From ABC Online (Australia), “Howard hails appointment of new Iraq PM”:
Prime Minister John Howard has welcomed news the President of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, has invited a prominent Shiite politician to form a government.
Shiite leader Jawad al-Maliki has been given 30 days to form Iraq’s first full-term post-Saddam Hussein government after being nominated as prime minister to end a four-month political deadlock.
Mr Howard says the selection of Jawad al-Maliki appears to have ended a political stalemate.
He says the establishment of Iraq’s first democratically chosen government will be a milestone.
Mr Howard says the domestic security situation means it is imperative that the new government is one of national unity and that Mr Maliki appoints Kurds and Sunnis to key positions.
Speaking on Channel Seven, Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer has also said the nomination of Iraq’s new Prime Minister is an important step forward.
“That’s of course taken a long time since the last elections – remember they were back in December, but having said that it was always going to be a tough task to try to pull together some kind of government of national unity and there’s still more work to be done there,” he said.
Now, here’s the New York Times, celebrating that same end to the political stalemate. From “Warily, Iraqis Investing Hope in New Leaders”:
On the cusp of their first permanent government since the American-led invasion, Iraqis are not exactly celebrating. Rather, they seem to be gritting their teeth and clinging grimly to the battered hope for democracy, even in what many see as a strange and uncomfortable incarnation.
Iraq, said one Baghdad doctor, is a drowning man, and the prime minister-designate a floating plank.
[my emphasis]
”Clinging grimly to the battered hope for democracy”?
Interesting. Because according to a recent set of polls conducted by WorldOpinion.org (about which I wrote previously), Iraqis have a strange way of showing such “grim and battered hope”—namely, by way of overwhelming optimism:
Americans … have a more negative outlook overall on the current situation in Iraq than most Iraqis themselves. Americans largely perceive the situation in Iraq is getting worse  a majority of Americans (64%) have this view, while only 1 in 3 Americans believes that the situation in Iraq is getting better. This contrasts sharply with Iraqi perceptions of how things are going in Iraq. When asked in January, 64 percent of Iraqis felt that Iraq was headed in the right direction, with only 36 percent saying Iraq was headed in the wrong direction, interestingly the reverse percentages of Americans’ views. However, it should be noted that dramatic distinctions occurred between ethnic groups, with Shia and Kurds largely positive (84% and 76% right direction) and Sunnis overwhelming negative about the direction Iraq was headed (93% wrong direction).
As I wrote in that earlier post:
I’ve noted many times now how I believe overwhelming negative US press coverageâ€â€some of it ideologically driven, some of it driven by the sensationalism of our contemporary 24-hour news ethosâ€â€along with the often cynical and disingenuous rhetorical excesses of the war’s opponents, have created a perception of the Iraq campaign here in the US that does not match the facts on the ground in Iraq.
I stand by my earlier assessment. Or, better, I’m “clinging grimly to the battered hope that I’m able to find at least some evidence for my own increasingly silly assertion that our media’s framing of events in Iraq has had any impact whatsoever on the rapidly deteriorating mood of the country with regard to the prosecution of the war on terror.”
****
(thanks to Jamie McCardle for reminding me to post on this political movement in Iraq)
Unbelievable. Does it feel like the media have upped the ante and the intensity lately or is just me? It feels more like September of an election year than April.
Increasingly, its as if they just don’t care who knows they’re sporting a biased agenda. Maybe they figure they’ve already shed all of the center-right readers/viewers, so who cares how far left they tilt.
Jeff
The American MSM no longer even wants to pretend it is there to “report” and “inform” the public. Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor and Publisher makes it quite clear that the MSM is the fourth branch of government, equal in policy making with the Executive and Legislative branches.
And he’s demanding that the MSM “step up to the plate” and STOP any hint of war with Iran.
My question, so when do we start electing editors and reporters?
The WaPo buries all on page A16 today. Even then, nothing “bodes well”.
The reporters know “false consciousness” when they see it. They’ll protect the gullible American people from its present manifestation as Iraqi optimism.
It’s gotta a matter of pride. They said this whole Iraq thing was a mistake based on a lie, and gosh darn it, they’ll go to their graves trying to prove it. Even if all of Iraq ends up blossoming like the Kurds in the north.
I had a “discussion” with a Lib this weekend about Iraq- the level of hatred toward Bush is really striking. He was mainly yelling as I tried my best to remain reasonable. * Sigh *
You would think that stories like this would cause the media to reconsider the whole “subjectively pro-fascist” news coverage.
Darleen,
FASCIST PRO-DEMOCRACY WINGNUT!! HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THE POWER OF OUR INFINITELY WISE MORAL SUPERIORS IN THE PRESS BE SUBJECT TO THE UGLY, ARBRITARY WHIM OF POPULAR VOTES BY THE IGNORANT AMERICAN MASSES!!
I swear, the nerve of some people.
But, but, it’s a civil war! spiraling violence! QUAQMIRE! Based on Bush lies about Valerie Plame. Halliburton! Salvage, actus, someone help me.
TallDave: I admire your optimism. If the MSM could be pursuaded that they could make money off free Iraqi’s, then maybe they’d take a more honest approach.
Why stop there? CEO’s and bosses in general.
Iraq the Model live blogged the parliament meeting on Saturday. He reports that they stopped short of voting for PM and did not scedule a new meeting so the stalemate may not be entirely over in spite what you read in the MSM.
I think Democrats are not too fond of democracy these days. Ditto the NYTs.
Great post, Jeff. Another positive sign is that a lot of the effete Christians, gays, intellectuals and middle class has fled Iraq by now or been killed. These people were never loyal Iraqis and always hated Bush. (Yes, I AM questioning their patriotism – there I said it). Anyway, now that most of these latte-sipping Volvo drivers have left (good riddance) we’re starting to see why the real Red-State patriotic Iraqis feel good about Iraq these days.
I see somebody else is “clinging grimly to the battered hope” that he can sell the Red State racists/homophobe/anti-intellectual canard to his buddies, who, like him, are “clinging grimly to the battered hope” that they’re superior to those who keep beating them in elections…
Keep piling up the stereotypes, anonymous troll! It’s working: we’re nearly ready to fold!
Everybody knows that popularity means superiority. What, did this guy go some hippie quaker school or something?
Sometimes there’s a reason why certain things are popular.
Like, they really are superior.
Look at this typical Iraqi effete whiner..
Can you believe how ungrateful this guy is? We’ve sacrified the lives of over 2,000 Americans, and upwards of $300 billion liberating this guy from oppression and he has the nerve to say something like this.
Disgusting, plain and simple.
And frankly, it just doesn’t take all that much to be superior to the ideas of the Left.
Lordy, the evidence of the last few monthys is proof enough of that.
Whereas under Saddam, their killings were indeed for actual reasons.
The one thing I know about progress in Iraq is that the Iraqis had more choices in THEIR last election than I had in my last election in Los Angeles…
FDR – I feel for you man. Keep your spirits up. How do you manage with all the car bombs going off in Brentwood and Pasadena?
<quote>Whereas under Saddam, their killings were indeed for actual reasons.</quote>
OH SNAP! I’d love to see the look on that whiny freedom hater’s face when you reply with that witty comeback.
Wow! The “why do they hate freedom” trope. Tell me, you’re not going to post a kitty picture next, are you “e”?
Christ. Your snarky rejoinders are about as fresh as Helen Thomas’ pudcatcher.
How do you manage with all the car bombs going off in Brentwood and Pasadena?
Don’t ya get the feelin’ old antiwar e positively gets off imagining such a scenario?
Take note WSJ: Another black mark against blogs.
Seriously, I have to go with actus here… Can we raise the tone just a leetle bit? Please??
e cites a gay man who is justifiably afraid for his life. e does not cite villages of Kurds who were justifiably afraid for theirs, presumably because they no longer possess the power of speech.
Look, e, Iraq is not paradise. Apparently the Hussein of your comment thought it was closer to paradise in Saddam Hussein’s day – but apparently there are a few million Iraqis who differ on that point. It’s terrible that gay people anywhere in the world (including Idaho) would be in danger because of their gayness – but hell, man (or woman), it’s terrible that anyone is in danger anywhere in the world based on a personal characteristic. Walking back history to pre-March 2003 is not going to cause a nascence of tolerance in the Islamic world, or elsewhere. But in a near-future Iraq where representative government takes hold because Iraqis can see the success of representative government in other nations, it seems a heck of a lot more likely to me that tolerance can grow and flower than in a closed society maintained by force of arms such as S. Hussein’s Iraq.
Interesting “reporting” on the D. Ireland site you link to. The BBC news website says first:
…and then:
Emphasis mine in both cases. No URL for “Ayatollah Sistani’s website,” so we can’t tell whether it is Sistani’s actual website or simply one published in his name. Considering that Sistani is “Iraq’s most revered Shia cleric” and also a potent and influential political figure (in contrast to religious figures in the US, for instance), it seems not unlikely that Shia websites of whatever degree of orthodoxy might publish “in his name” without his official sanction. Which is it, BBC?
I just don’t have much to say to someone who seems to think that being killed for a reason is better than being killed for no reason.
So killings in Iraq today are senseless—were they perfectly sensible under Saddam’s regime?
Now, that’s just amusing.
Over on Patterico’s site, some poster named “actus,” after failing to mislead with a “it’s all about pseudonyms” trope, is now wondering why it’s so bad people would post under multiple names.
Yet, here, we have some poster named “actus” saying that popularity equates to superiority. Even as sarcasm, “actus” recognizes that popularity has a quality all its own.
Further confirming my suspicion that posters named “actus” are disingenuous little buggers.
BTW, e, in every society, there are winners and losers. I remember Stephen Cohen, author of the old Homo Sovieticus column in The Nation magazine, talking about how, even at the height of Stalin’s purges, people benefited, since those who were purged had replacements, who therefore moved up in rank and privilege.
Just as there are those who still mourn the passing of the USSR because, hey, they had free health care back then (such good health care that Soviet life-spans were declining), so I’ve little doubt that there were those who benefited from Saddam’s former regime.
Folks who had to clean out the shredders, for example. Or who helped procure women to meet Uday and Qusay’s tastes.
I’m curious, did you shed tears for the members of the Totenkopf who were put out of a job when we liberated Germany from oppression, too?
Of course it does. How else am I supposed to know what to wear?
So, actus, your defense of “what’s so bad about submitting multiple comments under different names” is a line of utter BS.
Thought so.