Of course the White House fears free elections in Iraq

[kskiska]

Only an appointocracy can be trusted to accept US troops and corporations

Naomi Klein

"The people of Iraq are free," declared President Bush in his state of the union address on Tuesday. The previous day, 100,000 Iraqis begged to differ. They took to Baghdad's streets, shouting: "Yes, yes to elections. No, no to selection."

According to Iraq occupation chief Paul Bremer, there really is no difference between the White House's version of freedom and the one being demanded on the street. Asked whether his plan to form an Iraqi government through appointed caucuses was heading towards a clash with Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's call for direct elections, Bremer said he had no "fundamental disagreement with him".

It was, he said, a mere quibble over details. "I don't want to go into the technical details of refinements. There are - if you talk to experts in these matters - all kinds of ways to organise partial elections and caucuses. And I'm not an election expert, so I don't want to go into the details. But we've always said we're willing to consider refinements."

(snip)

Bremer wants his Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to appoint the members of 18 regional organising committees. These will then choose delegates to form 18 selection caucuses. These will then select representatives to a transitional national assembly. The assembly will have an internal vote to select an executive and ministers, who will form the new government. This, Bush said in the state of the union address, constitutes "a transition to full Iraqi sovereignty".

Got that? Iraqi sovereignty will be established by appointees appointing appointees to select appointees to select appointees. Add the fact that Bremer was appointed to his post by President Bush and Bush to his by the US Supreme Court, and you have the glorious new democratic tradition of the appointocracy: rule by an appointee's appointee's appointees' appointees' appointees' selectees.

more…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1130289,00.html

[lastknowngood]

1. Why don't the just use their connections

at Dibold to ship electronic voting machines over in June to steal that election and then ship them back here to steal ours November.

[kaitykaity]

2. There is no way in hell the Bushevicks will allow Iraqi self-rule.

American oil companies will control Iraqi oil, no
matter what.

The fact that they can say this stuff and be at all
taken seriously just boggles my mind.

[number6]

3. I'm boggled :o

"The fact that they can say this stuff and be at all
taken seriously just boggles my mind."

American oil companies will control Iraqi oil< of course
the Bu$h plan all along !!

[Snappy]

4. Uh...maybe not.

Unfortunately for the Neo Fascists most Iraqis are aware of what colonial rule is, having gone through it with Britain. They won't accept it.

[DrBB]

5. I disagree strongly

...with this paragraph:

Got that? Iraqi sovereignty will be established by appointees appointing appointees to select appointees to select appointees. Add the fact that Bremer was appointed to his post by President Bush and Bush to his by the US Supreme Court, and you have the glorious new democratic tradition of the appointocracy: rule by an appointee's appointee's appointees' appointees' appointees' selectees.

Isn't this Iraq idea rule by a selectee's appointee's appointee's appointees' appointees' appointees?

I could be confused, of course. But I think it's critical that in these things be spelled out correctly in a free and open appointocracy like ours.

[ixion]

6. partial elections [read]: powerless posts

meaningless 'yes' man positions given to cronies by cronies who take orders from their cronies.

That people can say this garbage with a straight face amazes me to no end, and that 'professionals' take them seriously is just downright disturbing. :-(