Seems like those of you who said the "Elections" to put Iraqi's in control of Iraq won't happen until the US gets a puppet that will roll over and fetch its oil for dubbya were right again.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/iraq-j23.shtml

US proconsul cancels municipal election in Iraq

The cancellation of an election for the post of mayor in the southern Iraqi city of Najaf demonstrates once again that the Bush administration has no intention of allowing even the semblance of democracy in the country.

The event appears to have been designed as a public relations showpiece. While municipal administrations in other cities have all been handpicked by the US-led occupying forces, Najaf was to be the exception, with a mayor chosen in the first “open election”.

But no sooner had the voter registration begun than the head of the US military occupation, Paul Bremer III, stepped in to abruptly overrule the local commander, suspend the election and, then, just over a week ago, postpone it indefinitely...

They already have the US media playing dog for them now they want to control the Iraqi press as well.
And Bush accuses others of trying to re-write the truth????


Moderator edit: reduce length of quoted material

Another interesting observation...

Afganistan is in our hands...so is Iraq......so the only other country left in the middle is Iran that would hinder the flow of a oil/gas pipeline across the region that would be 100% control of American god blessed Corporations.

How can all of this not be about oil?
MORE MORE MORE oil for my pickup truck and SUV and H2 Hummer.

:confused:

Originally posted by kajolishot
Another interesting observation...

Afganistan is in our hands...so is Iraq......so the only other country left in the middle is Iran that would hinder the flow of a oil/gas pipeline across the region that would be 100% control of American god blessed Corporations.

How can all of this not be about oil?
MORE MORE MORE oil for my pickup truck and SUV and H2 Hummer.

:confused:

you are right my friend,
now we can sit back and watch as the government comes up with a good enough reason to go and bomb iran and install another dictator...

It's a very interesting story.

After all:
The United States administrator in Iraq says a constitutional conference will be convened in the coming weeks to decide on how the country will be ruled.

Paul Bremer - speaking at a meeting of the World Economic Forum in Jordan on Sunday - said all delegates to the conference would be Iraqi.

On Saturday, Jordan's King Abdullah opened the WEF with a speech in which he also said the new Iraq should respect its people's right to determine its own future.

The constitutional conference would provide the foundation for elections in a free and sovereign Iraq, Mr Bremer said.

"We cannot have a sovereign government in Iraq until we have elections.

"And we cannot have elections on the basis of the 1970 Saddam constitution - therefore we have to have a new constitution."

The job of the US-led coalition would be done at that point, he added . . . . (BBC: Iraqis "to draw up constitution" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3011162.stm))It's a glossy, picturesque statement of the situation; the WSWS article offered in the topic post is not far from the mark:
Local US soldiers in Najaf had a hard time believing the explanation. Speaking rather cautiously, Major David Toth told the New York Times that the city was "stable" and "we thought the people would be ready for it [the election]." The real reason for Bremers decision was that the man widely tipped to win the poll - Asad Sultan Abu Gilal, 51 - was not to Washington's liking.

Alluding to the problems, a senior official in Bremer's office declared to the New York Times : "The most organised political groups in many areas are rejectionists, extremists and remnants of the Baathists. They have the advantage over the other groups." In other words, the US has no confidence that anyone sympathetic to its rule would be elected, even in a carefully managed poll. And the accusations go on. Though erroneously, as the WSWS article notes that "Bremer has also outlawed the Baath Party and initiated a far-reaching purge of former members," yet the Iraq Foundation notes that General Franks declared the Baath dissolved on May 11, 2003, but notes:
. . . . U.S. authorities have made "de-Baathification" a goal of the occupation period, but have not laid out consistent rules for accomplishing it. Officials in charge of Iraq's reconstruction have emphasized that the majority of Baath Party members are useful citizens who joined the party without passion, whether out of fear or pragmatism.

The only Baath members automatically disqualified from participating in the new government are senior figures from Hussein's rule because of suspected involvement in human rights abuses or close ties to the former Iraqi leader . . . . (more from Iraq Foundation ( [url=http://216.219.216.117/news/2003/emay/12_post.html)) It would seem that even among the useful citizens the United States is having trouble finding people who meet American standards. The WSWS article makes an interesting allegation:
Bremer declared instead that he would choose a group of 25 to 30 Iraqis to form an advisory council. And while he would "broadly accept" the group's recommendations, he warned that he would veto any decisions that "are fundamentally against the coalition's interests" or in "the better interests of Iraq." National elections have been relegated to the distant future. It would appear that part of that has the ring of truth; Bremer's office will establish the Political Council, which will among other things nominate early candidates for office:
As we provide for Iraq's security we have begun its political transformation. In the next month, we will announce the establishment of a Political Council to assist in the management of the Iraqi government. The Political Council will be representative of the major strands of Iraqi society. It will have real authority from its first day. It will nominate ministry heads and form commissions to recommend policies concerning issues significant to Iraq's future from reform of the educational curriculum, to plans for a telecommunications infrastructure, to proposals doe stimulating the private sector.

We will also convene a broader Constitutional Conference, run entirely by Iraqis to draft a new constitution. That document will be the subject of intense public debate and once adopted, it will provide the foundation for national elections for a free and sovereign Iraqi government . . . . (more from US Department of State (http://usinfo.state.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/washfile/latest&f=03062301.nlt&t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml))In the end, WSWS may have it right:
. . . . The events also exposed the tightrope Mr. Bremer is walking as he struggles to transform a society and help build a friendly and stable Iraqi government. Privately, American officials said they believed Iraq was not ready for elections, and voting could inflame tensions.

"The most organized political groups in many areas are rejectionists, extremists and remnants of the Baathists," said a senior official in Mr. Bremer's office. "They have an advantage over the other groups."

But at the same time, the overt blocking of elections appears to be fueling anger of its own at the United States. In Najaf today, more than 1,000 people demonstrated against the cancellation of the elections . . . . (more from NY Times/CommonDreams (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0619-05.htm)) Even I can imagine a certain amount of tension rising among the minority as a formerly repressed majority has its say; and in a land where guns speak more loudly than words on many days, it is not impossible to imagine that a simple mayoral election could result in 100 dead.

Resolving these problems is part of the US role in Iraq, and when faced with the question of how to accomplish that, Bremer seems inclined to call off the ballgame until he's more convinced that American interests can prevail without a large amount of violence. This is, indeed, a tricky call. I'm not sure he should have cancelled the Najaf mayoral election, though. To the pro column, the cancellation brings resentment and furthers the public perception that Americans are manipulating "democracy" in Iraq. Also to the pro column is more time to figure out how to manipulate "democracy" in Iraq. To the con, though, is the fact that if the two aforementioned pros are what you have to stand on ....

Look, it is easy enough for me to believe that Bremer thinks he has the Iraqis' best interests at heart, but sometimes you just have to let people take certain chances, and the risk of a mayoral election in Najaf just doesn't warrant calling off the landing of "democracy".

I feel the real problem is that Bremer does not have confidence in either the Iraqi people or the American reconstruction to withstand a simple mayoral election. And that has some frightening implications.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool: