Back to Main
July 26, 2005
WB: Suddenly in a Hurry
Comments
only a matter of time for the ticker tape victory parade!
Posted by: nanook | Jul 26 2005 6:45 utc | 1
BAGHDAD: Iraq President Jalal Talabani is trying to calm anxiety among liberals and secular figures that the Constitution, which is being considered by the Shia-dominated legislature, will give undue prominence to Islamic law.
Adding to the alarm of secularists, as well as Iraq’s non-Muslim minorities, conservative Shia members on the drafting committee are pressing for the country to be renamed the “Islamic Republic of Iraq“…..
Iraqi Kurds present new map of ‘Kurdistan’ for inclusion in new constitution
Iraqi commission rejects Kurds’ independence demand
Turkmen threaten Iraq constitution boycott
Turkmen have insisted on three issues to be included in the new Iraqi Constitution. They demand Turkmen to be accepted as the main component, the Turkmen language be accepted as the official language and Kerkuk (Kirkuk) be given a special status. Turkmen said they will boycott the constitution if their demands are not fulfilled…..
Sunni governorates sitting on massive oil reserves
Posted by: Nugget | Jul 26 2005 7:04 utc | 3
Justin Alexander posted the kurdish map on his blog.
Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Jul 26 2005 10:19 utc | 4
@nugget The last link you posted about oil reserves in the sunni provinces, do you have any notion of how releable that news source is? It’s called the Middle East North Africa Financial Network and if the info is good that would certainly take a lot of pressure once the invaders are pulled out.
I mean the preference should always be to keep the nation as one, but if the Sunni areas have the potential to be financially independent that would certainly reduce the impetus on sunnis to try to force something that the others may not want.
On the other hand it could easily be planted misinformation designed to get the sunnis to accept the unacceptable.
The Turkmen issue is possibly compromisable because the resources around Kirkuk means that Turkmen Iraqi are likely to have a huge ambit claim but may well compromise in a way that will leave the Northern neighbour (Turkey) having to accept a de facto Kurdish state, because the issue of the Turkmen is the pretext used by Ankara to obstruct a Kurdish state of any sort.
On the other hand of course who are any of us to try and call or influence Iraq’s destiny. Hopefully the seeds of nationalism have rooted deeply enough throughout Iraq. Long term the Shia have a lot more in common with other Iraqis than they do with Iran, where Persian sentiment could relegate Iraqi Shia Arabs to a lower status than they were even under Saddam’s rule.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Jul 26 2005 10:30 utc | 5
@ Debs is dead
The original source is KUNA, the Kuwait News Agency, and it is reliable. There have been no further reports on the story to provide any read on what the MPs ‘proof’ might consist of.
And just to add to the mix of whose rights need to be considered under the new constitution, let none of us forget that devil worshippers seek constitutional rights too.
Posted by: Nugget | Jul 26 2005 10:52 utc | 6
ULTRA SUPER SECRET WH NEGOTIATIONS WITH IGC
[White House Letterhead]
TO: IGC Chairman
Condition #1 For US Pullout – All PCS’ing US
military personnel shall receive special issue
of a bouquet of roses and box of sweets, to be
personally autographed by A. Chalabi, and then
wrapped in the prayer shawl of an AQ jihadist.
All commissioned officers to receive a special
commemorative campaign ribbon, black and red
with silver stars, symbolizing blood for oil,
and each year the Gulf War campaigns lasted.
Condition #2 for US Pullout – All PCS’ing US
diplomatic personnel shall receive a special
letter of commendation from the Iraqi Governing
Council, congratulating them on fair and even-
handedness as administrators, each containing
a specific hold-harmless clause against looting,
torture and any other Geneva Convention lapses.
Diplomats shall receive special shipping boxes
exempt from inspection, for repatriating their
profiteered money bales and looted artifacts.
Condition #3 for US Pullout – All US oil
executives will receive a special off-book
oil rate at least 18% below market value.
The spread between the official rate and
the off-book shall be distributed 57:3:40,
with 57% to special numbered bank accounts,
3% to re-election campaigns of certain US
administration officials, and the remainder
to offset large personal security expenses
of the members of Iraqi Governing Council.
Condition #4 for US Pullout – We broke it,
now you fix it. The US agrees to pledge a
massive reconstruction fund with some UN
interim authority, however it has no more
intention of paying this, than that $10B
pledged for Africa to get Kofi’s buy-in.
After Iraq’s civil war is over, USA may
distribute surplus food aid to survivors.
Have a nice day, you’all!
Dick Cheney, VPOTUS
Posted by: Unifi Ebjadrik | Jul 26 2005 15:12 utc | 7
So Bush claimed that he absolutely, under no circumstances, would discuss a timetable for withdrawing US troops from Iraq and then proceeds to discuss a timetable for withdrawing US troops from Iraq. How is that substantively different than saying he would immediately dismiss any of his staff found to have been involved in the Plame leak and then back-pedaling on his position?
Under this administration, the litmus test for how strongly they intend to pursue a given policy is not how adamantly they insist they are going to do it. If they say they are “considering” something, you can take it to the bank that they will do it. If they say they have no interest in doing something (like, say, nation building), it is better than even money that they will try. If they say they absolutely, under no circumstances, will even consider a course of action… well, that means nothing at all. (Empty rhetoric for empty heads… in both elections they accused their opponents of being “flip-floppers” and having “credibility problems”.)
If you want to know where the Cheney White House stands on an issue, ask yourself the following questions:
1.) Is it hostile to the poor?
2.) Is it hostile to the environment?
3.) Is it friendly to the interests of large corporations?
4.) Is it internationally or domestically illegal?
5.) Will it bail out a political ally or hurt a political foe?
If the answer to one or more of these questions is “yes”, then the White House will pursue that policy. If the answer to all of these questions are “no”, then they are blowing smoke and nothing will come of it.
Posted by: Monolycus | Jul 26 2005 19:19 utc | 8
I’m positive they all sit around after any major speech and replay it laughing their asses off.
“We’re bringing democracy to the middle east!”
Hah, hah, hah.
“We’re absolutely committed to the fair treatment of all detainees.”
Yuk. Yuk. Yuk. Oh, Karl, you kill me.
A lot of the rhetoric actually starts making perfect sense if you substitute “them” for “us” and “peace” for “war” etc. Through the looking glass.
Posted by: PeeDee | Jul 26 2005 22:06 utc | 9