MSM: Iraqi constitution "divisive"

Here's an AP article about events surrounding the historic constitutional referendum vote in Iraq. This excerpt is interesting to note:

Sunni leaders responded angrily, some of them saying they suspected fraud and accusing American officials and the Shiite parties that dominate the government.

(snip...)

Large numbers of Sunnis voted "no," and some of their leaders were already rejecting the apparent result.

Kinda sounds like today's Democratic Party, doesn't it? If you don't like the outcome, go into denial, accuse without foundation the other side of fraud, and pretend it didn't happen.

But this excerpt is even more interesting:

But the outcome could further divide the nation. Many Sunnis fear the new decentralized government will deprive them of their fair share in the country's vast oil wealth by creating virtually independent mini-states of Kurds in the north and minority Shiites in the south, while leaving Sunnis isolated in central and western Iraq.

If Sunnis would have participated in the process instead of fighting it tooth and nail and boycotting the first elections, this worry would be unfounded. They were invited to dinner, and they didn't show, so it's not the chef's fault.

But how about the "outcome could divide the nation" line? The implication is that nations are unable to survive (or at least thrive) if there's no consensus on elected officials. This country's last two elections have been close (in 2000) and relatively close (in 2004), thus exposing a partisan rift in America. Does that mean America isn't great, simply because we had close elections among a divided electorate? (No, it's not a trick question, Democrats!)

Leave it to the MSM to find one weed in a field of dreams for the Iraqis.