Bush: Save Me, Maliki!!!

[Brassmask]

This guy is a born loser.  He can't admit to a civil war, 'cause that makes him look like this.  He can't pull out because that makes him look like that.  He can't do anything because he intentionally stepped into dog shit and now wants everyone to think that he had no choice.



Bush hopes Maliki has a few ideas he can borrow
Posted 12:28 pm | Printer Friendly | Spotlight
Digg this • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

The president has been busy in Eastern Europe this morning, making brief appearances in Latvia and Estonia. Bush fielded a handful of questions about Iraq, but unfortunately, he didn’t have anything encouraging to say.

“There’s one thing I’m not going to do, I’m not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete,” Bush said in Latvia. “We can accept nothing less than victory for our children and our grandchildren.”

That’s fairly predictable palaver, but in advance of his Thursday meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki, does the president have any thoughts on how he might achieve “nothing less than victory”? Not so much.

Instead, the president hopes Maliki will fill in some answers for him.

“My questions to him will be: What do we need to do to succeed? What is your strategy in dealing with the sectarian violence? […]

“I will ask him: What is required and what is your strategy to be a country which can govern itself and sustain itself? And it’s going to be an important meeting, and I’m looking forward to it.”

Let me get this straight. After nearly four years of war, and with conditions deteriorating by the day, Bush has given up on articulating his own vision for victory, and plans to ask Maliki if he has any ideas?

In other words, Bush says we’re stuck in Iraq and we’ll accept nothing less than victory. Asked how we achieve this victory, the president seemed to respond, “Beats me; let’s see what that Maliki guy has to say.”

The White House also seems a little confused about how to describe the current conditions. Asked yesterday about whether Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, National Security Advisor Steve Hadley told reporters on Air Force One that it isn’t a civil war, but “we’re clearly in a new phase, characterized by this increasing sectarian violence.”

Less than a day later, the president said Iraq is not in a new phase at all.

Q: Mr. President, thank you, sir. What is the difference between what we’re seeing now in Iraq and civil war? And do you worry that calling it a civil war would make it difficult to argue that we’re fighting the central front of the war on terror there?

BUSH: You know, the plans of Mr. Zarqawi was to foment sectarian violence. That’s what he said he wanted to do. The Samarra bombing that took place last winter was intended to create sectarian violence, and it has. The recent bombings were to perpetuate the sectarian violence. In other words, we’ve been in this phase for a while.

So, what have we learned from the Bush gang about Iraq over the last day? That we’ll achieve victory, but the president doesn’t know how; Bush will meet with Maliki, not to offer solutions, but to ask questions; and that Iraq has and has not entered a new phase.

That ought to clear things up, right?


http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9178.html

[Plane]

This writer would be happyer if Maliki was more of an obedient puppet to the US?

In theroy when Bush meets with Maliki he is meeting the choice of the people , a head of state , an equal.

[Brassmask]

This writer would be happyer if Maliki was more of an obedient puppet to the US?

In theroy when Bush meets with Maliki he is meeting the choice of the people , a head of state , an equal.

Wow, I thought America was in charge.  I mean it is our military kicking in doors, getting blown up daily and so forth. 

[Plane]

This writer would be happyer if Maliki was more of an obedient puppet to the US?

In theroy when Bush meets with Maliki he is meeting the choice of the people , a head of state , an equal.

Wow, I thought America was in charge.  I mean it is our military kicking in doors, getting blown up daily and so forth. 

You have this backwards.

WE are trying to establish (or at least give a fighting chance to) a Democracy.

This is why we sponsored a constitutional convention , why the Iriquis stood to be counted and why the most of them voted .

The Government thet is the choice of the people is the legitamate government , this writer is dissapointed in Bush for not treating Maliki as a Puppet?

Well perhaps this writer never was clear on the concept.

[Brassmask]

WE are trying to establish (or at least give a fighting chance to) a Democracy.

Is this a trial run on "Democracy by assault" or have their been successful attempts at enforcing democracy at the tip of a gun?  Is that what we did in Japan and Germany?

[Xavier_Onassis]

This is why we sponsored a constitutional convention , why the Iriquis stood to be counted and why the most of them voted .

The Government thet is the choice of the people is the legitamate government , this writer is dissapointed in Bush for not treating Maliki as a Puppet?

Well perhaps this writer never was clear on the concept.

=================================================================
It seems to me that the whole idea of democracy in Iraq is a ruse. The US wants a government that can be bought, or at least manipulated. Malali was not the first choice, if you will recall. The first choice was some Shiite dude we did not llike, and so we had the process redone, until they came up with Maliki. Maliki MAY BE a puppet.

Treating him as a puppet, regardless of what he is, would be a grievious error.

Puppet or not, we must treat him as a bona fide leader, or just get the Hell out of Iraq.

[Plane]

"Treating him as a puppet, regardless of what he is, would be a grievious error."



Ok  so what do you think of the essay at the head of the thread?

[Michael Tee]

<<The White House also seems a little confused about how to describe the current conditions. Asked yesterday about whether Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, National Security Advisor Steve Hadley told reporters on Air Force One that it isn’t a civil war, but “we’re clearly in a new phase, characterized by this increasing sectarian violence.”>>

The Daily Show had a little tongue-in-cheek dialogue about what to call the current Iraqi civil war - - a faith-based melee?  an internal sovereignty challenge?

[Amianthus]

have their been successful attempts at enforcing democracy at the tip of a gun?

Yes, the US is one. Only about 1/3 of the population at the time of the Revolution wanted to leave the British Empire. The rest came along because the army assembled by that 1/3 won.

[Michael Tee]

<<“There’s one thing I’m not going to do, I’m not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete,” Bush said in Latvia. “We can accept nothing less than victory for our children and our grandchildren.”>>

That's relatively clear and straightforward.  Bush wants what every rapist wants - - a victim who will lie still and submit while he's fucking him or her in the ass - -  in other words, a puppet government with enough guns and muscle to enforce a bare simulacrum of peace on the country while accepting U.S.-made policies on trade, natural resources, foreign relations and defence.  He wants another Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia or pre-Revolutionary Iran. 

The problem is, the Sunnis aren't going to let him have it.  The Iranians are probably prepared to deal with the Great Satan at their own price, which includes Iranian nukes.  Personally, I think that the Iranians will get their price and they'll be able to crush the Sunni.  Won't do the U.S. much good though, because the Iranians are used to running their oil resources for their own benefit and there won't be any sweetheart deals for U.S. oil in either Iraq or Iran.  When the the nukes come onstream, in a few years' time, the deal will have to be renegotiated anyway.  The Iranians will have the nukes AND Iraq (and maybe Lebanon too) and there won't be any continuing incentive for them to go on helping America.  China and India will be shouldering up to the bar so there won't be any shortage of customers or partners for either country.   Might be time to feed Hezbollah again by then.

[Plane]

<<“There’s one thing I’m not going to do, I’m not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete,” Bush said in Latvia. “We can accept nothing less than victory for our children and our grandchildren.”>>

That's relatively clear and straightforward.  Bush wants what every rapist wants - - a victim who will lie still and submit while he's fucking him or her in the ass - -  in other words, a puppet government with enough guns and muscle to enforce a bare simulacrum of peace on the country while accepting U.S.-made policies on trade, natural resources, foreign relations and defence.  He wants another Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia or pre-Revolutionary Iran. 

   Let me get this straight. After nearly four years of war, and with conditions deteriorating by the day, Bush has given up on articulating his own vision for victory, and plans to ask Maliki if he has any ideas?

So you beleive the author of the article is 180 degrees from correct?

[Michael Tee]

<<So you beleive the author of the article is 180 degrees from correct?>>

I don't believe the real purpose of Bush's visit is to ask Maliki for advice.  Of course, he'll ask for advice, he'd have to be an idiot not to.  I ask a lot of people for advice all the time and I've gotten some very good ideas from some very uneducated people.  Much better on occasion than what I get from folks with degrees hanging like wallpaper.  Why not ask Maliki for ideas and opinions while he's over there?  Better than talking baseball with the guy and he's probably fairly knowledgeable, although how much of his knowledge he's really willing to share with Bush or anyone else is a moot point. 

Bush's visit, if he's alone, is probably more for show than for substance, although it's  possible he has a serious message or an ultimatum for the poor schmucks.  If I knew who was travelling with Bush, I'd know better if this was more of a fact-finding trip or more of a PR stunt with a possible message-delivery function as well.

If you recall Viet Nam, the U.S. from the start of its invasion, after the assassination of the Diem brothers, went through about a dozen local puppet leaders before they settled on Thieu, probably because by that point they realized there was no use in the organ grinder changing monkeys because they weren't going to get a better one anyway.  Maliki is only the third choice after Chalabi self-destructed and the first guy that the Iraqi "Parliament" of stooges picked wasn't found acceptable to the puppeteers.  So this could be when Maliki learns that it's time to have that real estate agent pick out a nice chalet for him in Switerland.

[Plane]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,232794,00.html


So Is Maliki Wise to Blow Off a Date With President Bush?

[sirs]

DIHD....DIHD't       

[Michael Tee]

<<So Is Maliki Wise to Blow Off a Date With President Bush?>>

Either the Americans want him or they don't.  If they don't want him, he'll be out regardless of whether he blew off the date or not.  If they need him, won't make any difference in the long run.  Blowing off the date was just posturing.

More interesting question is how wise is he to accept a position at the head of the puppet government.  He's probably forgotten all about poor Najibullah.