As Iraq gains a constitution enshrining Islamic law , where are the Dems?

[Karmadillo]

I don't think this is what the American people thought they were getting in return for their billions of dollars and thousands of lives. Maybe it would be a good idea for the Democrats to point out what is happening over there. After all, the Opposition Party is supposed to take advantage of the other party's major, major, major screw-ups.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=8558

If the Bush administration brokered a deal in Occupied Iraq to enshrine Islamic law as the guiding principle of the new Iraqi Constitution, you'd think it would be headline news in the U.S. media, wouldn't you? Well, that's what has happened -- yet you can search the Sunday papers in vain to find this sell-out to the Islamists clearly portrayed -- or, in some cases, even mentioned.

<edit>

If the Bush administration brokered a deal in Occupied Iraq to enshrine Islamic law as the guiding principle of the new Iraqi Constitution, you'd think it would be headline news in the U.S. media, wouldn't you? Well, that's what has happened -- yet you can search the Sunday papers in vain to find this sell-out to the Islamists clearly portrayed -- or, in some cases, even mentioned.

<edit>

Moreover, the Post devalued the impact of this information by relying solely on Kurdish sources. But the Reuters dispatch also cited one of the main Sunni negotiators on the Constitution confirming the U.S. sell-out to the Islamists: "Sunni Arab negotiator Saleh al-Mutlak also said a deal was struck which would mean parliament could pass no legislation that 'contradicted Islamic principles. A constitutional court would rule on any dispute on that, the Shi'ite official said," Reuters reported, further quoting the Sunni's Mutlak as saying "The Americans agreed...."

Given the way the two national U.S. dailies -- which set the TV news agenda -- played this story, it's hardly surprising that shallow little George Stephanopolous, on this morning's ABC political chat show "This Week," didn't even bother to raise the question of the U.S. cave-in to an Islamic Constitution, neither when quizzing several U.S. Senators (Republicans Allen and Hagel) and Gov. Bill Richardson on Iraq, nor in the round-table discussion with journalists which followed. And on NBC's "Meet the Press" this morning, David Gregory (subbing for Tim Russert) also failed to bring up the U.S. sell-out to an Islamist Constitution in long discussions of Iraq with Sens. Russ Feingold and Trent Lott (Feingold should have mentioned it--but didn't.)

The Reuters dispatch also contained this useful and highly relevant reminder, absent from both the Times and Post reports: that Bush's ambassador to Iraq, Khalilzad, "helped draft a constitution in his native Afghanistan that declared it an 'Islamic Republic' in which no law could contradict Islam." And the Post story, way down, quoted the Sunni's Mutlak as saying of Khalilzad, "'His main interest is to push the constitution on time, no matter what the constitution has in it,' said Salih Mutlak, a Sunni delegate who has been outspoken against some compromise proposals. 'No country in the world can draft their constitution in three months. They themselves took 10 years,' Mutlak said, referring to the United States. 'Why do they wish to impose a silly constitution on us?'" Meanwhile, the AP reports this morning that the Sunnis say they've been left out of the negotiations over the Constitution.-- a sure prescription for more violence in Iraq.

more...

[annabanana]

1. I thought we were supposed to be spreading Democracy!

We spent all that money and killed all those people so we could set up a country run under Sharia Law?

You're right Karmadillo. If there ever was a cause-on-a-platter to pound the Republicans with, this is it.

[rucky]

2. Shoving democracy down their throats has proven to be...

impossible.

I share your outrage at the gawdawful consequences to this war, but this kind of government was the inevatable result of our toilings, and I'm afraid trying to control what kind of government the Iraqis end up with will simply continue the occupation (and insurgency).

This is a different country, different culture, different history. I'm not delighted with the apparent decision, nor am I sure it is truly the will of the Iraqi people, but my gut says to accept Islamic rule in Iraq - just as a sign that the US is not as imperialist as it appears we are.

I think it may be a losing battle to stand up and demand a different brand of democracy in Iraq. All we can really do is point out the fact that our Dumbass rulers didn't even carry out the "spreading democracy" part of their ad-hoc crusade. Total failure is expected for these morons. I'm still outraged that we went in in the first place.

Did that make any sense?

[Frances]

3. There is no agreement yet

And no one knows what will come out of this. There may be no agreement at all.

Of course, I don't want an Islamic Republic but if I were a politician and I made a big stink about it now and then it didn't happen what credibility would I have?

[Karmadillo]

4. I would push the issue, pointing out Bush has caved, and

then, if it didn't happen, I'd take credit for the improvement. We're fighting for Democracy, I'd say, while Bush is fighting for P.R. to hide the results of his disastrous policies from the American people.

[Frances]

5. I think the reality of the situation is just what Cindy Sheehan

said. Every word she has ever said has been analyzed and "swift boated" to death. The same is true of every single person (Dan Rather, Wilson of Plame fame, Clark of the CIA, etc.)who points out the lies of this administration.

The main reason that people are turning against Bush is that people are seeing for themselves that Bush is not telling the truth.

Any Dem who speaks up just allows the Repubs to attack him/her and take the focus off the fact that the U.S. is in BIG trouble because of Bush.

[Karmadillo]

6. People may be turning against Bush, but they're not turning to Dems

I think that's in part because the party, for the most part, is supporting Bush's efforts or calling for even more troops and a "more effective" occupation. Remaining silent or supporting a failed, criminal policy for fear of criticism is hardly a strategy designed to lead to electoral success in 2006 or 2008. Regarding this particular issue, I doubt any Democrat would be "swift boated" for noting we didn't go to Iraq to create a constitution that enshrines Islamic law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/21/AR2005082100831_2.html

Still, the Democratic discord has provided solace for Bush advisers at a difficult time. Although Bush's approval ratings have sunk, the Democrats have gained no ground at his expense. In a Washington Post-ABC News poll in June, just 42 percent of Americans approved of congressional Democrats, a figure even lower than Bush's.

Republican strategists chortle at the Democrats' inability to fashion a coherent message on the war. The Republican National Committee on Friday released a series of contrasting Democratic statements on troop withdrawals. "Instead of attacking our president's resolve," RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said in a statement, "Democrats might want to focus on the debate within their own party."

[Frances]

7. The Dems are in a difficult position no doubt about it

The MSM ridicules Dems no matter what their position is.

But you are right about the Dems not having a united message. I can appreciate how hard that is since we don't have a united message even here at DU.

I think that the Dems need a great communicator like FDR or Clinton who can gather all of us reasonable people under one tent.