Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Terry Jeffrey :: Townhall.com Columnist
A Congress of Fools
by Terry Jeffrey
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Americans may have a low opinion of their own Congress, but one wonders what they would think about the congress in Baghdad if they ever paid close attention to it.

By late April of last year, that then-newly elected parliament had been deadlocked for four months over who would become speaker (a post presumably reserved for a Sunni) and who would become prime minister (a post presumably reserved for a Shiite).

The Shiites rejected the Sunni candidate for speaker, Tariq al Hashemi, saying, as The New York Times put it, he was "too hard-line and sectarian." The Sunnis rejected the Shiite candidate for prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, believing he had done too little as interim prime minister to stop sectarian violence.

Finally, Hashemi and Jaafari dropped their bids, and Sunnis and Shiites accepted compromise candidates. Mahmoud al-Mashhadani became the Sunni speaker. Nouri al-Maliki became the Shiite prime minister.

President Bush, understandably, viewed this as a breakthrough for Iraqi democracy.

"Iraq's new government has another able leader and speaker, Mashhadani," Bush said on May 22, 2006. "He rejects the use of violence for political ends, and by agreeing to serve in a prominent role in this new unity government, he's demonstrating leadership and courage."

Three weeks later, on a surprise trip to Iraq, Bush met with Mashhadani, who had already received rave reviews from America's own speaker. "Denny Hastert told me I'd like him," Bush said later at a press conference. "Denny met with him. And I was impressed by him."

"I found him to be a hopeful person," the president added.

But Mashhadani, an Islamist, wasted no time in giving President Bush reason to think again.

In a July 8, 2006, interview with Al Sharqiyah TV, Mashhadani presented an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory to explain what was happening in Iraq. "Those that commit these acts [of sectarian violence] are nothing but the sons of snakes and devils who receive support from abroad, particularly from the Mossad," he said. "These Jews hiding behind Iraqi faces are known to us, and the day will come when we purge our country of them."

A week later, he accused U.S. forces of butchery. "The U.S. occupation is butcher's work under the slogan of democracy and human rights and justice," he told a UN conference.

"I personally think whoever kills an American soldier in defense of his country would have a statue built for him in that country," he said.

Mashhadani's behavior was as wild as his rhetoric. On his second day as speaker last year, his bodyguards got in a brawl involving a female Shiite legislator, a member of Moqtada Sadr's party. Her cell phone rang -- twice -- with a Shiite prayer in the lobby of the parliament as Mashhadani was doing a TV interview nearby. The speaker's bodyguards beat up one of the legislator's aides, and she joined in the melee. When she complained the next day on the floor of parliament, Mashhadani shut down the session.

It wouldn't be the last time that Mashhadani would either purposefully or inadvertently close the chamber.

Last month, he caused a massive walkout after he strangely began laughing during a discussion about a report on some Iraqi refugees. When a member challenged him on this odd behavior, he said: "The magnitude of the tragedy is making me laugh. Three quarters of the deputies are responsible for [sectarian] cleansing and killings."

As outraged legislators exited the chamber, a fellow Sunni upbraided the speaker. "Shut up, you scum," Mashhadani said as he slapped the man on the face.

This month, Mashhadani's bodyguards reportedly liberated a Shiite lawmaker from half his clothing after he passed too closely to the speaker in a corridor.

After this incident, 168 members of the 275-member Iraqi parliament met in a closed session on June 10 with a majority of those present (113) reportedly voting to oust Mashhadani as speaker and appoint his Shiite deputy as interim speaker. Mashhadani refused to relinquish his position, however, and on June 24, the two Sunni blocs in parliament, which control 55 seats, announced they were boycotting until Mashhadani is restored.

Their attitude seems to be: He may be a lunatic, but he is our lunatic.

Meanwhile, the 30-seat bloc controlled by Shiite sheik and warlord Moqtada Sadr is boycotting parliament to protest the recent destruction of the minarets at the Golden Mosque in Samarra.

All this should matter a great deal to Americans for this reason: The surge strategy that is now taking an escalating number of U.S. lives was aimed at giving Mashhadani's and Sadr's parliament a chance to pass reforms it was hoped would reconcile Sunnis and Shiites.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor-in-chief of CNSNews

Be the first to read Terence Jeffrey's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
nitty gritty
Comparisons to Japan after ww2 are inappropriate.

Japan was, and still is, a mostly homogeneous people.

Iraq is anything but homogeneous. It contains significant minorities both within Islam and even within its ethnic makeup. Kurds are not Arabs.

The U.S. obliterated Japan in ww2, decimating its cities, firebombing Tokyo, using nukes on other cities...its people were prostrate. We could do with them whatever we wanted.

We waged a politically correct operation in Iraq, obsessed over "collateral damage". We went out of our way not to offend Iraqis, even for a long period of time not returning fire into mosques from which our troops were being targeted.

The two examples of U.S. power could not be more different.

Some people still will deny reality, making some insulting comparison between the beheadings and ritualistic slaughters in today's Iraq, with the American heroes who fought and died for our independence. Those in Iraq who behead and plant explosives are not interested in a free, democratic state. Both Sunnis and Shias...folks on whose behalf we are fighting...too often engage in ritualistic slaughter...even as their members of parliament vote themselves extensive vacations as our troops fight and die in order to bring about a "political reconcilation" between various groups.

Something about this picture is not right.


Eben
Gotta disagree with you. The marriage has not tried everything to make it work, and divorce would give new meaning to "bad for the children".

Contrariancon
You have a point. We are measuring the Iraqi's with the wrong yard stick. At the very least people need to realize it took 15 years to put in a stable govt. in Japan.

Who invited all the isolationists?
Got it- after hundreds of years of religious dysfunction (similar to our own at various times over the last millenium), and almost 40 years of bloody totalitarianism with massive bloodshed on both sides (have any of these folks ever read about the Hatfields and the McCoys in the civilized USA?), Iraq should be abandoned to preventable genocide because they haven't re-created the virtues of the US Congress in three or four years.

Someone go rent the movie of 1776. And take a look at the appalling behavior of the current US Congress after 230 years of refinement in the enlightened West.

Is there a single person at Townhall besides Hewitt and Medved who has ever read any history?

And I sure understand why rational people don't subscribe to Human Events.

Congress
What if our congress had to worry about the things that Iraq congress has to worry about. Instead of, will I win next election, or will I be here next election. Now that a worry. But it seems they all think alike. What can I do for me today?

Jerabaub
I remember just prior to the elections a tribal chief commenting that he'd decided who would represent his tribe in this "government", and that he'd told the tribe how to vote. In fact, he was so confident,that he said he might as well cast all the ballots himself.

Then, we saw the clerical parties arise - and the clerics and Sistani issue a series of Fatwahs telling the people who to vote for - which 80% then did.

We trumpeted this as a "victory for democracy". I remember wondering if I was reading the same reports that the administration was.

After the legislature adopted the Koran as the basis for civil law, and then passed the power to rule on it back to Sistani and the clerics, I again wondered how we would explain this as "democracy". After all, name me one "democracy" where non-elected people can over-rule those that are elected, as well as the judicial system.

Then, the administration came forward with the somewhat novel idea that they'd elicited promises from the Shia's to alter the constitution to make it more acceptable to the Sunni's.

At the time - I wondered just who they'd gotten those promises from - since Sistani was quite clearly the kingmaker - and he has never agreed to a single meeting with any American.

And, of course, as long as the Shia's had the majority - it would be their clerics making the rulings that would govern Iraq.

Did we really think Sistani and the clerics were going to give up the power they'd just gotten in order to accomodate the Sunni's, who they have no love for?

Now - we are at the point of confronting the reality. Bush can hold onto the myth, as he's been doing, but he better find a different mechanism to provide stability - regardless of the cost.

Just as it's not in our interest to have a failed state in Iraq, it's equally not in our interest to continue to prop up a Clerical state whose principal ally is Iran - not us.

Now we know why our principal allies in the middle east are secular dictators.

The Sunnis and Shias cannot live together under the same roof - no matter who builds it. Their religion takes precedence over democracy - which is why they've been fighting each other for milennia.


The constitution called for a federation - which may have been the only realistic solution. Share the oil, divide the country, and let the Kurds, Sunni's and Shias each govern their own.

The ethnic sectarian cleansing is already well advanced, the Christians have been decimated, and many of the professionals and those supporting a secular state have fled.

We might as well finish the job.

This marraige we've been trying to effect isn't working - so Bush simply needs to move on.

stability will always trump freedom
About the only goal possible now in Iraq is for some "strong-man", or council of elders, to assert authority, stablize the country. A benevolent dictatorship of sorts.

Some will be outraged I suggest such a thing. After all, didn't we go to great lengths to remove one dictator in Saddam?

If we can still salvage stability in Iraq, where terrorism is not tolerated, who cares if it is a "democracy", besides Bush?

Only an authoritative govt can stablize Iraq now. The Maliki government lacks credibility, legitimacy. It cannot stop the violence. Iraqis have no confidence in it.

Bush is in "la-la land". His whole presidency, and place in history, is dependent on success in Iraq...success being defined as as a functioning democracy. He bet his presidency on it, and he lost, bigtime.

"Democracy" as we understand it, is not in the cards. So many false assumptions by the administration have led us to where we are today in Iraq.

A muslim "solution" may exist in various Iraqi tradespeople, religious sects, tribal leaders, appointing people to lay down the regulations under which the nation will be bound. This may have nothing whatsover to do with western notions of "elections", "tolerance", "respect for dissent", "freedom of speech", etc. But it may be their method of achieving some viable system of governance.

A western styled "parliament" is just window-dressing, to create a facade.

After stability is achieved, perhaps in time freedoms can be achievable in Iraq. But no freedoms can exist absent stability.

ignorance and miscalculation
What troubled me most about the runup to the Iraq war in 2003 was a high profile event that was well publicized for about one day, and then tragically forgotten:

Saddam acted like Saddam. You know, the guy who torched and burned Kuwait's oil wells on the way out in 1991.

In 2003, when the US-led invasion was imminent, Saddam went to work on the Iraqi jails. Common criminals--murderers, rapists and thieves, some 200,000 of them, he simply set free.

As to the political prisoners (I'm not sure how many); the people who were effective in providing some political resistence to Saddam's reign of terror over the year; the one's who could be tapped to fill the political void when Saddam was removed; were all executed.

That left the criminals and the fools to run the country, if the US were dumb enough to insist on handing over the country to Iraqi "authorities" without securing it with a long occupation.

The rest is--or soon will be--history.

National Unity
It's time to put the idea of a national unity government to bed. The purpose of the surge was to give the Iraqi government time to reach the compromises necessary to convince the Sunni's to stand down. However, they've not only made no progress, but two American Generals stated over the week-end that the Shia Army lacks the material and personnel necessary to hold the ground our forces are now clearing of Al Queida and the militia bomb factories. We don't have the force to both clear and then hold. Which brings up the question as to why we started this surge if we knew in advance that the territory we're winning today cannot be held by our forces or the Iraqi Army. What are we going to do? Give in back to whoever we're clearing out today? No wonder Republicans like Lugar are reaching the end of their patience.

At some point Bush has to wake up and understand that this idea he's been pushing since the election was dead before he ever voiced it. The day the Shia clerical parties adopted the Koran as the basis of civil law, and then stipulated that clerics would have the final say over the courts and the legislature as to its enforcement, the civil war ramped up even further. Sunni's are not going to live under the dictates of a Shia clerical court, anymore than the Shia's would live under the dictates of a Sunni clerical court.

The Shiites vs. the Sunnis
and the Sunnis vs. the Shiites...whoda thunk it?

Those who still believe that the final outcome in Iraq will in any way resemble Western Democracy should have their heads examined, starting with Pres. Bush.

Please keep us up to date, even though..
....it's making me ill.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.