Everyone knows that big bro 43 wants to attack the mullahs in Iran. That's what Cheney and Rumsfeld have wanted all along, and it's the reason we have been building permanent bases there-even though big bro 43 knows he's not authorized to do.
If W puts Maliki and Iran together then, if Congress gives him the slightest opening--or maybe even if they don't, he'll attack Iran.
The article "Cheney's Secret Escalation Plan?" at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/08/10/BL2007081001161.html
states "Ironically, Bush was saber-rattling just as U.S.-supported Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was making a friendly visit to Tehran. That came up at the press conference.Olivier Knox reports for AFP: "Bush sternly warned Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki Thursday against cozying up to Iran, amid what Washington sees as unsettling signs of warming Baghdad-Tehran relations. . . .
Paul Richter writes in the Los Angeles Times: "The growing intimacy of Baghdad and Tehran was on display late Wednesday, when Maliki met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other top officials. In a joint appearance, Maliki told Ahmadinejad that Iran has a 'positive and constructive' role in improving security in Iraq, the official IRNA news agency reported. . . .
"U.S. officials believe that Maliki's government shares their concern about weapons allegedly supplied by Iran, but they also acknowledge anxiety about the fundamentalist Tehran regime's increasing trade with and aid to Iraq, as well as the close personal ties its officials enjoy with counterparts throughout the Baghdad government."
states "Hadley said he expects substantial progress by September and revised his view of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, about whom he expressed serious concerns last year.
"We think that he has grown as a leader and is more effective as a leader," Hadley said on CNN's "Late Edition," "but there is a piece that remains, which is the basic bargain between Sunni, Shia and Kurds, about how they are going to work together under a democratic constitution. That is not yet in place."
Is Hadley saying that Maliki stinks, but is improving, but in the role that the US requires of him, he is failing. That doesn't mean anything does it? It could also mean anything wants to say it does.
Hadley first came into prominence when he was one of the hordes of people who took responsibility for W's 16 words. As W's National Security Advisor in his classified memo of November 8, 2006 evaluated the capabilities of Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki as "His intentions seem good when he talks with Americans, and sensitive reporting suggests he is trying to stand up to the Shia hierarchy and force positive change. But the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action."
He has had a long run of being a liar and Hadley's remarks are nuanced--which we remember, W doesn't do. Hadley's remarks don't match W's simple-minded remarks. They write W's speeches and practice them-so why can't W communicate the most basic ideas that agree with his advisors?
The Democrats are divided, but after returning from a trip to Iraq, Levin and the second-ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, Sen. John Warner, issued a joint statement questioning whether the Iraqi government would ever be able to "shed sectarian biases and act in a unifying manner." Levin was then more direct and said he hopes "the parliament will vote the Maliki government out of office."
If they remove Maliki though, as Levin suggests, what happens?
The article "Blame Maliki" at http://www.slate.com/id/2172539/nav/fix/
states "Some Democrats are coming back from their trip a little less determined to call for troops to be withdrawn by a specific date. The Post notes Republicans are watching out for these types of claims and, although some have "been clearly taken out of context," it's clear "some Democrats have shifted their views."
This raises the possibility that Democrats could be more flexible in their withdrawal demands if there's a change of government in Iraq."