December 4, 2006

OUR GUYS:

Bush meets Iraq Shi'ite leader after plea for calm (Ross Colvin and Alastair Macdonald, 12/04/06, Reuters)

[Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the biggest party in government] rose to power in Iranian exile at the head of SCIRI's armed wing the Badr Brigade, denies accusations by Saddam Hussein's once dominant Sunni minority that his party is behind any of hundreds of weekly killings. [...]

Before he met Bush, Hakim met Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and said afterwards that they had had a "frank" discussion on security issues. With a much bigger power base than Maliki, Hakim is a key figure despite not being a cabinet member.

He has said all communities have a place in Iraq but SCIRI, which retains close ties with U.S. adversaries in Shi'ite Iran, also strongly defends the principle of Shi'ite majority rule.


All you need to know to understand how much some folks have gotten themselves at cross-purposes with American ideals is that the insistence on majority rule makes him unacceptably radical in their eyes.

Posted by Orrin Judd at December 4, 2006 5:35 PM
Comments

"The insistence on majority rule" is not particularly in line with "American ideals." The key word is "Liberty"...

Posted by: b at December 4, 2006 6:12 PM

That's what liberty is.

Posted by: oj at December 4, 2006 6:14 PM

How exactly do you figure that? I'd say the Constitution was a fairly good explication of American ideals applied to government organization, and it allows the majority of the voting populace to directly pick one half of one of the three branched of government.

Posted by: b at December 4, 2006 6:21 PM

It also made the federal government insignificant.

Posted by: oj at December 4, 2006 6:38 PM

"insistence on majority rule makes him unacceptably radical in their eyes"

The man sounds like Al Gore.
Did Bush insist on majority rule in the 2000 election?

Posted by: h-man at December 4, 2006 7:30 PM

Majority rule hardly imply freedom to commit atrocities on minorities.

Posted by: Bisaal at December 5, 2006 1:17 AM

It always implies it--they're called laws.

Posted by: oj at December 5, 2006 7:39 AM

So it is OK to commit genocide on a minority if the majority so wills?

Posted by: Bisaal at December 6, 2006 12:53 AM

Yes, that's why we have abortion and euthanasia.

Posted by: oj at December 6, 2006 7:02 AM
« THE LEAST TOLERANT NATION: | Main | IT'S NOT A MILITARY QUESTION: »