Al-Maliki Lashes Out (Maliki to U.S."we can find friends elsewhere")

The New York Sun ^ | 08/22/07 | QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA

[death2tyrants]

“That is a denial from Petraeus, not a denial from Maliki. Read the freaking article. “

You are the one with the accusation. You have yet to source your claim. You had claimed that “He has publicly told Petraeus that he cannot work with him anymore”. Where is your source for this? The article I cited rebuffs the fabricated riff. I’m interested in where you got this information. Your failure to provide your source will indicate that you are making it up. You had also claimed that Maliki ‘wants us to leave’. When did he make this claim?

“we are clueless “

Your absurd accusations don’t even make any sense. You’re unable to reference any of your defeatist propaganda. And you call America ‘clueless’?

[JasonC]

The Financial Times article is accurate. The army link you cite gives a denial from Petraeus that *he* had characterized their relationship that way - but Petraeus is not competent (full stop...) to deny Maliki's characterization of it. The army is simply spinning madly. As for the second, asked and answered, above. Maliki is livid over the presumption coming from Petraeus, Bush, and the US congress, and he is seeking his allies elsewhere, both internally and externally. As well he should.

[JasonC]

Do you deny that Petraeus' current policy is to arm the Sunnis and get the men running the insurgency against us for the last four years to pretend to be our friends and help vs. AQI? Do you deny that Maliki opposed arming the Sunnis and said he would arm Iraqi militias if Petraeus went ahead with it? Do you deny that Maliki is courting Syrians? Do you deny he said we can leave whenever we like and he does not need us?

Are you so stupid you can't see the man wants to stand on a political basis both internal and external that does not rely on Petraeus or the US?

[death2tyrants]

You had claimed that Maliki ‘wants us to leave’. Your source doesn’t even support this claim, although it was spun by the left as though he was calling for U.S. withdrawl. He clearified his remarks, saying that the Iraqi security forces are ‘not there yet’.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2007/07/16/iraqi_prime_minister_takes_softer_tone/

[JasonC]

We aren't stupid and we aren't in grade school. We know Bush and the military put enourmous pressure on Maliki and attempt to orchestrate statements and to spin everything. We also know that half the country abandoned his government in the last few months and that he is feuding openly with the US over the US policy of arming the Sunnis and courting the national insurgency leaders. Policy is all that matters and talk is meaningless drivel. The "let's pretend" solution that all Iraqis love each other and the US and are all getting along now, is transparent buncomb and fools no one.

Everyone is maneuvering for the coming civil war because everyone knows the US is leaving. Who wins and who they are beholden to for the victory, are the only variables still in play. And even the first is pretty well set at this point, the Sunni and Saudi delusions in the matter notwithstanding.

[death2tyrants]

“The Financial Times article is accurate.”

You had claimed that Maliki “has publicly told Petraeus that he cannot work with him anymore”. Where is your source for this? What Financial Times article supports your claim?

“The army link you cite gives a denial from Petraeus that *he* had characterized their relationship that way but Petraeus is not competent (full stop...) to deny Maliki’s characterization of it.”

Maliki’s government denied this as well:

[”A senior adviser to Maliki, Sadiq al-Rikabi, also dismissed the allegations as untrue.
“I asked him personally yesterday whether there was a problem between him and General Petraeus and he told me there were no problems whatsover.”]

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL29405446

So let me get this strait. You’re running around spewing debunked MSM-generated riffs as fact, on a conservative forum?

“Maliki is livid over the...”

Why on earth would I trust a defeatist who runs around with debunked MSM-generated riffs to speak for Maliki?

[death2tyrants]

“Do you deny that Petraeus’ current policy....”

Unable to support your absurd claims, you now resort to bizarre mischaracterizations formed into loaded questions that are laughable. You had claimed that Maliki ‘publicly told Petraeus that he cannot work with him anymore’. I’ve provided rebuffs from both parties involved. You still can’t source your original claims.

“Are you so stupid you..”

I’d say stupidity would be an attempt to peddle defeatist propaganda without any ability to back it up. Particularly on a conservative forum.

[JasonC]

I notice you evade on the substance instantly, and don't answer a word of it. Because of course all of it is true.

We aren't stupid. Everyone sees what is happening, and after the fact spin trying to sweep it all away is futile. For my next accomplishment, I will hold a gun to a friendly private's head and ask him if the enemy general is a pantywaist.

And people wonder why we lose the information war. With a truth-free approach like this, it is unilateral disarmament.

[death2tyrants]

“We aren’t stupid and we aren’t in grade school. “

Well, certainly not all of us. But I’d say that some defeatist attempting to peddle rebuffed fiction isn’t all that bright.

” We know Bush and the military put enourmous pressure on Maliki and attempt to orchestrate statements and to spin everything.”

We do? First Maliki is a puppet of Iran (dispite the fact that he sends his forces on joint raids with the U.S. against Iranian back militias.) Now he is being ‘orchestrated’ by that evil Bush administration to ‘spin everything’.

“The “let’s pretend” solution that all Iraqis love each other and the US and are all getting along now, is transparent buncomb and fools no one. “

Or it is a silly strawman that is generated by the left.

[JasonC]

What Financial Times article? You are reading your own links, right? What do you think the army spin was about, the weather in Oregon?

[JasonC]

Oh and incidentally, no propaganda is required, certainly not any longer. Our policy has been completely hamfisted for years, the political end state we aimed at was incoherent from the begining, we let all the wrong people slide, then our brilliant leaders watered away what political capital they had on amazingly selected divisive side shows, and predictably they have lost all political support and with it any credibility to policy. Iran knows it will be untouched as it runs for nukes, knows it can murder our servicemen with impunity, knows it can suborn a third of the Iraqi state, and knows its proxies can win the coming civil war in Iraq. And you whistle dixie and just pretend you are winning, instead. Which is merely pathetic, everyone within the orbit of Mars knows you have been utterly owned.

[death2tyrants]

“I notice you evade on the substance instantly, and don’t answer a word of it. “

I’m still waiting on you to support your original claims, which you haven’t. I’m not sure what ‘substance’ you’re accusing me of evading. As far as what you call my ‘truth-free’ approach, I sourced my claims to statements by both the U.S. Military and the Maliki government. Your source was an outdated AP article that had already been rebuffed, and it didn’t even support your claim anyhow.

[JasonC]

Substance - "Do you deny that Petraeus' current policy is to arm the Sunnis and get the men running the insurgency against us for the last four years to pretend to be our friends and help vs. AQI? Do you deny that Maliki opposed arming the Sunnis and said he would arm Iraqi militias if Petraeus went ahead with it? Do you deny that Maliki is courting Syrians? Do you deny he said we can leave whenever we like and he does not need us?"

Substance - Is the US going to leave Iraq after the end of Bush's term? Will there by a civil war in Iraq after the US leaves? Will Iran back an internal Shia faction in that civil war? Will the US jump back in to stop Iran, or stay out of it? Left to face only internal forces, will Iran lose?

Just little things, you know, like that. I am sure you think "substance" is about who can be got to say what spin and how many army press releases there are in each 48 hour period or something, but for those of us actually living in the real world, the actual political factions and their alignments and the actual outcome of the conflict, matter ever so slightly more.

[JasonC]

Being "rebuff" by an army press release is approximately equal to "exists", and means approximately nothing. It was also an evasive non-denial denial, not from the principle, and the current headlines give it the lie. Pretending Maliki just loves Petraeus and loves our arming the Sunnis is so ridiculous I can hardly believe you are attempting to maintain it.

[death2tyrants]

“What Financial Times article? You are reading your own links, right? “

You had claimed that Mailiki “has publicly told Petraeus that he cannot work with him anymore”. Where is your source for this claim?

” What do you think the army spin was about, the weather in Oregon?”

Army spin? Now you appear to be accusing the U.S. Army of being dishonest.

[death2tyrants]

“Being “rebuff” by an army press release is approximately equal to “exists”, and means approximately nothing. “

To us folks that support the military, the military press releases are not meaningless. They are to you because they contradict your defeatist claims.

“Pretending Maliki just loves Petraeus and loves our arming the Sunnis is so ridiculous I can hardly believe you are attempting to maintain it.”

Your strawman arguements are invalid. You still have not supported your claims.

[death2tyrants]

“I am sure you think “substance” is about who can be got to say what spin and how many army press releases there are in each 48 hour period or something, but for those of us actually living in the real world..”

Your ‘real world’ consists of made up quotes and a debunked AP story. You had attributed claims to Maliki that you obviously are unable to source. The ‘substance’ is a bunch of loaded questions that don’t support your original claims anyhow.

“the actual political factions and their alignments and the actual outcome of the conflict, matter ever so slightly more.”

More strawman nonsense.

[JasonC]

Still ducking. Answer the freaking questions already.

[Future Snake Eater]

Look, I'm just as skeptical as the next guy about how things are over here. However, there is some hope.

[Future Snake Eater]

Don't smile then.

Wow. That must be incredibly easy for you to say.