Mike,

You've hit one of the major points that have me quizzical (or something like that)... why weren't even the "rules" surrounding the vote discussed?

I can say that I had my ears wide open for ANYTHING regarding the vote, especially from the day before it took place until the result was announced. I heard virtually nothing. And I do mean nothing!

Something seems to have gagged the television media (at least) on the whole thing, and to me that is genuine cause for concern.

cheers


>David, I will not dispute that the news media has a leftward tilt, more so than the population as a whole at the moment. (I say compassion, you say tomahto....). But the opinions of the U.S. media have exactly zero to do with the constitutional vote in Iraq. The outcome of that vote was a fait accompli from the time the rules were set, which is why the Sunnis threatened to boycott the actual election. They knew they were being instructed to drop their drawers and bend over. Not even Texas could have gerrymandered a vote better. The rules were that three provinces had to reject the constitution by a two thirds margin for it to fail. This was carefully based on ethnic percentages in all the provinces. Some are mostly Shiite, some (far fewer) are mostly Sunni, and some are mostly Kurds. Only a few are mixed, including the one that rejected the constitution by only 55-45. The whole vote was a sham.
>
>Please understand that I have no bias for the Sunnis. They are the party of Saddam Hussein and enjoyed a long period of rule they didn't deserve given their minority status. But this election was a joke. Iraq will quickly dissolve into civil war the instant we depart. It is a manufactured nation, not a natural one. Think Yugoslavia. The ancient ethnic resentments will easily trump artificial alliances imposed by outsiders.
>
>Charles Hankey, if you are anywhere around, please jump in here. I know you can say all this with more insight than I have. I doubt you will disagree with my conclusions.
>
>Mike
>
>
>>>But why is it that, since the day of the vote, there has been virtually no mention of the Iraqi constitutional vote on either network or cable news?????? It seemed to me that this was much more newsworthy than the first vote in Iraq earlier this year.
>>
>>The major mostly-liberal media in the US has been collectively holding its breath, hoping for a defeat. (Good news in Iraq is bad news for Bush's opponents.) You're right that this is very newsworthy, but just watch how the liberal media paint it in some kind of negative light. (For example, you might see something like this: Despite overwhelming opposition by Sunnis, Iraqi voters narrowly approved the constitution, but Sunni leaders immediately questioned the validity of the vote-counting. Insert quote from mad Sunni leader here. Experts on Iraqi culture say that this vote is likely to lead to all-out civil war. Insert another negative quote here. Civil war or continued unrest would be a major blow to the Bush administration, which is increasingly on the defensive about its lack of planning for countering an amazingly-successful insurgency. Another negative quote from anti-Bush spokesperson. Blah, blah, blah.
>>
>>See how easy it is to turn a very positive development into something that sounds very bad? Another useful tactic is to report the news, but downplay it or bury it behind other, more negative, news.
>>
>>>Did I hear correctly that slightly more than 50% voted against but it took a 2/3 vote against to have rejection? If so, that may be a reason I suppose.
>>
>>According to the BBC, 78% of the nation's voters approved it. It got at least two-thirds opposition in two mostly-Sunni provinces, but failed to get 2/3 against in a third province, which was necessary to defeat it. In strongly-Sunni Ninevah, 45% voted FOR it, assuring its passage.
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4374822.stm