Irony?

This is an excerpt from a news story I read on Yahoo about Iraq vehemently rejecting the U.S. and Britain's warning about having a sectarian government:

"His comments were echoed less bluntly on Tuesday by Straw, who said after a meeting with President Jalal Talabani that Iraq's parliamentary elections in December showed that no single group can dominate Iraq's new political landscape.
"This is a crucial moment today for the people of Iraq. We had the elections on December 15th. We've now had the final accredited results. What they show is that no party, no ethnic or religious grouping can dominate government in Iraq," Straw said.
"This therefore gives further impetus to what Iraqis tell us they want, which is a government of national unity bringing together all the different elements of Iraqi society."
While Arab Sunni participation in the polls raised hopes that peaceful politics could defuse the Sunni insurgency, voting patterns suggested ballots were cast based on sect, not political and economic programs offered by candidates."

Isn't that what we want here?

Doesn't this describe, perhaps exactly, what we don't have?

Why should our government want this so bad for Iraq, but when it comes time to vote in the house and senate...they vote along party (sectarian) lines?

Perhaps irony was the wrong word for the title of this post. Perhaps it should be titled:

Hypocrisy.


M. PotPie