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

Hayes: You continue to argue based solely on word choice. Could you please actually address the big picture?

Better yet, let's look at two quotes, and you tell me how you rectify them:

inference
n.

1. The act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.
2. The act of reasoning from factual knowledge or evidence.

 

All right, I'll bite. I don't think Hayes is that narrow minded at all. Hayes is (has been) perfectly willing to admit to foul-ups by the administration. But he does seem unwilling at times to see two things at the same time. The whole "put-two-and-two-together" bit...

Hayes: I understand what you are saying - it may be premature to judge the situation in Iraq without tangible evidence that Bush et. al. is trying to manipulate the government there. That being said - you seem perfectly willing to ignore evidence pointing to such actions, as well as the track record of our current admin for being lying, duplicitous, hypocritical weasels.

 

I think what you see as unwillingness to put two and two together is IMO a hesitancy to have a knee jerk conclusion. As you've pointed out, I do admit to foul-ups, despite my internal wish that we always did everything right . Where glynch and I often disagree is where his worldview dictates that something is self evident and I would rather wait and see the evidence, or at least TRY to examine whatever the subject is objectively (admitting of course that no one is truly objective - but some are more so than others).

Earlier you asked that I rectify the two quotes and this also is along those lines so I'll answer it here. The two quotes are not from the same source, ie one is from the administration and one is a report from someone else paraphrasing (to put it mildly) their version of the message. However, as I attempted to explain before, the issue for me is not that the administration is completely hands off in the goings on in Iraqi government - that would be silly considering our involvement there - its that the administration is not trying to get another candidate to step forward because they don't like Jaafari but because Jaafari's candidacy is gridlocking the process of getting a new government in place (because of the IRAQI opposition to his leadership). The administration is not trying to block a Shia candidate at all. As such, an inference that there is no self-determination involved, or that the US is setting up a puppet regime etc is not a valid inference. Glynch's 'proof' is at best a half truth.

 

if only hayes was this picky about the administrations arguments.

 

I am. For example, I supported neither the administrations conclusions about the Iraq/Al Quaeda connection, nor their yellow cake/aluminum tubes explanations. I criticized the administration for not pursuing the intervention correctly in terms of troops strength, disbanding the Iraqi army, and providing adequate material needs of the troops. I've criticized their withdraw from Kyoto and most every domestic decision its made. I think its patently ridiculous to assert that I do not look with a critical eye at the administration or that I do not closely examine their positions.

 

But the country as a whole picked this guy, right? Just because two guys are Shia candidates doesn't mean that the US is not interfering. One could be pro-US, while one is anti-US, and the US could interfere to pick a more pro-US Shia candidate. Would that still not be interfering with their selection process?

I just don't see how it can truly be self-determination if we subtly or forcible push certain candidates into or out of the election? If China provided a billion dollars to a US Presidential candidate, organized supporters all over the country, etc, would we not see them as interfering, even if it wasn't forced upon us?

 

No, actually not. He was nominated by the Shia block.

Certainly we are involved in the process in Iraq. That doesn't necessarily mean we're hindering self determination. And it certainly doesn't mean we are 'trying to block the new government,' which is the thread title and glynch's claim. Why not? Because as it stands the new government is not taking power BECAUSE of Iraqi opposition to Jaafari. That is why the administration, along with the Kurds, Sunnis, and many Shia's are trying to get Jaafari to step aside. The US is doing nothing more than trying to get a compromise candidate in place - which is far from hand picking a PM.

 

Major said what I thought as I read your post Hayes. You seem to be implying that Jaafari is holding up the process, yet he was _elected_ by the people. How is that causing gridlock? Better yet, how is that causing _worse_ gridlock than the US interfering in the process all the damn time?

 

Fair enough - I'm not well-versed enough to understand what sort of system they have in place. But if its possible to hold an election and not then have a functional government in place, I think they need to re-evaluate their Constitutional structure. It doesn't seem like much point to having elections if you can then have the losers preventing the winner from taking office.

 

True - but you make it sound as if it's a coup or something.

He was chosen by the elected parliament, of which the majority is Shia. Naturally, this is how it is supposed to work:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/13/iraq/main1308013.shtml

 

He wasn't elected by the people, he was nominated by his party, by one vote. The 'new government' has to be a coalition government - to do that the PM has to be acceptable to the other actors in Iraq. You see this is many countries with this system, the 'winning' party has to 'form a new government.' Because Jaafari is opposed by the other parties the 'new government' has not been formed. So that is why the claim that the 'new government has been blocked' is not true, and ignores the context of the situation completely.

 

Huh - reading through this I had an epiphany:

Bush wants Jafaari out because he's holding up the process. This implies two things:

1) Bush is irritated that the new Iraqi government can't get into gear because it makes him look bad.

2) The Iraqi government is not very stable. By the rules, the Shia majority nominated a prime minister - since they own the most votes in parliament - it stand to reason he will be the next prime minister. The minority group (Shiites) is of course pissed, and holding up the process. Which leads us back to point 1.

The problem is that in asking Jafaari to step aside, Bush is usurping the democratic process he himself said was the goal for the Iraqi people. That's beyond hypocritical - that's flat out lying.

 

Yes - but that ain't gonna happen smoothly between two parties that (pretty much) hate each other.

 

By your interpretation Carter mediating the Peace Process was meddling, hypocritical, and lying. It stands to reason that a Shia will be the next PM, not necessarily that Jaafari will be. The Shias are the Shiites. You mean the Sunnis I believe, but no matter because it is not just the Sunnis that don't want Jaafari, but half of the ruling Shias, the Sunnis, and the Kurds. Regardless, glych's pronouncement that Bush was blocking the new government is clearly false.

True, but what does that have to do with this thread? It only goes to show that some mediation (since they're gridlocked now) is necessary to move forward. That is exactly what the call for Jaafari to step aside IS.

I mean really, you guys talk about having blinders on etc. LOOK at the title of the thread, US Doesn't Like Outcome of Iraqi Elections So Tries To Block New Government. That is just flat out false and I can't believe you aren't chastizing glynch for it. It is not the US but the minority parties that are blocking the new government. And while I doubt the administration likes the Shia's being in the drivers seat, whether Jaafari steps aside or not there will still be a Shia Prime Minister! And the second most popular Shia is CLOSER TO IRAN than Jaafari, so to assert he might be MORE pro-US than Jaafari is silly. I think its time you censure your own and take glynch to task, despite your own feelings about the war lets see some attempt at objectivity.

 

Oops - yes I meant the Sunnis.

I see what you are saying Hayes - but I don't reach the same conclusion. Jafaari is under no obligation to step down - he got there via the rules. It's up to the Sunnis to fullfill their end of the deal.

At best you could say that currently, glynch's pronouncement that Bush was blocking the new government is clearly unprovable.

 

I agreed with you some time ago I believe with respect to "prematurely judging". But I'm uncomfortable with any interfering by the US - it reeks of undesirable meddling in a democratic process we were the primary supporters of.

That's all.

 

He doesn't have a mechanism to 'block' the new government. So its easy to say its a false statement. Further, it is easily verifiable that it is the minority groups refusing to agree to a new coalition that is preventing the 'new government' from taking shape, again proving his assertion the falsehood that it is.

I understand and I'm not saying you're some radical for your concerns. But was it undemocratic to say Nazis could run for office after WWII? This incident, which some say is meddling and some say is mediating, is far from that action (to give a comparison). Regardless of whether it IS meddling or mediating, it isn't BLOCKING the new government. That, it appears to me at least, is obvious and verifiable.

One other thing about this - or the 'rules' as you put it. The Sunnis and Kurds are under no obligation to form the new government with Jaafari at its head, under the 'rules.' That is why it is not uncommon for countries with parlimentary systems of government to have these situations. Compromise is the crux of these systems, and this scenario has played itself out in many instances, including in EU nations where they have this system.