"There is wide opposition to the Brahimi plan in Iraq," Chalabi's spokesman Entifadh Qanbar told reporters in New York on Friday. "The whole idea of having the U.N. or any foreign entity to appoint or lead a political process in Iraq is not acceptable," said Qanbar, He labeled Brahimi an "Arab nationalist" who once supported ousted dictator Saddam Hussein.
On second thoughts, this is bad... without consensus, there will still be "it's imposed" mentality. On balance, we are better off evolving the IGC than disbanding it. Why not expand the IGC and have the IGC be the body to appoint the President and Prime Minister etc.? And let the IGC remain as a consultative body.
posted on 05/08/2004 11:33:16 PM PDT
(http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - I salute our brave fallen.)
That sounds like a good idea. Why is all of this hassle going on anyway?
What is the benefit of doing all of this for a body that will only last a few months?
Why can't sovereignty be turned over to the ICG, or as you say, an expanded IGC?
posted on 05/09/2004 12:57:17 AM PDT
(in the event of the rapture.......the Bush White House will be unmanned)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson