Iraqis are NOT voting for a new government! They are NOT voting for a

[LynnTheDem]

new leader!

STOP SAYING THAT!!! lol!!!

They are voting for a TEMPORARY GROUP who will rewrite Iraq's Constitution. Then NEXT YEAR this TEMPORARY GROUP is supposed to pick 3 people who will pick Iraq's president and new government.

The Iraqis today are NOT NOT NOT voting for a new Iraqi leader or govt, they're ONLY voting for this TEMPORARY GROUP and this TEMPORARY GROUP will not have any power to tell US to get out.

When bush says he'll get out if the "new Iraqi govt tells us to" he's talking about the new Iraqi govt to be selected NEXT YEAR. It took the US 3 years to write the US Constitution; good luck to this TEMPORARY GROUP to do so by the end of this year.

[underpants]

1. Thank you

a very important point.

[Sydnie]

2. blivet** has already written it for them

based on ous, no dbout, but with all the pesky civil rights stuff removed. And no right to own guns or dissent. Should be a piece of cake! </sarcasm off>

[LynnTheDem]

3. They have to take out the bits in Iraq's current Constitution about free

university for all who want it, universal medicare, etc. God forbd they leave that socialist crap in! :D

Actually Iraq's Constitution is damned good; they should leave it alone and do a direct election for a government who will actually abide by it. But then we can't have the Iraqis with a better Constitution than our own, lol!

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynnTheDem]

7. Oh pulleeeese!

And if China invaded America and occupied America and forced an election on Americans to vote under foreign occupation under martial law for an unknown group to next year select an unknown group to select an unknown president and government for America, YOU would vote???

Only an idiot would think...well never mind.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[susu369]

16. LOL

what a zinger!

[G_j]

13. "an occupying force has no right..."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/election/2005/0118farce.htm

"Under the Vienna Convention, an occupying force has no right to change composition of occupied territories socially, culturally, educationally or politically. This election was based on the laws laid down by former 'Viceroy' American Paul Bremer and is entirely unconstitutional. Bremer personally appointed the overseers for the election', says Al Mukhtar, thus, far from 'free and fair' and heralding Iraqi 'democracy' they are entirely engineered by Bush's man."


from: Iraqi Elections: Farce of the Century
By Felicity Arbuthnot
Centre for Research on Globalization
January 18, 2005

[Swamp Rat]

10. Welcome to DU!

Good luck!

[leftchick]

14. LOL!

a good start for whom? Iraqis? No fucking way! For the US Occupiers to continue their plans for a permanent presence in Iraq?
Yes INDEED!....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2281&ncid=742&e=5&u=/thenation/20050118/cm_thenation/132132

<snip>


Though the media ignored Kerry's statement and failed to do any substantive follow-up research, his comments were well-grounded in reality. On the day of the debate the Christian Science Monitor spotlighted the findings of defense specialist John Pike, whose website, GlobalSecurity.org, located twelve "enduring bases" in Iraq, including satellite photos and names. In March, the Chicago Tribune reported that US engineers were constructing fourteen such long-term encampments--the number Kerry referred to. The New York Times previously placed the number at four.


While the exact figure may change, suspicions of undisclosed US imperial plans--exemplified by permanent military bases--rightfully linger. Before the war, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz suggested moving US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia into Iraq. In October, a survey by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes found that two-thirds of respondents disapproved of a permanent military presence, even though more than half thought the US would build the bases anyway.


Now comes a report in the New York Sun by Eli Lake revealing that the Pentagon (news - web sites) is building a permanent military communications system in Iraq, a necessary foundation for any lasting troop presence. The new network will comprise twelve communications towers throughout Iraq, linking Camp Victory in Baghdad to other existing (and future) bases across the country, eventually connecting with US bases in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Afghanistan (news - web sites).


"People need to get realistic and think in terms of our presence being in Iraq for a generation or until democratic stability in the region is reached," Dewey Clarridge, the CIA (news - web sites)'s former chief of Arab operations (and Iran-contra point man), told the Sun.



... psst. Clue for you... Look at what they are doing not what they are saying!

[G_j]

5. trying to seperate

for myself what for some Iraqis is a desperate symbol of hope (voting) from the cynical charade of "bringing democracy and freedom" to Iraq. The election was NOT for a new government. I wish the Iraqis had been able to vote to end the occupation.


There is no doubt Bush will spin this as another "mandate".
:-(

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. No, the new government is chosen this year

Seats will be allocated by pure proportional representation. The new assembly must first vote for a president and two vice-presidents who, in turn, as a presidential council, must unanimously choose a prime minister. He must then choose a government, which must be endorsed by a simple majority of the assembly’s members. Perhaps more important, the assembly must oversee the writing of a new and final constitution, to be drafted by mid-August and endorsed in a referendum by mid-October, leading to a full general election under new rules by mid-December (though the rules allow for some slippage).

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3619186

Now, the US won't listen to the new government, at least this year; but it is possible, if he hasn't fixed the election, that Allawi won't be prime minister very soon.

[G_j]

8. it was very sad to see CIA thug Allawi

offered as the "secular" choice.
:-(

[LynnTheDem]

9. The rightwing Economist

has things a bit incorrect.

But hey, time will tell. You can buy me a steak and drinks in the DU lounge when there's no new Iraqi govt voted on this year. ;)

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Well, if you can find a left wing source that backs up the 'next year'

option, then we've got something to work on. But till then, here's a fairly explicit right wing source:

The 275-seat Assembly will act as both a legislature and a panel to draft a new constitution. Its main tasks:

* Meet and elect its own officials, including the speaker and his two deputies, before March 2005.

* Elect the three members of the presidential council — one president and two vice presidents — by mid-April.

* Elect a new prime minister and Cabinet on the recommendation of the presidential council, probably by the end of April.

* Draft Iraq's new Constitution by mid-August.

* Put the draft to a referendum by Oct. 15.

* Hold general parliamentary elections by Dec. 15 (provided the constitution is approved in the referendum),

* Dissolve itself to make way for the newly elected parliament by Dec. 31. The new parliament will then appoint a new government.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/39432.htm

And here's the usually reliable Juan Cole, saying the jockeying is under way (which would seem strange, if it would all be done under a new constitution they haven't made yet, by a parliament elected by an as-yet-unknown method):

AFP discusses the jockeying that is already going on for the post of prime minister. Predicting who will be chosen is very difficult. The parliament will elect a president and two vice presidents, who will form a presidential council. It will then appoint a prime minister. So parliament cannot dictate who the prime minister will be, and it needn't be the leader of the party that forms the government.

http://www.juancole.com/2005/01/37-us-troops-dead-other-americans.html

[LynnTheDem]

15. The temporary assembly FIRST rewrites the Iraq Constitution

THEN they select a group to select an Iraqi president & government:

Per bush Administration:

As spelled out in the Transitional Administrative Law, no later than January 31, 2005 all adult Iraqis will be able to vote to elect a National Assembly of 275 members. The assembly you elect will write a permanent constitution for Iraq.

The National Assembly has until August 15, 2005 to write this, the first constitution written by elected Iraqis.

After it is written, the constitution will be circulated throughout the country.

Then, as the Transitional Administrative Law makes clear, you will have a chance to vote on the constitution in October of 2005.

Elections for a new government will take place in December of next year and the new government will be in place before the end of 2005.

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/democracy/PSAs/constitution_ref.html

December 2005 is supposed to be for Iraq's government. The election today IS NOT for an Iraqi government nor for an Iraqi leader.

It's just YET ANOTHER interim "government".

We'll see if the elections for a new Iraqi govt & leader happens next December; if it does, I'll buy YOU a steak in the Du lounge.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. Exactly - there will be yet another interim government this year

There is supposed to be another parliamentary election, under whatever rules the new constitution says, in December 2005. That will produce a government and president by rules defined in that constitution (including other elections, if the constitution says so). The 3 person 'presidential council' just applies this year.

[spanone]

18. Most Iraqis don't even know this!!!