Posted on 08/22/2007 6:50:32 AM PDT by SE Mom
"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 a 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," Mr. al-Maliki said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
You’re right. I am finding it nearly impossible to comprehend any of this except the wonderful work by our troops in Iraq.
Thanks for the post.
Most of them were Godly men and that makes a big difference. They had a Christian viewpoint and vision of what America could be.
Show me where I said that you did.
Question: Don't you understand what sentences ending with question marks are? Are the inquiries or accusations?
Even a blind pig can find an acorn now and then.
Our military officers IN IRAQ are saying Maliki is part of the problem and ought to be replaced.
Our Military Officers are fighting and working tirelessly to combat terrorism and assist Iraq. They a) know what they are talking about and b) have a stake in it.
Those Democrats (especially Levin) have done NOTHING constructive, but only bitching and propagating for their shortterm political gain by bumping for surrender and withdrawal. This disqualifies them.
Maliki is going to be replaced anyway, and I’m not going to miss him. But the Democrats mess up this situation even more. Without the feeling that we are going to leave the Iraqis won’t have the need to look for other patrons and partners.
Maybe he's not. Never said he was. What I said was that it doesn't matter, or shouldn't, because we are there for our national interest, not his. If he's helping, great! If he's not, doesn't matter; our national interest still requires preventing Iraq from becoming a full-on terror haven. Maybe he's a traingulator or even an obstacle rather than an ally and that certainly affects the difficulty of our task, but it doesn't change our task. Why would it?
Please try to help me understand the logic: if Maliki doesn't do everything we want, then it's.... okay if Iraq becomes an AQ haven? and that's why we should pull out? Then what?
Basically, he and other supporters of the strategy are advocating an unlimited stay here.
I think you misread grossly, he is neither a "supporter of the strategy" per se nor is he advocating the US military stay there in perpetuity. Almost the opposite; as others have pointed out, a better interpretation is that he is now preparing for our exit, because he deems it inevitable and pending. And I'm not sure he's wrong to think so.
Something that he's barely even attempted. The only thing that can calm this country down. Therefore, he's not worth our effort, neither is this country.
You said "In other words" and then purported to be paraphrasing me. You put some question-marks at the end, true, but that doesn't change the implication.
Let me try the same technique on you:
"In other words, you regularly beat your wife, burn down orphanages, and torture small animals????? Is that what you are saying?"
I guess by your logic I didn't just imply anything bad about you.
Weird, is all I can say.
No more inflammatory than some schmuck Congressman coming back from Iraq and stating that Maliki needs to go.
“Maliki is going to be replaced anyway, and I’m not going to miss him. But the Democrats mess up this situation even more.”
That’s a direct hit assessment there SolidWood. It’s not been too big a secret what’s been going on with the Maliki gov’t and the Democrats simply jumped out front and want to get some political points out of it. Net sum, just politics. What’s suicidal is when people entertain the notion that because the opposing political side has said something, we now have to figure out a way to make it not so. I like your ability to reason...hat tip to you.
Maybe WE are the children playing in an adult world.
But, Iraq is not a dictatorship. Do most Shia agree with him, or are they more secular and given to some form of reconciliation without civil war? (which the people in the streets (not the Green Zone) have had a nasty taste of). Which maybe prompted Bush to say:
Mr Bush said the people of Iraq had made a great step towards reconciliation.
If the government doesn’t respond to the demands of the people, they will replace the government.
Yesterday Maliki was a good guy here, now he’s a bad guy again.
Quite true. The Iraqis were enganging in high political intrique when most of our ancestors were living in caves. We are babes in the woods compared to them in that skill.
roger that...some folks think the “six inch” view is the one from in front of the television or the computer...one tends to see it a little different from the ground than from a Google Earth snapshot...keep up the good work, LT
“What...is he thinking?”
He is openly expressing that he believes the terrorists of Syria are better friends than the US. And if the US doesn’t like it, they can shove it.
I think of this every time I hear some blowhard say we ought to partition that country and split it into three. That train has left the station. If we wanted to do that we could have back in 2003. As it stands now, unless we want to militarily reoccupy and start over, they have a right to their opinion.
He sure has gotten cozy with Iran and Syria lately. He's going to find out that he has gotten too big for his britches.
Supposedly he went into a police station and personally executed six captured alqueda. That story may have been apocryphal, but I liked it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.