"Robertson's assassination call not only created a PR headache for Bush, but a policy one: it's now all the more difficult for the administration to take Chavez out."Don'tchya hate it when your friends spill the beans too early?
And a few more d'ohs are going on in Iraq right now as even the remarkably irrelevant Arab League is coming out as critical of the new constitutional charter. Blathering on about how it fails to maintain the "Arab" character of the country. Which it does have a point. The new constitution gives a lot more power to the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south who have some ties with Iran. Which has prompted what I think is probably the most amusing case of strange political bedfellows.
In one of the main Sunni protest marches, in Tikrit, Saddam Hussein's home town, demonstrators carried pictures of the imprisoned deposed dictator as well as Muqtada Sadr and chanted slogans against the "Zionist, American, Iranian constitution".Bear in mind first, that al-Sadr's father was killed by Saddam Hussein and is hardly an ally of the former dictator. And, well, the Zionist, American, Iranian tripartite is amusing as hell. Though if you're an Arab from the region that does represent the three major hegemones, so not quite as bizarre as it sounds.
But Bush has got to be (or should be) a bit concerned by this conundrum:
President Jalal Talabani, Iraq's President, a Kurd, appeared to concede that a rejection at the referendum may well take place. "If they [Sunni voters] do participate, then the constitution will probably fail and new elections will have to take place to create a new drafting committee to come up with a new constitution," he said.
So, if they support democracy and voting and all that, the constitution goes down the tube and they've got nothing. And if they don't, well, then, you know, not much democracy.
But then, have we really expected that at all anyway?