US Doesn't Like Outcome of Iraq Election So Tries to block the New Government

And they could too!

Doesn't Lee Marvin's head look chopped onto that body?

 

The White House, June 24, 2005:

 

It's no big surprise. Even when the Admin was hailing the success of the elections a year ago, they busily began diluting Shia power in the Congress to give to the Kurds and Sunnis. After that NY Times article, it's hard to maintain that the Admin or Blair truly wanted a democracy in Iraq, but rather a clean looking face to ease domestic opposition.

The question is whether these leaders are maintaining projections towards true long-term democracy or whether they'll continue to manipulate Iraqi politics for "favorable outcomes". The answer lies within the electorate and whether they still believe their leaders intentions are in good faith.

 

Expressing an opinion that he's not the ideal leader is not undemocratic. Stop your knee jerk reactions.

 

If that was all that happened it would be a knee jerk. But sending the word to an occupied country from the occupier through the official ambassador carries a little more weight.

 

Telling them we won't accept the leader of their choice is not undemocratic?

<I>Ambassador Khalilzad said that President Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept" Mr. Jaafari to be the next prime minister, according to Mr. Taki, a senior aide to Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Shiite bloc.</I>

 

Does it? What do you base that on - has he stepped down?

 

I base it on the fact that the U.S. has an army occupying Iraq, operating Iraq's purse strings, and that the voicing of the displeasure of that leader comes from the country who is doing all of those things.

Whether or not the leader gives into that added weight or not has yet to be seen. It doesn't change the fact that the Bush administration is trying to change the leadership elected by the democracy that was supposedly a goal of the invasion.

 

The US wasn't able to 'install' their choice of leadership in the beginning, correct? Therefore expressing their unhappiness with the current leader is a FAR cry from REPLACING the current leadership or BLOCKING the current leadership, which is the claim so many of you are knee jerking to.

 

They did more than express their unhappiness. The U.S. govt. said they do not recognize or accept him as the leader of Iraq, despite the fact that he was democratically elected by the people of Iraq.

I didn't say that it was installing anything, but it is trying to coerce change from a democratically elected leader.

 

It's coercion and almost 'imperial-like' behavior, to be sure. This is not coming from Denmark or some other outside country that has little to no influence in Iraq, this is coming from the de facto administrator of Iraq (the U.S. Ambassador), who relays a message from the leader of the occupying power saying that he is basically displeased with the democratic choice of the Iraqi people and wants change (the actual language seems more 'demanding' in tone than I am portraying here, but I digress).

 

First off, we don't actually have the ambassador's statement. Second, they don't say ANYTHING about not recognizing him. You can't have it both ways. Either they can or they cannot block him from being the leader of Iraq. All that's come out so far is that they don't want him to be so, not that they've done anything to 'block the new government' as our friend known for exaggerration glynch labelled the thread. That you've now jumped on the bandwagon is the knee jerk.

How is it coercion, lol. That's just silly. There is no threat that we know of, implied or otherwise.

 

Ambassador Khalilzad said that President Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept" Mr. Jaafari to be the next prime minister, according to Mr. Taki, a senior aide to Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Shiite bloc.

Assuming this is accurate and truthful, what does "doesn't accept" imply in your opinion?

 

First off let's acknowledge that we don't even know the text of the message from Bush. Second, the administration has made it clear that this is an Iraqi decision.

From the NYTimes article:

"The American Embassy spokeswoman, Elizabeth Colton, confirmed that the ambassador did see Mr. Hakim on Saturday. The two meet regularly to discuss Iraq's political situation.

"The decisions about the choice of the prime minister are entirely up to the Iraqis," Ms. Colton said. "This will be an Iraqi decision."

Third, put some context on this message. The formation of the new government has been deadlocked because of IRAQI opposition to Jaafari. The Shias have so far refused to put up another candidate which is stalling to process. It is not unusual or improper for the US to say 'hey, put someone else up so you can get the new government going.' That's not even close to the picture Maynard G. Glynch is portraying.

 

U.S. envoy reportedly seeks new Iraq PM

 

Jaffari, hakkim, chalabi and the badr brigade are iranian spies. i'm still gobssmacked how the United States did'nt figure this out before the war started. Chalabi was feeding false information to the Americans about the Supposed Iraqi WMD Program Via the Iranians.... iran has clearly out-smarted and cunned the bush Adminstration in a huge way.

 

The fact that they are saying it is an Iraqi decision yet telling the Iraqi's that Bush doesn't accept their decision, only shows more how dishonest they are about supporting Iraqi independence.