I wouldnt expect Georgie to read the Iraqi Constitution...

[LeftNYC]

since he probably has never read the US Constitution, but he is wrong or lying again.(i go for the 2nd due to past history) Or Condi gave him bad info or whatever...


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/MAC354350.htm


"Islam is the official religion of the state, and it is a main source for legislation. No law can be passed that contradicts the fixed principles of Islam's rulings. No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy. No law can be passed that contradicts basic rights and freedoms mentioned in this constitution."

"I talked to Condi, and there is not -- as I understand it, the way the constitution is written is that women have got rights, inherent rights recognized in the constitution, and that the constitution talks about not 'the religion,' but 'a religion,'" the president said. "Twenty-five percent of the assembly is going to be women, which is a -- is embedded in the constitution."

Keep pedaling that bike Monkeyboy...

[Kagemusha]

1. Condi gave him the info he wanted to hear.

And she knows it's in the constitution because she made sure the US ambassador to Iraq broke arms to get those provisions in the constitution, on paper, where they're safe and harmless because the supreme court to interpret any dispute will be stacked full of Shiite holy men.

So that she could tell Bush the info he wanted to hear.

Which she did.

[Roland99]

2. Here's the Full Text:

http://www.conjur.com/blog/2005/08/26/full-text-of-proposed-iraqi-constitution/#more-83

[magellan]

3. "Women have got rights" -- idiot!!

Someone ask dimson WHAT rights Iraqi women will have. At this moment they don't even have the ones they had under Hussein.

[jonkronz2003]

4. Big contradiction...

Anyone else see the inherent contradiction in these two sentences?

No law can be passed that contradicts the fixed principles of Islam's rulings.

No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.

[Igel]

5. I read the draft. In th AP's translation.

I don't know what the original says; I've looked for it a bit online, but haven't found it (and my Arabic's barely rudimentary). The translation sucks. It's neither fair nor authentic.

That said, I suspect even if * is right he's irrelevantly so. Languages use the definite article (if they even have one, or just one) differently.

In other words, there might be no difference between the English version from the AP, and something that (in Arabic) said "Islam -- official religion-of the-state". Assuming that would be a well-formed sentence in Arabic, which has a perfectly serviceable definite article.

I've seen this kind of irrelevant parsing used in some Bible exegesis.

On the other hand, I have no problem with a state religion, as long it's not oppressively applied, although I prefer not having one. Hence my primary concern is with the makeup of the courts.