[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.

[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?