Does anyone else find it interesting that the Bush Administration trumped up charges against the government of Iraq, invaded that country and deposed of its leader, killed tens of thousands of its citizens and now displays displeasure that the new leadership of Iraq is not performing as the Bush Administration would like?
I also find it interesting that President Bush actually mentioned specifically that the Iraqi government could not come together to pass something as simple as an oil revenue law. I guess he figures that there is no real need to hide it anymore. He’s on his way out and he has no need to fear impeachment any longer, so why not just state the truth of why we invaded Iraq in the first place but in a really subtle way? That’s what I think that the comment was. It was an admission of truth, just not so much that the average person would notice.
So, basically, the label of “bully” now fits the Bush Administration perfectly. Bullies are known for pushing people that they view as “weaker” than them to submit to their will. The Bush Administration did that with Iraq. Bullies who actually somehow manage to make friends with anyone, typically place a demand on those friends to display loyalty only to them. When those “friends” show interest in people other than the bully, harsh words and, sometimes, blows are exchanged. I have to wonder if blows are what’s next between the United States and Iraq. This situation reminds me a little of that film with Julia Roberts: “Sleeping With the Enemy”. The relationship is great until the person being controlled doesn't arrange the washcloths the way the controller wants them to be and someone is getting a black eye and a spousal raping.
I also wonder if the whole idea of us keeping troops in Iraq in order to prevent Iraq from becoming a “haven for terrorists” is going to wind up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we push the Iraqi government hard enough, are they going to wind up hating us as a result? Will they become military allies with Syria and Iran? Given the current state of the Bush Administration’s relationship, or lack thereof, with Iran and Syria, that cannot be considered a good thing. The Iraqi people have more in common with the people of Syria and Iraq and they share borders, so it makes sense for them. Unfortunately, George W. Bush has the diplomacy skills of a badger, so we aren’t making any headway in that regard. Plus, the United States is already eyeing the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, even though they are actually a part of the Iranian military. So what is there to stop them from declaring the new Iraqi army the same should they decide to partner up with Iran and Syria?
Looking at history, the countries of the Middle East do not have the best reputation for forgiveness. I fear that they may not forgive us for what our leadership has done. Will they differentiate between the American citizen and his or her leadership? Or will they go with what works and actually start backing real terrorist organizations in an attempt to destabilize us? If you wonder what I mean by “what works”, just look at what September 11th has wrought. Not only did the Bush Administration go on the offensive against the terror organizations, but they have effectively erased our civil liberties in the process. They did so through the USA PATRIOT Act and the Military Commissions Act. They have passed legislation to broaden their ability to spy on us by tapping our telephones and reading our e-mails. They do these things all in the name of “protecting us”. I don’t know about you, but I don’t need that kind of protection. What I need is freedom.
Iraqi PM lashes out at U.S. critics
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 54 minutes ago
Iraq's prime minister lashed out Wednesday at U.S. criticism, saying no one has the right to impose timetables on his elected government and that his country "can find friends elsewhere."
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki blamed the U.S. presidential campaign for the recent tough words about his government, from President Bush and from other U.S. politicians.
Bush on Tuesday said he was frustrated with Iraqi leaders' inability to bridge political divisions. But he added that only the Iraqi people can decide whether to sideline al-Maliki.
"Clearly, the Iraqi government's got to do more," Bush said. "I think there's a certain level of frustration with the leadership in general, inability to work — come together to get, for example, an oil revenue law passed or provincial elections."
Bush on Wednesday will strongly reiterate his support for al-Maliki, wary of how his comments the day before about the Iraqi leader had widely been interpreted. Bush spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the president's speech in Canada on Tuesday was not intended to be a withdrawal of support for al-Maliki. As a result of media coverage, Bush will insert a direct line of support for al-Maliki in his speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars conference Wednesday.
"Prime Minister Maliki knows where the president stands," Johndroe said before Bush's speech.
Johndroe said that after Bush's comments in Canada, the White House had tried to make clear Bush was not distancing himself from al-Maliki.
"It appears that did not come through for whatever reason," Johndroe said.
Al-Maliki, on a trip to Syria, reacted harshly when asked about the earlier comments from U.S. officials.
"No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people," he said at a news conference in Damascus at the end of the three-day visit to Syria.
"Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution and can find friends elsewhere," al-Maliki said.
Without naming any American official, al-Maliki said some of the criticism of him and his government had been "discourteous."
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said Monday that al-Maliki, a Shiite, should be ousted and replaced with a less sectarian leader.
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said he was disappointed and frustrated by the lack of political progress by al-Maliki's government. Crocker said the Iraqis themselves and Iraqi leaders were also frustrated.
The harsh exchanges erupted just a few weeks before Crocker and the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, are to report to Congress on military and political progress in Iraq.
The two are expected to point to some signs of military progress in Iraq. But the political situation in Iraq remains fractured, with wide distrust between Shiite and Sunni factions and no progress by al-Maliki's government on key issues.
Bush's statement on Tuesday was a marked change in tone from his endorsement of al-Maliki in November 2006 at a meeting in Jordan as "the right guy for Iraq."
In recent months, Bush has continually prodded al-Maliki to do more to forge political reconciliation before the temporary U.S. military buildup ends. But his statements Tuesday were the sharpest he has made about whether the Iraqi prime minister will survive.
"The fundamental question is, Will the government respond to the demands of the people?" Bush said. "And, if the government doesn't demand — or respond to the demands of the people, they will replace the government. That's up to the Iraqis to make that decision, not American politicians."
Al-Maliki has faced numerous defections from his ruling coalition in recent months. Nevertheless, it is unclear that any group has the political pull to push him aside and put in place a new government.
Ousting al-Maliki would require a majority vote in the 275-member Iraqi parliament. As long as the Kurdish parties and the main Shiite bloc stand beside al-Maliki, his opponents lack the votes to do that.
Any change in leadership also would also greatly complicate U.S. military efforts to stabilize the country, especially if the change resulted in the government falling and negotiations to create a new government. The process of forming al-Maliki's government took months of wrangling as the Sunni insurgency and Shiite militias gathered strength and influence.
___
Associated Press Writer Robert H. Reid contributed to this report.
No comments:
Post a Comment