials optimistically predict a 50 percent voter turnout,” reporter Kimberly Dozier announced on CBS’s Early Show January 25. In fact, the turnout was much higher, with early estimates that 60 percent of Iraqis voted.
? Jennings Still Unsatisfied: On Sunday’s World News Tonight, ABC’s Peter Jennings seemed less than impressed. “It seemed a strange way to experience the democratic process, from the back of a heavily-armored vehicle,” he grumped. In “parts of the Sunni Muslim heartland, it looks as if the election process has been rejected,” Jennings sourly suggested. “Without Sunni participation, somehow, the future here is still pretty bleak.”
Okay, I’ll concede there were some nay sayers. But the problem is, as Sandy Berger pointed out, the US can have control or it can have democracy, but it can’t have both.
So when does Iraq get to run its own country?
It’s already been two going on three years. We’ve got just as many troops there now as before.
The Iraq police arrested some British spies for shooting at Iraqi civilians and the flipping British military heavy tanks just cave the side of the prison in and get their spies out, the same spies who had a car full of dynamite.
This is the way to build a democracy?
I don’t think so.