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

Actually, glynch's exact title is "US Doesn't Like Outcome of Iraq Election So Tries to block the New Government". Yes, the US hasn't and probably can't outright block the govt especially if the Iraqis insist otherwise. However by President Bush saying he "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept" Mr. Jaafari to be the next prime minister, what exactly is he trying to do??? Well it seems obviously Bush is trying to block the formation of the new govt under Jaafari, right?

Since you are so found of nitpicking and parsing each and every word, then you have forgotten to note that glynch used the phrase "try to block" not "block". Therefore his statement is correct not false!

 

No, its false not correct! If Jaafari steps aside what happens? The new government is formed! Hence, the administration is not 'trying' to block the new government, it is doing the opposite - trying to let the new government form! Bush is not trying to block the new government with Jaafari. The Iraqis are blocking the new government with Jaafari.

As for 'nitpicking,' I'm not sure I understand the problem with challenging someone's assertions. That's kinda the crux of debate and discussion.

 

That's baloney Hayes and you know it. He has more than enough troo^H^H^H^H influence in Iraq to accomplish damn near whatever he wants. And then have favorable news reports written up in Iraqi newspapers to boot. You act as if Bush would never think to operate outside the rules - blinders huh?

Get off the terminolgy high-horse - when you are the chief executive of the most powerful nation on earth, with a reputation for being just a little stubborn and arrogant, and you have a rather powerful force stationed in the country of question - you don't simply "meddle". What are the Shiites supposed to do - tell Bush to go **** himself? I hear that doesn't go over well unless you're Saudi.

Exactly - it's UP TO THEM TO COMPROMISE. Not "cry and b**** to Bush since this democracy thing is such a pain in the rear." That's on par with the picture Master Baiter posted.

And shame on Bush for even remotely getting involved. Spreading democracy my ass - try "going to any length to save face on this Iraqi ****hole I got the US stuck in".

 

Look, if Bush had the influence or coercive capability you assert then there wouldn't be a public problem, would there, lol. Your assertion that he has soooo much ability to affect the outcome is denied by the very incident we're talking about in this thread. You can't have it both ways. The shia are doing exactly what you presuppose they can't, lol, telling him to go asterix himself.

Sigh. No, the leading party has to compromise as well. I think you should do some research on how coalition governments work. The party with the most seats gets the right to appoint a PM to lead, but they also have to form a coalition with at least some of the minority parties. To do so they have to compromise, ie give something, to gain a majority and be able to run the government. Right now in Iraq the Shia's have the leading party status but they still need at least some of the minority to form a 'new government.' The minority parties in this case, the two largest being the Kurds and the Sunnis, don't like Jaafari and so there is a gridlock to form the new government. Neither will join the Shia coalition and until they do a new government won't be in place. SO, the administration is voicing what should be patently obvious, it would be better for him to step aside so a new government can move into power. It is not only normal practice for the parties to act in this manner, it is their right and their protection from a tyranny one party. The administration, as we have a huge vested interest in the formation and operation of a new government as soon as possible, is doing exactly what it should be doing - namely trying to get the new government in place as soon as possible. As I have already pointed out, the number 2 shia is even less acceptable to our interests (if one presupposes his coziness with Iran as not in our interest) than Jaafari, so to assert that we're trying to stop the new government is silly and just empty rhetoric. Sorry you're so easily duped into following glynch's lead.

 

Hayes - I'm gonna go Hayes on you.

You said Bush has no mechanism. I said you were wrong, he certainly does. You're response is that "if he did - why hasn't he?" Non-sequitor.

He has the ability to influence this election. Now, has he actually done this? - I think it "unprovable" at the moment - but I certainly think him ethically capable. It definitely is in his political/administration's best interest...

Ack. "Its up to them to compromise".

I know how a coalition government is supposed to work. And it usually does not involve a "third-party-nation". You can argue, I suppose, that Bush is not directly influencing or intimidating the Iraqi governing process, but I give him the benefit of the doubt - Bush is that kinda guy, IMO. Arguing he "has no mechanism" is just ridiculous however.

I guess I asked for that - but it's still infuriating.

 

Its quite clear from context that glynch meant "New Govt under Jaafari" not some generic "new govt". Sure if Jaafari is blocked some other new govt will form. But its clear what is being referred to here which is "new govt under Jaafari" not some generic new govt. So your first point is really just plain sophistry here.

For your second point that "Bush is not trying to block the new government with Jaafari", its seems quite clear that he is. The fact that there are also other opponents of Jaafari is somewhat irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact the Bush is using pressure to try to block Jaafari from forming a govt with him as PM.

 

Uh, considering he hoped someone else would post a link to an article somewhere that might back up his assertion, I think you give him too much credit and certainly are out of bounds accusing me of sophistry.

Now you're just purposely being dense. Jaafari is unable to form a new government and that doesn't have anything to do with Bush. Bush is trying to pressure Jaafari to step aside so a new government will form. NOTHING you can refer to outlines your scenario, you're just either misreading or making it up as you go along to fit your preformed opinion. Bush doesn't need to do ANYTHING to block Jafaari from forming a new government, he is ALREADY being blocked by the other Iraqi parties from doing so. To claim he is redundantly trying to block what is already blocked is just nonsensical.

 

Mr. Jafaari, Mr Jafaari. Congratulations of being appointed by a democratically elected majority. I hear you have some difficulty in forming a coalition government? No problem, let me help you in forming your new government...by declearing you as "unacceptable".

Stop thanking me, seriously. Stop thanking me. Toast to democracy.


Yours

G.W. Bush

 

apperance of impropriety is impropriety.

and stating that jaafri is unacceptable is well unacceptable..

 

Are you assuming the Iraqis have independently arrived at a deadlock and the US has made no previous attempts to subvert the government process (such as choosing sides and redrawing constitutional proposals)?

The US is just giving hope to the opposition parties and as a result, they're becoming even more stubborn in their demands. I guess it's real ugly if Bush has come out of the woodwork and made our interference official.

I think everyone here does not want a civil war, but we're not really giving the elected government in Iraq a chance. We nudge them to one side, and if the results isn't to our liking, we highlight failures in order to influence them more.

 

But this can't possibly mean that Bush is interfering, after all - he doesn't have a mechanism! Well - yes he does, but you can't prove he actually interfered! Well - actually he pretty much did, but it's because we are being helpful: We are stopping the new government from forming so that they can form their new government! Yeah - that's it - it makes perfect sense!



Deny it all you want Hayes. Blinders.

Seems like Jafaari understands the Hayesian viewpoint - but he does infer the obvious as well.

 

Well, no. He doesn't have a mechanism to block Jaafari. Here's a challenge for you - show one source that actually says we've blocked Jaafari, which is YOUR assertion above. You can't do it because its not the US blocking Jaafari, its Iraqis. Put up or shut up. And please none of the ambiguous self serving statements from Jaafari that play to the anti-american sentiment, let's see something that says anything other than the new government is not forming because the other Iraqi parties won't agree to Jaafari as the PM. Your problem is that you are too busy inferring when the actual facts are already out there. There is no need to infer why the new government is not yet formed as the reasons are pretty clear. Just look at the quote you provided: and it showed the Bush administration's acute impatience over the stagnant political process. Not, Bush's determination that Jaafari wouldn't be PM. The focal point is the stagnant political process, ie the gridlock caused by the other Iraqi parties over their refusal to join a Jaafari led government. The answers are in front of your face and you're accusing me of blinders, lol.

Absolutely. That's certainly what someone attempting to be objective should do until a different verifiable conclusion has been offered. You can throw out your supposition that US has pushed the Kurds and Sunnis to this, but there isn't any rationale for this. All of the literature on the subject emphasize the administrations focus on getting PAST the stalemate, not on getting the candidate 'they want.' As I've indicated earlier, the next candidate in line after Jaafari is even less in tune with US interests, so it is just nonsensical to make these claims that we're trying to get Jaafari blocked.

They don't need US intervention to stop the new government from forming! Man, this is frustrating. They ALREADY have stopped the process, as is their right in this form of government. They need NO outside assistance to do this.

 

hayes, aren't you bloody sick of defending bush?

 

Um no Hayes. I only said it possible or plausible (inferred), repeatedly mind you. You are correct that it is not necessarily an attempt by the US to dictate the outcome, and may be merely Bush trying to get the Iraqis over the impasse - but its seems foolish to think naively that Bush is altruisitically guiding the inept Iraqis to the promised land of democracy. He is, at a minimum, trying to hurry the process to further his own ends.

Here's a challenge for you Hayes: show one source that actually says we have NOT interfered or influenced, which is YOUR assertion above. You keep trying to come to the conclusion that there is no direct influence by the US government on the Iraqi election - all the while being just as ignorant as the rest of us regarding the situation. At best, you have evidence indicating 1: Bush is growing impatient (bad publicity), and 2: fears from Iraqi politcians of US involvement, therefore I infer:

Yet, you seem to be inferring that the above two facts point to zero US involvement. Inference is required because the "facts" absolutely do NOT point to any direct conclusion. You lean to taking Bush's word, and have gone to great lengths to attempt to prove it impossible for him to manipulate the process - with absolutely no factual evidence other than Jafaari's refusal to step down. I think Bush more than capable of subverting the democracy he promotes to further his politics - and factual evidence can back up that claim.

Can I prove it in this instance - not yet. But you act like it's impossible, and ignore evidence to the contrary.

Correct. So let the Iraqis sort it out. There is no need for Bush to do what you conveniantly ignored:

That subverts the whole "independent democracy" thing listed as our 18th reason to invade.

 

the white man's burden sure is a b****.

 

Am I defending Bush? I think i'd rather criticism be accurate instead of knee jerk bandwagoning.

 

Hayes: the new sig is awesome. I just about spat my water all over the screen.