[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?