Sunnis reject Iraq draft constitution

[sabra]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20050824-09271400-bc-iraq-constitution-2ndld.xml

Sunnis reject Iraq draft constitution

BAGHDAD, Aug. 24 (UPI) -- The leader of a main Sunni group Wednesday rejected Iraq's nearly-complete draft constitution as "illegitimate" in the absence of a consensus.

Dr. Adnan Dalimi, secretary-general of the Sunni Congress Party, told a press conference in Baghdad the draft is aimed at partitioning Iraq and as such "it is illegitimate."

"We are not the only faction opposed to a federation in south and central Iraq, but many others, including Shiite, Kurds and Turkmen have the same stance," Dalimi said.

In the meantime, President Jalal Talabani said consensus among Iraq's three main communities -- the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds -- is necessary for stability.

[QuettaKid]

1. what's with the photo?

who is that with the chimp and what's the caption mean?

[sabra]

4. a pic of Bush cheating on Laura

well not really, but it's a counter to the Drudge's attempt to smear the Clintons...

[The Witch]

2. Hot shit.

:popcorn:

uh-oh.

[corkhead]

3. here we go

I was talking to a woman yesterday about how Iraq is going to wipe out womens rights and they are going to be wearing burkas, and she said "aren't they already?" There are so many idiots who like some moranic hillbilly song "don't know the difference between Iraq and Iran."

It's pathetic

[Pirate Smile]

5. Kelly Ann Conway didn't seem to understand that when she was

on Real Time with Bill Maher last Friday.

If you are that ignorant, you should not be allowed to go on shows as a pundit OR it is the purposeful ignorance and misinformation Republicans whip out whenever reality is too inconvenient and damaging to recognize.

[endarkenment]

10. That twit was STOOPID

Really dumb. She had some memorized talking points that she rattled off, but she had no idea what they meant, as was painfully clear when maher attempted (unsuccessfully) to actually engage her in discourse. She did however get really annoyed with Chris Rock, which was hysterical unintended improv theater.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. He is, of course, correct that a DRAFT is illegitimate

The nonsense of the draft constitution is the biggest comedy there is. They could not get the needed consensus by the dealine, which is a huge embarrassment to the Bushista administrators, so instead thy submitted this laughable "draft," and they've been spinning that as some sort of accomplishment. "We submitted a draft!" But a draft is meaningless without agreement. It's like the Seinfeld skit with the car rental place: Anyone can take reservations - the hard part is to HOLD he reservation. In the same way, anyone can produce a draft - the hard part is to get agreement on the draft! The Sunnis are probably (and quite rightly) objecting to the ridiculous spin that's been put on the submission of the draft, as if that constituted some accomplishment. The submission of the draft is a meaningless publicity ploy meant to deflect from the failure - twice! - to make deadline. It's really that simple: they didn't make deadline last Monday, and they didn't make deadline this Monday. Rather than admit that (and dissolve the purple-fingered parliament), they submitted this draft, and pretended that meant something. But it remains only a draft; there is no consensus. The draft is quite literally "illegitimate" by definition, since it hasn't met the minimum conditions called for by the previous agreements to take on the force of law.

[PunkPop]

7. Looks like they made their choice.

n/t

[slackmaster]

8. Sunnis are underrepresented because they boycotted the election

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1414818,00.html

Acting on legitimate fears that the election would expand the US occupation, Sunni leaders created a self-fulfilling prophesy.

You have to either fish or cut bait. The election was not perfect but it was the only game in town. It strikes me as disingenuous how a group can refuse to participate in the (admittedly flawed) process, but then complain that their interests are not being met by the output. It makes no sense to call the process "illegitimate" while complaining about your interests not being represented. If it's truly illegitimate then none of the details matter. If you are bothered by not being represented then you are assigning legitimacy to the system.

Maybe this will be a civics lesson for those who boycotted. If this process does result in something resembling a Democratic system, there will be another election soon.

[Igel]

12. There's an interpretation that they didn't vote because they

wanted to sabotage the process. But it didn't quite work.

They demanded full inclusion knowing that would make the entire electoral process seem like a sham, if they were included, and sabotage the process, if they weren't. But that didn't quite work.

Now they want to vote, so as to derail the process. We'll see if it works.

It's possible to interpret the goal as being the same in all cases: preserve centralization in order to protect the important group's hegemony.

[bemildred]

9. So, this means they start over right? New election, new "parliament". nt

[Javaman]

11. This is what happens when you marginalize a whole section

of the populations. Is anyone really surprised at this?

Next stop, civil war.

colossal failure*