Allegra Escorts Collective
Toronto Escorts

Thank you, Mr. Sistani

Jan 24, 2004
1,279
0
0
The Vegetative State
A fascinating article in Time about the architect of this Sunday's election and the man who is poised to become the most powerful man in Iraq - if he isn't already:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1022720,00.html

The bit I found illuminating:

But even as President Bush claimed vindication for his Iraq strategy in the spectacle of millions of Iraqis braving terror and intimidation to go to the polls, the real author of Sunday's election —Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani — confined himself to a simply thanking voters for turning out, and expressing regret that his own Iranian birth prevented him from joining them. It may be easily forgotten in the post-election spin that Sunday's vote was not the Bush administration's idea—quite the contrary. The U.S. had never intended for Iraqis to democratically choose the body that would write their new constitution; Washington had envisaged an election only after a constitution had been written by a body appointed by, and under the tutelage of the U.S.

Initially, the plan had been to hand power to returning exiles after toppling Saddam Hussein. When the exiles proved too unpopular, the U.S. then sought to have its handpicked Iraqi Governing Council write the new constitution. Even after the IGC proved incapable, the Bush administration consistently rejected Sistani's demand for democratic elections. Instead, U.S. administrator J. Paul Bremer proposed, that a constitution-making body be appointed by a series of caucuses comprising handpicked elites around the country. Sistani was having none of it. He insisted on democratic elections, used his influence among Shiites on the Governing Council to block Bremer's scheme, and then brought his supporters onto the streets to warn that anything short of democracy would be deemed illegitimate by the Shiite majority.

And it was this pressure from the Iranian-born Ayatollah—certainly an unlikely Tom Paine figure —that forced the administration to scrap its own plans for Iraq and agree to hold elections by the end of January 2005. Still, once the decision was made, President Bush stuck to his guns despite repeated entreaties at home and abroad—and from a number of Iraqis that had worked closely with Washington—to postpone the poll. And the election could mark a major turning point for the U.S. mission in Iraq.
It's funny, and offers a good deal of hope for the future of the country, that there appears to be a man at the helm who is more enthusiastic about direct democracy than the occupiers. ;)

But hang onto your hats:

Most reporting from polling stations suggests that the big winners, as expected, will be the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, backed by Sistani. But the extent of its dominance remains to be seen. There were indications in the weeks preceding the election that the coalition of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi was reeling in the UIA's lead, drawing support not only from a middle class secular constituency but also from Shiites wary of giving clerics political authority. Allawi may have been helped by what appears to have been a de facto boycott by supporters of the radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr, on whose votes the UIA may have been counting. Indeed, if the 57 percent turnout figure is accurate, then the high Kurdish turnout and the fact that there was a substantial if small vote among Sunnis would suggest that a significant number of Shiites stayed away. UIA leaders remain confident, however, that they'd carried a comfortable majority among the Shiites.
If getting the U.S. out is one point of consensus between the radical Sunni Arab insurgents and the moderate Shiite Arab Islamists that look set to emerge with the largest share of Sunday’s vote, they also share a common hostility to Kurdish secessionism. Grand Ayatollah Sistani has made no secret of his hostility to the provisions of the Transitional Administrative Law — the interim constitution crafted under U.S. direction — that gives the Kurds an effective veto over a new constitution. The Kurd-Arab distinction may yet prove as powerful a destabilizing factor as the Sunni-Shiite one in the months ahead.

Iraq, or rather a large part of it, has spoken, no matter how imperfect the process. And as a result, the country's future appears to be up for grabs, with all players forced to rewrite their scripts. Now, it gets interesting.
I could not agree more - although let's hope "interesting" in this case is not synonymous, as it has been in Iraq, with "bloody".
 
Last edited:

slowpoke

New member
Oct 22, 2004
2,899
0
0
Toronto
Interesting article and from a source that the neocons around here won't be able to dismiss as left wing or lunatic fringe. Thanks for digging that up. With the neocons making so much noise over "their" election success, it is illuminating, to say the least, to learn that the election idea came from an Iranian cleric and that Dubya's boys initially wanted no part of it. Once the neocons were forced to hold this election, it very quickly became "their" idea. For them to now pretend that this was their grand vision all along is pure bullshit but you can bet that most Americans will cling to that version of events.

Having said that, I was surprised and moved by the gutsy election turnout from the Iraqi people. After all that slaughter and in spite of so many threats from the insurgents, they still had the balls to go out and vote. I'm sure a few minor election irregularities and abuses will emerge but none that can take away from such an unexpected display of determination.
 

BiggieE

Guest
Jan 29, 2004
609
0
0
Rochester, NY, USA
...funny...the news report I saw on Fox, The President refered to the "victory for the Iraqi people"...he never once said anything about us...even though it is a great day in American history....kinda makes you guys wish you would have come along....
 

slowpoke

New member
Oct 22, 2004
2,899
0
0
Toronto
BiggieE said:
...funny...the news report I saw on Fox, The President refered to the "victory for the Iraqi people"...he never once said anything about us...even though it is a great day in American history....kinda makes you guys wish you would have come along....
Not for a nanosecond would I ever wish we'd gone along with the Iraq thing. And Dubya may not have taken credit in the report you saw but the neocons in general will be posing alongside that Iraqi election turnout, pretending it was always planned that way. Wait and see.
 
Last edited:

ocean976124

Arrogant American Idiot
Oct 28, 2002
1,291
0
36
USA
slowpoke said:
Interesting article and from a source that the neocons around here won't be able to dismiss as left wing or lunatic fringe.
LOL, are you seriously claiming that Time Magazine doesn't have a left wing bent to it?
 
Y

yychobbyist

Have you ever noticed how the Americans on here claim that any of the best selling newspapers, journals and magazines all have a left wing bent to them? My God, if you listen to some of these guys we're frigging commies if we don't read and believe everything published in "Patriots are Us".
 

slowpoke

New member
Oct 22, 2004
2,899
0
0
Toronto
ocean976124 said:
LOL, are you seriously claiming that Time Magazine doesn't have a left wing bent to it?
The article seemed straightforward enough but I don't have a copy of the neocon guide to permissable publications handy. Why don't you just tell me what parts of the article, if any, you thought were fabricated or heavily biased? Then perhaps you could direct us to an equivalent account (about Sistani's role in the Iraqi elections) in one of the more appropriately conservative news outlets. I can't wait to see the difference!

I used to think anything in our National Post was likely to have a right wing slant but one of their syndicated columnists from the US, Matt Welch, impressed me as a neutral and insightful observer. He dumped on Noam Chomsky in one column and on Dubya the next. So I learned to just keep an open mind about mainstream media.

Here is a large collection of Matt Welch columns. Try to decide for yourself:

http://www.mattwelch.com
 

ocean976124

Arrogant American Idiot
Oct 28, 2002
1,291
0
36
USA
yychobbyist said:
Have you ever noticed how the Americans on here claim that any of the best selling newspapers, journals and magazines all have a left wing bent to them? My God, if you listen to some of these guys we're frigging commies if we don't read and believe everything published in "Patriots are Us".
LOL, the 3 most infamous liberal publications in the US are the NY Times, LA Times, and Time Magazine.
 

ocean976124

Arrogant American Idiot
Oct 28, 2002
1,291
0
36
USA
slowpoke said:
The article seemed straightforward enough but I don't have a copy of the neocon guide to permissable publications handy.
Once again: LOL. You guys really do make me laugh. You made an incorrect statement and I simply point it out and you jump up and down yelling about anything and everything.
If you notice, I didn't address the article, I addressed your false statement that the magazine is not left leaning.
I don't have an interest in going round and round on Iraq in every single section of this area...
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
ocean976124 said:
Once again: LOL. You guys really do make me laugh. You made an incorrect statement and I simply point it out and you jump up and down yelling about anything and everything.
If you notice, I didn't address the article, I addressed your false statement that the magazine is not left leaning.
I don't have an interest in going round and round on Iraq in every single section of this area...
I am surprised that you characterize Time Magazine as left wing. I consider it a mouthpiece of the any time current US government, just as Pravda was a mouthpiece of the Soviet regime.
I would be interested in a list of publications that you do not consider left wing.
 

slowpoke

New member
Oct 22, 2004
2,899
0
0
Toronto
ocean976124 said:
Once again: LOL. You guys really do make me laugh. You made an incorrect statement and I simply point it out and you jump up and down yelling about anything and everything.
If you notice, I didn't address the article, I addressed your false statement that the magazine is not left leaning.
I don't have an interest in going round and round on Iraq in every single section of this area...
So a little sarcasm is "jumping up and down yelling about anything and everything"? Give your head a shake! I admit I was unaware that Time is reputedly a left wing rag. I am, thank God, a Canadian so Time never seemed anything but "generic mainstream" from my POV. As I said, the article seemed neutral enough and I even made the point that it is the individual writers who produce left or right leaning material so it would not be uncommon for a left leaning writer to appear in a right wing publication, or vice versa. I even gave an example.

Yes it was probably an error on my part to be completely unaware that Time is so notoriously left wing. My sincerest apologies. Now if you'd answer my question about whether the ARTICLE is actually a fabrication or a distortion, we could get this discussion back on topic.
 

ocean976124

Arrogant American Idiot
Oct 28, 2002
1,291
0
36
USA
danmand said:
I am surprised that you characterize Time Magazine as left wing. I consider it a mouthpiece of the any time current US government, just as Pravda was a mouthpiece of the Soviet regime.
I would be interested in a list of publications that you do not consider left wing.
Time Magazine isn't really a news magazine. Its more of a middle class pop culture take on the news and they pretty much admit that. Time's editors have even gone so far as to state that they don't report news they interpret news. And thats fine, as long as its recognized for what it is.
 

ocean976124

Arrogant American Idiot
Oct 28, 2002
1,291
0
36
USA
slowpoke said:
Yes it was probably an error on my part to be completely unaware that Time is so notoriously left wing. My sincerest apologies. Now if you'd answer my question about whether the ARTICLE is actually a fabrication or a distortion, we could get this discussion back on topic.
Its hard to say fabrication or distortion since the heart of the article is really about interpreting the intentions of Bush's administration. Some of us believe that Bush wanted to be out of Iraq as quickly as possible and thats why he wanted an Iraqi constitution in place asap. Whether that had to do with who Bush wanted framing the constitution is open to debate. Time Magazine, being what it is, is going to claim Bush just wanted the people he wanted to frame the constitution. Thats fine, its open to debate and discussion.
My only objection was that Time Magazine was portayed as a middle of the road publication. Time Magazine is not as bad as say the NY Times, but it does lean left.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
26,135
6,340
113
Room 112
slowpoke said:
Interesting article and from a source that the neocons around here won't be able to dismiss as left wing or lunatic fringe. Thanks for digging that up. With the neocons making so much noise over "their" election success, it is illuminating, to say the least, to learn that the election idea came from an Iranian cleric and that Dubya's boys initially wanted no part of it. Once the neocons were forced to hold this election, it very quickly became "their" idea. For them to now pretend that this was their grand vision all along is pure bullshit but you can bet that most Americans will cling to that version of events.

Having said that, I was surprised and moved by the gutsy election turnout from the Iraqi people. After all that slaughter and in spite of so many threats from the insurgents, they still had the balls to go out and vote. I'm sure a few minor election irregularities and abuses will emerge but none that can take away from such an unexpected display of determination.
You can't be this naive, can you? So one Time writer asserts that the election only resulted from Sistani's pressure and in no way was America's doing then that must be right. Just another excuse by liberals/socialists to downplay the Bush administration's gutsy move to bring freedom to an oppressed region. They just can't handle that the election was a relative success and gives Bush somewhat of an endorsement.
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
Early returns. With about 10% of the vote counted the Grand Ayatollah Sistani backed UIA is leading with 75%. Allawi's party is a distant second. So it appears we may have an Iranian born cleric as the man behind the curtain in the new government. Careful what you wish for.
 

slowpoke

New member
Oct 22, 2004
2,899
0
0
Toronto
K Douglas said:
You can't be this naive, can you? So one Time writer asserts that the election only resulted from Sistani's pressure and in no way was America's doing then that must be right. Just another excuse by liberals/socialists to downplay the Bush administration's gutsy move to bring freedom to an oppressed region. They just can't handle that the election was a relative success and gives Bush somewhat of an endorsement.
Umm...I can be that naive, actually. Sorry to disappoint! When I see an interesting article posted by another member, I will sometimes comment on it. I don't necessarily do an exhaustive search to see if the author of that article is alone in his / her interpretation. But, unlike you, I do check my facts before I shoot my mouth off, criticizing what people have said. Turns out that your "one Time writer" isn't alone in his view that Sistani had to persuade the Americans to hold the vote and that they wanted no part of it. How hysterically left wing is The Christian Science Monitor?

"...When US administrator Paul Bremer was pushing for an Iraqi constitution written by US appointees in the summer of 2003, Sistani issued a religious ruling, or fatwa, saying that only an elected body could write the constitution. The US backed down. In November 2003, when Mr. Bremer was seeking to choose an interim government through appointments and indirect voting, Sistani ruled that only direct elections would do.

The US said Iraq was too turbulent for full elections and that a vote couldn't be held until a complete national census was held. Sistani's aides countered that food-ration cards issued to every Iraqi family could be used as registration documents for the elections. And that's what's happening now. When Bremer went to the US and cobbled together the current transitional process, most observers say it was largely with appeasing Sistani in mind.

"The Americans were simply reluctant to hold elections on any kind of accelerated timetable,'' says Mohammed Abdel Jabbar, the editor of the Sabah newspaper and a Shiite politician. "Sistani was the key player in this process," he says..."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0120/p01s04-woiq.html
 
Toronto Escorts