"Their efforts are a tribute to democracy and an example that difficult problems can be solved peacefully through debate, negotiation, and compromise," Bush said in a statement.
Not that there's been a lot of evidence of problems being solved peacefully through debate, negotiation and compromise from this administration. How much time did they spend negotiation with Iraq before the invasion? What were they willing to compromise.
Nor has there been a lot of peaceful problems solving through debate negotiation and compromes in the Iraqi constitution. Delegates have been assassinated, there is no sign of compromise on a number of important issues, like how much regional autonomy there is to be, and who is to benefit from the nation's oil wealth.
Alan Moore
Posts: 2012 | Location: USA | Registered: 10-05-03
What I don't understand is all the spin about missing a deadline. The deadline date is really irrelevant. Let the powers that be have the time they need to hammer out the agreements needed to put together a Constitution their country can live with.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
In that case LR we'd better ask the President " Why have any date as a deadline? Why not leave them all the time they think they need, months if necessary,we and the country will wait ?"
The deadline is a direct result of an American decision to have a timetable, it appears, and was important to the US. One Kurdish representative was quoted as saying, during negotiations,that the Americans regarded the date as sacred.
Do you have any suggestions as to why there ever was a deadline or any guesses what his answer would be?
Any betting on whether anything will be agreed come midnight on the 22nd ? Or are we looking at a 'hung jury'?
Fred-I understand as well as anyone else the purpose of having a deadline. A target date certainly helps the process along. But when it is not met and they were not ready, what are they suppose to do??? Quit??? I think not. And what if it does take months??? So be it. We are asking a group of people to work out their differences in a matter of days, problems that have been years in the making.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by Lighteningrodd: Fred-I understand as well as anyone else the purpose of having a deadline. A target date certainly helps the process along. But when it is not met and they were not ready, what are they suppose to do??? Quit???
- snip -
According to the interim constitution (which they amended to allow the one week extension) failure to meet the deadline should have been followed by new elections and a new constitutional convention come next January.
It may still come to that, as they don't seem much closer now than they were a week ago. For an alternative view on this particular issue, heres the Pakistan tribune:
From Alan's link :" The work is being done in an inclusive way, to overcome the points of disagreement" [Quote from one of the negotiators ] That sounds as though they are trying to word the constitution as vaguely and as widely as possible, avoiding any precise statements or rules that might give offence What they need is a document that can mean anything and nothing to anybody who reads it, but which seems to mean something. Someone who writes political speeches about 'freedom', 'liberty', 'directing their own future' 'stepping down as they step up' and so forth, but without condescending into particulars, would be just the person to do the job. ( What is the President's speechwriter doing at the moment? )
What they need is a document that can mean anything and nothing to anybody who reads it, but which seems to mean something. Someone who writes political speeches about 'freedom', 'liberty', 'directing their own future' 'stepping down as they step up' and so forth, but without condescending into particulars, would be just the person to do the job. ( What is the President's speechwriter doing at the moment? )
