“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?