a less than brilliant post

yesterday and this morning i was mental-blogging a post to bitch about how the iraqi parliament was manipulating the election rules to assure that the constitution passes its referendum next week. i realize the post is just in my head, but it was utterly brilliant, if i do say so myself. the most cogent analysis ever created by anyone anywhere. after reading it you would laugh, cry, experience the full range of human emotions to an extent you never thought possible before. it would be a post for the ages and would perhaps be the finest thing i have ever done, and probably ever would do, in my life.

so i turned on the computer this morning, finally ready to commit this brilliant piece of writing to the internet, when i learned that the iraqi parliament reversed itself. no longer will they define a single word, "voter", in the same sentence two completely different contradictory ways to guarantee a win in the upcoming referendum. they're going back to the boring common sense meaning of the word "voter" and are following the pedestrian route of having the same term mean the same thing even when that meaning does not favor their short-term political interests. and i thought we were in iraq to teach them about american-style democracy!

but wait, it's not a total loss. those iraqis are a smart bunch. even in their legislative retreat they are showing that they have picked up a couple of our tricks:

The Shi'ite-dominated parliament had, however, added three conditions to its resolution with the overall effect that it asserted its legal right to challenge the outcome of votes in particular regions if it felt voters had been intimidated.

Shahristani said he was particularly concerned about voting in mixed sectarian areas, such as around Baquba, northeast of Baghdad, where Sunni Islamist insurgents had threatened violence against people turning out to vote in the referendum.

The government, Shahristani said, had agreed to parliament's conditions that security forces be posted to dangerous areas and remain there after the voting to deflect reprisals and that staff at polling stations would be vetted to weed out those who might pass on information on voters to the militants.

The third condition was, he said, that if parliament felt the vote in an area to have been distorted by violence or threats it would challenge the result in a judicial process overseen by the Independent Electoral Commission.

in other words, the parliament added the following three new conditions:

(1) they would post the shia-dominated iraqi security forces in sunni areas to avoid voter intimidation. because there's nothing sunni voters find less intimidating in the modern iraq than having armed members of a different religious faction standing next to them as they vote whether to allow that religious faction to dominate their life from now on.

(2) said armed shia-dominated security forces in sunni areas will hang around after the vote, when all the sunni voters leave. just them and the ballot boxes. alone. with no one else watching. not that they want to be there. but they will make that ultimate sacrifice at the request of the parliament, just to make sure that no one does anything nasty to the polling place staff or even (gasp!) to the ballots themselves. aren't they a great bunch of security forces or what?

(3) if (despite the best efforts of their security forces to prevent something going wrong with the vote) the sunnis still insist on voting the wrong way, the shia rulers can institute a florida-style legal challenge to the vote. nothing adds credibility to a vote like making it easier for the powers-that-be to muck around with a result they don't like.

so while i must admit i am a little disappointed that the iraqi parliament backed down so soon--before i ever had the chance to write the greatest post ever--i am happy to see that this country is indeed acting as a guiding light to the iraqi parliament in the critical areas of liberty and justice and freedom and apple pie and shit.