Yes, a good day to appreciate the eventual honesty of the framers, after the insistence that agreement was just around the corner and the spate of two-hour delays of the parliamentary meeting.  But we're still left with the question of how the Sunnis can be included, given their very real concerns about federalism.  What would it take to get the Shiites to give up on federalism?  An Islamic republic?

The wingnuts on Fox last Sunday were already making the argument that 80% is good enough and screw the Sunnis.  That's a way to declare victory and run before the civil war completely engulfs the country, but that's the best one can say for it.

The US has already been so heavily involved in the drafting that, should a draft be agreed upon by next Monday, the nullifiers will have an argumnet abot whose wishes the document reflects.

While it's refreshing to see someone finally admit to a shortcoming, I can't say it's very promising. As most college graduates will remember, when it comes to meeting deadlines a "one-week extension" means a lack of ideas and, at best, B-level work. That, or perhaps the Iraqi National Assembly was simply too hungover to get any work done? Whatever the case, it usually takes about a week to turn an aimless college term paper into something respectable. One wonders if the bitterly divided factions drafting a national constitution in the middle of a war zone can do the same. But here's hoping! (Does anyone know where we can send care packages to?)

The fallacy from Day 1 was that democracy is just a constitution and some elections. If it's that easy, why not do it for the World? We could have a World Republic sometime in 2006 or 2007.
But it's not that easy. You can only put leadership up for a vote when the public has already reached consensus on the really basic issues -- how citizens are supposed to treat each other, what powers we can trust the government to wield, what property is, and so on. Democracy works in the US because losing an election doesn't get you executed and your supporters don't lose all their land. If we had to worry about stuff like that, a disputed election like 2000 would lead to civil war.
Any one of the three major ethnic/religious groups in Iraq might be able to sustain a democracy. But there is no consensus among the three. So Iraq can't have a democracy. That should have been obvious from the beginning.

At least the Monty Python references yield a sense of satiric humor.

For me, it is surreal that any person could imagine, even for a moment, that it would be possible for a group of people to be staring down the barrels of about 130,000 guns and trying to formulate the initial stages of democracy (and who would try to define democracy for the remnants of a fascist dictatorship--I mean Iraq, not the United States, of course), all while an on-going reign of terror rages in the streets.

Per his typical behavior, George XLIII will walk away from this disaster and leave it to become another problem for the future--just another insane mess for others to clean up.

"Mission accomplished."  Democracy established.  Whatever.

I will not call you unAmerican for expressing your view. but have you ever stopped to think HOW MUCH MORE PROGRESS COULD WE HAVE MADE WITHOUT THIS TYPE OF RHETORIC?

Farlsmagee, I think that most of us who write here are aware that folks all over the world may be reading our words.  First I'll address your question about how much more progress the US could have if people like me would just shut up or leave the country or whatever.

With the people in charge now, even if no one had ever spoken out about their incompetent pursuit of the war, the result would be bad.  They don't know what they're doing.  

Here's what good I see that has coming out of the Iraq War so far: Saddam is in jail, and we have not yet bombed Iran or bungled an attempt to overthrow the government in that country.  I'll join with Annie to say that the quagmire in Iraq has prevented us from doing major damage in other countries.

Bid Laden and Zawahiri are still on the loose.  You do remember them.  I don't hear our president mention them much.  Is it beacuse of people like me, who speak out against the Bush administration, that these men are still free?

Thanks so much that you don't call me un-American, but I really don't care.  The patriotic among us are those of us who speak out and tell the truth about the Bush administration.

... the reason to fear for our military is because they have been put in harm's way by a moronic war of choice by a devious President. Those who point out that this a stupid pointless policy that is not going to work and will only result in countless more lives wasted are part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Edit: Note, 

You say in your post," I have gotten so used to..........being told by my leaders that...........and for me to think otherwise is unpatriotic....."

Drop Otherwise

Q 

I could not agree with you more.  The guy has gotten into trouble his whole life only to have others bail him out, which has afforded him the opportunity to move on to do greater damage. 

Politics is war by other means. Problem is, the war ain't over yet. The situation is artificial, with the US thumb on the scale. The relative power of the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds must be worked out with violence before politics can prevail. It cannot happen until we leave.

The Kurds will break away, using the oil revenue to harrass Turkey and Iran for a greater Kurdistan. And the Iranians will be closer and the US more insignificant in Iraqi politics than before. As is natural. It would have happened sooner or later. But this was a particularly inauspicious time to make an Iranian born Ayatollah the kingmaker in Iraq. Whose idea was this? 

Iran will be a democratic, peaceful member of the world community before we see a unified, democratic, peaceful Iraq. 

I fear nothing I say will change your mind, but I'll try.

But to say based on what you see in the 5 oclock news or get from a few pissed off bloggers that this operation would still suck or even that "THEY DONT KNOW WHAT THEYRE DOING!" is outrageous! How can you make comments like that with such limited knowledge, training, or understanding of the workings of war?

Here's what at least should be clear to anyone that reads the news:

• Rumsfeld invaded Iraq with far to few troops. Isn't that a generally accepted "truth" in the reality-based community now?

• Our soldiers do not have the armor they need. Parents are holding bake sales to raise money to buy armor for their kids.

• The Pentagon ignored all warnings about guerrilla warfare and post-war problems.

Exactly which policies? How are they giving ammunition?

Torture. We have tortured people. That fuels an insurgency.

Disbanding the army. By all accounts, this was a disasterous move by Paul Bremer.

Failing to provide electricity and running water. Taking away the basics of human life -- WHICH THEY HAD BEFORE WE INVADED -- fuels the insurgency.

hat about the torture Saddaam Hussein committed on his people? What about those who were beheadded on video at the hands of terrorists?? Where is this torture you speak of that we are comitting??

So, is that the Standard to which we're aspiring now? As long as Saddam did it, it's OK?

We expect a brutal dictator to torture and kill. We DO NOT expect that behavior from our own government. The White House bent the rules to justify torturing prisoners. Or did you not see the photos? And don't just take my word for it -- go ask Republican Senators McCain and Graham and see what they say about it.

Did Lincoln decide to pull out of the south when the North was suffering defeat after defeat? No! He went through four generals! They lost HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF LIVES. Did America suspend aid to Europe because after four years Hitler had not been captured? No! How many had to die at D-Day? Was it necessary?

Sorry, but Iraq was not a war of necessity. The Bush Administration fixed the facts around the policy. The Bush Adminstration bent the rules to allow torture.

You cannot compare the moral authority we had in WWII with Iraq. It's simply not there.

I just find it incredulous that you cannot separate Saddam's evil behavior from criticizing our government. If we've done wrong, let's just call it for what it is and fix the problem.

I was going to rate these posts, but what could correctly label this hodge-podge of insanity.

1. There are people on this website who have far more military, economic, political & geopolitical knowledge & experience than Bush XLIII and all of his staff put together.

2. Experienced generals, admirals, diplomats & politicians have ESTABLISHED the massive, stupid failings of Bush & his henchpeople.

3. My comments assist other people in "thinking" about the stupidity & insanity of the GOP, rethuglicans & the neocons.  The comments of other people help me reformulate my opinions, attitudes & emotions.

4. Your comments are not helpful, they are inappropriate & they are stupid--they are these things because your comments amount to a long-winded exhortation for all of us to shut up.

5. I'll not shut up.  And I hope the moderator chooses to remove you from this website so reasonable people can "discuss" issues that they want to think about, consider, evaluate, delineate, etc.  Nothing I write here will change anything in Central Asia, the Middle East or the world.  But it may give an idea, a suggestion, an inkling to another person who has the position, power, or influence to change something--even it's just his or her vote.  Please, stand not on the order of your going, just go.

EDIT... we went to iraq with too FEW troops.. not enogh troops.. whoops

1. Folks who know more than any White House staffer: me, Ivo Daalder, M. Yglesias, Josh Marshall, Jane Boatler, Bill J., Steve Duncan, Hoppy, John W. Dean III, any sentient human being & of course ex-pfc Wintergreen.

   
   

2. Gen. W. Clark, Gen. A. Zinni, Adm. T. Moorer & a very long list of other military experts who have made themselves well known to people who have access to any source of information . . . and why am I expected to list the obvious?  which is why I refer to your comments as stupid because there is a multitude of "experts" who haved pointed out the absolute failings of the the Busheviks.  Finally, Lt. Col. Paul Hackett.

   
   

3. Labelling, which you denigrate as "name calling" puts stuff & public personalities into a perspective for the other readers--if I write "neocon," the knowledgeable folks who post here & those who read without posting will recognize that I refer to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perls, Feith, Bolton, etc. & the other ANPAC "fucking crazies" (as Gen. Powell called them) who most folks have decided not to call fascists or neofascists because of other historic & cultural uses of those very loaded terms.  If I write "rethuglican," most folks conjure up images of the right wingnut echo chamber that features such stellar folks as Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, etc.

   
   

4. Your posts are a series of innuendoes & pat phrases that resemble this line of blather: "far be it from me to ever call farlsmagee a tinhat dittohead, for that poor, misinformed person is entitled to an upside down wingnut opinion--so long as none of the other posters here are Air America commenters who might misuse the views of a silly troll and justify calling the preznit a psychotic looneytoon falling of a bicycle.

Ahhh yes, farlsmagee is an honorable man.  He only implies that bloggers here are not the only ones who read these posts, for you see, he is an honorable man.  He would never tell us to give up our views, but instead ASK that we give them up, for he is an honorable man.  And, of course, only an honorable man would state that the words in these blogs are the ammunition that terrorists use to justify the killing of innocent civilians & military personnel. Such an honorable man as farlsmagee fears for our military because of the words written here.  Yes . . . farlsmagee is truly an honorable man.

5. There is no requirement that bloggers here be reasonable.  And, it is a discussion for me to label your trollish comments as not helpful & stupid.  It is "discussion" because I did it in an open post instead of rating them.  I did not label YOU as both not helpful & stupid, obviously, because you are an honorable man (if the gender fits?)

There is nothing fact-based about your posts.  Telling people here to be careful what they say because some terrorist may be reading is silly, or describing the comments here as foolish efforts to deface Bush XLIII, etc., has nothing to do with intellectual or logical debate.  Such stuff is just troll droppings.  So, farlsmagee, head into almost any public restroom and in the almost rectanglar holder above the commode you'll find your brand new, sort of waxpaper hat.  Put 'her on, go home & tune in some of that logical, sharp, witty excellence in broadcasting.  You probably don't even have to turn on the radio.

Farlsmagee’s rant against rants is just too funny. I’ve never participated in these forums, but I feel compelled by some of his comments, particularly his assertions that “that Democratic leadership calls our soldiers nazis” and “liberal judges take away property rights..”
 
As to the former, I assume he’s referring to Durbin’s comments. If so, he is mischaracterizing Durbin’s remarks—Durbin did not call our soldiers Nazis. Per the Congressional Record, he quoted an FBI agent’s testimony about interrogation practices and then said: “If I read this to you and I did not tell you it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe that this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime – Pol Pot or others – that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.” If you read that, a comment comparing torture practices, as calling soldiers Nazis, you must surely be offended by Republican leader Rick Santorum’s comments during the filibuster showdown: “The audacity of some members [of Congress] to stand up and say 'How dare you break this rule' – it's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, 'I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine.'" You can’t have it both ways.
 
As for the property rights comment, I assume he refers to the Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London. It’s interesting how conservatives are all for federalism and states’ rights, as well as judicial restraint, until it works against them. The majority opinion specifically recognizes that the decision of the local government was entitled to the court’s deference. Isn’t judicial deference to legislative decisions the very thing conservatives have been clamoring for in recent years?
 
I could go on and on. For instance, Farlsmagee seems to suggest that the current administration, unlike Democrats has an effective plan for protecting our borders. And yet, just this week, two Democratic governors (Napolitano and Richardson) had to take matters into their own hands because of insufficient federal funding for the border patrol. Do we need to talk about the many seaports that remain highly vulnerable?
 
At any rate, like Annie, I applaud the Iraqis for standing up to pressure from the U.S. administration and taking the time to get things right the first time. It's an approach I'd love to see applied here.