If the Iraqis give him the boot that means that the goon big bro 43 has so much faith in--the ghoul W always says the Congress voted in, isn't competent. W obviously isn't either!
In the CNN LATE EDITION show of July 29th 2007 WITH WOLF BLITZER there was an interview With the former United States ambassador to Iraq and now the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad
at
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/29/le.01.html
To a question from Blitzer "A key aide says Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's relations with General David Petraeus are so poor the Iraqi leader may ask Washington to withdraw the overall U.S. commander from his Baghdad post. Sami al-Askari, a key aide to al-Maliki, said the policy of incorporating one-time Sunni insurgents into the security forces shows Petraeus has a real bias, and it bothers the Shiites, whose communities the Sunnis have targeted. 'It is possible that we may demand his removal,' al-Askari said," Khalilzad replied "Well, I don't believe the prime minister will ask for the withdrawal or removal of General Petraeus. The prime minister knows that General Petraeus has the full confidence of the president, and that he is a great leader."
The plan that W put into motion after rejecting the Iraq Study Group's Report never mentioned providing weapons for the Sunnis. The Sunnis are the "Baathist dead-enders" that Rummy and W lambasted. Remember Cheney saying the insurgency was in its "last throes"? That propaganda was referring to the Sunnis. Now we are arming the very same people we fought the "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to get out of power. Sounds like mission failure, or creep, but anything but accomplished.
Blitzer tried to get a direct answer with "the Shiite- led government in Baghdad,... hates about General Petraeus's strategy is working with the Sunni groups, whether in the al-Anbar Province or the Diyala province, giving them weapons, working with them to fight Al Qaida in Iraqi.
Because the Shiites believe it's only a matter of time before the Sunnis will turn against not only the Shiites, but turn against the United States as well. And they don't like this U.S. strategy."
Khalilzad blew that off. Almost anyone in the world, except for the reddest of the red staters, know that the US has had a long, dismal history of arming brutal thugs--such as Hussein and bin laden, only to have them reappear years later as "blow-backs" killing our soldiers and innocent citizens as well.
What Khalilzad, as with all of W's surrogates, aren't saying is that at one point big bro 43 was backing an 80% solution, that in effect would allow the Shiites to commit genocide against the 20% Iraq Sunni population. This understandably riled up the Sunni dominated Saudi Arabia. Now W is giving the Iraqi Sunnis, who have among their numbers insurgents who have killed US soldiers, weapons. This total swing to the diametrically opposed earlier position is symptomatic of unstable individuals such as big bro 43.
Speaking about Gen. David H. Petraeus, he said he expects it will take U.S. forces until mid-2009 to establish "sustainable security" in Iraq. In an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America," Petraeus added that "the key is, really, how much force do you need" to achieve that goal and said that he and other generals had not finalized recommendations on troop levels. Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker are due to report on Iraq's progress to President Bush and Congress in September, and since the Iraqi parliament is out on vacation until the beginning of September, political progress is unattainable.
The article "A Dismal Picture of Life in Iraq" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001708.html
after noting that the plight of Iraqis has plummeted since "Mission Accomplished" states "The problem is especially acute among professional workers, the report said, estimating that more than 40 percent of doctors, engineers and other highly skilled workers have left the country....
Iraq's parliament began its month-long August recess as the largest Sunni political bloc reiterated its intention to withdraw from the government later this week unless
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki responds to the group's demands."
Only the unskilled, unemployable, despairing souls--potential jihadists, remain, and since the parliament is getting nowhere, and the Sunnis, the group which Hussein favored, are withdrawing from the government, what will the disenfranchised and despairing 20% have to look forward to, other than killing US soldiers and Shiites?
Both our US government and our hated foe in the region, Iran, hate the idea of W's proposed Saudi arms deal.
The article "House Members Say They Will Try to Block Arms Sales to Saudis" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072801172.html
states "The Bush administration's plan to sell $20 billion in advanced weaponry to Saudi Arabia and five other Persian Gulf countries is running into congressional opposition and criticism from human rights and arms control groups.
Members of Congress vowed yesterday to oppose any deal to Saudi Arabia on grounds that the kingdom has been unhelpful in Iraq and unreliable at fighting terrorism.
King Abdullah has called the U.S. military presence in Iraq an "illegitimate occupation," and the Saudis have been either unable or unwilling to stop suicide bombers who have ended up in Iraq, congressional sources say.
Human rights groups warned that new U.S. arms meant to contain Iran's rising influence could backfire, allowing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to rally greater support for his hard-line faction in the run-up to parliamentary elections next
spring."
The article "Iran attacks U.S. plans for Saudi arms deal"
at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073000294.html
1 | 2
