The Common Ills: If the White House is done blustering . . .

Thursday, September 04, 2014

If the White House is done blustering . . .

If Barack's stopped insisting he's not intimidated (first clue someone is intimidated, they insist they aren't -- insist it when no one's even asked) and Joe's stopped blustering about "the gates of hell," might they start focusing on things that matter?

It's September 4th.

That day matters why?

Because September 11th looms!

Yes, but not due to the historic nature of the date. The 9-11-01 attacks are not the meaning of September 11th for Iraq.

It's okay if you've forgotten. It would appear the White House has as well.

August 11th what happened?

It was important enough at the time to warrant Barack speaking about it while on his Martha's Vineyard vacation. He declared, "Today, Iraq took a promising step forward in this critical effort. Last month, the Iraqi people named a new President. Today, President Masum named a new Prime Minister designate, Dr. Haider al-Abadi. Under the Iraqi constitution, this is an important step towards forming a new government that can unite Iraq’s different communities."

If Iraq's finally going to follow the Constitution -- they didn't for Nouri -- that means prime minister-designate Haider al-Abadi needs to have formed a Cabinet in 30 days of being named prime minister-designate.

The clock is ticking.

How do you move from prime minister-designate to prime minister?

The Iraqi Constitution calls for you to form a Cabinet which means nominating and getting Parliament to vote for each member so you have a full Cabinet.

The point of this requirement?

To demonstrate you have the leadership skills to work with others elected to the Parliament.

Nouri's failed governments?

They back up the importance of the requirement.

His failure to meet the Constitutional demand of forming a Cabinet foreshadowed the failures of his government.

Some have spun and lied and insisted, "It's not a full Cabinet."

It is. Talk to the people who wrote the Constitution (I've talked to three).

If you didn't need to name a full Cabinet, what's the point of it being the requirement?

All you need to do, by their false interpretation, is name, for example, one person as a nominee and get Parliament to agree to make that one nominee a member of your Cabinet.

That's it if it's not a full Cabinet.

It is a full Cabinet and while Barack and Joe bluster and bully, maybe Iraq would be better served with one of the two 'brave' men getting their ass to Iraq to assist with the process?

This is more important than bombing, for example, around the Mosul Dam.

If the 30 days passes without a Cabinet, per the Constitution, the President of Iraq is supposed to announce a new prime minister-designate.

The wording of the Constitution is such that you could do a weasel-word interp and say the president could re-name the same person.

But that's not the intent and everyone knows it.

Everyone doesn't know another detail because we have a whorish press corps in the west.

'Outgoing' prime minister (and tyrant) Nouri al-Maliki doesn't want to go and he's announced if the designate fails to form a Cabinet in time, he's prepared to do so and that he supposedly has the suppot and backing to stay in power.

If you think things are bad in Iraq right now, you let Nouri get a third term.

And if Barack thinks he's getting heavy criticism right now, let Nouri get a third term and then Barack will really be under fire -- so much so that people will start to point out Nouri's 2010 loss and how it was Barack (via The Erbil Agreement) that gave Nouri a second term he didn't earn.

The following community sites -- plus Foreign Policy in Focus -- updated: